Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2003

Vol. 575 No. 1

Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The battle against tobacco is one of the most important public health challenges facing us in the new millennium. I have made this area one of my main priorities as Minister for Health and Children.

The adverse impact of tobacco consumption on human health globally and locally 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, common cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic attacks, low birth weight babies and sudden infant death syndrome. About 7,000 deaths in Ireland each year are attributable to tobacco related illness. Smoking tobacco products is one of the unhealthiest things a human being can do.

Life expectancy is lower in Ireland than the EU average and the diseases which contribute primarily to this are heart disease and cancer. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of these diseases. Smoking is a major causative factor in about 90% of the 2000 deaths from lung cancer each year and increases the risk of other cancers such as the mouth and throat. Smoking is also a primary cause of cardiovascular disease, the greatest single cause of mortality in Ireland. Tobacco is a significant burden to individuals, families and society through death, illness and medical costs. Reduction in tobacco use will increase life expectancy in Ireland and result in happier, healthier and better quality lives for many Irish people.

Evidence has accumulated year on year of the enormous worldwide threat to human health from consumption of tobacco products. Studies carried out internationally in recent years have also confirmed that there is a significant risk to the health of the non-smoker from inhaling environmental tobacco smoke referred to as passive smoking.

The Public Health Tobacco Act 2002 was enacted in March 2002. The Act is the most comprehensive anti-tobacco legislation ever in this country and confirmed the commitment of the Government and the Oireachtas to the battle against the tobacco epidemic.

The Act brought together a number of legal instruments and replaced two existing Acts, the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Act 1978 and the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act 1988 and incorporated certain provisions of the Government's policy, Towards a Tobacco Free Society. Strong legislative measures are an important public health instrument in countering the tobacco threat.

The main provisions contained in the Act are as follows: a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, including in-store advertising and displays, and on all forms of sponsorship by the tobacco industry; registration of tobacco retailers and tougher penalties for those convicted of under age sales; a ban on retail sales of packs of cigarettes of less than 20; tighter controls on sale of tobacco products from vending machines; a ban on the sale of confectioneries, normally intended for children, which resemble a tobacco product; public disclosure of all aspects of tobacco including toxicity and addiction; and improved protection for people against passive smoking.

The tobacco industry and other related trades commenced legal challenges to the Public Health (Tobacco) Act in June 2002. During the judicial hearings, which involved three sets of proceedings, the court was advised by the State of a problem in regard to a requirement to notify to the EU Commission at Bill stage some of the measures enacted to comply with two EU Directives, 98/34/EC and 98/48/EC. These directives, known as the transparency-technical standards directives, require draft technical regulations to be notified to the EU Commission and to other member states in advance of their adoption.

The procedure is intended to provide transparency and control with regard to technical regulations which impose binding legal rules regulating the characteristics required of a product such as levels of quality, performance, safety or dimensions, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards the name under which the product is sold, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking or labelling and conformity assessment procedures. National measures of this nature could create unjustified barriers to trade between member states. Their notification in draft form and the subsequent evaluation of their content in the course of the procedure help to diminish this risk.

The procedure was not followed at Bill Stage with the 2002 Act and, as a result, 14 of the 53 sections of the Act are affected. These sections relate mainly to the sale and marketing of tobacco products. However, other important aspects of the Act such as the establishment of the Office of Tobacco Control and the power to regulate smoking in the workplace remain in place.

As the Act is a public health measure, it was considered originally that it was not notifiable to the Commission as a technical regulation. It was also considered that the requirement to introduce commencement orders in the case of the Act would allow for notification of the commencement order in draft form, thereby meeting the requirements of the transparency directives.

Following correspondence and discussions with EU Commission officials on this matter and having obtained legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General, it became clear that any attempt to commence the affected sections would result in considerable uncertainty as to the enforceability of the sections in question. The court was advised of the attempts made through the Commission to resolve the issue and each set of proceedings was discontinued.

Accordingly, I decided that the quickest and most appropriate way of resolving the issue was to repeal the affected sections and to reintroduce them by way of a new Bill which would then be notified under the transparency procedure and, on completion of this procedure, would be re-enacted.

I am advised by the Attorney General's office that with a view to assisting in the defence of any challenge brought to the re-enacted legislation the amending Bill should be used as an opportunity to strengthen the Act in a number of areas. This is being done by, among other things, changing the Long Title of the Act to indicate that the Act is designed to give effect to as many of the EU and international measures as have been adopted at that date. The re-enacted legislation will include those EC measures relating to tobacco products to be transposed into national law.

Since the enactment of the Bill there have been many positive developments at European level and globally. These measures to date are, first, Directive No. 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. This directive, among other things, requires much larger, more visible and effective health warnings on cigarette packs and provides for member states to make use of graphic warnings. Second is Directive No. 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products prohibiting tobacco advertising and related sponsorship. This directive will deny the tobacco industry direct access, particularly to young persons, through the print and other media. In Ireland we have implemented a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship since July 2000 but we have always supported the need for strong measures at EU level in the area of advertising of tobacco products and sponsorship by tobacco companies.

Third is the Council Recommendation of 2 December 2002 on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control. The recommendation from the Council of the European Union is against a background of 500,000 smoking deaths annually in the European Community and concern over the numbers of adolescents and children who take up smoking. Smoking remains the biggest form of preventable death in the European Union. The Council recommends that member states adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to reduce morbidity and mortality from tobacco and report to them on measures taken.

The World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was adopted at Geneva on 21 May 2003. This historic ground-breaking international treaty sets the scene to afford protection to many millions of people around the world from the devastating impact of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke. The treaty addresses all aspects of tobacco control, including the traditional health interventions such as advertising and sponsorship bans, passive smoking and retail licensing. It also addresses economic and trade issues, including taxation policy, international trade and smuggling. Other areas include product specification and issues of compensation and liability. We have always advocated strong international measures on tobacco control. Many countries have already signed the treaty and in September this year I signed it on behalf of Ireland. The treaty will make a significant contribution to protecting future generations from the predatory practices of the global tobacco industry.

In addition, the section dealing with indirect advertising is being removed as the EU directive on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products does not cover indirect advertising, often referred to as brand stretching. This will strengthen the Act against further legal challenges. The section on prohibition of smoking of tobacco products in specified places is being amended to include the principles and policies which should inform the making of regulations under this section. This amendment does not affect regulations already made under the section.

Ireland will assume the Presidency of the European Union in January next and plans are under way to hold a major conference in the mid-west region on tobacco control during our Presidency. We have always supported the need for a strong unified approach from the European Union on tobacco control and health. Many countries in the developing world look to the European Union to initiate strong measures in this vital area of public health. The Irish Presidency will be an opportunity to further that aim.

The tobacco industry and its allies seem determined to try to undermine public health policy in the area of tobacco control. Perhaps we should regard this as testimony to how effective the measures contained in the Bill will be when enacted and commenced. We must not lose sight of the predatory nature of the tobacco industry. It is a global industry which has long-regarded the World Health Organisation as its greatest enemy in preventing the spread of the global tobacco epidemic.

Much has been achieved in reducing the incidence of smoking in our population. By a combination of measures including legislation, regulation, health promotion and education we were able to achieve a level of 27% for 2002 as shown in the SLAN survey published earlier this year. More recent surveys conducted by the Office of Tobacco Control indicate smoking levels dropping to 25%. This is welcome news and the reduction achieved will have many benefits, particularly for future generations who will come to accept non-smoking as the social norm.

Our success in improving the health status of the nation is linked to further reducing the level of tobacco usage and in particular preventing young persons from starting to smoke. If the incidence of tobacco use can be reduced further we can make considerable progress towards a tobacco-free and a healthier society in the years to come. I am not suggesting that legislation alone, no matter how comprehensive, can create and sustain the environment necessary to prevent people from starting to smoke and to assist those who have already started to quit. Our anti-tobacco strategy will be multifaceted, containing as it will strong legislative controls and effective enforcement powers. However, the strategy will also have a fiscal element and the supports required by smokers to quit.

The implementation of this comprehensive strategy will, in time, effect the necessary attitudinal changes in society to tobacco consumption followed by the necessary behavioural changes. We owe it to ourselves, to the younger generation, and, indeed, to future generations to ensure that the war against tobacco is won. We must ensure that the children and young people of today do not become future victims of the tobacco industry, whether through being induced to smoke tobacco products or through exposure to and inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke.

I hereby commend the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill 2003 to the House.

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill although one would have thought that at this stage there was nothing left to say on it. I congratulate the Minister on not rising to the bait, as he described it, of the red herring produced yesterday in the guise of herbal cigarettes. That is scraping the bottom of the barrel. However, there are things that must be said.

The Minister has spoken about the need for this ban. I support that view and have been steadfast in my support for the ban and persuaded my party to be likewise. I resent the statement issued in the name of Deputy Callely, about which he says he knows nothing. It was a personal attack on me in regard to the cigarette ban. I do not know if it was the Minister's office that put it out—

Mr. Martin

Certainly not.

Ms O. Mitchell

—or the Fianna Fáil press office but they should have more to do with their time.

Ms McManus

The Fianna Fáil press office is never responsible. The Minister is never responsible.

Mr. Martin

I was not aware of any attack on Deputy Mitchell. I am on the record as paying tribute to the Deputy and her party, and other parties. I want to make that clear. I will have the matter checked out.

Ms O. Mitchell

I am not accusing the Minister.

Ms McManus

They do this all the time. The Minister's party is always issuing slanderous statements.

Ms O. Mitchell

I have not been very long in the House – this is my second term – but uniquely, in my experience, no explanatory memorandum was issued with the legislation. Some might say that was because it defied explanation. The Minister produced a limited explanatory note which I received from the Whip's Office but it was very limited. It referred only to some aspects of the legislation and did not clarify the purpose of some of the changes or precisely what they are trying to achieve.

