Vol. 379 No. 10
I think in the circumstances, where Deputy Molloy may have anticipated that there might be a vote, we will wait for just a moment or two by agreement of the House.
We have to assume now that Deputy Molloy does not intend to appear and I will call on Deputy Howlin.
I rise to welcome the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it because it follows in the tradition of the thrust of previous Ministers for Health in recognising the serious problem of smoking and the threat that it poses to the health of the people of this country and proposes in a very positive and concrete way to address that problem.
However, this very positive act has to be put in the context of the times we live in and I find that I must make reference to the axing of the Health Education Bureau who have done so much in the campaign to educate people to the dangers of smoking. It is a cause of deep regret that that campaign must be adversely affected by the axing of the bureau who have piloted so many imaginative and successful campaigns to highlight the dangers of smoking in very many clever ways and to alert particularly the young before they caught the smoking bug.
The Minister referred to the clear and indisputable evidence that now exists that cigarette smoking causes a tremendous amount of disease in this country and indeed is the single greatest cause of premature death particularly in the area of heart and lung illnesses. It is incumbent on us legislatures to lead in this regard and not wait for public clamour. We in this House have often been accused of responding to the public rather than leading the public. The body of evidence in relation to smoking is now so overwhelming that I believe we would be criminally negligent if we did not act in the way proposed in this legislation. One of the Minister's predecessors, my colleague, Deputy Barry Desmond, had a very courageous line in relation to the tobacco industry and his initiatives caused the banning of the advertising of cigarettes around every corner store and shop in our country. These advertisements obviously make a very homely and folksy impact on people who were shopping for groceries, sweets, milk, bread or whatever they were looking for. They were attacked by the notion that smoking is a positive thing, that it is an acceptable occupation and that it should be encouraged. The Minister's predecessor outlawed that particular activity.
The next step is to take the measures that are included in this legislation. Many of those hoardings and advertisements, some of which still exist in magazines, convey an image of smoking as an outdoor, rugged activity, and somehow almost a healthy activity itself. One sees the outdoor type on horseback smoking. It is very important for us to recognise the irony that in fact so many people have been deprived of the enjoyment of the great outdoors by destroying their lungs through smoking.
The Minister said this was enabling legislation. Section 2 lists all the possible prohibitions and restrictions with regard to the consumption of tobacco that will be available to him by statutory order following the passing of this legislation. The list is quite comprehensive. I hope the Minister, in replying to this debate, will outline and signal to us clearly what his intentions are in this regard and where specifically he intends to make restrictions and to what extent because obviously we are all subject to the clamour of the convinced smoker who will want some space. Our process of eliminating smoking must be a gradual one and must not cause undue fear among smokers that their liberties will be immediately trampled upon.
The Minister referred to the practices in other countries and the sort of restrictions that exist. I would certainly welcome the Minister's thinking in this regard as to where he wishes to impose restrictions. We have reached the stage now where people are entitled to go to a public place, to a cinema or elsewhere or to enjoy a meal in a restaurant and not face the hazard of smoking. If people make for themselves the choice that they will not smoke, that they will protect their own wellbeing by not smoking, they should not be assaulted in a public place by smoke. Before this legislation is enacted it is important that the Minister's intentions in this regard are known.
Some of the sections in a Bill published last year in my own name, the Children (Care and Protection) Bill, and which were reflected in the earlier Tobacco (Health Protection) Bill, 1986 — published in the Seanad in the names of Senators Dooge and Ferris — are reechoed in the legislation before the House tonight.
This is very important legislation. In accordance with all current medical opinion I believe that this legislation will enjoy not only very broad support in this House but, more importantly, very broad support throughout the country. You can pass any legislation you wish, particularly in an area such as this, but if you do not have the enthusiasm of the people this type of legislation becomes inoperable. In tandem with the legislative framework we must have support and that can only happen if we re-enforce, through whatever channels are open to us, the damage that smoking causes to people. It is a cause of regret that the Health Education Bureau is no longer available to do that and that another organisation — which is less effective — within the Department of Health will be charged with that task.
