Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Nov 2024

I welcome the Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly, back to the House once again. I also welcome to the Public Gallery my own intern, Mr.

Mason Shaver from St. Louis, Missouri who has been interning with me for a few weeks and will be here for a few more weeks.

Mr. Shaver is very welcome and I hope he is enjoying his time here in Leinster House.

The Dáil is obviously wrapping up today. This will be my last legislative act in this Dáil term, and it is a very positive one for us to be finishing on, which is essentially aimed at moving the age, from 18 to 21, at which cigarettes or tobacco is sold to a consumer. Ireland led the way with the workplace smoking ban some years ago and we will be leading the way on this as well. It is very positive legislation with which to be wrapping up this Oireachtas. I thank the Senators for the opportunity to bring the Public Health Tobacco (Amendment) Bill 2024 to the House. The Bill has one purpose, to increase the minimum age of the sale of tobacco products to 21. It is also a signal that we as a country are moving from regulation of these products to beginning the elimination of the use of them. The Bill focuses on our young people, the group most vulnerable to tobacco use and the worst outcomes of it in the long term. Beginning tobacco use earlier in life increases potential duration of smoking, which directly impacts severe risk of underlying conditions, very serious illness and, of course, death. With lung cancer, the risk rises more steeply due to the duration of smoking rather than the number of cigarettes smoked. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, the risk increases directly with the total number of cigarettes consumed over a lifetime. In addition, starting smoking at a younger age increases the likelihood of smoking a higher number of cigarettes per day. These two factors, duration of smoking and intensity of smoking, impact the risk of cancers, including oral, liver, pancreatic and stomach cancers. These factors also increase the risk of cancer of the larynx and lung cancer. Smoking causes two thirds of cancers of the larynx and three quarters of lung cancer.

We are introducing this measure now because the expected continuing decrease in our smoking prevalence has stalled, unfortunately. According to our national Healthy Ireland survey, adult smoking was at 17% just before Covid and increased very slightly to 18% during Covid. In addition, although the prevalence of children smoking is reducing, which is great, the results from the 2019 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs showed smoking prevalence among young people of 15 and 16 years was at 14.5%, up from 13%. This is something we need to watch very closely. This problem is not going away on its own, unfortunately. We expected a decrease rather than an increase because there had been a consistent trend for decades, but that decrease has stalled, and that is one of the reasons we are here today.

Why this measure? Because we know it works. A 2020 study of US states showed that raising the age of sale to 21 was strongly associated with reduction in smoking among 18- to 20-year-olds and, critically, among 16- and 17-year-olds. Analysis of our own 2007 increase in the legal age from 16 to 18 found smoking reduced in that bracket, along with the likelihood of ever trying a cigarette going down among 14- to 15-year-olds. While this move limits availability of cigarettes for 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, there is, in fact, a secondary benefit which is potentially even better in the long run, which is that it reduces smoking in 16- and 17-year-olds as well. That is very important. A 16- or 17-year-old might be able to pass for 18 in a shop or might have a brother or friend who is 18 or 19. At 16 or 17, the likelihood of being able to pass for 21 or 22 is less, as is the social connectivity of being able to get someone who is 21 or 22 to buy the cigarettes in the first place. When we look at 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, this will also have an important effect for 16- and 17-year-olds. We have seen modelling from University College London, updated last year, that estimated that if they did in the UK what we are doing now for people aged 18 to 21, they would see a very significant reduction in smoking among younger people. Information from the EU and the UK shows that about 38% of smokers, or two in every five, become regular smokers between 18 and 25. The measure will also have an impact on those under 18 for the reasons I have put forward, which will be a very positive additional benefit of this legislation.

One of the more common objections to the proposal is that the State should leave adults free to make their own decisions, a philosophy I have a lot of time for. We all have the right, when we are adults, to make decisions that do not necessarily improve our health. It is something that is very important. When considering bringing in restrictions for people over the age of 18, we are no longer in the child protection or health space and we have to take that very seriously. Where this situation we are discussing is different and where it is legitimate to move from the age of 18 to 21 is that cigarettes are highly addictive. We talk about personal choice, and that is very important as our society is based on freedoms and personal choices, but if these companies can get a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old addicted to cigarettes, there is a strong argument that, at 18, 19 or 20, they are not making a choice, they are in addiction. I do a lot of work with addiction services in Wicklow, with Tiglin, for example, and I meet amazing people who have been through their services who have been in addiction, be it alcohol, cocaine, heroine, benzodiazepines and all sorts of different things. Several of them have said to me the most difficult thing to give up was the cigarettes. They are highly addictive. What we want is for people to be able to make their own choices, good or bad, but free from addiction. That changes the framing of the conversation.

