This Bill has been fairly well examined by the people who have contributed to the debate and there is little further to be said, but I should like it to be clear, in view of what has been said, what the Bill does. There are things that it has been alleged to do. I should like to clear up that point.
I want to make it clear that all I am concerned about is the continued use of cigarettes. It is specifically stated in the first section that pipe tobacco, cigars, cheroots and snuff — all of which form part of tobacco — are excluded from any of the provisions that are contained in section 2. It is very important to make that clear — I may not have done it up to now — because it does mean that a very big part of tobacco consumption could still go on untouched and, in fact, increase, if necessary, because nobody wants to deprive people who have got this nicotine habit, or tobacco-smoking habit, of the pleasure where it is a simple pleasure and a harmless pleasure, as it is in the case of pipe tobacco, cigars and snuff. Nobody wants to curtail the use of these in the slightest or the advertisement of any of these. The section refers merely to the use by the public of the dangerous form of tobacco, that is, the cigarette. I want to make that completely clear. There is a very large part of the tobacco usage which should not be interfered with at all.
Section 2 is permissive and simply asks the Minister to do something if in his opinion it is in the public interest to do so. Clearly, therefore, nothing could take place at all until the Minister was concerned by a particular habit, that is, cigarette-smoking. If the Minister was convinced that it was a bad thing for people to go on smoking cigarettes, in that way he would come to the conclusion that it was wise in some way or other to draw their attention to the fact that this was a dangerous habit which they should curtail or stop if possible — preferably stop.
So, it is a Bill which leaves entirely to the Minister the final decision. It is merely asking that the Minister should have power, if he feels it is in the public interest, to take any particular decision curtailing advertisement or insisting on the inclusion of "dangerous product" on the advertisement or carton, wherever it might be. So, it is only an enabling Bill and it does not prevent anybody from doing anything at all. It is merely to help the Minister if he considers that he need take this action. I cannot see why, if the Minister believes that a certain practice is a dangerous practice from the health point of view, he, as Minister for Health, morally can refrain from carrying out his responsibilities in this way. I am not asking him to do it unless he is so convinced.
My case, of course, is based largely on the fact that there is a danger in cigarette-smoking. It is now universally agreed. The danger is the danger of lung cancer which is practically universally a mortal disease and that fact is not being made clear to the public. I think the Minister has failed in his responsibility to make it clear to the public.
The Minister has suggested in a recent announcement that he has circulated so many leaflets — I think 360,000—and that he has advertised in "Our Boys" and he made a few other suggestions of that kind.
I think the Minister is either a fool or a hypocrite. He is a fool if he believes that the relatively minor educational proposals which he has used in this particular campaign against cigarette smoking will be effective in achieving his objective. We must assume that if he has decided to curtail cigarette-smoking by any kind of campaign he has done it because he is convinced that cigarette-smoking is a bad thing and that some curtailment is needed; that he has been convinced by the arguments made. So, I say that if he thinks he is going to counter the £½ million or £¾ million spent on cigarette-smoking advertisements by a few advertisements in "Our Boys" and the leaflets he has handed around to youngsters, then he is either a fool or a hypocrite. If he is not a fool, then he is a hypocrite because he knows the facts and is quite consciously and deliberately doing nothing about it. That is completely amoral behaviour on the part of an allegedly responsible Minister.
The Minister discriminates between the need for the prevention of drug addiction, morphia, cocaine, marijuana, as against cigarette smoking. The Minister suggests that there is some element of moral torpitude in drug addiction, and so on, and for that reason it must be prevented. My attitude to drug addiction is that it is due to a personality defect and is a form of illness; consequently it is something which requires medical treatment and medical care. I do not think I would go along with the Minister in his condemnation of people of that kind and say that this is some form of depravity. The Minister's values are all astray.
In regard to this question as to whether it is moral or immoral, I do not particularly want to pursue that argument but my feeling about drug addiction is that, No. 1, it is due to a personality defect and, No. 2, it destroys the body, the most wonder-fully creative thing, the human body which the use of drugs over a period of time will undermine and eventually make into a terrible thing. But so does cigarette smoking. Anybody who knows a person who has lung cancer sees exactly the same thing happening, the destruction of the body. That is the only reason I feel concerned about this at all, seeing this kind of thing happen to unfortunate innocent people who do not really know what they are letting themselves in for. Death from lung cancer consists mainly of two things: it takes a long time; it is terribly painful and one usually ends up by suffocating to death.
