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.

Sentiment score: -0.08

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.

Sentiment score: -0.06

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.

Sentiment score: -0.01

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.

Sentiment score: -0.14

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-----

Sentiment score: 0.33

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.

Sentiment score: 0.03