Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Nov 2003

Vol. 573 No. 5

Tobacco Regulations: Statements.

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin)

I am glad to have the opportunity to state the Government's position on the tobacco smoking prohibition regulations of 2003. The adverse impact of tobacco consumption on human health is well documented. Tobacco smoke is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in Ireland. Medical evidence has repeatedly confirmed tobacco as a cause of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, as well as common cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic attacks, low birth weight babies and sudden infant death syndrome.

Inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke by non-smokers, commonly referred to as passive smoking, also poses a substantial health risk, particularly in confined spaces including bars, restaurants, clubs and other workplaces. There is an international scientific consensus that second-hand smoke can kill and cause disease. The World Health Organisation has designated tobacco smoke as a carcinogen. Given the overwhelming medical evidence of the harm caused by tobacco smoke, strict regulation of tobacco products and their use is necessary to reduce the enormous burden of disease and death resulting from tobacco consumption through active and passive smoking. Environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers. This has not been stressed as much as the cancer issue in the debate. Damage to the circulatory system and the heart are very significant, but there is also an increased risk of respiratory illnesses affecting asthmatics, those with emphysema, pregnant women and other groups.

On 30 January 2003 at the launch of the report of the Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace, commissioned jointly by the Health and Safety Authority and the Office of Tobacco Control, I announced a prohibition on smoking in all places of work, including licensed premises, with effect from January 2004. Smoke-free workplaces will mean a major cultural change for people throughout the country. I announced the measure almost a full year in advance to give employers, employees and the public the time needed to adjust. Given what we now know about the harmful nature of tobacco smoke, I have no choice other than to take the necessary measures to provide protection for workers from second-hand smoke. The reality is quite stark; one does not have to be a smoker to be made ill by tobacco products.

The primary purpose of the prohibition is to protect the health and safety of workers and the public from toxic environmental tobacco smoke. I published draft regulations in April 2003 and notified these to the EU Commission in accordance with the transparency directive. Completion of the three month notification period ended in July 2003. I signed the regulations on 16 October 2003, confirming 26 January 2004 as the operative date for the prohibition on smoking in the workplace. These regulations were made under section 47 of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002.

It was stated this morning that there was no room for a vote on the issue concerning section 47, but we should recall that there was. There were even amendments made to the section, although we did not feel they were necessary at the time because there was a clause that used the phrase, "all or part of any other premises or place". Spokespersons in the House, particularly the Opposition, were particularly strong on this issue, especially Deputy Gay Mitchell. He stated with conviction that he specifically wanted to include in the legislation the phrase, "licensed premises and registered clubs". This received some media attention at the time and we agreed to do it. I tabled an amendment to the principal Act to make sure there would be no doubt that this would apply to pubs and licensed premises. This was voted on unanimously by the House. It is important to point out that there was debate on environmental tobacco smoke when the Bill was being considered in the House. I heard certain interest groups comment that this measure went through on the nod and that, in passing it, Deputies did not realise it would enable the Minister to prohibit environmental tobacco smoke in pubs by regulation at a future date.

Ms O. Mitchell

In fairness to Deputies from other parties, they were referring to Fianna Fáil Party Deputies.

Mr. Martin

They meant Members from across the House. The measure requires me to do nothing more than lay the relevant regulations before the House. Following a widespread public debate on the matter, I welcome this debate on the issue in the Chamber.

There is widespread support for this measure and I appreciate the consistent support given by all sides of the House for effective tobacco control measures. I also acknowledge the formidable work undertaken by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, chaired my colleague, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. A sub-committee of the joint committee issued two reports on health and smoking, recommending prohibitions on smoking in the workplace and licensed premises. The first, chaired by the former Deputy, Alan Shatter, was unequivocal in its recommendations to the Minister at the time, while the second, chaired by Deputy Gay Mitchell and in which Deputy Gormley was also involved, gave me as Minister and the Department an equally unequivocal message that we should take the prohibition route.

I have been heartened by the cross-party support for the measure, which should not be underestimated in the context of the lobby which opposes it. The strong and cohesive position taken by the Oireachtas on this matter has been an important factor in winning the political debate and bringing public opinion with us on an important public health measure.

Surveys carried out since the announcement of the measure have consistently shown support for this important public health initiative. A recent survey commissioned by the Office of Tobacco Control showed that more than 80% of people believed that those involved in the licensed trade should comply fully with the new measure. We must not forget that most people do not smoke and most who do regret starting and want to give up. Surveys also show that many smokers – the figure in the most recent poll was, I believe, 61% – welcome the prohibition despite smoking themselves.

Information campaigns to assist employers, employees and the public in preparation for the new health protection measure will be carried out in advance of January 2004. A national implementation group has been established to co-ordinate guidance and oversee the issuing of guidelines for groups in the various sectors, including the hospitality sector.

I pay tribute to the officials from the Office of Tobacco Control and the Health and Safety Authority for their active engagement with officials from my Department in seeking to ensure a consistent approach in the introduction of the new measure and its subsequent enforcement. As the Office of Tobacco Control and the Health and Safety Authority jointly commissioned the original expert report, the measure is viewed as a twin-track, joint approach by these agencies aimed at ensuring we bed it down in every way possible. We appreciate the advice and support of the Health and Safety Authority. With its considerable experience in health and safety issues in the workplace, it has particular expertise to bring to the table.

I have made it clear in public statements that the prohibition on smoking will apply to enclosed places of work. To further confirm this I have notified an amendment to the regulations to the European Commission clarifying this. When announcing the publication of the new regulations on 23 October, I stated I would also introduce an appropriate measure to deal with the unique position in prisons and an amendment to this effect has also been notified to the European Commission following consultation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The regulations do not apply to dwellings. Some queries have been raised with regard to the types of premises covered by the term "dwelling" and the advice of the Attorney General has been sought to clarify this matter.

Tobacco imposes a significant burden on individuals, families and society through death, illness and medical costs. Even a modest reduction in the considerable burden of disease caused by tobacco will result in significant health gains. The real beneficiaries of the measures we are taking will be the future generations who will live, work and socialise in a tobacco free environment. Members of the Oireachtas can be proud of their role in having secured that achievement.

Ms O. Mitchell

I thank the Minister for finally giving the House an opportunity to discuss this matter. I was trying to think of another issue which in my lifetime received as much comprehensive coverage and analysis, sometimes to the point of inanity, as the prohibition on smoking in the workplace. The only issue which came to mind that received such coverage was the assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. Martin

Pardon me?

Ms O. Mitchell

The smoking ban received almost as much coverage as the assassination of President Kennedy. I have to hand it to the Fianna Fáil Party that as an exercise in distracting and diverting the public's attention from the real problems in the health service, its performance throughout the summer was masterly. It was quintessential Fianna Fáil.

Cecilia Keaveney

The prohibition and the health service are one and the same issue.

Ms O. Mitchell

I do not understand the reason the Minister's colleague in the Progressive Democrats Party is so upset by my remark.

Mr. T. O'Malley

The Deputy knows it is not true.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is true and it showed the Fianna Fáil Party doing what it does best, namely, garnering support on both sides of every argument, while at the same time giving its backbench Deputies an opportunity to make a little run during the silly season.

As the Minister is aware, the Fine Gael Party completely supports the ban. I also support it, not I hope with the zeal of a reformed smoker but because I and my party recognise that the evidence regarding the effects of environmental tobacco smoke is incontrovertible and the arguments cannot be answered. We have no choice but to proceed with the ban. Smoking not only damages the health of the smoker but also that of others, which is the reason it is a public health issue. Now that the evidence is available, the Minister, all employees, publicans and the hotel industry, or anybody who facilitates smoking on their premises, is liable to prosecution, which in today's society is increasingly likely.

As a former smoker I am conscious that this measure will be difficult for smokers. It will be particularly difficult not so much in pubs, but for those who in their everyday working lives do not have the flexibility to leave their desks when they feel a need to go outside for a cigarette. In the early days, as people try to adjust to the ban, I hope employers will show reasonable understanding that smoking is an addiction.