The changes to which the Minister referred are primarily linked to the advertising and marketing section of the original Bill which have been wisely transposed into Irish law. The EU transparency directive has more or less informed the way the legislation has been worded, which makes sense. It will increase the robustness of the legislation and give it the backing of all EU directives in this regard. That will help it withstand any challenges, and there will be challenges which will probably at some stage end up in the European Court.

How did the legislation run foul of the European Commission in the first place, and why did this possibility never occur to anybody? While in hindsight all vision is perfect, it seems strange that no one thought that an Act, part of whose title contains the words "control of the sale" and "control of the marketing", might have implications for the barriers to trade and fall foul of European competition law. Clearly nobody here recognised the problem but somebody more perspicacious did and it was determined that the legislation should have been notified to the European Commission under the Transparency Directive. This should be a warning to us that lawyers will be looking at every word of this legislation. That is why we are here today discussing this amendment.

The Minister has told us several times that it has been successfully notified to the Commission and the three month limit has expired. In a catalogue of almost incredible mishandling of a relatively straightforward Act the first mistake was made when the failure to notify was discovered. The Minister decided that although certain aspects of the Act did contravene EU legislation, the rest of the legislation would not be affected by the Council's finding. This may well be the case and we might get away with it in almost any other area of legislation had this not been legislation whose implications would seriously upset the balance sheets of some wealthy and aggrieved cigarette and tobacco companies. While the future of the tobacco companies does not hinge on what happens in Ireland in normal circumstances in terms of how much smoking we do, it certainly hinges on the overall European and western markets, where Governments may well take encouragement from a successful ban in Ireland. I hope the effect in Ireland will be that the ban will end, or greatly reduce, smoking as a public social activity.

It is clearly necessary to dot every "i" and cross every "t" but the Minister found himself not only with legislation which had been partially rejected because it contravened EU law, but in addition, since most of section 47 was rejected, it was foolhardy to assume that section was robust. The legislation was seriously compromised at that stage, but clearly the decision was made to plough ahead regardless.

Through the summer we saw the choreographed and orchestrated media circus in which the Minister was the hero of every scene. In fairness to him, it was harmless enough in the silly season, except that it was a waste of valuable time and a distraction when the Minister might well have been attending to the details of the amended Bill and regulations.

What the Minister is now doing is not harmless. It is foolhardy and, at worst, downright stupid. I refer in particular to changes in the legislation which incidentally are not mentioned either in the note sent to our offices the night before last or in what the Minister said today. I refer to the changes he is making to section 47. This is the section which entitles the Minister to implement the smoking ban. The Minister has made two separate sets of regulations under the former section 47. The second set was sent to the EU only last week. What I cannot understand is the rush last week to send new regulations under the old legislation, when we know that within a few weeks that legislation will be defunct. The only explanation I can come up with is that the Minister had very little confidence in the support of his backbenchers if there were any further delays. The Minister had at that stage seriously compromised legislation and now he has seriously compromised regulations by changing the legislation which empowered him to make the regulations.

The change in the wording of section 47 is minor, but it is enough to allow an averagely clever lawyer to drive a coach and four through the overall legislation. It is probably a good idea to attempt to justify the smoking ban, and that would be desirable if the Minister had not already rushed to make the regulations last week. The Minister now finds himself in the embarrassing situation of having had to withdraw one set of regulations and now put forward regulations which are seriously compromised. The Minister will have to withdraw them. He may decide not to, but if he wants the legislation to stand, he should do so. I do not know why this point was not addressed in the Minister's speech today or in the explanatory note sent.

The other aspect of the legislation not mentioned by the Minister was the change in penalties. I welcome the change because the notion of sending publicans or others to prison for their failure to enforce legislation which is almost unenforceable by private citizens was totally wrong. Even though the financial penalty has been increased to €3,000, publicans can probably well afford to pay it and would far prefer to do so than go to prison. I regret, however, that while the Minister was changing the legislation he did not take the opportunity to clarify the extent of publicans' responsibilities in enforcing the legislation. I spoke about that when we were discussing the regulations.

In any other area of legislation the Minister would probably have got away with the changes he made, while staying within the EU rulings. In most cases nobody would care sufficiently to make a court challenge, but in this case people will care. There are many billions of euro and dollars at stake, and many people who can out-match the Minister and the State in terms of staying power, lawyers, money and the number of years they can stick with it – believe me, they will stick with it.

I do not know what the rush was, unless the Minister felt the support of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party was so tenuous that he could not risk any further delay in case that support completely evaporated. Whatever the reason, the handling of the matter has been hugely incompetent and hamfisted. It has given endless material to the hordes of lawyers who will now descend with absolute glee on the mish-mash of current and defunct legislation and regulations with which the Minister has inexplicably provided them. This is all because it has been an ill-considered approach with no "look before you leap" consideration. It failed to regard the crucial detail of the implementation.

I have not mentioned the other example of precipitate action where it was decided to act first and then take legal advice. That was in the area of regulations which were thought sufficient to enable the Health and Safety Authority to enforce the ban. Those regulations had to be withdrawn and are now replaced with legislation.

The Minister has described all these changes of mind and so on as efforts to make the legislation watertight, but he has been undoing mistakes which would have been avoided had there not for some reason been such a rush to push everything ahead and take legal advice after the event. It is more than embarrassing. What we have now is certainly not the watertight legislation the Minister spoke of. It is as leaky as a colander, full of holes which the Government itself has punched in it.

I ask the Minister to stop doing everything, to take time, hold his horses, look at every aspect of the legislation, try to undo the mistakes made and retrieve the situation to some extent. The time and thought put into the legislation now will repay itself. It may delay the implementation by a couple of weeks or even a couple of months, but that does not really matter when one puts it against the years of delay that could result if it ends up in the courts, which I am convinced it will. As I said, it is a lawyer's dream of loopholes. We could spend ten or 20 years in the courts because the lawyers can outstay us there. We must go in with the confidence that our legislation is robust.

I do not know if it was incompetence, arrogance or sheer bad luck that has turned this into such a fiasco, but I see that the Minister is preparing for a major conference in the mid-west region next year as part of Ireland's Presidency of the EU. That might be a very triumphant event for the Minister, but I doubt it, and if I were him I would not book the hall just yet.

Ms McManus

I will comment first on the press releases which emerge from the Fianna Fáil press office, because they have been mentioned. It is important to note that there is a continuous practice of issuing inappropriate and vicious attacks from the Fianna Fáil press office in the names of Ministers or chairmen of committees who very often do not appear to know anything about this and are then in the comfortable position of being able to say they were not responsible. That is poor practice. It is time Fianna Fáil as a party began to behave like a serious political party instead of just being vindictive.

It is extraordinary that we are back here debating this Bill which we previously debated at length. The fact that the Bill is now back in the House is an indication of the Minister's handling of the issue of the smoking ban and other issues to do with smoking. He has adopted an inept approach. It is all the more surprising because his anti-smoking measures are no longer a part of a health strategy; they have in effect become his health strategy. Failure is the hallmark of this Minister for Health and Children when one considers the other areas of health care reform which are crying out for attention and action. The fig leaf of the anti-smoking measures and the ban on smoking is becoming larger and more important.

This Bill has already been passed in the House but due to the failure of compliance with proper procedure the House must pass it again. There is still a failure to abide by proper procedure in the manner in which it is being dealt with, quite apart from the court actions and EU requirements. There is ineptitude on the part of the Government in terms of this debate. I refer to the lack of an explanatory memorandum to accompany the Bill. I have been a Member of this House for 11 years but I have never seen this happen before where the House is debating a Bill in this fashion.

The correct procedure for a Minister to follow when introducing legislation in the House is laid down in section 4.22 of the Cabinet handbook:

Any Bill introduced or presented by or on behalf of a member of the Government, other than a Bill dealing with the Budgetary or Estimates matters, should be accompanied by an Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to explain in simple non-technical language the provisions of the Bill, setting out the existing law and the changes therein proposed by the Bill and providing information about the estimated Exchequer costs and staffing implications for Departments, State bodies, local authorities, etc., unless the promoting Department consider that it is not practicable in the time available or not in the public interest to publish such information. This is a mandatory requirement in the case of Government Bills other than Consolidation Bills.

The Minister can hardly claim that there was insufficient time available to publish an explanatory memorandum. This Bill was published on 19 August 2003. The question is whether the Minister has decided that it is not in the public interest to explain in simple non-technical language the reasons for the introduction of this Bill.

This Bill is largely a re-enactment of certain sections of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002. That Act was intended to bring together a range of legal instruments in force and to replace two existing Acts but it was introduced in a defective manner and accordingly the comprehensive, coherent code is now being amended in a piecemeal and almost unintelligible fashion.

The 2002 Act dealt with tobacco advertising, including in-store advertising and displays and sponsorship, registration of retailers and increased penalties for under age sales. It placed a ban on the sale of packets of ten cigarettes and introduced controls on vending machines, imitation sweet cigarettes, disclosure of information relating to toxicity and addiction and protection against passive smoking.

A wholesale assault on the legislation was mounted by the tobacco manufacturing industry and related trades. In the event the litigation did not proceed to a conclusion since the State had to admit to the High Court that it had in the passing of legislation omitted to comply with the requirements of two European directives. I regard it as quite startling that a procedure agreed with the European Union was simply not complied with. I understand human fallibility but I also understand how Government works and that there is a support system available, including a panoply of legal advisers and the Office of the Attorney General. These supports are to ensure that the wheels of Government run smoothly. It must have been a source of some embarrassment to the Minister that this situation arose.

