2026-03-04

I want to make a few brief remarks, if I can. We will get through this very quickly. Obviously, I support the Bill. For a long time, I have been calling for a ban on single-use vapes and it makes sense for obvious reasons. There is an amendment that I have down that we will get to. I suspect the Government will not be accepting it but I will speak briefly to it. I want to quickly raise issues regarding a proposed parallel Bill that was signed off on by Cabinet yesterday, as I understand it, or at least the heads of which have been signed off on. There are some elements of that proposed Bill that I support because the thrust of it is that the vaping industry is targeting children in an unacceptable way and there is a move, as I understand it, by Government to ban flavours in relation to vapes. There are other elements that may be in that proposed Bill as well. I want to flag one concern I have in this area. I believe that anything that targets children, of course, we should intervene in, and we should act. There are all sorts of flavours. There are dozens of flavours of these vapes, many of which target children, for example, bubble gum and the obvious ones. There are others that are less targeted at children, but actually adults use them. I have engaged with many vape smokers and they tell me that if the ban was to apply to all flavours with the exception of tobacco, that would be a problem for them. The Minister of State should bear in mind that vaping is a cessation tool for some people to move away from smoking and what we do not want is that those people would go back to smoking if the only option is a tobacco-flavoured vape. If you have a different flavour that is not targeted at children but is being used by adults, that might be a step too far. I am merely saying that now. Obviously, we will have time at the health committee or whatever way the heads of Bill will come before us. That is not to take away from the substance of this Bill, which I support. As I said, I have one amendment that I will briefly speak to.

I want to voice my objection to the process here. It is poor form. We had it repeated last week, and again this week, in terms of the Government taking Committee Stage of legislation in the Dáil as opposed to at committee. As Chair of the health committee, I received a letter essentially telling me that my committee was too busy to even consider this issue, without any real engagement with the committee about our schedule or willingness to take this at committee. We would have been willing to take this at committee - it will be a short debate. We could have done this at committee. We did not need to keep all the TDs later here tonight to do this. We had it last week on the International Protection Bill. It is poor form. We have a dysfunctional Dáil. We need to take seriously how we order business in the House because it is not good enough and it needs urgent reform. I would ask the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach to pass that on to the Ceann Comhairle because it is an important point. I also welcome the progress on this Bill and the other proposed legislation. The two probably should have come together in one. However, like Deputy Cullinane, I welcome the move that has been made there and echo the sentiment. There is potential to limit it to maybe two flavours, or menthol, mint or something else, in order to ensure that people use vapes as a cessation tool. I welcome that progress having been made, in particular, that children will not be targeted by the advertising of those kinds of flavours because there is a real issue. I had a transition year student in my office recently who talked to me about 12-year-olds vaping in school and passing vapes around a primary school. It is a real issue. We have left it go too long and I am glad to see we have got progress on it tonight.

I support the Bill. In terms of the general debate, we had the discussion already on Second Stage in terms of having everything put together in one piece of legislation and I will not go back into that. There has been a lobby coming through about the flavours and the suggestion that people will go back to smoking tobacco. I suppose the key point to make there is they are already used to the tobacco taste and smell, so why would it make them go back? I take on board what Deputy Rice said about menthol because we already have menthol cigarettes but the whole idea about getting rid of the flavours is to stop young people getting into vapes, which the evidence has shown they are getting into in their own right, separate from ever thinking about smoking. We should not be fooled by the campaign. We should get on with the legislation. There have been suggestions that in Denmark people have found ways of getting flavoured vapes through other means so we will have to be able to police this going forward anyway.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, to delete lines 5 to 8 and substitute the following: " "single-use vape" means a vape that is not designed or intended to be re-used and includes any vape that is neither refillable nor rechargeable.". The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the definition of "single-use vape" is watertight and that fake disposables do not make it through. I continue to have a concern, which I raised on Second Stage, about the use of "or" in the definition of "single-use vape" and the possibility that it will be exploited by vaping manufacturers and suppliers. The current definition reads: “single-use vape” means a vape that is not designed or intended to be re-used and includes any vape that is— (a) not refillable, or (b) not rechargeable; The "not refillable, or not rechargeable" suggests choice, that is, not a disposable if it can either be refilled or recharged. This is why have suggested, "neither refillable nor rechargeable", in my amendment. This connects two negative possibilities rather than one option between both. The issue is that disposable vapes are now being sold with so-called "charging ports" to give the impression that they are reusable, but most are not, or at least not for more than a week. I have an example here. This vape has a little charging port on it. You can pull it out. It looks like it is refillable but it is actually not refillable in any way and the charging port is only there for show, to make it look like it is rechargeable. Many disposable vapes are being sold with those detachable pods to give the impression that they are refillable but it is purely a token feature. It has been used to get around the legislation in other countries. Even if these were usable, there is very little incentive to do so as they cost approximately €10. We have already seen similar loopholes exploited in the UK and manufacturers will no doubt exploit the exact same one in this jurisdiction. I am not saying that the amendment is a silver bullet but the Minister of State and I could work together to ensure that the legislation is robust and watertight. We must make sure that the ban is not rendered completely ineffective on day one thanks to the proliferation of these fake reusable vapes.