I am less sympathetic to smokers on the issue of the ban in pubs. No one is compelled to sit in a pub and people generally spend two or three hours rather than an entire day in a pub. Having said that, I do not underestimate the impact the ban will have on people's social life. While it may in the early stages also affect the profitability of publicans, I am convinced this will be temporary and normal patterns of socialising will be quickly re-established. Although I would not use the same terminology as the Taoiseach to describe people who have not frequented pubs in recent years, perhaps because they are asthmatic, perhaps they will consider socialising in a pub once the ban takes effect.

We have not heard a murmur of complaint from the majority of employers. Although we have heard the hospitality industry complain, we would have heard much less from it if the Fianna Fáil Party had not decided to make the industry's cause its summer project. The support the licensed vintners were garnering, not only from backbench Government Deputies but also from Ministers, gave them false hope that they would be able to change public policy and did a grave disservice to the industry. While Members knew this was a carefully choreographed performance to distract from the health service, the licensed vintners did not and genuinely believed they would be able to change public policy. Believing they had always been friends of the Fianna Fáil Party, they expected the party to ride to their rescue. They are now learning the hard lesson taxi drivers learnt, that when it comes to political expediency the party's interests will supersede those of any group.

During the summer the campaign being waged by backbenchers was shown by one opinion poll to be changing public opinion. It was a serious instance of toying with public opinion. The support they were giving to the licensed vintners suggested that this was a bad policy, that they did not support it and that it would be changed. The public believed it and the licensed vintners were threatening civil disobedience. They were genuinely convinced that they had won the campaign. I am glad good sense has reasserted itself among the public, with the latest opinion polls showing more than 80% support for the ban.

The Minister might not have been aware of one ploy used by backbenchers, which was to blame me. A number of publicans and representatives of the licensed vintners told me that the Minister really wanted to do a u-turn but was afraid to do so because I would criticise him publicly. He did not realise that the backbenchers were saying this to the licensed vintners. I do not know if my colleague, Deputy McManus, had the same experience. The inference was that the Minister was anxious to withdraw the ban and would find some formula to do so and save face, if only I would promise to keep quiet about it. That was an utterly improbable proposition but it gives one an idea of the nonsense that took place during the summer.

The vast majority of publicans agree with the ban. In their hearts they know that it is time for it. However, they have concerns about the legislation and the regulations. I have mentioned the concern about enforcement. I do not believe enforcement of the ban in pubs will be the big issue it was claimed to be during the summer. Most will obey the law and there will be a certain amount of peer pressure to do so. When somebody lights up a cigarette in the pub, their friends will object to it, as they already do. In some cases, people even refuse to go out with smokers.

Nevertheless, publicans will have some problems with enforcement, first because there is drink involved and second because employers have some leverage with their employees while publicans feel they have less leverage with those who are their customers. The legitimate gripe of publicans is that if they fail to enforce the law, they will be culpable. That is a new departure from established practice. If the smoker will not stop smoking, the publican will be fined. That is bizarre and defies all logic. It is contrary to the protocol in criminal legislation to link the offence to the perpetrator. In this case, the legislation transfers culpability for the offence from the smoker to the person unfortunate enough to own or manage the premises in which the offence takes place. This goes against all established practice and is unfair.

There should be clarity about the obligations of the publican and they must be reasonable. The legislation should be changed to articulate what the publican must do. It would be reasonable to provide that the publican should be able to ask a smoker who lights up to stop smoking and then refuse to serve the person and his or her companions drink. However, to ask the publican physically to stop someone smoking is going too far. Environmental health officers have said they will be reasonable about this but that is not good enough. It will be a constant source of contention if it is left in the legislation. The publican's responsibility for enforcing the ban must be clarified and limited to what is reasonable. If the Minister does not intend to change the legislation, will he at least give a commitment that he will review it in six months to see how it is working?

Many hares have been raised by the media since the regulations were published but they did not amount to much. One matter, however, has been raised previously and should be raised again. It is the situation where the workplace is also a home. I am glad the Minister has clearly ruled out the domestic dwelling. Trying to enforce a ban in that case would be not only almost impossible but also ridiculous. The next step would be the introduction of thought police. It is nonsense to think somebody should monitor whether a person is smoking while they have a person employed to clean the windows. We should not even go there.

There are situations, however, where people are in care in public or private institutions such as hospitals, hostels, nursing homes, homes for the handicapped and so forth. People living in such circumstances should have, where possible, the same freedoms as the rest of us. The prisons are a separate case. It is ironic that prisoners will be looked after but those who are vulnerable and need our protection are not. Some concession must be made for them in this respect. I accept that workers in these places have to be protected but the institutions, perhaps on an individual basis, should be able to negotiate some arrangement with environmental health inspectors whereby people will be permitted to smoke on the premises.

The proposed arrangement is not fair. It is also unsafe. In institutions such as St. Vincent's Hospital where there are terminally ill cancer patients, psychiatric patients and addicts, there is a genuine fear that there will be attempts to evade the ban and that these will present a fire hazard. That is a legitimate concern for those running the institutions. They fear there will be attempts to smoke, even under the bed clothes in some cases. We must accept that in some care settings this will be a problem and that we will have to be flexible. A reasonable accommodation should be reached.

I support the regulations and the legislation. They will reduce not just the damage caused by passive smoking but also change the culture and attitude to smoking. Many young people have started to smoke in the social setting of the pub. If it is no longer possible to smoke there, fewer people will take up smoking. I congratulate the Minister on overcoming whatever real or apparent objections were raised by Government backbenchers.

Ms McManus

The Labour Party supports the Minister in introducing this ban on smoking in the workplace. We have been consistent in our support. I regret that the House will not vote today on the regulations. It would have been important to have a vote if for no other reason than to draw a line under the events of recent months and clarify that the House supports the regulations and the implementation of the ban. It is regrettable and a signal of something within the Government that there is to be no vote today.

The Minister has generously and correctly acknowledged the support of the Opposition in the House but he should also be aware of the support he received from us outside it. Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to this when talking about what had happened during the summer months. I had the rather strange experience of going to an angry public meeting of publicans in Aughrim, County Wicklow. All the usual suspects, including the local Deputies, were lined up on the platform. Deputy Timmins and I spoke in support of the ban. I made it clear that I thought it was a public health issue. I said I was conscious of the fact that cigarette smoking kills people and that it causes premature death and terrible diseases, such as cancer, cardiac conditions, etc. I got a certain amount of grief for saying that. However, I was interested in the fact that the most trenchant attack on the ban and on anything I said came from the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche.

Mr. Gormley

That is typical.

Ms McManus

It is typical of the man, but it raises questions about leadership and about Government policy. It is sickening to hear that type of political opportunism on an issue which requires leadership and people to stand their ground. The Minister for Health and Children has stood his ground. He deserves the accolades he is receiving for that. However, other Ministers have acted extremely shabbily and have done damage to the issue of public health in recent months, but they have not been called to account for it. It is demeaning behaviour by Ministers who get all the benefits of being Ministers but who are not willing to live up to their responsibilities. That typifies this Government and it will eventually lead to total paralysis because Ministers are not willing to share collective responsibility for policies devised at Cabinet level. We are not talking about Fianna Fáil backbenchers who are treated as if they are badly behaved children. This goes to the core of Government. It is important to note that.

As regards the approach adopted by the Minister, I have raised concerns about how the ban will be regulated and implemented. I did not do that to be destructive or to cause problems for the Minister, but because I am conscious of the fact that there are extremely powerful forces at play. Cigarette manufacturing companies do not give up the fight. We can see from examples elsewhere, particularly in the United States, the strength of their determination to do down any legislation or powers which will reduce the spread of their markets and sales. It is extremely important that when a significant change is being introduced and implemented, it is done in a cast iron way without any flaws. I do not understand why it is required to have two sets of regulations, one from the Minister for Health and Children and one from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That is a weakness. I suspect it may have something to do with territorial claims for which Ministers and Departments are known. I do not know and I do not want to know if that is the reason. However, there are dangers involved in having two sets of regulations. We know there are differences and that the regulations diverge. It is important that the legislation is tight and robust.