The concept of passive smoking whereby during the past 20 or 30 years people who did not smoke were subject to the assault of smoking is no longer acceptable. People who tolerated that activity in the past are no longer content to accept a situation where they must, in a public place, in a restaurant or on public transport, endure smoke which they know and are convinced is damaging themselves. That is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of non-smokers and that is recognised in the legislation.
I welcome in particular the measures to protect children from the effects of smoking. I mentioned previously the Children (Care and Protection) Bill, published by the Labour Party last year in my name. I welcome sections 3 and 4 of the current Bill that reflect the same thoughts as were reflected in the previous legislation.
In relation to vending machines it is important that they be supervised. In many places a machine is put on the wall and no regard is had to the fact that cigarettes are available to anybody who can put in the correct coins; the machine simply doles out the cigarettes to them. It is important that a responsibility is placed on owners to be mindful of the dangers that those machines can place in the way of children.
Section 4 is designed to restrict access to cigarettes so far as children are concerned and that is welcome. The notion that you can sell individual cigarettes to children is something I have always rejected. Unfortunately, it is a practice that has gone on in many corner shops in the vicinity of schools, where children, at break time, are able to run across the road and buy a cigarette for whatever number of pence was charged, so children were introduced at a very early and sensitive age to smoking. One measure, one step, in eliminating that practice is in requiring that at a minimum only packets of ten could be sold over the counter. Having read this section I am inclined to share the fears expressed by the Fine Gael spokesperson that the words are allembracing, that a person who sells, offers to sell or makes available cigarettes to a person, otherwise than in packets of ten, is liable to a penalty. Other people would be fearful that simply offering a cigarette — as is common practice, perhaps it is something we should outlaw — would not be an offence. Perhaps we could tighten up that section with a clearer form of words.
The tobacco industry is a very important lobby. My colleague, Deputy Desmond, experienced something of the strength of the tobacco industry in recent years. We must acknowledge the role of the tobacco industry in seeking to diversify away from the manufacture and distribution of cigarettes into other areas of activity. It is important that we recognise the very significant employment that is given in the tobacco industry. Obviously, we must put the health of the people of this country in a paramount position. Nobody in this House would dispute that. In our efforts to arrive at a situation where we have no smoking we must assist the tobacco industry in diversification and in finding alternative forms of livelihood for the many people who are engaged in the manufacture and sale of tobacco products and to allow them to ease themselves into other less socially destructive forms of activity. That has not been addressed.
I hope that the Minister in his response will indicate the approach he intends to adopt because if we are to solve the problem of cigarette addiction, and the damage caused by cigarette smoking, it can only be done in tandem with the tobacco industry and not by setting the Department of Health, or this House, or the health caring agencies on an adversarial course with the tobacco industry or those who work for any of the manufacturers of cigarettes in Ireland.
On another section which I propose to address, representations have been received by many of us in relation to section 6 of the Bill. Section 6 is a comprehensive section which I assume addresses in the main the problem of Skoal Bandits. Deputy Desmond, as Minister for Health, attempted to use the Health Act, 1947, to outlaw Skoal Bandits and subsequently that was found by the High Court to be ultra vires. The damage caused by this product — Skoal Bandits — is something that must be put on the record of the House. The welcome from the medical profession not only in this country, but abroad as well, to that attempt should be noted. I know that in the British Dental Journal issue of 7 June 1986 they applauded the efforts of the Irish Government and I quote:
Happily, the Irish Government has adopted a more enlightened attitude: in December 1985, it banned the Skoal Bandit from sale or distribution. Said the Health Minister: `It is a particular habit that we are determined should not take on in Irish society.'
Later in the same leader article it is stated:
Thus a high health-education profile, as well as constant pressure on opinion makers and parliamentarians, must be maintained by each one of us until the Irish lead is followed and a total `Bandit' ban achieved.