The transparency and technical standards directives have been in force since 1998. Although the Minister may not have been aware of them, I imagine the contents of these directives are now engraved on his heart. The directives require Government at drafting stage of a Bill to notify the EU Commission in Brussels and other member states of the proposed regulations that could amount to unjustified or disguised barriers to trade within the Single Market. The notification procedure was not followed by the Minister during the Bill Stages of the Act and accordingly 14 of its 53 sections could not be commenced. The only solution to this mess was to go back to square one, hence the Bill the House is now debating which, the House has been informed, has been notified to Brussels. According to a note circulated by the Whips which is the only information available, the three months period following notification will end on 24 November 2003.

This is a Minister in a hurry. He sets deadlines for himself without reference to process and procedure and then tries to move heaven and earth to ensure compliance. It is not solely a re-enactment of last year's Bill. Certain unexplained amendments have been made to the Act. We are informed these are designed to incorporate various EU and other international measures but we are not told much more. The absence of an explanatory memorandum means that the House and the public at large are entirely in the dark as to what changes are being made and what significance, if any, should be attached to these changes. At the very least, before Committee Stage, a detailed memorandum should be prepared and circulated.

The Minister's colleagues in Government have complained in recent weeks about his propensity for grabbing the ball and heading off on a solo run. For example, he did not bring his regulations on smoking in the workplace to Government; he thought he could do it better by himself but we all know what happened and the Minister must be still smarting from the resulting debacle. Now he thinks he can call on the Oireachtas to legislate without complying himself with the basic requirement of both procedure and courtesy of informing the House in advance of the sort of legislation he wishes it to enact.

In my view it is an indication of a fault and a flaw in the Minister and it shows an inability to work fully with others. I believe that is why, for example, he is in such difficulties with the Hanly report. He failed to include his Cabinet colleagues when it came to ensuring that the regulations on anti-smoking measures were watertight and now he is seeking full support across the country for the Hanly report and for a requirement on local communities and their public representatives to accept very serious downgrading and withdrawal of services. It should not be too surprising that the Minister is feeling rather exposed at this stage.

The House is dealing with the primary legislation as the regulations have gone to the EU. I am not sure if Deputy Olivia Mitchell's point is a strong one in legal terms but it certainly requires attention. I hope the Minister will make a response on the difficulty that may arise as a result of this extraordinary back to front approach which he has adopted. Primary and secondary legislation work in sequence. Secondary legislation flows from primary legislation but in this case it is not working that way.

I note that the pattern all the way through has been disappointingly inept and inadequate. The House debated the anti-smoking regulations and then it was discovered that the regulations were to be amended further. We knew they were to be amended in terms of prisons but we did not know what the amendments would be. In the course of that debate the Minister referred us to the EU website if we wished to find out about his amendment regarding prisons. We had nothing on paper in front of us and have only now received copies of the amendments made.

It is gross discourtesy and it reflects a lack of professionalism in how the Government deals with parliamentary procedure. Nice words from the Minister about the Opposition are meaningless when such carelessness exists.

That sloppiness is an indicator that there are dangers ahead. Carelessness can lead to legal challenges by powerful interests that have a lot of money for legal advice. I hope they will not succeed but that is the irony of the situation. It is rare for a Minister for Health and Children to be able to depend on the Opposition to support him but that is the current position. He has not been able to depend on the support of Government Members as much as on the Opposition.

It does not do much for one's confidence to find that there has been a series of mistakes, omissions and conflicting regulations causing contradictions between health and safety regulations and the Minister's regulations. The Taoiseach now tells me that the health and safety regulations have been quietly dropped and that we will see the preparation of primary legislation to deal with them. It is a sorry mess and I say that with no joy. Such a mish-mash approach on an issue which will be fought tooth and nail does not reflect well on this House or this Government.

There are vested interests who promote sickness and death, merchants of cancer and cardiac conditions who make money from people's ill health and who will not give up if they see any opportunity to frustrate this. I am concerned that even in today's debate, we find unacceptable opportunities are being offered to do that.

It is also unacceptable that Cabinet procedure for all Ministers was not complied with in this instance. That makes it difficult for the Opposition to do its job, but this was done without any explanation except that the Minister has an attachment to making solo runs – we must accept that he knows best. That is not a good way for a Parliament to function and I regret that. I hope the requirements to ban smoking in the workplace will work but my confidence has been dented by the Minister's track record so far.

Mr. Gormley

I welcome this legislation that transposes an EU directive into Irish law and welcome the fact that we are not dragging our heels as we have done in the past on EU directives. In this case we are doing so promptly and we also trying to close some of the loopholes in previous legislation.

Credit is due to the EU on this matter. Former EU Commissioner Flynn and Commissioner Byrne did a good job in this area. Great work was also done by ASH and Dr. Luke Clancy, who did much to raise the problems caused by smoking and was often a lone voice in the early days.

In a previous debate on the anti-smoking regulations, some colleagues in the Technical Group said this was an example of the nanny state. It is important, however, to remember that we are talking about a matter of individual choice. In a liberal society the individual can choose how to behave and conduct his or her life. If a person chooses to smoke, that is fine. If he wants to damage his body, that is his choice. Personally, I think it is a nonsensical habit. I do not understand why someone would want to suck poison into their lungs but that is his or her choice.

Ms O. Mitchell

It is an addiction.

Mr. Gormley

It becomes an addiction once the choice is made. The problem is how people who are addicted to nicotine affect other people. They have the right to damage themselves but not to damage other people. It is not a question of the nanny state; the State has a duty to protect its citizens. I do not accept that people have the right to impose their habits on others. The compromise solution of artificially dividing pubs and restaurants does not work.

This legislation does not just transpose EU legislation, it looks at previous loopholes. It is a rush job and I regret to say the Minister may be rapidly using up the good will of the Opposition. He has behaved like a gadfly, rushing here and there. I am sure his primary motivation is to protect public health but political considerations were undoubtedly involved.

It is not an easy job being the Minister for Health and Children but this provided a diversion over the summer. We did not hear about really important issues in the health service because we were consumed by the debate on the smoking ban. It was all the Minister discussed. He knew this was a popular measure and, although a vocal minority opposed to it, the vast majority of people supported it. It was perfect. The approach, however, was ham fisted and it is astounding that he did not foresee the difficulties and that legal challenges would be mounted. That was inevitable and the Minister should recognise that another legal challenge will probably follow once we have dealt with this again.

The Minister and his officials must be extremely careful and we must go through this in detail on Committee Stage. Like Deputy McManus, I regret that there was no memorandum on this. I thought it was an oversight but that is how business was done. I also regret that during our debate on the anti-smoking regulations, we were not informed in advance about the difficulties that lay ahead. I felt cheated because we were fulsome in our praise of the Minister while not knowing about these problems. I was astounded to hear the Minister say in his contribution that certain procedures were not followed and that, as a result, 14 of the 53 sections of the Act were affected. He said that as the Act is a public health measure, it was considered originally that it was not notifiable to the Commission as a technical regulation. "It was not considered" involves the use of the passive voice. Who talked about this? Did the Minister speak personally to his officials about it and did he go through it in detail? Will he explain to the House how he came to this conclusion?

The Minister further stated that it was also considered that the requirement to introduce commencement orders in the case of the Act would allow for notification of the commencement order in draft form, thereby meeting the requirements of the transparency directives. Was that discussed in detail or did the Minister leave it to his officials? Did he talk to them about this matter? The Minister went on to say that following correspondence and discussion with the EU Commission officials on this matter and having obtained legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General, it became clear that any attempt to commence the affected sections would result in considerable uncertainty.

Unfortunately, I have never been in Government. I hope to get the opportunity at some stage.

Mr. Connaughton

The Deputy will be.

Mr. S. Power

Somewhere over the rainbow.

Mr. Gormley

I thank Deputy Connaughton. I am glad he has that confidence. It strikes me as very strange that someone did not pick up the phone in advance and speak to the Commission about this. Did it not strike someone that this is an area to be discussed with their colleagues in the Commission? Why was that not done in advance? Clearly it was not done because the Minister was rushing to get this legislation out.

I spoke earlier about the internal political considerations. I have said this previously but perhaps this was a case of putting it up to some people in the Cabinet. The Minister vehemently denies that but I believe it was a nice way of saying to the Taoiseach, someone who always sits on the fence, that he either accepts this or he does not. I do not know what goes on internally in Fianna Fáil but I suspect it is not dissimilar to other parties in which political struggles, etc. take place. There may have been an element of that in this case, albeit an important one, and the consequence is that these struggles within Fianna Fáil have resulted in botched legislation. That is why we are looking at it today.

Let us examine possible problems with the legislation. Previous speakers did not allude directly to the legislation but only yesterday the people who operate vending machines and who have a vested interest told us that herbal cigarettes are permissible. I have no doubt they will stage another stunt in the future which will involve all these people going into a pub or a restaurant, lighting up these herbal cigarettes and stinking the place out. I do not know how the Minister will react to that but it will make a nonsense of the legislation. Can anyone do anything about that? These people are saying that under the legislation nothing can be done but the assembled wreckers out there will try everything by way of stunt and legal challenge.

One of the sections deals with selling confectionery to children. That is justifiable if it is felt that this is a gateway to children becoming addicted to nicotine in later life. When we were children we used to get liquorice pipes. I assume that is the type of product referred to in the Bill. I have no objection but there may be a loophole in terms of packaging, which is referred to in the Bill. I do not know if the Minister is aware of this but on the Continent many shops selling cigarettes provide customers with a cardboard package that can be put around the cigarette pack, which blocks off the health warning. It has a slogan such as "Smoking is Cool," in other words, a directly contrary message to that contained in the health warning.

I have read the legislation and I do not believe this eventuality is covered. The Minister needs to include some sort of provision and I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure that someone cannot pay an extra 25 cent for a little package to put around the packet of cigarettes. Apparently, these are all the rage in France, Spain and elsewhere and it is something the Minister should consider.