The Minister referred to this issue. When he published his regulations, I presume it had not been fully thought out because the definition of workplace was taken from an earlier Act and it did not describe the workplace as "enclosed only". This is like a three card trick because at the time the Minister said he was sorting it out and that it had gone to the EU. I am still not clear when the EU was informed about the amendments. I know the Minister referred to the amendments, but I am not sure what they are. Under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment regulations, the ban is specifically applied to enclosed workplaces. Under the regulations published by the Minister for Health and Children on 23 October, workplaces were not defined as enclosed. That led to issues such as whether the ban would apply to people in the street or farmers on their land because they are workplaces if workplaces are not defined as being enclosed. The Minister said he sent the amendments to Europe, but I do not have a copy of them. Did I receive a copy of those amendments?

Mr. Martin

No.

Ms McManus

I thought I had missed them, given all the paper in our post.

Mr. Martin

I will clarify that in my reply.

Ms McManus

Yes. I am not attacking the Minister. However, if we are debating regulations in this House, we should know what we are debating. If we do not have the amendments the Minister said he sent to the European Union, then we are not debating the regulations. That is not the way Parliament should function.

As regards the issue of dwellings, the regulations published by the Minister for Health and Children excluded dwellings as a workplace from the beginning. That makes sense and people appreciate it is reasonable. There should not be a difficulty with that. However, dwellings are not excluded under the health and safety regulations. That is a direct contradiction. The health and safety regulations cover carcinogens, industrial processes and chemicals and poisons, such as asbestos, which should not be used in people's homes. They do not deal with a social habit, such as smoking, which damages people's health. They are directed at something else. I am interested to hear what the Minister says about the conflict in terms of dwellings. That issue must be clarified.

The Minister said that as regards appropriate measures to deal with the unique situation in prisons, an amendment to this effect has also been notified to the EU Commission following consultation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We have not seen the amendment, which means I am talking in the dark. That is not a satisfactory position, but I will proceed. Approximately 90% of prisoners and many prison officers smoke. If we determine that people's homes will be exempt from this ban, we must do it under both regulations or it will not make sense. I agree with the idea in principle and it is fair that prisons should fall into the same category.

Mr. F. McGrath

Psychiatric hospitals.

Ms McManus

However, if people have been living in a nursing home for a long time and do not have another home, will we tell them they cannot smoke there? Why should that person have fewer rights than a prisoner or psychiatric patient? The Mental Health Commission has recommended that there should not be an exemption for psychiatric hospitals, which I can understand – if somebody is mobile, he or she can make arrangements to smoke outdoors. However, what about a bedridden person? I was talking to a nurse in a nursing home the other day who was wondering how she would cope. She has an elderly patient, a smoker, who is bedridden and suffers from Alzheimer's disease. How can she explain to this woman that she is barred from smoking and will have to give up at this stage in her life? That is a real predicament. Not only will the lady with Alzheimer's disease be penalised but the nursing home owner could also end up in jail or be fined. I cannot remember the amount of the fine but the nurse knew.

One can say this is all nit-picking and these things will not happen but if these provisions are to be made in the secondary legislation, we must consider whether they are justified. Anything could happen – funny things happen in this world. Many will take a case – good luck to them. I spoke to another woman who works in a drug treatment centre. She has enough difficulty stopping lads shooting up in the toilets. How will she stop them smoking? In this case the lads can always go outside but elderly people with mobility difficulties will be a problem.

If we were making no exceptions for anybody, that would be fine but once we start making allowances for prisons we must ask whether, for example, a nursing home is also a dwelling. Perhaps there is no answer to this – in that case I would still support the ban. However, these matters should be taken into consideration. As I do not have the amendment in front of me, I do not know whether the Minister is doing this the right way. Mistakes have been made along the way.

I pay tribute to the members of Fine Gael, Deputy Gay Mitchell and former Deputy Alan Shatter, who did pioneering work in this area. Had they not done this, the Minister would have had less support in his work. It is interesting to see how quickly attitudes are shifting on these issues. When we started to work on the issue of smoking at the Joint Committee on Health and Children, attitudes were significantly different. There is still a long way to go but it is interesting to see the shift in attitudes. Cross-party support for this measure is very important. It would not be viable otherwise.

It is our job, as legislators, to ensure any regulation coming into force works. There are two sets of regulations, each of which contradicts the other in certain respects. We have not seen the proposed changes to the regulations but are being asked to comment on them. This is not very satisfactory. I would like to know exactly what the amendments are and when they were forwarded to the European Union. Are there any further contradictions between the two sets of regulations in the matter of what constitutes a dwelling? This is still an issue because dwellings are covered by the Health and Safety Authority.

What about implementation? Health and safety officers will be dealing with one area while environmental health officers deal with the hospitality industry. This will probably create problems. As it is, health and safety officers cannot deal with problems, including those on building sites, because they are so overloaded. I have made complaints to the authority about serious problems on building sites and it has done its best but it is under pressure. This is of crucial importance for implementation.

Six months is too soon in which to have a review. These changes will not happen overnight or in six months – there will be difficulties. Cultural change and good management will be required. Insurance companies have a part to play. If a pub owner is told by an insurance company that it will have to apply the regulations, that will be the end of it. Publicans are not justified in threatening to carry out actions contrary to the law on an issue of public health such as this.

Mr. Gormley

It is no surprise that the Green Party fully and unequivocally supports the new tobacco regulations. It would be churlish not to congratulate and applaud the Minister for showing leadership on this issue. Government ought to be about leadership. It is a sensible measure, one of which we can be immensely proud. I say "we" because the Opposition has been most supportive. The Minister needs to look to his backbenchers and even some of those within the ranks of Government to find those who have not offered their support.

Mr. F. McGrath

They are over here, too.

Mr. Gormley

I am proud of this measure. We are leading the way in the European Union on this issue. Speaking to my German Green colleagues in Berlin recently I explained what we were doing in this area. They were astounded because Ireland is thought of as the home of the pub, where people go to smoke and drink. If we can be seen to be leading the way, it will only be a matter of time before this measure is introduced throughout the Union. I hope this is done.

There are some possible problems with enforcement which I will mention. I have no doubt, however, that this is a very popular measure. I know this anecdotally and from the polls. If there had been a vote in this House, only a daft backbencher or member of the Government would have opposed it. He or she would find out very quickly that while people may quibble, as they always do, they support the measure. Even smokers support it and they are the ones addicted.

Mr. F. McGrath

Rubbish.

Mr. Gormley

My colleague is a smoker and disagrees with me but it is a question of tough love.

Mr. F. McGrath

And lectures.

Mr. Gormley

It is a terrible addiction and this measure will help all those who suffer from it.

I do not have to spell out the effects of smoking and passive smoking as the Minister has done so repeatedly and at length. However, I know from my own experience of working in pubs from the age of 12 years just how unpleasant and unhealthy that environment can be. The ban will immeasurably improve the quality of life for bar workers. They will no longer have to wash their clothes because of the stink. It can be a very unpleasant lifestyle for them. So many of us who have been against smoking for years and have been called cranks have now come into our own. People have seen the light at long last.

Mr. Martin

Is the Deputy saying he is a crank?

Ms O. Mitchell

Cranks have become popular.

Mr. Gormley

For this we are extremely grateful to the Minister.

It has been said this will affect the hospitality industry. It is interesting to note that while 94% of the studies carried out by the tobacco industry show that the ban will have an adverse effect, independent studies show that more people will go to pubs. I know from speaking to friends of mine that many people who do not go to pubs now because of the smoke will start to go after the ban comes into force and enjoy them more.

