David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)

I agree that this is a purist position. I understand the logic of it but I agree we have to live in the real world. When we were discussing the Bill within my party, I spoke to former smokers who said that, without vaping, they would still be smoking. That is particularly relevant in the context of Bills being brought forward that deal specifically with vaping. The public health view seems to be a strange position. It is a purist position. There probably is a public health rationale for it but we have to live in the real world. It is important when framing Bills like this that there be input from the people who live in the real world, including politicians, the public and stakeholders. I referred to international evidence but it is also important to seek opinions from stakeholders, including smokers and the organisations that want everyone to stop smoking. I have never smoked. I do not like smoking and I do not want anybody to smoke. However, I live in the real world in which there are people who smoke. Vaping is a very important smoking cessation support. We have to move on the other issues to do with vaping, in which the upcoming Bill, dealing with flavours, is an important part.

An issue I forgot to raise in the context of amendment No. 2, which is also relevant to amendments Nos. 1 and 3, is the need to ensure, as much as possible, that we are moving in the same direction on these issues on an all-island basis, both North and South. Another point is that the figures we have show that approximately 17% of smoking products are acquired through illicit trade. That is very worrying. There is a concern that if we ban the sale of particular products for a certain section of the population, it could drive more trade underground and increase the problem. Has the Department done studies on that in the preparation of this Bill?