John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. Nobody here can deny or argue with the fact that the Minister for Health has done more to restrict and temporarily restrict tobacco products than any of his predecessors. All of the combined efforts by his predecessors do not amount to the amount he has achieved in the area.

The Bill attempts to address an issue that nobody here can have difficulty with, that is ways to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of tobacco. As Members have said here during a previous debate, the tobacco industry is the only industry that is required to find new customers because it kills half of its old customers. That is a striking comment to make.

As legislators we must examine the Bill and we are confined to doing so. Senator Crown has eloquently outlined the harms and dangers associated with tobacco products which I agree with and acknowledge. However, we are still constrained to dealing with the legislation that is directly before us.

I have difficulty in accepting the Private Members' Bill. I hope that Senator Crown does not mind me saying that the Bill has been constructed in a way that I find unacceptable. I shall talk about that in detail in a moment.

The Bill seeks to codify in Irish law the requirements of the United Nations framework convention on tobacco control. I have read the Bill in great detail. One section recognises the need to be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts and the need to be informed of activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control efforts. Section 10 deals with tobacco advertising and promotion. Apart from this I cannot see how the Bill relates to anything contained in the 45-page tobacco control framework or codifies it into Irish law. There are elements of the Bill that work around certain parts of the tobacco control framework but they do not address, in the Bill, what it purports to do.

Let us examine the legislation in a little more detail. In section 1, the interpretation section, the definition of an official is clearly laid out which is right that it should be. However, section 2(1) to (5), inclusive, seem to add a level of ambiguity by referring to "a person". They do not distinguish whether the official referred to in the interpretation is the person referred to in section 2. This is a technical matter. We are legislators and it is necessary to deal with the legislation that is before us. That is the first part of the Bill that I found confusing.

Section 2(3), (4) and (5) use the words "present at a meeting". At first glance that seems an uncontroversial statement but no interpretation has been offered on what the phrase means. We all know of precedence and that present at a meeting can mean active participation or just in attendance. The phrase has a different interpretation according to other standing orders, rules and laws. I have given two examples of how the construction of the Bill has failed to be clear.

Senator Colm Burke referred to the power of the tobacco industry and how quickly it lights on ambiguity in the law to give itself a day in court. Even if it loses it hardly matters because its resources are such that it is viewed as another way of promoting its product.

Subsections 2(1) to (9) lay out the offences within the Bill, yet subsection 2(12) states: "A person guilty of an offence under this act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €30,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,". There is a difficulty in that subsection because, for example, a junior clerk who takes minutes at the meeting incurs the same penalty as a senior official who deliberately goes about subverting the provisions of the Bill. That cannot by any means be accepted in a Bill.

The construction of the Bill precludes my support. I spent most of today in contact with my party members to find a way to support this Bill if its construction allowed us do so. Senator Burke pointed out its possible unconstitutionality. That is a problem. All things considered, I support the thrust of the Bill. At the risk of being too colloquial, it is over-egging it a bit to say that it is trying to codify in Irish law the provisions of the framework because I cannot see instances where the sections relate to Irish law. Control of lobbying must be welcomed and lauded but the provisions of this Bill preclude me and the Labour Party from supporting it.