Mr. Neville

Which will increase the level of alcoholism.

Mr. Gormley

The ban will have an effect on our drinking culture as the culture in pubs changes. I would like to see more food being served in pubs in order that our drinking culture becomes more like that of Italy. Rather than people going in and drinking as much as they can as quickly as they can, we will have a more sensible drinking culture as a result of this measure.

Mr. F. McGrath

That is the policy of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.

Mr. Gormley

It is not, actually. His policy was a draconian measure. If this can be done in a subtle way by serving more food, the drink culture will be changed completely and people will drink less and more sensibly.

Mr. Callely

With the same backdrop.

Mr. Gormley

I would like to congratulate a number of people, in particular Dr. Luke Clancy, with whom I worked for many years on the smog issue. Now that the Minister has tackled the problem of smoke he needs to tackle the issue of air quality in this city because, as he is probably aware, three times more people die as a consequence of exhaust fumes than in car accidents. I am talking about PM10s, benzine, volatile organic compounds, air pollution in this city which is killing people. The Minister needs to tackle that problem. It is the logical step forward. He also needs to examine the amount of traffic in our city and the way it is affecting people.

If we leave enforceability to environmental health officers we will have a problem. We need to see how it will be done. When people start to smoke on buses it is usually when they have taken a few drinks. Now we are dealing with a pub situation where they may have taken too much drink and they smoke. Will the publicans call the Garda? Whom will they call at that stage? These are teething problems which can be sorted out but I have no doubt this initiative will be a great success and I congratulate the Minister once again.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It is ludicrous that we are having these statements at such a late stage when the ministerial order has already been signed. This cannot, in all truth, be called a debate. The debate has been going on for months and we are addressing it at the 11th hour. Once again, the relevance of this Dáil has been undermined on a very important issue.

That said, on behalf of Sinn Féin, I wholeheartedly endorse the Government's decision to introduce a ban on tobacco smoke in the workplace. Most of the debate has focused on the effect of this ban on pubs, restaurants and hotels but it must not be forgotten that it applies to all workplaces. That is a positive and important advance for workers in terms of the conditions in which they labour and in terms of public health generally. No one can credibly deny the damage to health from passive smoking. No one should be subjected to passive smoking against their will, least of all in the place where they have to spend their working hours and earn their livelihood.

Opponents of this ban have argued that it is not enforceable. Undoubtedly, there will be difficulties. However, smoking is already banned in many public places. It does not require gardaí to police the smoking ban in cinemas, on public transport or in hospitals. There are occasional infringements but stringent policing is not necessary.

The ban's extension to the hospitality sector will present a new set of challenges. I believe the vast majority of smokers as well as non-smokers broadly welcome this ban. I hope these new regulations will speed up existing social trends, and there is no doubt that the clear and welcome social trend is against smoking as health education and awareness increases. Many smokers are glad of any assistance to help them reduce or eliminate their consumption of tobacco. Many non-smokers cannot tolerate the discomfort and health risk of passive smoking.

I welcome the fact that the Minister for Health and Children has said he will address the ban for non-employees in places of detention but note that he did not refer to residential care facilities. This concerns the definition of "home" and "workplace". A cell is a prisoner's temporary home. A residential institution or a care facility for the elderly is also a home and I urge the Minister to revisit that area. This needs to be recognised and an accommodation worked out so that the same right to smoke in the home applies to these citizens as to all others with due regard for all those who work in such locations.

When we in Sinn Féin examined and debated this issue we agreed that we would be prepared to consider a sustainable case for specially designed smoking lounges or rooms in licensed premises and hotels where strictly monitored extraction systems would be an absolute requirement. I understand the concern of many people in the licensed trade, especially in the Border area I represent. There is genuine concern that their businesses could be seriously affected by the ban given that it does not apply in the neighbouring Six Counties. There will be effects on trade, especially in the Border area. As there appears to be no willingness on the part of the Minister and Government to reach an accommodation with the hospitality industry, I am obliged to make a judgment on the proposals in the round. That said, I trust and believe that the health, social and economic benefits of the smoking ban will become clear in the medium term and trust too that any fall-off in custom will be short-lived.

In the final analysis, this is an issue of both general public health and the rights and health of workers but it is not a panacea, and the Minister would be the first to acknowledge that. We need to see continuing measures to discourage smoking, especially among young people, and we need to address the worrying trend whereby young women have clearly a high level of nicotine addiction. Cuirim fáilte roimh moladh seo agus tá súil agam go n-éiríonn leis.

Ms Harkin

The legislation is about banning smoking in the workplace. That could be a hotel, hospital, school, factory, laboratory or any enclosed space that can be described as a workplace. The primary purpose of this legislation is to protect workers so that they can go about their daily routine without inhaling second-hand tobacco smoke.

Many people think about this legislation only in terms of smoking in pubs, yet I would ask some of those who wish to allow smoking in pubs how they would feel if their wife, husband, grand-daughter, grandson, son or daughter was working in that pub? Would they be happy if, for eight hours a day, five days a week, they had to inhale somebody else's tobacco smoke even if they did not want to or did not care? Would they still be happy that the inhalation of what is recognised by the World Health Organisation as a known human carcinogen was putting those closest to them in danger of contracting heart disease, lung disease or emphysema? Sometimes we can accept standards for ourselves but perhaps the real question is whether we would accept those standards for people who are close to us.

According to the information contained in the report, The Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace, published by the Health and Safety Authority, environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace increases the risk of lung cancer among non-smokers by between 20% and 30% and heart disease by between 25% and 35%. Are those acceptable risks? Our answer has to be "No". This is a health issue, first for workers and, second, for customers, but we must remember that customers or consumers have a choice when workers do not. I am not dismissing the concerns of those in the hospitality industry, or indeed any business which considers that this smoking ban will pose a problem. I am not saying it does not matter because we all have to deal with the reality of the situation but this is, first and last, a health issue for workers and customers.

Nobody has mentioned it in the debate up to now but employers have to be concerned about the threat of future litigation. Given that environmental tobacco smoke is recognised as a human carcinogen, any employer who knowingly exposes employees to this risk is likely to be sued. It is as simple as that, and we all know it. However, the implementation of this legislation should not impose impossible responsibilities on employers, and in that regard I agree with Deputy Olivia Mitchell. If the law states we must wear a seat belt and as an adult I do not wear one, then I am personally responsible. If the law states we cannot live on the streets or throw our rubbish at the bottle bank and I do so, as an adult I am personally responsible. Equally, if the law states I cannot smoke in the workplace and I do, then I am personally responsible. It does not make any sense and it makes an ass of the law if somebody cannot, or is unable to, influence my actions and is responsible for my wilful, considered and determined illegal behaviour. I ask the Minister to take that into consideration.

Sympathetic consideration should be given where the home and the workplace are the same, such as residential care facilities, psychiatric hospitals, hospices, etc. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration.

Mr. F. McGrath

I would like to present a different view on the proposed ban on smoking. It will not be fashionable and trendy. I would also like to challenge much of the information on the issue. I am against the regulations and I am in favour of the compromise solution. We all respect the rights of non-smokers and workers but there is a solution – designated smoking areas in all hotels and pubs. There is an element of the nanny state and the health police coming into this debate and sometimes I believe Ministers and their advisers are losing the run of themselves. This is a wake-up call for all genuine civil libertarians.

Let us look closely at the facts and then decide. We all know smoking, like drinking or eating too much, is bad for one's health. However, the figure of 7,000 deaths in Ireland each year is widely quoted as being attributed to tobacco-related illnesses. There is no scientific foundation for such a statement. We have, however, been fed with it so often that we have begun to believe it. This figure relates to the total number of deaths from cancers in Ireland. The national cancer registry gives a figure of 7,500 cancer deaths occurring each year. The commonest cancers are those of skin, large bowel, lung, breast, in the case of women, and prostate, in the case of men. It does not indicate, in any way, that these are due to smoking. This is simple misinformation.