This was the exhortation to British parliamentarians to follow the example of the then Minister for Health, Deputy Desmond, in seeking to outlaw the Skoal Bandits from sale in this country.
In an article in The Sunday World of 12 January 1986, Professor Risteard Mulcahy, who was in charge of the coronary unit in St. Vincent's Hospital, attacked the measure as not going far enough. He said:
While I approve of what Mr. Desmond is doing, I am surprised he is not going the whole hog and banning all cigarette advertising and sponsorship.
He went on to outline the damage that cigarette smoking and surrogate use of alternatives to cigarette smoking do to the health and well-being of our people. All that is accepted and I can quote from various medical journals on the damage to health. For instance, the Lancet outlines in great detail the damage done by oral snuff which they describe as a preventable carcinogenic hazard and all the damage done by the growing number of tobacco substitutes which are coming on sale here. For that reason, I welcome section 6 but, at the same time, I ask the Minister to alleviate the fears of some who engage in a rare enough habit, that of tobacco chewing. It is not a very prevelent habit and is engaged in, for the most part, by senior members of society. It would be difficult for us to convince these at this stage that the activity which they have carried on all their adult lives should suddenly be banned. I hope the Minister will allay their fears. I understand that most of the tobacco chewed is not actually chewing tobacco but rather pipe tobacco which would not be affected by this section.
I want to refer also to the role of education, which is extremely important in this whole issue. If we are going to prevent damage being done by cigarette smoking, the most important way is to educate people on the dangers. This is particularly true about educating the young. We must inform and condition them because there is so much money spent on conditioning them to smoke. With young people image is so important. Smoking has been linked in films, advertisements and magazine articles with adulthood. To smoke is to be mature, to be an adult. We have a very sophisticated young people now. The need for an education campaign is there, but it must be a clever and imaginative one and well funded. These measures are very welcome but in tandem with them must be a clever, well thought out, well funded educational programme that will reach young people, not patronise them but advise them in a very clear and cogent way of the dangers to their health. Young people now have the image of the outdoors, of activities and a very effective campaign could be devised if sufficient resources were made available. This would be a very cost efficient method.
The Minister indicated to the House the damage done, not only healthwise which obviously is the most important, but the economic damage done to our country by cigarette smoking. It is a horrific fact that there are 16,000 deaths each year from smoking-related illnesses in this country and that 5,000 of these deaths, according to the Minister, are directly related to smoking. From an economic perspective, it would be very interesting to do an exact analysis of the cost of cigarette smoking. It would be a difficult figure to arrive at, but a very interesting and, I suspect, very alarming one. The Minister indicates that the hospital costs alone due to cigarette smoking exceed £50 million a year. If one adds the cost of the GMS, of disability benefits and, more particularly — a very difficult concept to define — the man hours lost to industry through cigarette smoking a very significant figure would result. That would underline very clearly that any education programme that costs money would be money well spent.
The Labour Party unreservedly welcome this measure. I hope the specific points I raised in relation to ambiguities in the Bill will be clarified. The Minister will have enthusiastic support from the Labour Party in putting into place this legislation which will have a significant impact on improving the quality of life of our people.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have been a non-smoker all my life — the first time I took a cigarette was when I was five years old and that was the end of it. I have not smoked one ever since. The major impact of this Bill is towards non-smokers, with regard to passive smoking. I go along with everything that every Deputy has said here in relation to the Bill. I appreciate that the figures speak for themselves. There have been so many deaths and cancer-related illnesses and smoking-related illnesses here and we should know by now that smoking, quite apart from being anti-social, has a major effect on the health of this nation. We should all advocate as much as possible that smoking should cease. Somewhere in the region of twothirds of our population are now not smoking, which is an indication. Many years ago nearly all the adult population were smoking. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that cigarettes are so dear now but, by and large, people accept that smoking does damage health.