I refer to another area I discussed in detail in the health committee. As the Minister knows, we did a lot of work on this and Deputy Keaveney referred to our visit to the United States, etc. It involves the advocacy of smoking in the area of film and the media. We can ban advertising, which I would support fully, but there is no more potent an advertisement for smoking than to see a film star smoking in a film or on television. The figures show that the prevalence of smoking on television has increased, particularly on the soaps. In some cases it involves brand placement like Marlboro, Camel or whatever, but in others it is simply the idea of smoking as such. This is a difficult area because we are dealing with cultural matters. We import many films from Hollywood, etc. but some sort of agreement has to be reached if someone intends to promote smoking in his film or on television. A show that comes to mind here is "Bachelor's Walk", which is very popular. Every one of the men in that show smokes; they are always smoking. It is cool.

Mr. Connaughton

Among other things.

Mr. Gormley

I am sure the Minister for Health would be interested in the other things as well.

Mr. Martin

They are good for you.

Mr. Gormley

We all supported the ban on advertising but in between the advertising slots smoking is being promoted. How can we deal with that? I do not think we can interfere with artistic licence in any way but there should be a charge, which would go into the fund to promote anti-smoking, if people intend to promote smoking in that way. Something along those lines has to be tried. I realise that may be difficult but perhaps the Minister could comment.

This is a very worthwhile initiative. The Minister has the support of the House but we need to look at air quality in general. If people are being affected by passive smoking or environmental tobacco smoke, they are most certainly being affected by exhaust fumes from cars throughout this city. Studies have shown that the number of children with asthma is on the increase. We know that passive smoking increases a child's chance of developing asthma but we also know that the emissions from our cars are having a huge effect on mortality rates. According to statistics from Switzerland, three times as many people are dying from the effect of exhaust fumes as are dying in traffic accidents.

Mr. Martin

In Sweden?

Mr. Gormley

It was a study done in Switzerland. I take it that it holds true for here as well. When we consider the sort of pollutants being emitted – volatile organic compounds, PM10s, particulates, carbon monoxide, etc. – that type of chemical cocktail puts environmental tobacco smoke in the shade. When we walk out of here that is what we are breathing in. The Minister and other EU Ministers must consider that. The sooner we move to low or zero emission cars the better for people's health and for global warming. We know that the nitrogen oxide emitted affects morbidity and mortality, but because many people use cars, which are convenient, it is put to one side. However, it affects people's health and the Minister should be extremely concerned about that. We are putting our heads in the sand if we deal with smoking but pretend that car emissions are not a problem. Will the Minister and his officials examine this and make suggestions? I know we have discussed car free days, but stringent controls must be introduced and we should not wait for the EU to do that.

I welcome the Bill. I will table amendments on Committee Stage when I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss the legislation in detail. The last thing we need is for someone to successfully challenge the Bill. That would be a black day for the House.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I will be brief because I must rush off to attend to another health matter, namely, to get the ‘flu jab. I understand the facility will close at 12.30 p.m.

In the absence of an explanatory memorandum, it is extremely difficult to address the Bill comprehensively. The Minister's involved explanation of the technical reasons for the introduction of the Bill underscores that point. I highlight that deficiency which must be dealt with. I regard the legislation as positive and the Sinn Féin Deputies will support its passage.

The Bill implements EU directives on the manufacture, presentation, sale, advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. It also cites the World Health Organisation's framework convention on tobacco control signed in Geneva in May of this year. Restrictions on tobacco are nothing new. They have proven successful in helping to reduce consumption of tobacco products in Ireland. The further restrictions in the Bill are part of the EU-wide effort along the same lines.

As I stated in the Dáil during the debate on the smoking ban proposals for the workplace, I trust that the passage of the Bill will help to accelerate social change and existing social trends away from smoking. The Minister might recall that I said I did not see enforceability of the workforce ban as a major problem as I expected that, in time and over a shorter period than people might imagine, the social unacceptability of smoking in the workplace would become apparent and more people would uphold it.

However, enforceability under this legislation is more problematic as it covers a range of commercial practices carried out in a wide range of contexts and premises. Like Deputy Gormley and I am sure the Minister, I could cite all types of experiences from my childhood. I hope these difficulties and the challenges the Bill will present in terms of enforceability have been taken on board by the Minister and his Department. I wish him success with the implementation of the legislation.

As I have already indicated, I welcome the Bill just as I welcomed the ban on smoking in the workplace. The Minister must be commended on bringing forward these measures. They are important for the rights of workers in the workplace and for public health.

It is regrettable that there seems to have been a failure of collective leadership on this issue within the Government. It appears the issue was delayed in coming to the Cabinet and that the knock-on effect is the implementation of the new regulations later than was originally intended. It is another indication of the lack of cohesion and co-ordination in the Government. This was exemplified on a number of occasions recently. Ministers who operate their Departments as independent fiefdoms demonstrate these difficulties most.

At times Cabinet collectivity or collegiality seems to be at sixes and sevens. We see it in the approach to the Hanly report and the contradictory messages from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, about rent supplement and whether it is a housing measure, and from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs who takes the view that it is not. Contradictory statements were issued by a Minister and a Minister of State within a three day period, something I mentioned to the Taoiseach during the week. We have seen the same contradictions about the smoking ban. It is little wonder that the last vestiges of confidence in the Government are ebbing away with this track record.

It is well known that the existing laws banning the sale of alcohol and tobacco to persons under the age of 18 are being widely flouted. We must accept that fact. There is little evidence that these matters are being seriously addressed. Any cursory examination of court reports does not show a significant throughput of prosecutions for the illegal sale of such products to under age children. Further restrictions on advertising will not address this problem. We need to hear from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about what further measures will be taken to combat the continuing targeting of young people in the sale of alcohol and tobacco products. We need to see a proactive and targeted approach to this issue. Perhaps the Minister could explain in his reply what measures he expects his colleague in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to implement to address not only this deficiency but also this major problem.

An argument repeatedly raised by the tobacco industry is the employment the industry creates, including in Ireland. While that argument is rightly refuted by citing the huge cost in terms of human health and the economic cost to the overall Exchequer in terms of the damage done to the health both of smokers and people subjected to smoke through passive smoking, there is an issue we cannot ignore. There is no point in depending solely on the refutation of the arguments presented by the tobacco industry. That will be no solace whatsoever to people who are working in the industry and are rightly concerned for their future employment.

The Government and the tobacco industry have an obligation to plan for the conversion of the industry and secure alternative employment opportunities for those employed within it. I am not speaking only of those within the remaining manufacturing and distribution sectors – there are many people employed in servicing vending machines and so on, and they will have to be taken into consideration. I do not think it is intended, while pursuing the common good, that we will see a significant body of people lose their livelihoods without anything being done by the Government, and those in the House, on their behalf. We have a collective responsibility to address this problem and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will provide the lead.

We might all be better off if the tobacco industry were to shut down completely, but that is an unlikely scenario. The indications are that more people globally are smoking today than at any time in the past. That is a fact. We already know that poorer people suffer disproportionately from tobacco-related diseases and have a greater dependency on tobacco than their higher-income counterparts. That is true in Ireland and on a world scale. However, it is not just a matter of pointing at people on lower incomes here. We must also consider that poorer countries are clearly showing an increase in the use of tobacco products compared to more developed countries such as Ireland, which is allegedly among the five wealthiest nations on the globe. That is an interesting assertion – there are many in my constituency who would find it hard to credit, and many more outside the gates of this House.

While we have seen a reduction in smoking in Ireland, there has been unquestionably a marked increase in smoking in other countries, particularly underdeveloped ones. Clearly, therefore, the prospect of the tobacco industry going into permanent decline is unlikely. Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former director general of the World Health Organisation, has stated that more people smoke today than at any time in human history. He made the keen observation that one person dies every ten seconds from smoking-related diseases.

I commend the Minister on these initiatives. They have not been easy to argue at a range of levels, including within my constituency. I made a submission to the Minister about the most recent measures, seeking address of certain problems, and I acknowledge the Minister has accepted the greater number of my recommendations, with one glaring exception. However, we will have to live with that.

Mr. S. Power

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I spoke on the Bill we introduced last year and it is nice to see a certain maturity in the debate, which lacks the divisiveness that usually enters into other discussions. I have listened to the contributions made so far, particularly the Minister's explanation of the need for the Bill. We are all aware of the tremendous amounts of money available to the tobacco industry – it is no surprise that it has commenced legal challenges to last year's Public Health (Tobacco) Act. During those judicial hearings it became obvious that we had not fulfilled our obligations to Europe and this resulted in the Bill before us.

Some Members have been critical of the way the Minister has handled things and the reason we are discussing the Bill, but we will leave that aside – we should not lose our focus on the bigger picture. For most people, that is the move by the Minister to regulate smoking in the workplace. That was his intention from the start and it has not changed. The Minister indicated soon after taking office that one of his main priorities was the war against tobacco, and that has remained a priority of the Government. I am delighted to see such support for his policy on all sides of the House. This must be welcomed. It is a tough battle against a wealthy industry which will do anything to protect its market.

A number of Members have mentioned that they warned the Minister about potential legal challenges, but we should not be unnecessarily worried about that – it should not come as a great surprise that the tobacco industry continues to use the courts to try to hold on to what it has. However, we were elected to the House and we should do what we think is right. I have no doubt that the measures being taken by the Minister are in our best interests and will have enormous benefits for us for many years to come.

A previous Minister for Health, Mr. Charles Haughey, was responsible for introducing the health warnings on packets of cigarettes. I am not sure what impact this has had on smokers as one must purchase the packet to see the warning. However, it was the start of a change in attitude towards smoking. What was acceptable up to a few years ago has now become socially unacceptable in many places. In offices, homes, cars and all other areas where people gather, people are reluctant to light up and are certainly more conscious of the rights of other people.