Mr. Callely

What about cardiovascular disease?

Mr. F. McGrath

The figure of 7,000 is in people's minds and the Minister and the Taoiseach have deliberately put it there.

Mr. Callely

What about cardiovascular disease?

Mr. F. McGrath

I will come back to that.

I refer to bar workers. I have been an active trade Unionist for 20 years and I have always believed in listening to and consulting people and then voting on an issue. The majority of bar workers were not consulted or listened to.

Mr. Martin

What about MANDATE?

Mr. F. McGrath

It did not consult its members. Some 60% of bar workers were not consulted and they are against the proposal and support the compromise I am putting forward.

I refer to the decent taxpayer who wants to have his or her pint with a cigarette in his or her local pub. The provisional excise yield from cigarettes in 2003 is €578 million while the VAT yield to the end of September is €224 million. In other words, the smoker is paying €802 million into the Exchequer each year.

Cecilia Keaveney

We spend it on health services.

Mr. F. McGrath

I appeal to the Minister to look again at the proposed compromise on respecting workers' health, non-smokers and law-abiding taxpayers who like to go to the pub to have a cigarette and a pint.

Mr. Callely

What about cardiovascular disease?

Mr. F. McGrath

I caught the Minister on the figures.

Cecilia Keaveney

I am disappointed by the last contribution from a person who asked us to look at the facts. Unfortunately, my approach to this debate is warped. What happened to the Marlboro man?

Mr. Connolly

He died.

Cecilia Keaveney

From what did he die?

We should look at the facts and that is why my approach to this debate is warped. Deputy Gormley, other Members and I, spent four years looking at the facts. We should look at the facts presented by consultants, the tobacco industry and people who were wheeled in in wheelchairs with oxygen masks attached, one of whom I asked if her concern was that she had started smoking. The woman replied that her concern was that she had four children, two of whom smoked even though they had seen what it had done to her. She was worried about her children and not herself.

Members of the health committee who smoked gave up smoking because they heard and saw what we did and met the people on shows like Joe Duffy's. We met the governor general of Florida who had won a settlement from the tobacco industry. We went to Florida, met the people, got the facts and listened to the experts, although we may have been condemned for junketing. We also went to Canada and to Washington where we listened to the politicians there. The facts everywhere were the same, namely, that we cannot ignore this issue and do what the tobacco industry did in the 1960s whereby it commissioned a report to try to prove its product was safe but found the answer to the question it set out to prove did not match and then buried the evidence. Somebody else brought that evidence into the public domain.

We must stand up and say this is a health issue for those who can do something about it, like the people who have given up smoking. I congratulate Deputy Olivia Mitchell on doing so because it is not easy to overcome the addiction. We met people who were addicted and who had tried everything to give up smoking but could not do so. We have a choice either to act or to be litigated against. Even the vintners must realise that. They have said that is unlikely to happen but I would say otherwise.

I would like to see the 70:30 option or the ventilation compromise work. "Compromise" is a wonderful word to use. It is easy to say one wants compromise or the interim solution. All politicians want the solution which will please everybody. However, in this case, there is not a compromise or a 70:30 option because one cannot confine smoke to one side of a room because it will spread. A small pub in my home town, for example, with only one room cannot divide it and have what has been described on the airwaves as a telephone kiosk to which the smoke can be confined.

What we have is equality. Whether people like it or not, they are in the same boat regardless of whether they have a small or a large pub. I am not saying these regulations will be easy to implement or that they will not cause hardships because people who are addicted to cigarettes will have a problem. Approximately 70% of people do not smoke and approximately 70% of the 30% who do want to give up and many of them have said on the airwaves that they hope this is the mechanism which will help them to do so. When I was teaching and I went into the staff room, I had to have a mug of coffee. If I had been a smoker, I would have had a cigarette. If people go for a pint and are not allowed to have a cigarette, maybe it will help them to give up smoking. This is not only a pub issue; it is a workplace issue.

When the health committee conducted its research it found that it took 12 people per day to start smoking to replace the 12 people per day who died from smoking-related illnesses in Ireland. Sitting in a room with environmental tobacco smoke is more dangerous than sitting in a room with asbestos. Few of us would sit in a room with asbestos. That must be said repeatedly because I heard it on the radio the other day as if it was new information. We have heard it so many times that we take it that everybody understands it, but they do not.

As Deputy Finian McGrath said, some people believe there are no medical facts to indicate that smoking is causing health problems and that plenty of revenue is coming in. We met the consultants who would rather that the money going into the health service did not have to go in for smoking-related illnesses. They were able to give us the costings of what they saw as the cost of smoking-related illness. They did not come from a politician but from the consultants.

A good health scare helps people to give up smoking. My father smoked a pipe but he was always told it was nothing compared to a cigarette. He coughed at a council meeting on one occasion and Dr. Delap turned to him and asked if he coughed first thing in the morning. He said he did and Dr. Delap said it was time he gave up. He said if the price of tobacco increased to £1 in the budget, he would give up. It increased to £1.01 and he was grumpy as hell for three months, but he gave up. A good health scare can work.

I would like to see musicians performing in pubs and other workers protected. I mention musicians because I come from a musical background. There may be a cost implication in Border areas but I hope people cross to our side of the Border because we have good hotels and a pleasant environment, and the exchange rate between sterling and the euro gives them good value. I do not believe there are more smokers in Northern Ireland than here so a number of non-smokers will be happy to come to our pubs, clubs and hotels.

I ask the Minister to listen to the needs of specific cases. People should be listened to and reasonable issues should be addressed. However, phased implementation of the measure would not work. European experts have not been able to say how it would work. During Ireland's Presidency of the EU we should encourage other member states to expedite their moves to follow our example.

I spoke to a Scottish colleague at the recent meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body who told me that the Scottish Parliament is currently debating a private members' motion on this issue. Our Scottish colleagues were impressed that we plan to go the full distance. I believe Norway will join us in six months' time.

When I was a teacher in England I worked with colleagues who smoked 40 cigarettes a day and found it impossible to give up smoking. In my last year there, the school obliged staff to smoke in a small cubby hole. When I returned for a visit five years later I met an old colleague who had been one of the heaviest smokers in the school. I did not recognise him because he did not have a cigarette in his hand. He told me he had got fed up smoking in a pokey wee place with a smell of smoke and an unpleasant atmosphere. Because it was too cold to go outside he had given up smoking. This man had always insisted that he could never give up smoking.

There must be unity of approach. I am disappointed in the North-Western Health Board. The chairman of the health board joined board members in advocating a move by the Minister on this issue. The motion was twice passed by the board between January and June of this year. However, when the chairman left office he became a vintner once again and is not now in favour of a total ban. He wishes to see it phased in. We cannot sit on both sides of the fence.

We must provide maximum access to replacement therapies and treatments, even if this means providing them in public houses. A person who gets the urge to smoke a cigarette while attending a wedding or a celebration should be able to buy a nicotine patch or gum immediately. If they cannot do so they are faced with a greater difficulty.

I congratulate Dr. Luke Clancy and those who have been involved in this issue.

Mr. Callely

Hear, hear.

Cecilia Keaveney

The cleverness of the tobacco industry's marketing is unbelievable. In the United States one can send away a number of empty Camel cigarette packets and get a pair of flipflops in return. A camel is stamped on the sole of the flipflops so that when one walks across the beach one leaves the cigarette logo stamped in the sand. This is just one example of the industry's very clever marketing.

What happened the Marlboro man? One of the conditions of the large financial settlement in Florida was that $70 million would be spent on anti-tobacco advertising. Very effective peer advertising was used. One of the advertising campaigns showed two young people driving a lorry to the Marlboro plant and asking to see the Marlboro man. The security man said they could not see the Marlboro man. Subsequent advertisements in the campaign showed the two young people asking repeatedly to see the Marlboro man, to be told, eventually, that the Marlboro man is dead. They then ask what did the Marlboro man die of. The final advertisement of the campaign shows the two young people sitting in the lorry and asking, "Do you know what the Marlboro man died of?".