I congratulate the previous administrations down the years for bringing in various measures exhorting people not to smoke — the warning on cigarette packages and the ban on advertising. These have had a major effect on the increase in people not smoking and should be welcomed.
I have a number of reservations in relation to the Bill which I should like to put on the record of this House. During the abortion referendum campaign we had much talk about the right to chose. Adults should have the right to chose whether to smoke or not in any area, but people who are non-smokers surely also have a right to a smoke-free atmosphere if they do so wish. Many of us non-smokers who go into cinemas, public houses and other public places are often taken aback and some have to leave such premises because of the smoke-laden air. This is the case in public houses. There must be a balance between the two sides, the right of an adult to choose whether to smoke and that of a non-smoker to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere.
As I have said before, I am not so sure that legislation is the area where we should be putting an onus on people not to smoke. To a certain extent, legislation of this type may intrude far into people's lives and, in effect, make criminals of ordinary people. This is a query that I have in relation to this Bill. We often hear that a number of Bills have been passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas but that the resources to police the regulations laid down in these Bills have not been made available. I just wonder will there be an opportunity to properly police this whole aspect? I am interested in what the Minister had to say, that with little or no enforcement an environment has been created over-night on the DART and the Dublin buses in relation to non-smoking and he went on to say that, more importantly, this has been accepted by the smoker. This is why I mention these reservations. I am not so sure that legislation is the right way to exhort people not to smoke in public places. However, I bow to the Minister's better knowledge.
I know the Minister is a medical doctor and has the full back-up and all the knowledge and the facts and figures put before him by his Department. I noticed recently in England that a report came out, called the Fogget Report. This report was not mentioned here this evening, but it proved beyond all doubt that passive smoking was a danger to people who are non-smokers. I noticed on a television programme that when Edwina Currie who is the Minister responsible in this area in England was pressed as to whether her government would take action in relation to this report she said "no" because they felt that legislation was not the correct way to do this and that exhorting people not to smoke was a better way.
I come from Dundalk where one of our major industries is tobacco-oriented. This industry is one of the few remaining industries in Dundalk, a town which was the pride of the Twenty-six Counties where we had so many people employed over the last decade. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. This legislation may be counterproductive in that jobs may be lost as a result. The firm in Dundalk are well aware of the problems in the tobacco industry and they realise that more and more people will not smoke in the future. They have diversified and they know that ultimately the tobacco industry will not be as lucrative as it was heretofore. Quite recently 140 people were asked to take redundancy from this firm. I just wonder will this legislation lead to more people having to leave this industry? That would have a devastating effect on Dundalk. I have had discussions with the firm and they understand that the anti-social aspect of smoking will lead ultimately to the majority of the population not smoking.
I referred earlier to the fact that we would make criminals of ordinary people. This is something we should carefully consider. How will this affect someone aged 60 who has smoked in public houses all his life when he is told he is breaking the law and when he has to come before a district justice to be prosecuted for breaking the law? The Minister said earlier that there should be a ban on smoking in maternity wards. I broadly agree with that but some ladies in maternity wards probably need a cigarette. I do not understand why but that is the point they make.
Deputy Howlin referred to section 4 and to the fact that the phraseology here is very loose. I agree with him. If I as a smoker offer a cigarette to someone else it might come under that section. The Minister should have another look at that section to see if he can tighten it up. I can see what the Minister is getting at in suggesting that the sale of cigarettes in lots under ten should be banned but the section says "or make available cigarettes in packets other than ten". That should be reconsidered.
There are a number of good points in the Bill such as the ban on the sale of cigarettes to those under 16. In the Intoxicating Liquor Bill earlier on we discussed banning the sale of alcohol to young people. I accept that there is a problem with under-age smoking. At one stage young people thought they were great if they smoked but now there is a realisation, even among young people, that it damages their health. The provision in relation to cigarette machines is something that will be very difficult to police. I appreciate that other countries have introduced legislation in this regard and that some countries have banned cigarette machines. In a crowded public house a publican would be hard pressed to police the operation of cigarette machines.