The Bill the Minister introduced last year was the toughest anti-tobacco legislation ever seen in this country and, probably, throughout Europe. The main provisions consisted of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, the registration of tobacco retailers and increased penalties for selling tobacco products to those who are under age. There was also a ban on retail sales of packets of fewer than 20 cigarettes and on the sale of sweets and confectionery that resemble tobacco products. There was improved protection against passive smoking and the Minister was provided with the right to designate places where smoking could be banned.

People felt that the ban on tobacco advertising would have a negative effect on a number of sporting activities, particularly the Irish Masters Snooker Championship, which took place for many years in Goffs and more recently in Citywest. At that time, the Minister stepped in and the Department sponsored the tournament. It is good to see that the tournament has managed to survive without the support of the tobacco industry. It is a good indication that sport – and life – can continue in Ireland without the so-called support of the tobacco industry. While we often underestimate the effect advertising has, the industry would not spend such huge resources on advertising if it did not get results.

Last year's Act designated certain areas where smoking would be banned and the main area we have been made aware of is the public house. There has been a major campaign throughout the country to have this changed. It is only natural that publicans would express concern about the Minister's move, as they want to protect an investment they have made. They are concerned this move will mean a serious reduction in the turnover of their businesses and comparisons were drawn with what happened in other countries. I have no doubt that the majority of people support the move the Minister is making. Even smokers are aware of the damage they are doing, not just to themselves but also to the people around them. It will require a change in the habits of a lifetime for some people. Having a drink and a smoke went together for many people and this is something that will now have to change.

People have asked how this will be enforced. Who enforced the change when smoking was banned in cinemas, aeroplanes or in other public places? It does not take much enforcing; the majority of our citizens are law-abiding. If the Government decides to introduce new laws, the vast majority of people will support them and try to live within them. I am sure publicans will be responsible in this area. Getting rid of ashtrays is the first thing publicans will do when this change comes in. Few publicans would tolerate ashes being discarded on the floors of their premises. While I do not think this will create the difficulties some people have anticipated, it is important the publicans play their part in enforcing this and ensuring it is successful. This is not being done for the sake of upsetting publicans or reducing the value of their businesses. It is hoped that it will reduce the consumption of tobacco and will provide a better quality of life.

In itself, the ban will reduce the amount of smoking in the country. However, we must also look at other methods that will reduce the incidence of smoking. In the past, the only tool Governments used to do this was to increase the price of cigarettes on budget day. It was felt that if the price was sufficiently increased it would provide people with an incentive to give up cigarettes. Other people that have given up smoking started by doing so for religious reasons by giving them up for Lent. Smoking is an addiction and people become addicted after a short exposure to it. For this reason, I have particular sympathy for elderly people on low incomes who find themselves addicted to a product. Each week they will find themselves paying out a huge percentage of their income on cigarettes. The Government has increased the price of cigarettes in recent budgets and has diverted part of the funds raised into the area of health. No matter what sort of campaign is conducted, it will be difficult to persuade elderly people to change their lifetime habits.

It is important that the Government encourages a healthy lifestyle. The Minister outlined that approximately 7,000 people die each year in this country as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. Approximately 20 people are dying each day from tobacco-related illnesses. The Minister for Transport is to be commended for his campaign to reduce fatalities and accidents on our roads. However, the number of people being killed on our roads is quite small in comparison to the number dying from tobacco-related illnesses. A minor improvement in the war against tobacco would have an even greater return than those we have seen arising from the measures the Minister for Transport has taken. I am supportive of those measures and it is nice to see the success we are having in this area.

A reduction of the amount of tobacco being sold and consumed in this country must be a priority of any Minister. It will have huge benefits. It will increase life expectancy, we will have a healthier nature and resources and funds will be freed up in our health services. I do not know if the Minister has figures that indicate the number of beds occupied by people suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. If 7,000 people are dying each year, there must be many more people in hospital suffering from tobacco-related illnesses.

It is important that we continue with our programme of providing greater sporting facilities throughout the country, particularly in schools. If people can be encouraged to participate in sporting activities we will reap the rewards in the long-term. Many studies have shown that if children can be encouraged to take up a healthy and sporting lifestyle at a young age, the chances are that they will stick with it. Most sports people do not see cigarettes going hand in hand with sport. Considerable resources have been provided for sporting facilities countrywide. However, many primary and secondary schools have poor facilities and it is important that we would try to rectify this.

The Minister mentioned our forthcoming Presidency of the EU and how he intends holding a major conference on this issue and that the rest of the world was looking to the EU to initiate strong measures in this vital area of public health. By introducing this legislation we will have shown our colleagues in Europe that we mean business. We will have a degree of credibility and when we assume the Presidency we will speak on the issue with some authority. I wish the Minister well with his conference and I hope a number of our colleagues in the EU will follow suit and implement similar measures to ours.

The Minister reminded the House that smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable death in the European Union. It follows that it is also the biggest cause of preventable death in this country. Many campaigns have discouraged young people from beginning to smoke. We must also campaign vigorously to encourage people who have started to smoke to give up the habit before they become addicted. We should work harder to explain the results of tobacco smoking. We have seen the effects of anti-drink driving campaigns which show graphic pictures on television. A similar campaign against tobacco would pay dividends. While we discourage young people from smoking, the effects of smoking on health are not always obvious. I encourage the Minister to look at that area.

Some years ago I listened to a debate on this subject in the House of Commons and, for the first time, took notice of the tobacco industry and the need for major change in this country. A speaker made the point that the tobacco industry has huge resources at its disposal for campaigns directed at young people. He pointed out that there were two reasons for directing sexy campaigns at young people, first, if young people took up the habit of smoking they would be hooked for life and, second, the industry's customers were dying and had to be replaced. Smoking advertising campaigns may be sexy and attractive and aimed at young people but the reality is that customers are dying and new people must be found to replace them if the tobacco manufacturers are to continue in business.

I commend the Minister and other Members of the House for the responsible manner in which they have dealt with this subject. There was a certain reluctance on the part of some people to accept the necessity for this change. It will mean a serious change in the habits of a lifetime for many people throughout the country but it is in the best interest of the nation's health. I commend the Minister for Health and Children for the way he has dealt with this issue. When the ban on smoking in the workplace is implemented next year I hope people, particularly publicans, will deal with it in a mature fashion and realise their responsibilities, not only to themselves but to their customers and workers. The ban will protect the health of people in the workplace and it is important we recognise that.

Mr. Connaughton

I have always been an advocate of the smoking ban and I have said so publicly. I had a number of reservations about the measure when it was introduced and thought some aspects could have been dealt with slightly differently but I support the basic principle of the ban. It is hard not to be in favour of it when one sees the statistics on the effects of smoking. Worse than that is the number of our friends who have died prematurely in many cases, as a result of cancer, heart attacks and strokes which were caused by smoking. One would not need to be a professor or a doctor of medicine to understand the underlying reasons for those illnesses.

Irrespective of what we think of the measure in its entirety, the Bill is an attempt to streamline a botched effort. Given the resources of the Department of Health and Children, the Minister, the Ministers of State, the Attorney General and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the entire machinery of Government, on an issue that has been such a part of Irish life for the past 12 months, I cannot understand how such a fundamental difficulty as this could not have been foreseen. I am neither a solicitor nor a parliamentary draftsman, and I do not know who advised the Minister and the Ministers of State – I assume it was the Attorney General – but it beats me how the Minister could have got this so wrong.

We saw a high profile campaign on this issue which is now beginning to wane. Heretofore, one would have assumed that the Government was extremely sensitive to what was going on because half the members of the Government parties were speaking out of one side of their mouths in the House and saying they were in favour of the ban while in their constituencies they were running around with everyone who was against it. Testament to this is the acres of space given to the issue in the local papers and on radio. There was not a day of the week when a Minister or Minister of State was not on the radio finding fault with the substantive issue. A hurler on the ditch who did not have a view one way or the other would say the Government was divided.

The Government will ride out this crisis because the majority of people who think about these matters are in favour of a ban on smoking in the workplace. The reaction to the Hanly report, however, will be a different kettle of fish. That is where we will see the real divisions.

I wonder if diversionary tactics are being employed. There was no shortage of smokescreens in the past six or eight months while this issue was being discussed. The Government knows – the Government parties go to great lengths to find out how the public think on every issue – that the majority of the public support the ban on smoking, as I always thought they would. I never smoked a cigarette in my life although, like all my colleagues, I spend a great deal of my time in the company of people who do. This has never been an issue for me. If it were I would not be able to do my job because I spend half my time in public houses.

I do not think any Government would not know that this legislation was necessary, or that it would forget to do what we are trying to do today. I will say what I think was wrong. There was a time when opposition to this measure was so strong, particularly in the Fianna Fáil Party, that the Government was afraid the numbers might not stack up. I refer to the time when the publicans' campaign was reaching its peak. The Government decided that it should sign the regulations into law and take its chances thereafter. I cannot come to any other reasonable assumption. I cannot be convinced that the Attorney General, the Minister, the Minister of State and the senior officials in the Department did not know that this Bill was necessary. It beggars belief that they did not anticipate the need for additional legislation. The professional expertise available to the Government is usually of a very high standard.

When the jitters arrived some months ago, the Minister thought, between the jigs and the reels, that his best option was to sign the regulation into law and to take a chance thereafter. He took a chance on whether the people would agree with him. This is vividly demonstrated by the fact that I have not heard anybody speaking against the ban today. Certain Deputies expressed their opposition to the ban in local newspapers when it was first proposed, but they have not made similar statements in recent times.

The last time I spoke on this subject I mentioned that I believe the ban on smoking in public houses should be introduced gradually. I know that will not happen at this stage, so I will not waste the time of the House talking about it to any great extent. Perhaps a gradual ban was not practical, but it seemed sensible at the time. When discussing matters of this nature, one has to revert to one's own experience. This is particularly true if one represents a rural constituency, as I do. Many parishes in my constituency have just one or two pubs. There is almost no social alternative in such areas. If one does not go to the pub, one will have nowhere to go.

