Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. We are dealing with the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill 2024. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled two amendments. If it is helpful, I will touch on them now in order not to elongate this process by repeating myself on Committee Stage. There is no point in getting up and saying the same thing twice. The Minister has made up his mind. I am conscious that we are now at the end of the Government processes so I understand he is very limited, even if he wanted to do so, in accepting amendments, but I will articulate a concern and a view.

I have spoken to a number of retailers and retail representative bodies. They play a very important role. We are very familiar with retailers, of course, through some of the Seanad nominating bodies. Clearly, we are advocates for some of them. They will not nominate me, but the point is that we live in an economy, a society and an environment and we are not oblivious to what goes on around us. I do not believe in a nanny state, and I think the Minister touched on that. I believe in allowing adults to be adults. I support people making choices in health, commerce and every other aspect once it is legal and once they are harming nobody else. That is the rule of thumb I apply to everything in my personal life, in my political life and in my political dealings in this House. We cannot have different versions of choice and different versions of freedoms for citizens, adults. One retailer said to me last night, "Fellas can come in here and buy slabs of beer, naggins of vodka and whiskey and a whole load of other things and have a great time, and up to now they have been able to buy cigarettes".However, if this legislation goes through, the Minister will be imposing on retailers an obligation to effectively question people. Clearly they have to identify if people are over the age at which they can purchase alcohol. In his speech the Minister was suggesting a difficulty with a retailer not being able to differentiate someone who is 17 years old from someone who is 19, but they are legally bound to differentiate that. Let us take the 18-year-old man who came up to the shop last night and put a slab of beer, two naggins of vodka, a few other bits and a pack of 20 cigarettes on the table. What does the retailer have to do? The retailer has to say the man must put back the cigarettes. What if the man says the retailer should take it all back? He says the retailer should take the beer back on the shelf, go to the other shelves to put the groceries back and take the cigarettes. Then he walks out. That can happen ten times a day and an offence is not created, but the man has started to develop a bad relationship with the shopkeeper. Do we really want that? There are a load of things we all do that are not good for our health, but we do them. Let us be realistic here. Do we really want a nanny state? Do we want our retailers having to question people all the time about different aspects? That is important.

Those are just a few points. Given the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill there has been little or no consideration of the impact of illicit trade and its potential adverse consequences for the retail sector. That is what that sector tells me, especially given the proliferation of illegal cigarettes this year. The Minister knows about that proliferation, as we all do. According to a survey published earlier this year by the Revenue Commissioners, 34% of cigarettes in circulation in Ireland are non-duty paid. We have got to live a bit in reality here. So far this year cigarettes with a value of €89.5 million have been smuggled into Ireland with an estimated loss to the Exchequer of €62 million. It is clear Ireland is awash with illegal cigarettes, so who is going to be smoking them? The Minister knows and I do too. It is going to all go underground. I do not believe in all that. Smuggling is generating significant profits for criminal organisations – the Minister and I know that too – which in turn are used to fund other criminal activity and engage with people in criminal activity. The proposal refers to 18- to 20-year-olds, which as the Minister said, are not children and we are not viewing these people as children within the broader context which we would have to do with other legislation. The proposal would ban 18- to 20-year-old adults from purchasing, which would simply result in this age group instead purchasing easily available - and in that case probably smuggled – cigarettes, meaning further losses to the Exchequer and a continuous risk to health, as the Minister mentioned. I urge him to be reflective on all that because it is important.

I spoke to a retailer this morning who rang me conscious of what was going on here. He said they had genuine concerns they will be faced with the prospect of people who are young adults rather than children being able to purchase slabs of beer, vodka and an array of other things as well as lottery tickets, but not tobacco products. That is the reality of it. Drink is not good for your health. The Minister knows that and I know it. We have seen no details of how the test purchasing for the purposes of enforcement of the increased age limit is to be undertaken. Retailers feel they are being put in a precarious position. I could go on and on. I do not think it is a goodidea. It is not right at all and we should not be doing it. In the past I heard Senators talk in the Chamber about the penning-off of areas for the retailing of alcohol and I heard different views then about the nanny state, so we have to be consistent in what we do. Copies of the Minister’s remarks were not circulated earlier, but there was one available and I had a look at it. The Minister did not read this into the record, but the tenth page of the prepared remarks it says he has “taken the advice of the Attorney General on the best way to deal with the age increase”. Can he share with us what that advice was? I am aware it is the Attorney General’s advice, but surely there is no big secret in that. It would be helpful, given it is in the Minister’s prepared remarks for the House, which were not circulated formally in the Chamber. I would like to hear what the Attorney General had to say.

I do not want to go on. I have touched on the areas that very much reflect the two amendments. I hope the Minister can address them and come on board and support them.