There are a number of other points which I will make on the Bill on Committee Stage but by and large I welcome the idea of the Bill. I have a number of reservations, one being that I am not sure that legislation is the best way to exhort people not to smoke. I am also worried that it will have quite an effect on my own home town in that it may mean some loss of jobs in later years.
Because I come from Dundalk, the home of P.J. Carroll, the pioneers of the cigarette industry in this country, an industry and a company which has given tremendous employment to generations of Dundalk families, the charge can be levelled at me that my views on the cigarette industry are suspect, but they are not. I recognise the potential dangers to young people who start to smoke and for that reason I accept the principle of this Bill. My dilemma relates to the right to choose and irrespective of where P.J. Carroll were located I would still hold to the belief that the right to choose is paramount.
From time to time the media tell us about the various hazards to our health. We are told that over-eating is dangerous and that over-drinking is dangerous. We are even told that jogging is dangerous, that too much sex is possibly dangerous as well as too little of it and that it can cause heart attacks in middle-aged men. Even crossing the road is a hazard. In any democratic society the right to choose should be of paramount importance.
It has been fashionable in recent years to attack the cigarette industry. There is a lot of hysteria associated with the antismoking lobby. The cigarette industry has been persecuted in recent years by successive Governments. It has been charged tax at double the rate of inflation in every budget that has been produced in recent years. It is a vulnerable industry and the industry is aware of its own vulnerability. The bells are probably now tolling for it and possibly in years to come some Government will ban it and that I would regret as it would be an intrusion on the right to choose.
I am aware of the Minister's input into this Bill and I am conscious of the fact that 100 people die per week from smoking-related illnesses. That is a statistic which cannot be dismissed lightly but I believe that more people die from the abuse of alcohol which can have many adverse effects on a family. How many alcoholics leave their wives and families without any money to buy food? Statistics released last week indicates that there are 175,000 alcoholics in this country and this is very disturbing but because of the level of tolerance towards the drink industry it is pushed aside. The cigarette industry has been unfairly singled out. Deputy Ahern rightly pointed out the amount of employment which the cigarette industry has provided in Dundalk over the years and while this cannot justify the existence of an industry over which there is a question mark it is also a matter of deep consideration for Deputy Ahern, the Minister of State, Deputy Kirk, and myself.
The cigarette industry has proved itself to be a responsible industry and it is deeply concerned about the hazards which it fully admits exist. Much research is needed into the cigarette industry and into the problems associated with it and I believe the cigarette companies should work in conjunction with the Department of Health in researching an industry which undoubtedly has a question mark hanging over it. I think the cigarette companies should diversify into other areas. P.J. Carroll and Company have already diversified into pharmaceuticals and are pioneering the fish industry in the west. They have been wise to do so. I would encourage them to continue to diversify into other areas because they cannot rely on any Government to maintain the high levels of employment in the industry.
I would like to stress that the right of adults to choose should always be upheld in a democracy and I pour scorn on the ban on those under 16 from smoking. That is the equivalent to an Enid Blyton fairytale. Does anyone really believe that a kid under 16 years of age who wants to smoke will be prevented from doing so? We allow them to have condoms at 16, so why not cigarettes?
At 18.
We allow people to go into a public house at any age. Therefore, children are at risk from many other aspects of Irish society. I think the cigarette industry has been unfairly treated by Governments during the years who have taken a large slice of their proceeds. I ask that no more pressure be put on the cigarette industry until positive proof is forthcoming that smoke-related illnesses do kill as many as is claimed.
I hope the Minister and other Members of the House will pay heed to the words of warning which the Deputy has sounded in respect of certain practices and activities and that we all live to be 100.