Publicans were right to highlight their grievances, as many of them will face great organisational problems. When I was in a pub recently – it is the only one in the parish in question – I noticed that younger and older people were mixed together because there is nowhere else for them to go. In larger towns and cities, it tends to be the case that there are certain places for young people and other places for older people.

As Deputy Seán Power mentioned, the smoking ban will be extremely difficult to get used to. This will be particularly true for older people who have spent 30 or 40 years in the same routine of smoking a cigarette when they go for a drink in a pub. They will find it extraordinarily difficult not to smoke, or to go outside the door if they wish to do so. We have gone past that stage now, however, for better or for worse. The legislation before the House will have to be implemented.

Many people have spoken to me about their belief that the ban will not be enforceable. I do not think it will be long before there is a public outcry against smoking in places where it is banned. When I take the train, as I do frequently, I notice that if somebody lights a cigarette in the non-smoking carriages, another person – not the ticket collector – will ask them to put it out within ten seconds. There will be a rapid cultural change as a result of this measure. We will welcome it when it takes place.

I do not have a problem with the fact that the Minister for Health and Children decided not to impose a ban on smoking in hotel rooms. It would have been very hard to enforce if there was nobody other than the smoker in the room. It is unlikely that the proprietor of the hotel would know what was going on, unless there was a garda walking up and down the corridor.

I do not have a problem with this measure as it relates to psychiatric hospitals and jails. A warden may wonder why his or her health is being put at risk when the health of a bartender is being protected. It is a difficult question, but common sense has to be take into account.

The last time we debated this matter, I said that the proposed maximum penalties for publicans were extreme. A jail sentence was involved, as I recall, but I cannot remember what the upper limit was. Has the Government dropped the threat of a jail sentence? I have not heard too much about it. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether this is so. It has been suggested to me that the threat of a jail sentence is no longer provided for in this Bill. Given that I said some months ago that such a penalty would be extremely harsh, I am very interested to know if a change has been made.

I chaired a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children about three or four years ago, when I was the vice-chairman of the committee. We had requested the attendance of certain representatives of the tobacco industry, who gave a presentation. I realised for the first time during the meeting that the tobacco companies have an extreme level of power. I will not waste the time of the House by saying something that has been said many times before, but I will make a point that is important for the future. The proposed smoking ban represents a major step on a very long road. The representatives of the tobacco industry, together with their advisers and public relations personnel, spent three hours trying to convince the committee that nicotine is not addictive. They made the most remarkable case one could encounter to defend their central theme. They did not wish to say anything else. They cited research which they claimed proved their case. They argued that as people die off, fewer people are taking up smoking. I do not know how one could relate the two issues.

It is important that we make a certain point about the image of smoking. Research vividly demonstrates that young women start smoking at an earlier age, for whatever reason, and that they continue to do so. It is remarkable to note, when one goes to various functions where young people are present, that a huge number of young girls smoke. If this trend develops without being controlled in some way, we will have another generation of smokers. I do not know what can be done to reverse the trend, as we seem to have tried everything. If we took the warnings on packets of cigarettes literally, we would throw them into the river immediately. It is obvious that those who purchase cigarettes take no notice of the warnings on the packets. There will have to be huge educational programmes. Another Bill may be necessary to limit the availability of cigarettes.

I am not sure that the Bill before the House, when taken with the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002, will mean that fewer people smoke. There will be a dramatic difference in the area of passive smoking. At least someone at work or in a bar or wherever will not have to put up with someone else's smoke. That will be good. I do not know what people will do when they go outside the pub, whether they will go out onto the footpath in between drinks or whatever, and I am not sure if anyone knows at this stage.

I do not know whether there will be a significant reduction in the volume of smoking. However, one would have to support a Government that tries to change the terrible statistic of more than 7,000 smoking-related deaths annually. The problem exists in every parish or home and connects to each of us in some way. It behoves us as legislators to do whatever we can.

I sincerely hope that there will be no more messing with the legislation and that it will not be manna from heaven for senior counsel and other barristers. I hope they will not see so many crucial inaccuracies or loopholes in the legislation that there will be a court case on it every day. Given the muscle and professionalism of the tobacco industry, it is important that we have the best legal advice and that whatever legislation we introduce is constitutional and stands up in court. The tobacco industry worldwide is working overtime to fight back against what it sees as an attack on it. As they say in my part of the country, we would want all our hair on to ensure that we are able to compete with the industry at every level.

Dr. Devins

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I congratulate the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, on addressing the fatal scourge of smoking and prohibiting smoking in the workplace. The point of this prohibition has been lost in many of the arguments against this move. Some 7,500 people die every year as a result of smoking-related diseases. That is the real problem.

In a choice between saving lives and profits, we must choose lives every time. The public and workplace employees are increasingly aware of the threat to their health from toxic tobacco smoke and of the necessity of the measures being introduced to protect them. It is also important to point out that this initiative is based on emphatic advice from health experts. There is consensus within the international scientific community and the World Health Organisation about the damaging effects of tobacco smoke and that there is no safe level of exposure to this known carcinogen.

It has been suggested that designated smoking areas should be allowed as a compromise. This ignores the fact that staff would still be required to work in such areas. Furthermore, tobacco smoke is not stagnant. It permeates the entire atmosphere of a room regardless of where the smoking takes place and without regard to areas designated as smoking or non-smoking. This is not a realistic or acceptable option.

It has been suggested that improvements in ventilation technology can deal with the problem of second hand smoke. On 30 January, a report entitled The Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace was published by the Health and Safety Authority and the Office of Tobacco Control. This research, which included an examination of international research, was drawn up by an independent group of scientists, including specialists in toxicology, epidemiology, occupational medical services and public health medicine, as well as a radiational aerosol physicist. This group of scientists concluded that there is consensus among the international scientific community that environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace increases the risk of lung cancer by between 20% and 30% and that involuntary smoking increases the risk of heart disease in non-smokers by between 25% and 30%.

In particular, the group drew attention to the decision in 2002 of the International Agency for Cancer Research of the World Health Organisation which declared that environmental tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen. The research shows that ventilation technologies are inadequate to give workers full protection from the hazards of tobacco smoke.

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the US and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists have concluded that even proposed new technologies such as displacement ventilation systems, which may reduce ETS exposure levels by up to 90%, would still leave exposure levels which are 1,500 to 2,000 times above the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants. The expert group concluded that a smoking ban remains the only viable control measure to ensure that workers and patrons are protected from exposure to the by-products of tobacco combustion.

It is important to bear in mind that the majority of people – more than 70% – do not smoke. If the same level of discussion and effort being applied to seeking out loopholes in the legislation was instead focused on promoting the improved environment which workers and the public can look forward to next year, those now voicing their concerns would be able to look forward to an opportunity to improve their business work environment substantially. We only have to look at what happened in the film industry and cinemas since smoking was banned. The film industry has boomed since.

The fact that the majority of people will benefit is the basis on which to plan for the future. I agree with Deputy Connaughton that peer pressure is probably the best way of policing this legislation. I have also noticed that many people who now try to smoke in areas designated as non-smoking are prohibited by their peers. People do not want to be exposed to the effects of tobacco smoke.

Only yesterday, the respiratory consultants backed the proposed ban on workplace smoking saying that it would save many people from a debilitating and killer disease. The Irish Thoracic Society annual conference passed a motion urging all politicians, employers and the public to support the move. Their support coincides with world chronic obstructive pulmonary disease awareness day. COPD symptoms range from coughing and sputum production to shortness of breath. Amazingly, it affects well over 110,000 people in this country and accounts for nearly 10,000 hospital bed days a year.

Anyone who has seen people who suffer from COPD will know what I am talking about. It is in many ways the most awful lung disease, and I have seen patients who suffered from this condition imploring people to shorten their lives such were the ill effects they were suffering at the time. That conference also heard World Health Organisation statistics which showed that Ireland has the second highest COPD mortality rate of 28 industrial nations. One place behind us is Hungary. This is a frightening statistic for a nation such as ours.

Vested interests may continue to try to divert the debate on the ban away from the core issue of health, but there is no arguing with the fact, highlighted by the lung experts, that tobacco smoking is one of the major risk factors for death and disability in this country. A recent report from the Office of Tobacco Control indicates that the cost of smoking to the State amounts to €5 million per day. Not only will this ban save lives, it will also save our economy money which we can then invest in other areas of health. It is just not right to expose workers to a carcinogen that is as dangerous as asbestos.

I welcome the Minister's courageous and relentless determination to save the lives of those workers. However, I recognise that we live in the real world. We cannot expect to impose the ban in places where people live. That includes not only private homes, but also prisons, psychiatric hospitals, hospices and sleeping accommodation in hotels and guest houses. I understand that exemptions must be made in those areas because they make sense. However, any other exemptions would be totally unacceptable. I welcome the Bill to the House and support the Minister in his unyielding efforts to save the lives of workers nationwide.

Mr. Crawford

I too welcome the opportunity of saying a few words on this important legislation. I must brave asking the question of why it is coming in now. It is extremely worrying that the whole idea of a smoking ban should be taken so far – we were literally told that it would come into force on 1 January 2004 – only for us to find that legislation must be introduced. Where did the advice come from, and how did we get it so wrong? Are we absolutely certain that, when this legislation has been passed, the great power of the tobacco and certain other industries will not be able to drive a coach and four through it and cause all sorts of problems, both financial and other? Legal people are waiting, and I am not one to provide answers in the face of such a body of learned people. However, as a layman and legislator, I am worried that there is room for that in the legislation, since we got it so badly wrong before.