The level of addiction is quite extraordinary for teenagers. A 2011 study found two things. One in three teenagers develop a compulsion to smoke after just three or four cigarettes. Is that not extraordinary, that level of addiction? Half of them develop a compulsion to smoke with ten to 20 cigarettes - one packet of cigarettes. That is half of teenagers wanting to smoke, which we know quickly develops into addiction. I would argue these tobacco companies and products are robbing teenagers of free choice by turning them into addicts while they are still very young. We have also seen the moves from the vaping companies to very clearly, deliberately, cynically and dangerously target very young people with colours, flavours, point of sale and all these things. The speed at which nicotine addiction can take hold means a lot of young people are becoming addicted without even knowing it. It happens before they realise it. That is something to be aware of. Our own Healthy Ireland study undertaken last year found that half of smokers in the 17 to 24 age group made an attempt to quit in the past year. So, what do we know? We know it is highly addictive for teenagers and, arguably, they are being deprived of free choice coming into their young adult years if they are already in addiction, while half of them tried to quit just last year. This is not something that young people really want to be doing. Tobacco smoking is not only addictive but also catastrophically bad for health. It causes catastrophic illness and premature death, which of course also negates all the other rights, freedoms and choices that people want to make.

I will run through the Bill very quickly-----

Maybe I will not, as it will take more than 30 seconds and colleagues have it.

What I will say, if the Acting Chair will indulge me for maybe 60 seconds, is that this Bill is essentially a public safety Bill that aligns with many of the protections we are trying to put in place for young people. We have already brought in vaping legislation and are bringing in more. We are taking a very strong view in respect of online safety. This Bill is in line with that in the context of keeping young people safe. I hope it will have the support of the House.

I welcome the Minister and acknowledge his very cogent presentation of the legislation and his commitment in this sphere earlier with the vaping legislation, etc. It is excellent. I accept the caveat the Minister highlighted that we cannot be too much of a nanny state but, at the same time, this is a different sphere and we are on different terrain here. It is about addiction, health and safety and saving lives.

Smoking is pernicious. My heart goes out to addicts, namely people who cannot give it up. Most smokers will say, "I would love to give it up but I cannot". I am not in any way judgmental towards them at all because it is a pernicious habit. I am a reformed smoker or a cured smoker. I smoked until about 25 years ago and am probably best placed to speak about this because I know it from both sides. Smoking is hugely damaging to people's health at all ages and becomes progressively more damaging. I would not be standing here in the state of health I am in now or be able to go swimming or walking the way I do had I persisted with smoking. It is an absolutely pernicious, insidious and damaging habit. It is polluting of other people around you, your own clothes and the entire environment.

We are addressing the question of raising the age. One of the most cogent arguments the Minister made - a great argument and a common-sense reason to do this - was that by doing this we will catch young people of 15 or 16 years of age who look more like adults and give legitimacy to a storekeeper, an inspector or whomever in halting them. It will make matters much easier. That is a critical argument for doing it. The empirical evidence the Minister presented as regards addiction and the fact that 50% of teenagers with one packet of cigarettes become dependent or need to go on smoking is horrific. He presents a frightening statistic of a creeping up in this. One can kind of rationalise why this might have happened in the Covid pandemic, with people at home and demented and stressed out with relatives sick or whatever. However, it is a little scary - and the Minister is right that it needs monitoring - that the percentage of 15- and 16-year-olds involved has risen to 14.5% from 13%. That is an important statistic, but not a good one. It is not a great increase but, as the Minister says, the position needs to be carefully monitored.

I am a parent and a former teacher. In the context of both roles, I think this is important legislation. I can imagine my great friend behind me Senator Carrigy, who, among the many hats he wears, has an involvement in the retail sector, may say to the Minister that there could be administrative difficulties, etc., in the retail sector. I do not know what he will say but I assume he came in to point out some of those things. Even with that, however, I still think that the balance of good lies in enacting the legislation. I have no difficulty, on any partisan basis, acknowledging the great job the current Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, did in banning cigarettes in this country. It was-----