Product placement is being used by the tobacco industry. It is sad that girls are taking up smoking to lose weight. They may lose weight but they will do so for the wrong reasons and they will face heart attacks, lung disease, strokes, amputations, low weight babies, asthma and all the other health issues which we meet in our constituency clinics and which cause problems to the health services.

I congratulate the Minister on this brave move. The implementation of this measure will not be easy but this time next year we will see a different attitude and enjoy a different atmosphere in pubs. That will be a positive development for everybody.

Mr. Neville

I wish to share my time with Deputy Gregory.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Neville

I was a member of the same committee as Deputy Keaveney and I saw the effects of tobacco smoking on people's health. Deputy Keaveney referred to the person who came to the committee in a wheelchair as a result of tobacco smoking. That person was also using a ventilator. It was a sorry sight and a moving experience to see her and listen to her story. Her life had been destroyed in her early 50s because of the consumption of cigarettes.

Mr. Callely

She was one of many.

Mr. Neville

It goes without saying that cigarettes and cigarette smoke are health issues. Anyone who says other than that, whether about direct or passive smoking, is codding himself and, perhaps, trying to cod everyone else. Cigarettes affect one's health and they kill.

The Government is having difficulties with this measure. We are not hearing the range of speakers and views we expected to hear on the Government side of this debate.

Mr. Callely

They are there. Deputy Neville need not worry.

Mr. Neville

Where are the Members from the Government parties who came out strongly against this issue in the media during the summer months and said that smoking in pubs should not be banned? They got front page headlines, even in my area. Posters appeared in bars showing the letters they had sent to the Minister objecting to the measure.

Mr. Callely

It is good to have diversity of views. It is a healthy sign.

Mr. Durkan

There is no scarcity of that on the Government benches. They never suffered from that problem.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is most unhealthy.

Ms McManus

They would not have a vote.

Mr. C. Lenihan

What about the cigarette lobby in the Labour Party?

Mr. Neville

Is the Minister of State saying that support for tobacco smoking in bars is a healthy sign?

Mr. Callely

I said diversity of views is a healthy sign.

Mr. Neville

On this issue?

Ms O. Mitchell

How can we have Cabinet leadership when Ministers disagree on a public health issue?

Mr. Callely

We are united behind the Minister on this measure.

Mr. Stagg

Is that why the Government had a vote?

Mr. Neville

The Government has problems with regard to this issue. The requirement that publicans must police the measure must be revisited. That will present severe problems, particularly in the initial stages.

There would have been some merit in phasing in the measure but the die is now cast and it is too late to do so now. The method of phasing out smoking on aircraft could have been followed. Airlines first designated a non-smoking area on aircraft and this was later phased out. The same method was used on buses. Perhaps this measure should have been introduced three years ago to bring it to the current level gradually. This might have been more effective.

The Minister must revisit the policing of the measure. Someone who smokes in a bar is culpable.

Mr. Callely

That will be reviewed after six months.

Mr. Neville

The person who is culpable should be taken to task and not the publican. Some bar staff are as young as 18 or 19 years old. It is not fair to expect them to ask a 50 year old who has had several drinks to stop smoking.

Mr. Durkan

Ivor will do that. He will just throw them out of the pub.

Mr. Callely

We will use Bernard for that.

Mr. Neville

I ask the Minister to help people to reduce their smoking levels and to be proactive in this area. He should consider the level of taxation on Nicorette products and other aids to reducing smoking.

Mr. Callely

That is a fair point.

Mr. Neville

Should Nicorette products, other substances which reduce a smoker's craving and various forms of therapy for nicotine addiction be available through the VHI?

Mr. Callely

Or laser therapy.

Mr. Neville

That should be looked at as a proactive way of assisting people to come off cigarettes. For example, people on medical cards cannot afford many of the therapies that have been shown to work for people.

Mr. Callely

It is a fair point and can be considered.

Mr. Neville

I have met many medical card holders who do not have the luxury of availing of these therapies. This area should be revisited – perhaps it can be done in the area of taxation in the budget. While I know these measures will help stop smoking, there is also a need for assistance. My colleague, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, knows this all too well as eight months ago she gave up smoking 60 cigarettes a day.

Mr. Gregory

I thank Deputy Neville for sharing his time. I unequivocally support the general thrust of the Tobacco Smoking (Prohibition) Regulations 2003.

Mr. Callely

The Deputy needs to talk to some of the other Independent Members.

Mr. Gregory

The Minister of State said diversity was beneficial to his party and I am sure it is beneficial to the Independents as well. I strongly believe these regulations are in the best interests of the health of our people. As one who has campaigned against drug pushing, I have always emphasised that my focus was on heroin simply because there had been a plague of heroin addiction among young teenagers in my north inner city Dublin constituency. Even in that context, when I acted as rapporteur for the Joint Committee on European Affairs in 1998-99 and published a report on the drugs problem, I made a point of emphasising in the opening paragraphs of the report:

It is important to restate here that the damage done by tobacco . . . is far greater than any other drug, legal or illegal. The more one smokes, the more likely one is to suffer from heart disease, blood clots, lung infections, strokes, bronchitis, bad circulation, ulcers and cancer of the mouth and lungs . . . It is now well established that the population is at risk from the effects of passive smoking ranging from respiratory irritations, infections and asthma . . . through to cancer.

I insisted on this emphasis as I felt it was nonsense to produce a report on addictive substances while at the same time ignoring the most addictive of all, namely, nicotine.

At that time European surveys showed that young school children, especially in Ireland and most particularly among school girls, were increasingly becoming addicted to tobacco. What astonished me was that when the full committee discussed a report that dealt with highly controversial aspects of the drug problem, for example the Swiss experiment involving the medical prescribing of heroin to acutely addicted persons, the only element that provoked heated debate was that I had included tobacco in the same context as illegal drugs. To state that tobacco was part of the drugs problem was, for some Members, simply not acceptable and the report had to be changed to reflect this.

There is no doubt that in the four years that have elapsed since, there is now a far greater awareness, for most of us at least, that nicotine is the deadliest of all drugs, not just for those who are addicted to it, but also for the victims of passive smoking. This is even more the case among the more vulnerable lower socio-economic groups.

I now turn to the current difficulties with the licensed vintners. I do not accept these regulations will even remotely confirm the fears they have outlined. Smokers will become accustomed to the change in circumstances. While I do not wish to antagonise or draw the ire of decent licensed vintners, the televised sequences from their recent meeting in Portlaoise did not help their cause. What I saw on television depicted them as a bunch of self-interested, greedy, bully-boys, some of whom thought they were running the country, reminiscent of an equally arrogant bunch of taxi men who reacted in much the same manner when their monopoly was threatened some years ago.

Regardless of the power of vested interests, the message must go out – I acknowledge that it is going out from the current Minister for Health and Children – that these regulations are essential to public health for all of us, both now and in the future. Ba mhaith liom, mar sin, lán tacaíocht a thabhairt do na reachtanna seo.

Mr. C. Lenihan

It is a pleasure to speak on this measure. What the Minister, Deputy Martin, has put forward is a decisive move in favour of health and against smoking. I am a smoker and know how this addiction works. I called for this measure to be introduced in an article I wrote for a Sunday newspaper four years ago.

The Minister has been courageous in the same manner in which Deputy Harney showed great courage in banning bituminous coal in Dublin. That measure caused huge problems with the vested interests involved, namely, the coalmen. They got up in arms and felt their entire lifestyle and way of working would be ruined by this measure. There is also a similarity between this measure and that taken by the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, on the blood alcohol limit. At that time, we heard publicans and other vested interest groups making all forms of dire predictions about the consequences of a lower blood alcohol limit for driving, but none of those dire prophecies of doom was fulfilled. In both urban and rural areas most people came to terms with the new limit.