The only reason we, in the medical profession, show a significant drop in the incidence of cigarette smoking is that we know the facts. It is not because we are people with stronger fibred characters or better personalities or anything like that. It is because we are more frightened by the facts because we know the facts. It took me nearly two years to give up the habit. It is a very difficult thing to do, whether you are a doctor or a layman, but if you know the facts it is not so difficult.
That is why I accuse the Minister of conspiring to conceal the facts from the general public. The general public are not so irresponsible, so stupid, or self-indulgent. The Minister says he is merely doing something which, generally speaking, he believes is reasonably safe, that we are scaremongers and which he is continually led to believe is safe by the advertising campaign of the cigarette manufacturing companies. There is no doubt about that at all. People watching the advertisements see the fine young broth of a boy sucking away at a cigarette. Let them go around to St. Luke's or St. Kevin's and see a few of these poor things suffocating to death, people who were in good health ten or 15 years ago.
The astonishing thing is the impregnability of the Minister to the facts as they are. The most dramatic illustration of the seriousness of the whole thing came to us last night in the decision of the British Government, who are as close to bankruptcy as, I suppose, a Government have ever been, to stop the advertising of cigarettes on television at the risk of the loss of the revenue income involved. They have not taken that decision lightly. It is as important to the Minister, Kenneth Robinson, Wilson and the rest of them, as it is to the Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee, and his colleagues in the Government.
The question of revenue is at the back of this whole problem. It is not a lack of conviction on the part of the Minister. It is inability to decide where else the money will be found if it is not got from tax revenue on cigarettes. It is a simple, sordid problem of pounds, shillings and pence. People will die of lung cancer because the Minister cannot think of another way of raising the money. The old China wars were fought on the same issues. The British Government were in trouble and eventually they were shamed into changing conditions. The existence of this problem has the same motivation: money, greed, selfishness and indifference to human suffering, in which the Minister has shown himself in recent years to be a particularly skilled practitioner.
The Minister says a code is being introduced. In the light of the Wilson decision, the introduction of the tobacco companies' code will be worth watching. It is claimed that it will alter the cigarette consumption rate and so on. Nobody believes for one moment this hypocritical, humbugging, supposedly self-denying ordinance on the part of the tobacco companies. Does the Minister seriously think these companies will curtail their dividends or profits? Have they shown any likelihood that they will take such a principaled decision where money is involved? This type of capitalistic businessman does not care who gets hurt as long as his profits are increasing. Imperial Tobacco profits went up by £2 million, from £16 million to £18 million. No self-denying ordinance or code will be allowed to interfere with the amount of cigarette consumption that will go on.
It could be said that this code would be a valid or useful one except for this fact. I wrote to Mr. Kenneth Robinson about this whole matter and he told me that in fact this self-denying ordinance by the tobacco companies, much the same as the proposals put forward to the Minister by the tobacco companies, has been in operation under the Tory Government since 1962. As usual, the Minister is even behind the British Tories, two years behind them. At least they had sufficient interest in the whole question because it has been on the mat since 1958. The tobacco companies were urged to do something and they brought in this absurd code in 1962. It is exactly the same as we have here. I have here a letter from the British Ministry of Health from which I quote:
In 1962 the tobacco manufacturers agreed voluntarily to eliminate from their cigarette advertisements both on television and on other advertising media themes which are likely to have special appeal to the young. They also accepted that advertisements should not be shown on television until just before 9.00 p.m....
It was speculation on my part that this was not worth the paper on which it was written but the proof is the fact that there has been an increase to 20,000 deaths from lung cancer, an increase of 5 per cent in 1963, in spite of this famous code. The Minister must know that. His advisers in the Department must have told him that the code was completely useless, futile and ineffective in Great Britain and he must also know that it will be completely useless, futile and ineffective in Ireland. Yet, he continues to persist in it. This is another example of his complete amorality and irresponsibility as a Minister.
When he talks about interference with the rights of individuals — there is no interference in this Bill — he might have a word with the Minister for Local Government or with the Minister for Justice in regard to the alcohol blood tests with which I completely agree. Deputy Corish, Deputy McQuillan, and the late Deputy Desmond and I were the only Deputies who voted for that some time ago and now it is being widely used. It seems to me these tests represent much more serious interference with the rights of the individual but they are there to protect the public good. Similarly, it seems to me the public good is involved on this occasion.