I support the intent behind Deputy Rice's amendment. We have seen in the sale of alcohol, for example, where the industry has tried to get around changes which were brought in in relation to the display of alcohol in supermarkets and shops. The industry, whether the tobacco industry, the vaping industry or the alcohol industry, will always be looking for ways to get around legislation that we bring in for specific and clear purposes. Deputy Rice is correct. It is important because this Bill is for one purpose only, that is, to ban single-use vapes. If it is the case then through some unintended consequence that the definition is not clear, that will allow the industry or people who sell vapes to get around that and, obviously, that would be problematic. I will await the Minister of State's response, and see what clarification comes from her. I am sure her officials will have a response to that and I am interested to hear what it is. I hope she will be able to allay fears because individuals have raised those concerns with me, which is why I am supporting the Deputy's amendment. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I remember, maybe 55 years ago, that smoking was a very cool thing to do at the time. We had a small shop in Ballymote where you could buy cigarettes individually for 3p, three old pennies, at the time. Thank God I got off cigarettes - I was lucky - but I see a lot of people using vapes now. When I smoked we did not realise the damage cigarettes were doing to people. I see people today, young people in particular, vaping and I wonder what sort of damage is being done to them. As with cigarettes, I believe that, in time, maybe in 20 or 30 years, people will find out the damage being done to their lungs. We should do whatever we can to reduce the use of vapes.

I thank all the Deputies who have spoken on this important Bill. The amendment seeks to change the existing definition of single-use vapes by alternating its construction. The intention of the existing definition in the Bill is to prohibit any vape which is not refillable or rechargeable. This means a vape must be both refillable and rechargeable to avoid prohibition. We are banning any vape which can be refilled but cannot be recharged, any vape which can be recharged but cannot be refilled or any vape which cannot be refilled and cannot be recharged. While I appreciate the intentions of the Deputies, the proposed amendment identifies only vapes which cannot be refilled and cannot be recharged. The definition of the relevant products in the Bill is for the purpose of a criminal offence. In that context, it will be interpreted narrowly in favour of the person accused. In this regard, it is not clear if this alternative definition would include devices which fall under only one of these categories. This would, therefore, potentially allow a swath of devices to escape the proposed ban. A great deal of work was undertaken with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure these definitions capture the intended products. They also align with the definition in the UK law, which currently prohibits the production that it is intended to prohibit here. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Deputy Cullinane referred to the industry. There is nothing new about the tobacco and related industries seeking to circumvent regulations and find new ways to market their products. This legislation ensures the products on the market are intended to be reused and have functional capabilities to be reused. It will not be enforced through the authority to ensure there are no complications with this. That is the main issue and it is important we have that. We will not accept the amendment.

If the Minister of State is telling me the definition is the same as the one in the UK, then I am even more concerned. Reports from the UK indicate they are getting around the definition there. We have been hearing this from the vaping lobbying, Responsible Vaping Ireland. It is saying that in the UK, where a ban on single-use vapes has already been introduced, there are reports that some unscrupulous suppliers are modifying cheap, disposable devices by adding non-operable charging ports or including token, removable or rechargeable pods so products can be marketed as reusable, even though they are being discarded as single-use while not being single-use. Like those that I showed earlier, they have a fake charging port and look like they are refillable but they are not. If we are modelling our legislation on the UK, where people are getting around a loophole in the law, that is not the law we should be implementing.