I suspect this will also be the case regarding the smoking ban. The public will quickly acclimatise to this new measure. I do not believe there will be a problem of enforcement as most people now accept that smoking is not acceptable in public places where it affects other people. We needed legislation to confirm this opinion that already exists. Even before the Minister took this measure, it was clear that there was strong support for it, evidenced by opinion polls. Those figures diminished when the infamous, unholy so-called hospitality alliance got its act together and started lobbying and scaremongering to an extent.

Ms O. Mitchell

With encouragement from some members of the Deputys party.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Recent opinion polls seem to indicate huge public support for this measure. I am struck by the support of a huge silent majority. If one were to listen to various radio programmes, including the Joe Duffy programme, one would get the impression on this issue and even of our profession of politics—

Ms O. Mitchell

One would not listen to that programme.

Mr. C. Lenihan

—that everybody is negative about politicians and about the ban. In my experience, both regarding our profession and the smoking ban, I have found the opposite is the case.

A huge silent majority wants this measure introduced and do not want it phased in. They want decisive action in the same vein as that adopted by the Ministers, Deputy Michael Smith and Deputy Harney. There were direct consequences for people's health as a result of the ban on bituminous coal introduced by the Minister, Deputy Harney. I suspect Department of Health and Children figures will quickly show the beneficial effects of introducing this ban.

Some startling figures and statistics have been quoted during this rather noisy debate. One figure that stuck me forcibly was that 7,000 people die every year from smoking and smoking-related illnesses – that is the equivalent of the town of Thurles being wiped out. It is also twice the number of people killed in the 30 years of struggle in the North of Ireland. That 7,000 people die annually is a sobering statistic and one that must be kept to the forefront of our minds.

I worked in a newsroom when the ban on smoking in offices was introduced. At the time, journalists were renowned for dangling cigarettes from their mouths while writing articles. The newsroom was almost synonymous with smoking, yet when it was banned there were no dire consequences and no frustration or edginess in the office. However, it had a beneficial effect on the office and its atmosphere. People did not leave with a horrible smell of cigarette smoke on their clothing.

The Minister's motivation principally revolves around the safety of bar workers who have welcomed this measure. While bar owners in my constituency are annoyed about the measure, bar staff are absolutely delighted. I visited one of my local public houses recently and the owner disappeared from the premises having given me a strong lecture about the smoking ban. His head barman approached me immediately afterwards and apologised while also thanking me because the ban was being introduced. In addition, a drink was put on the counter.

Mr. Durkan

How outrageous it is to encourage a Member to drink.

Ms O. Mitchell

I hope the Deputy declared it. He should ring Joe Duffy.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I have never been the subject of so many offers of a free pint from bar staff in my constituency as a result of the stance taken by the Minister and me on the ban. It was invidious of a number of publicans to petition their staff to protest against it. A great many of them, because they are vulnerable in such employment given the ease with which bar staff can be replaced, signed the petition, even though they did not believe in it. However, they felt obliged to sign to please their bosses. The reality is different. Most bar staff and their trade unions strongly favour the ban.

Ireland has been to the fore in regard to anti-tobacco legislation. Mr. Haughey, in particular, led the way in this regard during his wilderness period in the Department of Health and Children. As he awaited his assumption to the leadership of Fianna Fáil, he took the brave move to outlaw tobacco advertising on television. Many dire predictions were made about the consequences of this move for televised sport with a number of people suggesting that sponsorship and televised sport would be at an end because cigarette companies would be prevented from sponsoring sports events. That did not come to pass and the ban was copied by almost every other European country. It is possible for the Government to lead the way on legislation in Europe as has been done in regard to tobacco. The measures introduced by Mr. Haughey with those introduced by Deputy O'Hanlon during his time in office were copied almost in their entirety in European directives.

The Minister's brave move to introduce a smoking ban will be copied in other European countries. The former Labour Party member in Britain, Ken Livingstone, with whom I worked, is conducting an on-line poll in London to ascertain whether a similar measure could be introduced there. The rest of the world is looking on keenly at the leadership the Government is showing on this issue.

I worked in Westminster as a journalist in the 1980s when Mrs. Thatcher was in power. Every time a health Minister in the jurisdiction proposed a curtailment of the cigarette industry, a series of articles was promptly printed in publications such as The Spectator and The Daily Telegraph commenting on the nanny state and how terribly intrusive it was of the state to proselytize against smoking. Auberon Waugh was a great character who wrote in this vein. He depicted a nanny state that was intrusive and prevented people from exercising fundamental liberties.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government is not promoting a nanny state. The allegation has been made in regard to a range of measures but it is not the case. Those who make this suggestion are mischievous and their position is contradictory because the Government is alleged to be too right wing while introducing the nanny state at the same time.

During a debate on radio yesterday it was pointed out that nicotine is six to eight times more addictive that heroin or cocaine. That is frightening and I hope the Minister will go further in terms of encouraging people who want to break the habit.

Mr. Stagg

I thank Deputy Durkan for sharing time. The Labour Party supports the proposals contained in the tobacco regulations. A decision by the House today would have demonstrated its will on the matter and, as Labour Party Whip, I would not only have voted in favour of the measure but would have ensured my colleagues did so also. We are again forced into conducting a sanitised Thursday debate to avoid a decision of the House. Government members and backbenchers, in turn, are allowed to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time and sneak off to their offices and constituencies while the matter is debated.

All publicans are not opposed to the ban. I walk to my local pub in Straffan, County Kildare, because of the drink driving regulations. The landlady, Teresa McNeill, is looking forward to introducing and enforcing the ban as fully as possible.

Nicotine is a highly addictive substance and there is no doubt the ban will causes difficulties for addicts. However, if it protects the health of bar staff, the discomforts of addicts will not measure up. It is hoped the ban will encourage those addicted to nicotine to stop smoking. The various alternatives to smoking are expensive. Will the Minister consider including the various nicotine substitutes under the drug refund or medical card schemes? They cost up to €10 a day and the savings to the taxpayer in the long run would be significant. It would, therefore, be a good investment.

I acknowledge the difficulties in implementing the regulations and quantifying the results. However, on a related issue, radon gas is measured and quantified and absolute prevention of lung cancer is achieved. I wrote to the Minister recently about this matter and received an acknowledgement. The letter stated:

24th October 2003

Dear Minister,

You will be aware of the National Survey of the incidence of Radon Gas carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. This demonstrated a high incidence of the carcinogenic gas nationally but particularly in Counties Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, Clare, Galway, Mayo and Sligo with other smaller hot spots throughout the Country.

It is estimated that 91,000 homes built prior to 1998 are exposed to levels of the gas that are in excess of the safe limit of 200 Bq/M³ and according to the published figures of the Department of the Environment this Class A carcinogen accounts for 10-15% of all lung cancer deaths in Ireland. That is 150-200 deaths per year that are entirely preventable. These figures are supported by the World Health Organisation. This unnecessary death toll is also greater than the estimated deaths from lung cancer in those exposed to passive smoking.

I recently raised this issue with your colleague, Mr. Martin Cullen T.D., Minister for Environment and Local Government, who has responsibility in the area. In short, he told me that he had no money to deal with the issue (budgetary constraints) and that people should open the windows in their homes to let the gas out. It does not work.

In the context of your recently announced programme for Radiotherapy and Oncology, I would urge that you examine the benefits of a remedial scheme for homes polluted with this Class A carcinogen (radon gas). Testing and remediation are both simple and relatively inexpensive and cost wise fades into insignificance when compared with the cost of treating a lung cancer patient over a period as long as five years.

This simple preventative measure would also free up at least 10% of the treatment capacity of the Radiotherapy and Oncology units and allow for improved facilities for the remaining patients.

Over a five-year period, the programme could be completed and it should be encouraged by an education programme and a remedial grant scheme.