The British decision has, of course, been welcomed by all the responsible groups, the Medical Association, the Medical Practitioners Union and all these authoritative bodies. One can talk to them about these things; they know something about them and they have welcomed the decision as a step in the right direction, a very desirable step.
Talking of interference with rights, here is a small illustration of the wonderful golden ring that there is around the vested interests of capitalist businessmen of one kind or another. Some time ago I tried on behalf of some agents for the product, to get access to one of the national newspapers for an advertisement for a substance which would help people to stop smoking cigarettes. They were rejected by the newspaper proprietors and told they could not advertise this substance because it would knock their competitors. Did one ever hear such hypocrisy when every day one reads of products that are claimed to be superior to other products, something that washes whiter than anything else? That is all permissible and acceptable but where there is the slightest impinging on the tremendous vested interests in the tobacco business generally, there is a complete blockage of any such advertisements which might help unfortunate people who cannot of themselves for one reason or another stop smoking. This substance might help them to stop but no, they must not be told about it because there might be a slight reduction in dividends and profits coming from men and women dying in pain. Lest there should be such a reduction, they may not have this advertisement and no advertising is allowed to counter the big tobacco manufacturers' half page advertisements in the newspapers.
There is another link in the ring around these people. Griffith spoke of a paper wall around Ireland but there is a wonderful paper ring around the tobacco manufacturers. In this ring the Minister is the main link. Another link is television. Some people approached me after the introduction of the Bill and asked me would it be possible to advertise on television the dangers of lung cancer from cigarette smoking. I wrote to Telefís Éireann and asked if it would be possible simply to advertise on television that cigarettes cause lung cancer and I received a reply from Mr. McCourt dated 15th January in which he said he could not judge the admissibility or otherwise of the advertisement from the amount of information given in my letter but it seemed to him that the advertisement I was suggesting would come within a range of general statements which would not be acceptable advertising within the context of their code of standards and current practice. Noli tangere: do not go near them. No matter how you try to get at these people, you find this frontline defence for the tobacco manufacturers.
Telefís Éireann and the newspapers make a lot of money out of tobacco advertising. That is all permissible, part of the jungle life that goes on in a capitalist society, but the other strange thing is that the elected representative who has the responsibility of protecting the public when necessary from the sale and advertising of dangerous substances, is himself a member of that ring who, despite all the events in Europe, America and Britain — where in most cases some sort of preventive action is taken— still defends the tobacco manufacturers' interests and betrays his responsibilities to the people of this country.
I think I have said all I wanted to say but in passing I may add that I am astonished at the main Opposition Party. There was one very civilised and helpful contribution from Deputy Anthony Barry in which he took the reasonable line of saying that although he was a heavy smoker, if this would help to stop people becoming heavy smokers, he wished the Bill good luck. I am grateful for that comment but it is astonishing that on this terribly important question all over the world — in a minor way: I am not trying to build it up into something of great national and fundamental importance, but it is in one way important — the main Opposition Party, who claim to represent nearly half the people of the country, have no view and have expressed no authoritative view on the proposals in the Bill.
This is all the more astonishing since we have pretty persistent repetition of Deputy O'Higgins's obvious concern for the health of the people. I am delighted to see that; it is a very welcome development, but I think there is involved here an important question of health and I am very surprised the Deputy did not take the opportunity of putting forward some points of view on this measure. I am also very surprised that a Party with two very distinguished members of the medical profession in their ranks found themselves unable to put forward a point of view. I am more than surprised that neither of these two distinguished gentlemen put forward his point of view — for or against is immaterial. Surely some point of view should have been put forward on behalf of a Party who claims to represent such a big sector of the public. The Government Party at least said something and made some comments, but we heard nothing at all from the main Opposition Party.
That is a bad thing from the point of view of democracy. It is bad because it breeds on the division of people on something which is not a fundamental issue, something about which individual members in all Parties could have a point of view, not necessarily at variance with or unfaithful to the Party attitude on fundamental policy issues. The main Opposition Party are as guilty as the Minister in not allowing a free vote. I propose to put this matter to a vote. I do not care how many support it. It is a personal matter. This is not a Party measure. It is mine and Deputy McQuillan's. But it is an important matter and one which will become even more important as the years go by, and it is, therefore, essential at this stage to know how many have a point of view on this issue at this juncture.