We are not modelling it on the UK law.

I will be pressing the amendment.

We are not modelling it on the UK law. The UK has taken steps to do this. I assure the Deputy that we are learning as well, and this is a very good step forward for us. The Attorney General has also been working on this. As I said, we will not be accepting this amendment.

Does the Deputy wish to withdraw the amendment?

I ask the Minister of State and her officials to look at this again. I understand the Bill has not been in the Seanad yet. Perhaps she will look at what has happened in the UK in advance of the Bill going to the Seanad.

Yes.

We might discuss it with our Seanad colleagues before then. I ask the Minister of State to look at what has happened in the UK and ensure the definition is watertight because we want to ban single-use vapes. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 8, line 17, to delete “A person shall not sell a single-use vape in the State.” and substitute the following: "A person shall not invite an offer to treat for, offer for sale, keep for sale or sell a single-use vape in the State.". Section 9 essentially creates a prohibition on the sale of single-use vapes. Section 9(1) provides that a person shall not sell a single-use vape in the State, subject to all the definitions that come earlier in the Bill. The amendment changes the wording of that. I am not in any way opposed to what the Bill is trying to do; I absolutely support it. There are other issues regarding the availability, for example, of what are known as "big puff" vapes, vapes with more than 2 ml of content or vapes that allow users to attach other things to them so that they have multiple cylinders. These have been banned in other European countries. They facilitate the use of much more significant vapes than was intended. The amendment seeks to address the fact that section 9(1) only provides that certain vapes may not be sold. This means that in order to enforce this provision, you have to find somebody who has sold the vape or catch them in the process of selling it. That is remarkably difficult to do. It may involve undercover work by gardaí, for example. If we look at parallel provisions in the Finance Acts, for example, on the sale of tobacco or specified tobacco products without a tax stamp, the wording used in the Finance Acts is much broader than "You shall not sell". It is more about the circumstances around people who are trying to evade taxation by selling cigarettes that do not have a tax stamp because duty has not been paid on them. The wording used in that context is that the product cannot be kept or stored for sale and one cannot be in the preparation of sale, and all the other things that come with people who are selling products like this in contravention of the laws on taxation. The reason I tabled the amendment is I have a genuine concern that section 9(1), as currently drafted, will be largely inoperable or, at the very least, extremely difficult to enforce. Any prosecution for an offence under section 9(1) will require proof that the person had sold the product or was, at that moment, in the process of selling it. For example, if gardaí were to raid a shop in which the shopkeeper had a load of these single-use vapes behind the counter ready to sell, no prosecution could ensue because the shopkeeper has not sold the vape, or at least the evidence in such a case would not be available to prove the person had sold it. I suggest the wording of section 9(1) be remodelled to cover the whole spectrum of activity that leads to the sale of single-use vapes. This Bill is trying to get this stuff off shop shelves, out of the hands of teenagers and off the streets. Every one of us knows the litter that arises from vapes. They are left all over the place when they have been used by particular groups who are not particularly conscientious about disposing of the vapes. There is also the damage they do to the environment even when they are disposed of. If we are serious about tackling the problem by stopping people from selling them, it cannot just be about the momentary act of the sale. It has to be about all the things that go around that, including the preparation for it and the keeping of the goods. It is slightly ridiculous that gardaí could identify a shop that is potentially selling single-use vapes, but unless they are in the shop or they send somebody in undercover in a sting operation to buy a single-use vape who could then testify in court later that it was sold to them, they simply will not be able to mount a credible prosecution. That will render the provision in section 9(1) largely inoperable. That is why I suggest changing the wording.

The Deputy's amendment proposes to expand the range of circumstances related to the sale which would constitute an offence. There is already a comprehensive definition of the word "sell" in section 2. This includes "offer or expose for sale", "invite the making by a person of an offer to purchase", "distribute free of charge" and "supply for any of these purposes (whether or not for profit)". The Deputy's amendment is nearly a duplication. It is not substantial enough to change the scope of the offence. The consultation with the enforcement authority has taken place. We are health led. We work with the Garda, which is fine, but this is a health-led approach. We are working with our enforcement authority on the scope of these provisions. It is satisfied that they meet the requirements necessary to enforce the law in an effective manner. Working through the health-led approach, which is very important for our younger people, we are working with the enforcement authority and it is saying that it is fully on board with this. We have to work with the Garda. This is a health-led approach. I thank the Deputy for the amendment. It is important, but we do not propose to accept it.