Yes, I know. I mean in the workplace, in public arenas, at functions, etc. It was a great progressive act and it set a trend for Europe and for the world. It was mould-breaking. I acknowledge that. It would be ludicrous and ridiculously partisan not to do so. However, I also say that this is a further progression of that. The balance of good, any considerations around interference in people's lives, the difficulty of administration at times - some of those practical matters pale into insignificance when we think of what cigarette addiction does to individuals and to society, and there is a societal issue here. There is huge cost. Nobody for a moment is suggesting - and we want no misunderstanding - or would suggest that we do not treat the victims of addiction with various conditions arising from addiction, give them the best healthcare in the world and give them everything. There is, however, a societal issue here with stopping potential addiction because there is huge cost involved with the health service and a huge diminution of quality of life for these people and those around them. If a member of a family develops a nicotine addiction, the misery and the misfortune that visits the individual extends into the family, if only because of the cost of the cigarettes, the general health implications and the example to a younger generation. Children do as they see rather than as they are told. You cannot lecture children into a lifestyle you are not living yourself. It would not be difficult to find evidence to support that thesis. That is another consideration.

No matter how one looks at it - from the point of view of the individual and saving individuals, the well-being of society or the well-being of a whole cohort of young people - this is excellent and right and should be done. Any fears around it pale into insignificance. None of us in this room would have had the misfortune of visiting people in hospital. I have been in St. Luke's on many occasions visiting people who are the victims or who have the consequences of addiction to cigarette smoking, and it is no fault of theirs - any of them. I recall, for example, driving a former Member of this House to see his aunt out there. I remember her saying to us that if she could live her life again and give up cigarettes, she would do so. You hear it so often from smokers.

We, as legislators, can do something, and this is very welcome and should be done. I am completely in support of it. I am not unaware of the few difficulties that will be cited later. In my view, however, by a long shot, the greater good rests with passing the legislation.

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.

The Minister is very welcome. I speak on this Bill as an ex-smoker. Thanks be to God it has been 22 years since I quit them. It was 31 July 2002. I can still remember the date. I intend to continue that way and I sincerely hope my three sons never start. I wholeheartedly support increasing the age to 21 years. I have seen the damage this does to families. I have seen the cost it puts on people who are addicted. It is in reality an addiction not a choice, as the Minister said. All contributors so far have talked about cigarettes, but it is also nicotine-inhaling products such as vapes. It is only about three years ago I saw the effect when I visited Ballymahon Vocational School. Grace Kearney from the local Youthreach was speaking to 13- and 14-year-olds about the negative effects of vaping. She made me aware that first years, so kids as young as 12 years of age, were being given free samples of vaping products outside the school gate to get them addicted so they would then buy them in shops down the town. Fortunately, the legislation on that was brought in within the last 12 months.

I am a retailer. In my village of Ballinalee the three shops collectively had an 18-years-of-age policy ourselves before the legislation came in because we all knew the negative effects of it. Maybe I should have put in an amendment on this, but I have an issue with a lot of the vape shops that are around – and in every single town and village there are two or three of them – being disguised as sweet shops. We have the American sweet shop with its glossy front windows but it is just a draw to get children into the shop to buy or want to buy vaping products. It is about getting them addicted so shops can make higher profits. I have a beer wholesaler licence and a national lottery one, so I have all three licences. I have a policy, and it is an ingrained policy, especially from the national lottery, to think 21. That is the way we have to think when we are checking the ages of those who come in. We do not sell national lottery products to under-18s and I say the same to my staff with regard to alcohol. It is unacceptable for alcohol to be sold to anyone under the age of 18. I have regular inspections. I have probably had two in the last two to three years involving test purchases of cigarettes. My staff have enforced the policy of looking for identification at all times. Like Senator Boyhan I see a difficulty with the fact we are going to have to enforce slightly different age restrictions with alcohol and cigarettes. As a retailer I can foresee it being a difficulty for staff. As Senator Boyhan said, we should have engaged with the retailer associations on this before the legislation was brought in. My understanding, from the organisations I deal with, is there has not really been any consultation. I think there was a commitment given on Second Stage that would happen, but it has not with the retail organisation I work through as a small retailer, which is the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association. Why has that not happened? With anything, no matter what it is, we must consult the people on the ground who are going to have to implement policy. In saying that, I fully support the Bill.

This is the right way to go. The decision taken by the now Tánaiste and then Minister for Health, Micheál Martin, was a brave one and the right one. In bringing in that legislation, we were world leaders in regard to the workplace. The summer before the ban, I was at a friend's wedding in Cape Cod in the US, which was the first place in the world to implement a no-smoking rule in the workplace, bars, etc. While I was a smoker at the time, I saw the difference it made there and I knew it would work here because it would be enforced by people themselves. That is what happened when the ban was introduced here. I fully support this Bill and will vote in favour of it. However, I ask that we consult the people who will have to implement it.