There has been much talk about the smoking ban and whether it is right. A stream of people have emerged from the Government backbenches, and even some Ministers, saying it was wrong and that there was no need for it. I hope they will come into the Chamber now and say what they said to their own publicans and friends in the business. We should not be two-faced about such things. We should either do what we say we are prepared to do or else not say anything. I thought that I had lost a brother through nicotine poisoning, but it turned out to have been asbestos poisoning. That was proved clearly by the coroner after his death. Like most families, I have some personal experience of serious respiratory illness and knowledge of the causes. Others have raised such issues as the effect of car fumes, but the companies themselves admit on the packet that smoking kills. It is not that long ago that I was at a small meeting with four or five people discussing some other things that they considered very dangerous but for which there was no proof. However, of the five of us sitting round that table, three of them had packets sitting out in front of them with the sign "Smoking kills". To put it bluntly, they had no respect for the fact that the other three of us sitting round the table were also inhaling their smoke.

One story was told to me only a few days ago. A now retired man advised me that, a few weeks earlier, for the purely political reason of embarrassing the Government, he would have told me to oppose the smoking ban. He comes from a staunch Fine Gael background. However, he had been to see his specialist, whom he told that he had not smoked in 40 years. The specialist said that he was his friend and that there was no point in trying to tell him that he had not smoked in 40 years. He said that he was no fool when it came to that business. The man said that he was telling him the truth and that he had not smoked for 40 years. The specialist asked him what sort of job he had been in. He told him that he had been an hotelier and a publican. The specialist said that that explained the state of the man's system now, a clear indication that he was suffering directly from having inhaled other people's smoke.

For that reason and others, I am not against the smoking ban, and I wish to make that absolutely clear. However, I am worried at the way it is being brought in, because I come from a Border region where there are problems with how one implements such a ban. I wonder why there was not debate or discussion. We in this House – and especially the main party of Government, Fianna Fáil – project ourselves as having structured liaison with Northern Ireland. Here was a golden opportunity to introduce the ban on an all-island basis and avoid the creation of a new Border which most of us want done away with. I remember the time when we had to get our car – or in our case, my late father's van – signed for by someone in Northern Ireland and stamped through on each occasion. I saw the Border move from that to its present openness. A new structure is being put in place, and I would not mind if it were put in place after some effort had been made to reach agreement with Northern Ireland.

Something is absolutely clear from questions which I tabled to the Minister and sent to the Northern Ireland Office at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. The question which I asked was fairly simple. I asked what plans the Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, had to introduce a smoking ban for the hotel and pub industry similar to that being introduced by the Irish Government, what discussions were taking place between the British and Irish Governments regarding the possibility of an all-Ireland approach to the issue, what representations the Minister had received regarding the danger of the imposition of the law by the Irish Government creating a Border mentality, and if he would make a statement. The Minister, Paul Murphy, simply answered that the British Government had no plans to legislate in that area at present. No intergovernmental discussions had taken place on an all-Ireland ban, although officials had discussed areas of mutual interest, including tobacco control measures, through the existing North-South channels. No specific representations had been made to him about the potential impact of the ban.

Let us remember the new context of the Good Friday Agreement and look back on the progress that we made on foot and mouth disease. I was one of those who proposed in this House that we should try to have an all-Ireland structure as far as foot and mouth disease is concerned. We got agreement on that. The ports in Belfast and Larne were properly monitored, and the spraying units were there on the same basis as down here.

Let us move on to tourism. My party leader, Deputy Kenny, when he was the Minister for Tourism and Trade, set up the structures, North and South, which have now been cemented into a permanent structure to promote Ireland internationally on an all-island basis. The hotel and pub industry is very much related to tourism. We had an opportunity to move the situation forward, but unfortunately no effort was made in that direction, and I am extremely saddened by that. The Minister mentioned in his speech that he will try to move the matter forward at European level during the Irish Presidency of the European Union. I urge him to do so.

I attended a family wedding in Vancouver this spring. During the eight hour flight nobody smoked and there was not a word about it. I mention this because it has been said the smoking ban did not work in Canada, but when our group of friends went to a public house on the night after the wedding and someone lit a cigarette, it was not a member of the bar staff but one of our peers who advised him to put it out quickly. I concur with Deputy Connaughton that this will be the case in many places.

Let us imagine what would happen in the Border counties if the father of the bride, who hosts and pays for a reception for 400 guests, takes out a cigarette or cigar at 4.00 a.m. and a young bar person has to tell him to put it out. I suggest we should make an all out effort at this late stage to take account of the Border areas.

I am worried about the legal position and ask the Minister to clarify that the Bill will stand up to the test by multinationals who are working night and day to find a way around it. I would not like to see that happening. The Fine Gael Party would want the legislation enforced if the Bill is enacted.

The Bill deals with important issues, such as advertising; a ban on retail sales of packets of less than 20 cigarette; tighter controls on the sale of tobacco products from vending machines; and a ban on the sale of confectionery normally intended for children that resembles tobacco. Smoking is a major problem for young people, especially young women, and we are trying to find a way to deal with it. The Minister states clearly that this ban will save money as well as saving lives. There are aids for those who want to stop smoking, but it costs €7.61 for a packet of 30 Nicorette. It would be a positive step to subsidise such products and to make them more freely available to young people. I urge the Minister to consider this suggestion.

I attended a meeting of hoteliers and their staff in Cootehill some time ago where some very senior Fianna Fáil political figures were telling the Opposition how to ensure this impossible smoking ban would not be imposed. I have learnt that the vintners organisation congratulated the Minister of State, Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, on the great work he had done on their behalf. We cannot have Members having one view for the local community and a different one when the vote is taken. If this is to work, the Government must ensure the legislation is workable.

I welcome the arrangements made for those in prisons or in psychiatric hospitals. There are, however, areas of difficulty such as deciding on what is a "bedroom" and if the staff who clean these bedrooms will be affected by those who smoke. We need to take a common sense approach to the implementation of the legislation. There needs to be a close relationship between the hoteliers, the Garda and everybody concerned so that those who are making a genuine effort to implement the legislation are not penalised unnecessarily. It will be peer pressure, not staff intervention, that will stop someone smoking.

There will be changes made to the Bill during its passage through the House, but in principle I support the ban on smoking.

Mr. Finneran

I am pleased to speak on this important Bill. I was a member of the Seanad when the previous Bill, which I supported, was discussed in 2002. Nobody could disagree with this Bill's intent.

There is general support for the important provision of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, including in-store advertising and displays and on all forms of sponsorship by the tobacco industry. There would be support also for the registration of tobacco retailers and tougher penalties for those convicted of sales to under age persons. There is provision to ban the retail sale of packets of less than 20 cigarettes, but I wonder if all the 30% of people who smoke are always in a position to buy 20 cigarettes at one time. This may coax people to give up cigarettes.

While I welcome the tighter controls on the sale of tobacco in vending machines, there are many who make their living from vending machine outlets which is now in jeopardy. I have had representations from people who have made major investments in vending machines. This group will certainly lose following the enactment of this Bill.

Public disclosure of all aspects of tobacco, including toxicity and addiction, is important. Certain issues pertaining to the tobacco industry were not discussed or understood until recent years. Major investigations have been carried out in certain countries, the United States in particular, on certain components that may have been placed in cigarettes to increase or cause addiction. If this was the case, it is serious. We still do not or may not know the full story in this regard. It is important that the tobacco industry, which is very powerful, does not hoodwink the public about components that could lead to addiction or other complications. We know cigarette smoke is bad for both smokers and passive smokers, as those in the vicinity of smokers are generally labelled.

Having worked in the health care area for many years, I understand and support the Minister's attempt to introduce legislation that will protect and help people. I hope his example will be followed by other states in Europe.

Mr. Stagg

A Cheann Comhairle, I notice there is not a quorum in the House.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Finneran

Having worked in the health care area for many years, I obviously encourage and support measures and legislation that will reduce the number of smokers and ensure that those who do not smoke are not affected by those who do.

I raised concerns earlier this year about the implementation of the legislation, especially in respect of the hospitality sector. I still have these concerns. The legislation could interfere to an extent with people's lives in rural areas. However, the thrust of the legislation is important. It is important that we send out a strong message to the public on the effects of tobacco use on health. It saddens me to see the number of young people who smoke, particularly young ladies. It is a cause of worry. I have often heard comments that smoking reduces one's appetite. It would be very unfortunate if this message were circulated, especially to young ladies.

In one way or another smoking interferes with one's bodily make-up and contributes dramatically to the onset of some serious medical conditions and diseases. It is important that we reiterate this, ad nauseam if necessary. There are those who still argue that they or their acquaintances have smoked 20 or 40 cigarettes per day for 50, 60 or 70 years and are still in good health. This may be true in certain cases but, by and large, all the medical evidence available to us as legislators and to the public suggests that the inhalation of tobacco smoke, directly or passively, is detrimental to one's health.

If we are to promote health to the exclusion of tobacco use among young people, we must identify with sport and keep it to the fore in the public mind. Most of those involved in sport do not smoke. I appreciate the massive investment in sport and recreation by Governments in recent times, particularly through national lottery grants to communities and clubs for sports facilities. The Government has good intentions in this regard.

I know a cost factor is involved but every school at every level should have physical education teachers. We have not achieved this yet and only the pupils of certain schools enjoy the benefits of having physical education teachers or physical education facilities. Their provision should be hammered home as important in promoting sport among young people. They would exclude the temptation to begin smoking.

Some young people begin smoking by default because they do not have anything else to do. It is a pity this depends on who their friends are. There is plenty of research to back up the contention that children of smokers tend to smoke. Parents, therefore, need to be educated to kick the habit to ensure they do not pass it on to their children.

On the question of whether the legislation will be fully implemented, it is not possible to legislate for everything. Regardless of how comprehensive the legislation or how many people police it, there will always be those who will ignore it and smoke in areas they should not. Similar legislation in force in certain states of the United States – the legislation here is broader as the ban will not be confined to smoking in public places – is widely breached. I have learned from radio reports and through contacts that in some areas and cities it is ignored and practically not implemented. If a ban on smoking in the workplace is introduced here, I hope it will be supported.