I accept entirely what the Minister of State said. There is a provision in relation to the definition of "sell". There are two problems with that. First, it is very much at variance with the terminology that is used in legislation that attempts to do similar things. Being health led does not prevent the Government from making provision in law for an offence that is actually applicable. That is the concern I have. The offence is created in section 9(1), and in section 9 in its totality. A question will arise in any prosecution as to why the offence is not properly described in the section. Why is the definition of "offence" being moved to the interpretation section as opposed to the actual penal provision within the Bill - or the Act as it will be - being made clear? Why is it not clear that it is more than just actually selling that is involved? The Bill provides an expanded definition in the context of selling means. That is not really good enough because it creates an ambiguity. It should be really clear. This is a criticism I make of almost all the legislation that comes before the House, particularly amending legislation where one would need to be some kind of an interpretive expert to understand what such legislation says. It should be the case that a person can be told that something is an offence under section 9 and then he or she can go to section 9 in order to discover what the offence is. That cannot be done with this legislation. There is no good reason why that is the case. Consider similar provisions that do similar things in respect of similar criminal activity, albeit not the worst type of criminal activity but activity that is a crime because it is largely damaging to certain aspects of society. When we look at parallel items of legislation, we can see that this formula or construction is not used. It is confusing, and I am concerned that it will be subject to challenge because it is creating a new mechanism that is unnecessary and ambiguous or that, at the very least, obfuscates matters as to what exactly the offence is. I accept what the Minister of State said about not accepting the amendment. It is what it is. I am quite sure she has better advice than I do. I just have a concern about the way the section 9 has been drafted.

Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order.

I had not realised that my amendment had been ruled out of order. I do not think I was notified of that fact. More importantly, as we came into the House today, copies of the Bill were not available to Members and neither were copies of the numbered list of amendments. It is very difficult to deal with legislation in here when I am trying to work off my phone. Looking at a PDF on my phone is very difficult. It used to be that these things were available. It would be much easier for Members if they were available.

I thank Deputy Ward. We will have a look at that.

We are very mindful of that. I thank the Deputy for highlighting it.

Deputy Ward makes a very good point about legislation more generally. A citizen should be able to pick up a Bill, read it, understand it and see what is an offence and what is not an offence. It is a basic tenet of the rule of law that people should be to understand the laws they are expected to abide by. Even if it is the case that we have to go belt and braces, put these definitions in and spell things out in each section, we should do it. We should be able to pick up a Bill, read it and understand each section. Even if that requires a belt-and-braces approach, we need to put in the definitions to spell that out. The Minister of State should have done that here. I have a general point about the Department of Health's approach to legislation. I have not yet seen it accept a single amendment put forward by either Government backbench TDs or Opposition TDs during my time here.

I have accepted amendments to the Mental Health Bill.

Amendments that I or other Opposition Deputies have table have not been accepted.

I have accepted amendments. They may not have been the Deputy's amendments, but I have accepted amendments in the Seanad.

Okay, but every single amendment tabled in respect of this Bill has been refused. In the context of previous legislation, all the amendment that I and others have tabled have been rejected out of hand. We need to work together on this to ensure that we get the best legislation possible. We all support the Bill, and we are trying to get the best legislation possible. If there was greater willingness to engage on amendments in a more constructive way, it would ensure that we would have better legislation. Historically, the Oireachtas has not produced good-quality legislation that regular citizens can just pick up, read and understand. It has generally been complex and hard to follow. I say this as somebody who has spent a number of years studying law. We need to make our legislation simple and more straightforward. I ask the Department to maybe consider looking at more amendments on the basis of all of this.

I had indicated my opposition to this section. I know we are flying through the legislation, but I wonder if I might just address that. Section 18 changes the provisions of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851, which creates a six-month statute of limitations or a jurisdictional limit on the prosecution of matters. Where we are dealing here with minor offences. These are offences for the purposes of prosecution insofar as they would be dealt with summarily in the District Court. There is usually a six-month time limit in respect of them. For no reason that I can identify, that is being extended to 12 months in the Bill. I just do not know why that would be the case. Is there any reason why the Minister of State thinks that it could not be registered? It does not actually have to be the prosecution; the complaint in relation to an offence having been committed just has to be registered within six months. I would have a concern about creep in this regard. There is a good reason why there is a six-month limit on minor offences. The Government is seeking to double that, and I do not really know why that is the case.