I listened carefully to what Senator Boyhan said. In order that the Minister will be ready for the Committee Stage amendments, I draw to his attention the following provision in section 28 of the 2023 Act, as inserted by section 5: "A person shall not sell by retail, or cause to be sold by retail, a nicotine inhaling product to a child." The same provision applies to cigarettes and other tobacco products by way of section 28A, to be inserted by section 6. Section 5(3) further provides:

(3) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence for such person to prove that the child to whom the

alleged offence relates produced to him or her—

(a) an age card,

(b) a passport, or

(c) a driving licence,

for the time being in force, relating to that child.”.

Subsection (3) of section 6 makes the same provision in respect of tobacco products except that the reference in not to a "child" but to "a person under the age of 21 years". Will the Minister read over that provision and concentrate on what it is supposed to mean? If a person under the age of 21 produces an age card, driving licence or passport showing he or she is under 21, it is a defence to the charge of supplying those products to a person of that age. That is what is set out in the Bill. I ask the Minister to look at it again.

I am clear on this. I looked at it in a different context. It is nonsensical to say it is an offence to supply a tobacco or nicotine-inhaling product to somebody under 21, under subsections (1) and (2) of sections 5 and 6, and then provide, in subsection (3) in both instances, that in proceedings for an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence for the accused person to prove that the child to whom the alleged offence relates produced an age card, passport or driving licence "for the time being in force, relating to that child". The reference in section 6(3) is "for the time being in force, relating to that person under the age of 21 years". What does that mean? I do not understand how it can be worked. If somebody comes in with a driving licence saying he or she is 20, is that a defence to a charge of providing a tobacco product to a person under the age of 21? I just do not understand why the draftsman has done this. It does not make sense.

There are other issues. There are people with established smoking habits and people with nicotine-inhaling product habits coming up to the date on which it becomes illegal for them to purchase those products. There will be people, for instance, who have been smoking for two years on the date in 2028 in which the provisions come into force. Is it seriously suggested that they will have to get a pal to buy cigarettes for them in order to continue their smoking habit? This has not been thought through. What this is, in fact, is a retreat from the New Zealand proposal, which was to have a rolling increase in the age limit for purchasing cigarettes and nicotine-inhaling products. I am with the Minister on the inhaling products in general terms.

However, the main question is whether it is a defence that proof was given that a person was under the age of 21. Section 28A(3), as inserted by section 6, provides:

(3) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence for such person to prove that the person under the

age of 21 years to whom the alleged offence relates produced to him or her—

(a) an age card,

(b) a passport, or

(c) a driving licence,

for the time being in force, relating to that person under the age of 21 years.”.

What does that mean? The draftsman has got this wrong. The Minister may have had good advice from the Attorney General about what could or could not be done but the drafting section of the Attorney General's office has made a bags of this. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether he really wants to put into law something as nonsensical as this. He has the great comfort blanket that none of this means anything for another three-and-a-bit years. He will be able to bring in another Bill to make sense out of the nonsense that is in this Bill. It is nonsense, and no amount of advice from the Attorney General can turn it around. Is it a defence that somebody aged 19 or 20 produced a licence or passport showing he or she was that age? If it is a defence, subsection (3) is a complete nonsense. Let us deal with that.

I thank colleagues for their contributions. Rather than giving a set-piece speech, I will address the various points that were made.

With regard to retailers, I accept that we will have two separate ages, namely, 18 and 21, just like we did when, as was previously the case, cigarettes could be sold to 16-year-olds at the same time the legal age to purchase alcohol was 18. For many years, retailers successfully dealt with those two age limits of 16 and 18. I have full confidence that our retailers will be able to deal with separate age restrictions of 18 and 21. Colleagues will recall that the legal age for smoking was increased from 16 to 18 a few years ago, with the age for sale of alcohol remaining at 18. Our retailers have dealt with a similar situation previously. As Senator McDowell said, there is a three-year lead-in period. Do we need to engage on this? Of course we do. We need to listen very carefully to the retailers and do everything we can to make it work for them. As colleagues pointed out, it is the retailers who will be implementing the law every day in their shops. We have three years, which is a significant lead-in period for consultation.