I am convinced that neither Minister Cullen, who opposed your passive smoking regulations, or his Department are neither willing nor have the necessary ethos to deal with this, which is essentially a health issue.

I would urge that you, as the Minister responsible for the health of our citizens, take this matter into your area of responsibility so that it can be effectively tackled. We cannot ignore 1,000 unnecessary and preventable deaths every five years. Please examine this matter seriously and advise me of your decision.

The Minister has acknowledged my letter. I ask the Minister to deal with this issue in his response. There will be no controversy or protest. This is guaranteed to prevent up to 1,000 lung cancer deaths in five years.

Mr. Durkan

I thank my colleague for sharing time with me. I admit that I am one of the culprits in this case. I am a smoker. I do my best to curtail my smoking. I do not smoke in the workplace, or in the morning, or at meals. I am not perfect. I smoke in the evening and I enjoy a smoke. There is no doubt about that.

All the people I meet, including the customers I meet in my usual rounds of the pubs, are very concerned about the effect the ban will have on them. I hope it does not result in driving young people out of business premises and onto the streets. I fully accept that smoking is bad for people. Maurice Neligan recently pointed out that smoking is definitely not good for one. Excess drinking is not good for one either. It is morally correct that one should do something about it. We will see.

I would like to see the Minister progress the argument a little further. Maurice Neligan said – I hope I am not misquoting him – that it was a great smokescreen to divert attention away from all the other things that the Ministers in their Departments were not attending to. Examples include long hospital waiting lists, the lack of proper orthodontic treatment for children, and the morality or otherwise of the 100,000 people who do not have a home to go to in this country. What is moral about that? What is moral about people sleeping rough on the streets of this city?

I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to outline when we will see the same resolution and the same reaction to those injustices, because they are injustices. They affect people's health. There are people currently sleeping rough in Dublin whose health is not being improved and is being seriously threatened by their living conditions. That is happening not only in this city but in every other city, town and village throughout the country. I would hope that the Minister, the Minister of State and their colleagues would address the issue of children attending school in prefabricated buildings and in some situations going through their entire educational life in such conditions.

At what stage will we see a positive reaction coming from the Government benches to address that particular issue? When will we see a positive reaction from the Government benches to the current serious issue of crime, or a resolution to address the issues that arose in the last few days, which involved witnesses being openly intimidated at railway stations? Nothing seems to be done about it. Why is it that Departments cannot address their core responsibilities and do something about them?

I have no hesitation in supporting the proposal to phase out smoking. I merely ask the questions of the Minister and Minister of State. I ask them to address the very important questions relating to their own Department and their own responsibilities for health in general. I am sick to my teeth of listening to the tirade from those on the Government side about the amount of money they are currently spending on a particular service, as if they were the people who invented it. It is their responsibility. The fact that they are spending money in a particular area or category and failing to solve the problem is a reflection on them. To come regularly into the House and say that so much is being spent by them and that they are doing their best is not an excuse. Their best is not good enough. They should call on someone else to take over.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I am sharing time with the Minister and will take just a minute.

The core business of the Department of Health and Children is the health of the nation, and I have no doubt that the decision taken by the Minister will save the Exchequer millions and billions of euro in the years ahead. There has been a very vigorous debate in the last few months—

Ms McManus

Only in Fianna Fáil.

Mr. B. Lenihan

—on whether we should have a gradual implementation of the ban or a decisive move forward. If we are honest we can recognise that there was a vigorous debate throughout the nation on this issue. Fianna Fáil, being the great national movement it is, reflected that debate.

Mr. Durkan

We heard that before too.

Mr. B. Lenihan

That is the least I would expect of the party – that we are in touch with the wider feelings and sentiments of the nation. I want to commend the Minister. I had some private scepticism on this subject which I did not publicly express. I believe the Minister has made the right move and decision in going for the decisive leap forward because he has stimulated an enormous national debate on this subject which has gone well beyond this House.

Ms McManus

He has not given the answers.

Mr. B. Lenihan

As a result of that debate a very large number of smokers have made a decision to abandon the practice of cigarette smoking from January of next year.

Mr. Durkan

I might do so too.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Accordingly, that in itself is a justification for the decision the Minister has taken.

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin)

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. We had a comprehensive and helpful debate in terms of the issue itself and moving it forward.

Regarding the point made by Deputies Ó Caoláin, Stagg and others, there has been a vote on this issue. The vote was taken when the Act was passed. We had very specific amendments tabled then on environmental tobacco smoke. They were very clear and very well publicised. There was a debate on that and the vote was taken. In Deputy Keaveney's brilliant presentation she gave an excellent illustration of the work done by the members of the Oireachtas sub-committee in arriving at the conclusions which the reports by Deputies Shatter and Mitchell reached, in terms of recommending to the Minister at that time that environmental tobacco smoke should be prohibited.

Despite what Deputy Olivia Mitchell said, this was not, to be quite blunt about it, started as a distraction.

Mr. Naughten

The Minister utilised it.

Mr. Durkan

Manna from Heaven.

Mr. Naughten

The Minister capitalised on it.

Mr. Martin

Like Deputy Mitchell, at the time we announced it I did not anticipate the degree of media attention, the high degree to which feelings would run, or the level and skill of public debate that has ensued.

Ms McManus

It did not happen by accident. It was orchestrated by the great national movement.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Minister should answer the questions asked.

Mr. Martin

I am delighted with the public debate. I will deal with Deputy Mitchell's point and with Deputy McManus's point.

The point is that while we might be good, we are not that good in terms of that kind of orchestration.

Mr. Durkan

Why does the Minister keep looking up to the Press Gallery?

Mr. Martin

Guidelines will issue for the hospitality trade with regard to the implementation and enforcement of the ban. We will circulate them to the Deputies.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell also raised the issue of nursing homes and asked that some concession be made for them. In my original address I said we are awaiting further legal opinion on the dwelling issue, because it is an issue on which many Deputies have dwelt this morning. I sense from the House that there is support in terms of trying to—

Ms McManus

Other regulations do not exclude dwellings.

Mr. Martin

There is consistency between the HSA and ourselves on dwellings. The Attorney General's office is clarifying the dwellings issue, particularly nursing homes and residential care settings, because people live there and have done so for considerable lengths of time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Does that include psychiatric institutions?

Mr. Martin

I will come back to the Deputies on the dwelling issue when the legal position is finally clarified. There has been a general articulation of that issue in the House. It is a view that people would want accommodated.

Ms O. Mitchell

Could the Minister clarify the culpability of publicans for the crimes of others?

Mr. Martin

The Act is specific on that issue.

Ms O. Mitchell

I know that but Deputy Cowley, when the Minister was not here, said that the Minister would review it. I asked that it would be reviewed.

Mr. Martin

The Act states—

Ms O. Mitchell

I have read the Act.

Mr. Martin

The guidelines will deal with how it will be implemented. The Act states that any person who contravenes a provision or regulation made under the section shall be guilty of an offence. Subsection (4) notes that regarding a specified place, the occupier, manager and any other person being in charge shall be guilty of an offence. It then refers to proceedings for defence, in that it shall be a defence for the person against whom such proceedings were brought to show that he or she made all reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with such provisions. Deputy McManus raised a number of points on the regulations. The amended regulations, in terms of prisons and enclosed spaces, were published on 31 October.

Ms McManus

Why did we not get a copy of them?

Mr. Martin

They are on the EU website. This is a technical matter. We are discussing regulations which have been signed and laid before the House. One does not sign them until they have gone through the notification process. I said in my press release that, because of the unique situation in prisons and because the Health and Safety Act 1989 makes provision for situations in prisons to be invoked in the context of the application of a variety of health and safety initiatives, we would examine that issue again.

Ms McManus

Does that mean we will have to debate the amended regulations?

Mr. Martin

I take Deputy McManus's point that powerful forces are at work in this regard and I assure her that I am working with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure the steps we take are cast iron. We are examining the possibility of potential legal challenges and so on.