First of all, I would like to thank Deputies Howlin, Flaherty, Molloy, Ahern and McGahon for their constructive contributions on the Bill before the House and I would now like to deal with some of the points they raised. Deputy Flaherty referred to the Government's approach to health education and to taxation on tobacco products. As regards taxation on tobacco products, it has always been made clear at budget time, particularly during the last budget debate by the Taoiseach, that health considerations form part of the reason why taxation continues to be placed on tobacco products and this no doubt will continue to be the case.
As regards health education, both Deputy Flaherty and Deputy Howlin referred to the fact that the functions of the Health Education Bureau have been transferred to the Department of Health and they expressed concern that this might prove detrimental for those promoting education on the effects of tobacco products, particularly in schools. I can assure the Deputies that this will not be the case. I am quite satisfied that the new health promotion unit will be an improvement on the Health Education Bureau. First of all, the health promotion unit now has a full complement of staff and I am satisfied it contains sufficient staff to carry out its work. What is also very important is that the unit is multi-sectoral whereas the remit of the Health Education Bureau was very narrow.
Apart from the unit itself we also have a committee of Ministers which is chaired by myself and which includes the Ministers for Education, the Environment, Energy, Agriculture and Food and for Labour. In the context of the Bill we are discussing the importance of having the Minister for Education involved cannot be overstated particularly in terms of educating young people on the dangers of cigarette smoking and I am sure the Deputies who are present in the House would agree with me that ideally health education should be part of the normal curriculum in schools. Health education should not be the sole responsibility of the Department of Health and it should be part of the functions of the Department of Education to ensure that a health education programme is available to children in schools. One of the reasons I was anxious to transfer the functions of the Health Education Bureau to my Department, to have a committee of Ministers and to have an advisory council or health promotion, which is chaired by the President of the Royal College of Physicians—
We could have all those as well as the Health Education Bureau.
What is very important in my view is that health education and promotion and the prevention of illness must be seen in a positive way as part of the Government's function. For far too long the Department of Health have only provided services for those who are ill. What we have to do now is to change the thrust so that not just the Department of Health but the Government will be seen to be taking a positive approach towards creating a healthy environment for people to live in. I am satisfied that the health promotion unit will do that.
As I have said, the new unit is now fully staffed and operational. We will be launching three major campaigns in the next few weeks. Tomorrow I will be launching the European Information Week Against Cancer. This programme was developed by the new unit in conjunction with the Irish Cancer Society and the EC. In mid-May the unit will be launching a major drug abuse campaign and towards the end of May they will be launching a food hygiene awareness week. Deputies in this House and the public will see that the unit is performing a very useful function, a more comprehensive role than that carried out by the Health Education Bureau. The Advisory Council on Health Promotion has been constituted and has met on a number of occasions. They have agreed a comprehensive work programme aimed at a multi-sectoral approach to health. As I have said, a Cabinet sub-committee has been set up which I chair.
One of the priorities of the new unit is education about the adverse effects of tobacco consumption. I respect the work that was carried out in this area by the Health Education Bureau. There has been a significant decline, a decline of 11 per cent, in the level of cigarette smoking between 1974 and 1984 and I believe that the Health Education Bureau made a valuable contribution to that decline. I am concerned about the level of smoking among young females which has been referred to by a number of Deputies. Obviously this is one of the areas that I will be addressing with my colleague, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, Minister for Education, through the new health promotion structure.
Deputy Flaherty was concerned that the provisions of section 3 appear to be too woolly. We can certainly look at this matter on Committee Stage. Section 3 appears to me to be quite clear. It refers to the sale of tobacco products. Obviously somebody offering a cigarette from a packet would not infringe on the legislation but, as I have said, we can look at the matter on Committee Stage.
In relation to vending machines there were three main considerations open to us — we could do nothing, we could ban the sale of cigarettes from vending machines or we could provide a system of control. Having given full consideration to the matter I decided on the system of control which would be backed by a system of enforcement by the environmental health officers of the health boards. The consequence of the section will be the location of vending machines and the supervision of their use by the owner or the person in charge of the machine.
