I am grateful for this five minutes of what in some respects is the twilight zone of Dáil Éireann. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley.
Sometimes when the Minister, Deputy Martin, is faced with a difficult question or feels that a member of the Opposition is being disingenuous with the facts, his facial expression takes on a complex and worried look. I am surprised he is not more perplexed looking when he sees the huge opposition to the smoking ban from within his party.
When doing some research in the Oireachtas Library on the debates on this Bill when it came before the Houses last year, I was perplexed to discover that the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002 was presented to the Dáil on 30 July 2001 and that it passed through all Stages in both Houses without a vote. It was enacted into law on 27 March 2002. It came as somewhat of a surprise to me that this legislation which is now so contentious was unanimously passed. I was so surprised I contacted the Department of Health and Children through the office of the Oireachtas Library to confirm this fact. It seems that all Stages of this Bill were passed without a vote being called. This Bill went unopposed through both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Members of the last Dáil mandated the Minister for Health and Children with the task of bringing this legislation into force so he has no choice in the matter. It no longer matters whether I or any other Member of this House agrees or disagrees with the ban on smoking in the workplace. The public representatives have left him with no choice but to implement the Act. All this talk of Ministers and backbenchers opposing the ban is the real smokescreen of this debate. New legislation is required if the majority of Government Deputies are so opposed to this issue. I will not seek new legislation until I see how this legislation works because I believe it is time to give it a chance. That is my political perspective on the issue and the Minister may see things differently.
The economic issues are way beyond my knowledge or capabilities. I am not an economist and I will leave it to them to deduce the exact outcome of this Act and how many jobs will or will not be lost. There are so many figures thrown around this House that it verges on the ridiculous. One area I know something about is the important issue of the medical perspective of this Act. I have seen too much chronic lung disease, too many strokes and too much cancer debilitate many of our population. Sadly, all this is too close to me. The evidence is there for all to see in the morgues and medical departments of the hospitals where the most unfortunate of those afflicted with this terrible addiction are to be found. There are hundreds of tobacco addicts in every general practice. Most of these have some level of disease which requires my attention or that of other doctors, or medication. We are not getting to grips with the real issues. General practice is going into slow meltdown because of decreasing manpower numbers, which is another issue that Dáil Éireann is politely ignoring. I support any measure that will ease the burden on the existing GPs in general practice.
When this measure was first proposed I admit that I had reservations on the issue. I was worried that between liquor laws and smoking bans we were going in the direction of a nanny State. I do not have to worry about that anymore because it is the law and there is no discussion. It is a smokescreen. This law was enacted by Dáil Éireann on 27 March 2002.
The publicity stunt of the chairman of the Western Health Board shedding crocodile tears all over the place and resigning his post on a matter of principle that the Minister refused to discuss the ban on smoking with him would be laughable if it was not so tragic. The Minister should at least have informed him that it was the law already. The lack of orthopaedic, rheumatology and cancer treatment services in the Western Health Board region would be a much more appropriate reason for resignation.
I do not have legal training but there seems to be little scope for not complying with the legislation. There may be some possibility in the case of small family-run pubs which do not have even temporary employees, but not where there are workers employed. Workers do not have the rights that we like to think they have. Their pay is low in many cases.
I await the Minister's reply and perhaps in 12 months' time, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, will tell the House about the progress made.