Providing for 12 months for the taking of prosecutions is a standard provision. For example, this is already the case under the Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) Act 2023. A great deal of investigation and analysis goes into bringing cases of this type. I see no benefit in making it easier for businesses that have broken the law to avoid prosecution, so, unfortunately, that is why we will not be changing the provision. I cannot accept the amendment.

I am not trying to make it easier for businesses that have broken the law. We are talking about the criminal justice system. There are certain principles that exist in that system to ensure that it is fair. We benefit from a system that is actually very fair, which is why we do not have mass certificates-----

The amendment was deemed out of order.

I am outlining my opposition to section 18, which was skipped over. We do not have large numbers of certificates of unjust prosecutions or miscarriages of justice because we actually respect the rules. The Minister of State saying that it is a standard provision in other Acts does not answer the question. I do not accept that there is a reason why this is being done. It is not the case that everything has to be complete and ready to go within six months; it is merely the case that the complaint must be made to the District Court within six months. That, in fact, is the standard provision and has been for the 170-odd years since the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 came into force. I am concerned about creep in this regard. If it is the case there are resource issues or something like that, maybe that is a good reason. However, that is not what has been articulated. Six months is the standard provision, and this legislation seeks not just to increase this but to double it. I am not satisfied that there has been a justifiable reason articulated for that.

There is an amendment in the name of Deputy Cullinane in relation to a new section. Would the Deputy like to speak on that? No, that is fine.

I thank everyone. The Bill will now go to the Seanad. Some questions came up from Deputies. All the Deputies' points were very relevant. I thank them for their valuable contributions to the debate on this important Bill. Yesterday, the Government approved publication of our other Bill on nicotine products. I will provide an update on that. The Bill will prohibit the sale of nicotine-consumption products, such as pouches, to those under 18; prohibit the advertisement of nicotine-inhaling and nicotine-consumption products in all retail outlets and prohibit their point-of-sale display in mixed retail outlets; restrict colours and imagery on nicotine-inhaling products, devices and packaging, as well as prohibit the sale of devices resembling or functioning as other products such as toys or games; prohibit all flavour descriptors and language other than basic flavour names for nicotine-inhaling products; limit flavours in nicotine-inhaling products to tobacco; and grant the power to make changes by regulation. These two Bills together form a comprehensive suite of measures to reduce the availability, affordability and attractiveness of these products. All of us here tonight want to do the right thing and get these Bills passed. It is important we do so as soon as possible.

The Minister of State spoke on the issues I raised earlier relating to the parallel Bill signed off on by the Cabinet yesterday. I would support the vast majority of that Bill, or of what I saw reported of it. Banning the sale of pouches to under-18s is something I would support. Colour images and packaging geared towards children should be banned. Vapes that resemble toys and all of that should absolutely be banned. I have a slight concern about limiting the sale of flavours to just nicotine. I could give a number of examples of flavours that adults use and are not directed at children. This is not because there is lobbying coming from the sector. I have not been lobbied directly, to my knowledge, by it. I have spoken to vapers who say it is a concern. I would probably ban the vast majority of flavours. A better approach would be to allow the Minister to look at each flavour on a case-by-case basis. Some examples were given. That is a more common-sense approach and it would allow the Minister to make the decision. That is something we will debate during the passage of the next Bill. I would support the vast majority of what is in the Bill that was announced. It is just that part I have a small concern about.

I welcome the announcement of the second vaping Bill, in particular the piece around prohibiting the sale of nicotine-consumption products such as pouches to under-18s and the piece around advertising. It is targeted at children. The bubblegum flavours and advertising target children in an aggressive way. I support limiting the flavours as well. As I said earlier, I was talking to some teenagers and they spoke of the use of vapes among fourth, fifth and sixth class students in primary schools. In a secondary school, one student I talked to said nearly everyone in second year of the school vaped. It is a real issue. Like Deputy Cullinane, I think the flavours could be limited while allowing something like menthol, which is a cigarette flavour as well, for those who do not want to smoke but will vape. I welcome the progress on that and I welcome these public health measures. They are really important.