Deputy Molloy, Deputy Ahern and Deputy McGahon expressed concern at the effect of this legislation on people working in the tobacco industry and indeed we would all share that concern because none of us likes to see people losing their jobs as a result of any measure we might introduce. However, it is important to recognise that the tobacco companies have been aware for a long time that there has been and will continue to be a decline in the number of people smoking. They have gone to great lengths to diversify, as Deputy McGahon pointed out in regard to Carroll Industries in Dundalk, and have diversified the tobacco industry around the world because they know that the sale of tobacco products, particularly in developed countries, is in decline.
What about the other hazards I mentioned?
It is important to recognise that it is not only the fact that people are becoming more aware of the hazards of tobacco smoking that is contributing to a decline in the workforce. The cigarette industry is becoming a very automated industry and obviously that has created a large reduction in the number of people working in the industry. It is not just public health policy relative to tobacco that is the sole determinant of employment levels in the industry. I have no doubt that legislation such as this will encourage further diversification of the industry. It is ten years since the first legislation in this area was introduced by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Health. This legislation is a logical sequence to the 1978 Act. As I have said, the industry has been fully aware of the trend for years and has had time to diversify.
Deputy Flaherty and Deputy Howlin asked about my intention under section 2 of the Bill. This section gives me the power either to prohibit or restrict smoking in areas to be designated under regulation. In the memorandum to the Bill we pointed out the public places, such as aeroplanes, trains, buses, cinemas and public buildings, where we would be initally considering prohibiting or restricting cigarette smoking. I compliment CIE and now Dublin Bus on their voluntary introduction of the ban on cigarette smoking on the DART and also on Dublin Bus which is particularly successful. It was introduced in response to surveys carried out that showed that approximately two-thirds of the people in the State want "no smoking" areas.
I have referred to the point made by Deputy Flaherty and Deputy Howlin about the making available of tobacco products and their relation to the sale of any other product. As I have pointed out, it does not apply to situations where, for instance, cigarettes would be offered to a person under 16 years of age in the home. Deputy Ahern and Deputy McGahon made the point about the right of the individual to choose whether he wishes to smoke. Again, the evidence is that the majority of people in the State want "no smoking" areas. One could make the point that they also have the right to choose and to have a smoke-free environment.
The Minister might like to clarify section 6.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the intent of section 3. Under the Children Act, 1908, it was an offence merely to have tobacco products in one's possession if aged under 16 years. Section 3 is designed to limit access of young people to tobacco products and makes it an offence to sell tobacco products to a child under 16 years of age.
Deputy McGahon referred to the need for more research. It is fair to say that there is no other health issue that has been researched so deeply and on which there has been agreement by the health profession as the relationship between tobacco consumption and disease, such as cancer and heart disease. Extensive research has been conducted over 30 years on all aspects of smoking on health. This is both conclusive and damning. The World Health Organisation have declared that in developed countries tobacco smoking is the greatest single cause of ill health. There is no controversy on this issue. It is not possible to refute the evidence with any degree of credibility.
Deputy Howlin referred to section 6 which prohibits the importation, manufacture or retailing of oral smokeless tobacco products. Any person who contravenes the regulation under this section will be guilty of an offence. The section defines the term "oral smokeless tobacco" as being a product made wholly or partly of tobacco and which is placed in the mouth unlit and left there for a period of time and sucked or chewed. The Skoal Bandits, to which Deputy Howlin referred, are included in this section. They are like a teabag with tobacco and are sucked and have been shown to be hazardous to health. Not alone in this country but recently in the United Kingdom it was decided that they should be banned under their consumer protection legislation. Section 6 is drafted to take account of all forms of oral smokeless tobacco which are now being promoted internationally as an alternative way of consuming tobacco.
I thank all Deputies who contributed and made very constructive contributions. I look forward to the Committee Stage when we will examine the legislation in detail and hopefully will produce legislation which will be a credit to the Members of this House.
When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?
Next Wednesday, with the agreement of the Whips.