Reference was made to illicit trade. As we know, illicit trade exists. The same argument was put forward in regard to the workplace smoking ban, that is, that it would create an illicit trade. The same argument was put forward when the legal age for smoking moved from 16 years to 18. That is not to say this is not a legitimate concern, but it is a concern anyway and it is a matter of enforcement. There is a significant illicit trade, driven primarily, I imagine, by the very significant taxes we, quite rightly, apply to cigarettes. Price elasticity is probably the single most effective thing we can do in terms of reducing the smoking age. I fully accept that illicit trade is a consideration but it is a consideration in respect of any public health measure to do with either alcohol or tobacco.

Colleagues asked about enforcement. As it does today, enforcement will happen in respect of these measures. It was pointed out that there is a pretty rigorous enforcement process in place. We have a team within the HSE that does that across the country. It will continue to do so. Our retailers are very familiar with that enforcement.

It was suggested that these proposals might be a pull-back from the New Zealand model. That is not the case. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I thought it was well worth exploring the New Zealand approach, under which the age for legal purchase goes up every year. This means that somebody who is 16 today will never be legally allowed to purchase tobacco products. There genuinely is an enforcement issue there for retailers. Asking them to remember the legal age is 25, 43 or 62 would be very difficult.

The new government in New Zealand pulled back from it. It withdrew the proposal. A former Prime Minister in the UK said the Government there was going to do the same but we have not had any indication from the Labour Party Government as to whether it will do it. I have been in discussions on the issue with my counterpart in Northern Ireland. It is easier in terms of enforcement when things are done on an all-island basis.

I presented my proposal on this issue at an EU level and EU ministers are interested. The Dutch, the Finns and the Slovenians are looking at it. I believe this will become the norm just like the workplace smoking ban became the norm, based on the responses we are now getting to that.

If the illicit trade in tobacco becomes the norm across the EU, it will help because the opportunities for arbitrage will decrease to some extent.

We got very clear advice from the Attorney General. The questions we asked were "How?" and "What is the best way to do it?". The answer we got on the best way to do it was to have a three-year lead-in period. In part, this is because there are people who are 18 years of age who are addicted to smoking. They are legally allowed to buy cigarettes. We are aware that if people are buying cigarettes and smoking regularly at 18 years of age, they will be in addiction very quickly. We did not want to bring in the type of situation raised close to the end of the debate whereby someone who has gone into addiction legally, as they are legally allowed to buy and consume cigarettes now, would not be legally allowed to smoke under this legislation. This is part of the reason for the three years. It will give rise to a challenge because close to the end of the three-year period, we will move from 18 years of age to 21 years of age in one go. There will be people in addiction who purchase cigarettes legally. One of the things we must do is communicate very clearly now that this is coming. There is no perfect way to do it, and I fully accept that. One of the things we will have to do is redouble our efforts on smoking cessation and supports. Our efforts are working quite well. Nicotine replacement patches are free through the HSE programme. The response has been very positive. The number of people engaging with the programme has increased.

With regard to the defence on identification, the advice I have is that it is what is used at present with regard to the age of 18. It is clearly understood that the defence is not that somebody came into a shop and showed a driver's licence which said they were 18, it is that they showed a driver's licence that said they were 21. This is what is in legislation at present.

The advice I have from the officials is that this is how it is used in other legislation and that it works very well. I assure Senator McDowell that there was extensive consultation back and forth with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on this to make sure we had it right. It is very confident that it is right. I have confirmation that it is the law at present. This is how it is used and interpreted by the courts.

I, the officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel are confident the current approach is correct and is legally robust.

I thank colleagues for their support. I appreciate that there are always challenges when we bring these measures in, as there should and must be. Ultimately, we are speaking about saving many lives. We are speaking about significantly reducing the number of children, by which I mean those aged between 14 and 17, going into addiction. This will definitely happen. We will reduce smoking tobacco addiction for young adults aged between 18 and 20. This is new ground for Ireland. I found interesting that in some vox pops, which were conducted by the media when I first announced this, those aged between 16 and 20 showed overwhelming support for it. As we know, they would not necessarily always give the most supportive of responses. In fact, the young people I have spoken to about this, be they in school or be they young adults in work or in college, are broadly supportive of this.

We want to move on from tobacco. I do not need to tell anyone here that in my role over the past four to five years as Minister for Health I have seen up close and personal a lot of the damage that smoking does, including to young people and teenagers. Teenagers are getting out of breath at the top of the school stairs which, by the way, the vapes are doing to them also. While I have listened very carefully and I respect the positions being put forward, ultimately this is the right thing to do. It is a child protection and young adult protection measure that will save many lives in years to come.

I thank those Senators who are going to support the Bill. I hear them and respect the views of those who may object. On balance, however, I believe this is the right thing to do.