A statement I made earlier this year in which I called for the proposed ban to be implemented on a phased basis in the hospitality sector is a matter of record. Despite this, as someone who has worked in the health field for a long period, I accept that it would be better if smoking was not permitted in any workplace. A decision has already been taken to exclude certain areas, such as jails and psychiatric institutions, from the ban, and concern has been expressed about implementing it in bedrooms in guest accommodation.

While I do not have the precise figures, smoking is more widespread in mainland Europe where people also tend to be heavier smokers. It also appears to be tolerated in public buildings on the Continent. At an airport in Spain a couple of weeks ago, for example, I saw a man walk through the middle of the concourse smoking a big cigar. There was clearly no problem about this because I saw cigarette butts practically everywhere in the vicinity of the bar. The requirement to abide by this legislation will, therefore, amount to an imposition on people from other parts of Europe.

There are few outlets for social activity in some rural areas, which may have just one local pub in which people meet for a game of cards or whatever. In these areas there is a tradition of people going to pubs at night to have a drink, which is often combined with a smoke, either of cigarettes or a pipe and tobacco. The legislation will interfere with this group of people. One gentleman in my parish recently asked me if I was up in Dublin enacting legislation that would turn him into a criminal, which is a genuine point. Having said that, the legislation is for the greater good and the Minister is to be complimented on putting the health of the people first. I support the thrust and intent of the Bill and any difficulties I had with it concerned its implementation in the hospitality sector. I continue, however, to envisage some difficulties arising in its implementation.

It is evident that illnesses caused by tobacco use result in the loss of a significant number of hours in the workplace. Tobacco interferes with people's lives and the work rate and output of our manufacturing units. Medical professionals have to write certificates time and again for people suffering from chronic cardiovascular and chest problems caused by smoking. This has a knock-on effect on hospital beds and other areas.

The bottom line of the legislation is that we must get an educational message across to the public, namely, that smoking harms one's health, even when one is in the vicinity of people who smoke. If we succeed in getting the message across that smokers are interfering with other people's lives, we will do a good day's work. The challenge is to educate our young people, particularly those leaving primary school for secondary level, not to take up the habit of smoking and carry it on into adulthood. The way to do this is through education and sport. In the past, many people believed one had to be a good footballer, hurler or camogie player to participate in sports. This is no longer necessarily the case and people can now get involved in sport in many ways without having to make the type of commitment that used to be expected.

I welcome and support the broad thrust of the legislation. I have outlined the concerns expressed by some of those involved in the hospitality sector. We will have to wait and see what will be the complications and problems which arise from the implementation of the workplace ban on smoking. By and large, however, this is important legislation which will promote better health.

Mr. Connolly

The controversial proposal to ban smoking in the workplace was not debated on the floor of the House when the relevant legislation was being passed in March 2002, even though it has since proved to have been one of the most explosive and emotive issues of recent years. The Public Health (Tobacco) Act, enacted during the lifetime of the previous Government, mainly dealt with the advertising and promotion of tobacco products and smoking among people aged under 18 years. It was welcome legislation. It is, perhaps, now even more important that we address the issue of advertising because smoking is now regarded as fashionable.

The Act also addressed the sale of cigarettes to those under 18 years and I recall at the time that there was great fanfare in my local health board about these provisions. Environmental health officers were sent out to carry out random checks and a small number of convictions were secured, which concerned shopkeepers. We have taken our eye of the ball, however, because the number of spot or undercover checks being carried out in shops has since decreased. This provision was beginning to bite.

The Act also provided for the establishment of the Office of Tobacco Control on a statutory basis. However, section 47(f) provides that the Minister for Health and Children may, by regulation, prohibit or restrict smoking in registered clubs, workplaces and pubs. Nothing was said about this when the legislation was going through the Dáil. It was unanimously accepted by all parties without any Member referring to the ban on smoking in the workplace. Now, however, we are daily assailed by a cacophony of Ministers of State, Ministers, Opposition spokespersons and county councillors calling for a reversal of the ban. It can best be described as a type of velvet revolution except that the time for such plaintive bleating is long past. Public representatives are playing to the gallery and the crowd at home. They should have had an opportunity to speak on the ban in the Dáil, where it matters. There is a touch of Tadhg an dá thaobh, running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, about their attitude.

The summary nature of the implementation of the smoking ban has irked many people. This became apparent when the Minister implemented the regulations. The issue should have been brought before the House for debate. That would have eased tensions and released some of the pressure on Members. It would have shown the public that we had the nerve, and the way people have spoken against it would have required nerve, to discuss the ban in the House. Deputies did not have an opportunity to vote for or against the smoking ban in the forum where it mattered. The debate raged outside the House where talk is cheap. Many Deputies got away in the smoke on this issue, if Members will pardon the pun. They did not have to press the green or red button on it.

It is incontrovertible that smoking causes cancer. The considerable pressure on our health services would be dramatically eased if there was a diminution in the number of people who smoke. A visit to any hospital ward will provide clear evidence that smoking and illness are linked. There is a particularly strong link between smoking and the number of people in medical wards. Many of them are smokers. I recall the ridiculous situation of seeing a person under an oxygen mask and then hearing the popping noise simply because they are smokers. That often happened. It is clear evidence of the harmful effects of smoking.

Recent studies by ASH, the Irish Cancer Society, the Irish Heart Foundation, the Irish College of General Practitioners, the Irish Hospital Consultants Association, the Asthma Society of Ireland, nurses and trade union representatives provided convincing evidence that smoking causes cancer. These are reputable bodies and we cannot argue with their findings. They also highlighted the duty of everybody to strive to prevent the spread of insidious diseases such as emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease. More recent research has concluded that conditions linked to smoking include various irreversible health effects, including metastatic breast cancer, severe rheumatoid arthritis, lung haemorrhage, lupus, meningitis in children, multiple sclerosis and impaired immune system.

The dangers of breathing second-hand smoke or passive smoking, which was mainly responsible for the death of British comedian Roy Castle, has prompted recent smoking bans in New York city, Boston and Norway. It is difficult to estimate how much smoke non-smokers inhale. Some investigations have found that passive smoking has little effect on lung cancer or heart disease. However, when the results of various studies are gathered together and collated, a technique of metaanalysis, passive smokers tend to show a 20% to 30% increased risk of suffering these diseases. The evidence shows that passive smoking has an adverse effect and kills.

Most experts, therefore, remain convinced that passive smoking is as bad for the person as smoking a cigarette. This is particularly so for young children living in a home environment with smokers. Sadly, one also sees many parents smoking in cars despite the fact that children are sitting in the back. In such a closed environment they are getting the full effect of the cigarette. Then we wonder why children become addicted to cigarettes by the age of 12 or 14 years. It is already in their systems as a result of smoking in the home or in the family car. People should be more considerate of where they smoke when in the company of non-smokers.

The research is equally relevant in the case of highly exposed workers in bars and restaurants. They are also entitled to be shielded from the effects of second-hand smoke. The Irish Prison Service indicated that between 80% and 85% of male inmates smoke and almost 100% of female inmates are regular smokers. These are frightening statistics. One can imagine the effect this has in prisons. The service warns that in the event of a ban, cigarettes and tobacco products will become contraband which would rival the existing drugs culture, resulting in peer pressure and inmate disorder. It cautions against an abrupt transition to a smoke free environment that would lead to serious behaviour and operational difficulties. I have no doubt it would lead to such difficulties.

The service pointed out that while prisons are a workplace for many, they are also home for 3,000 prisoners who should be entitled to smoke. It advocated a more realistic solution such as exists in the US where a partial ban with designated smoking areas was introduced in prisons. We should listen to what these expert bodies say. A balancing act is required. The service must protect the workers' lives but also permit people whose abode for a certain period of time is the prison to smoke. It would be foolhardy to believe that a ban on smoking in prisons could be implemented without causing mayhem.

The personality of the smoker plays an important role in understanding the behavioural component of nicotine addiction. Adolescents who are more depressed, anxious or have low self-esteem may smoke to feel better or to fit in with their peers. It gives them an identity as one of the lads or one of the girls. Regrettably, many young girls smoke as an anti-obesity measure. They smoke to suppress their appetite and seem to believe that they will be better looking. Instead of eating properly during the day they choose cigarettes as an easy way out. It is a tragedy that school children hold the belief that smoking is cool or helps them to suppress their appetite. An educational approach will be required to counteract that belief.

Some time ago there were anti-smoking advertising campaigns aimed at school children. All anti-smoking advertising campaigns should be directed at that generation. We must make an impact at that level. Teenagers who tend to smoke have fewer coping resources. They feel out of control about their health while still remaining chained to the agent that causes this lack of control, the cigarette.

Cigarette companies are ruthless in terms of the additional substances they put into cigarettes. They use hundreds of chemicals to make the nicotine more addictive. One of the substances they use is rat poison. This is all to generate money. Researchers at Britain's Imperial Cancer Research Fund have studied what 2,031 smokers suck into their lungs and compared it with the tobacco industry estimates. They found that the tar and nicotine ratings on cigarette packets were unrelated to the smoker's actual intake. Regardless of what type of cigarette they smoked, they took in large amounts of nicotine just by puffing harder. People who smoked cigarettes containing very low nicotine levels, which according to the packet contained 0.14 milligrams of nicotine each, inhaled approximately eight times more nicotine than that. Smokers of higher nicotine brands took in 1.3 milligrams, approximately one and a half times more than the 0.8 milligrams the packet label suggested.

Smokers and non-smokers have just a cursory understanding of the extent and magnitude of the health risks associated with cigarette smoking compared to other alleged health risks in the environment. In the current smoking controversy the opinions of the opposing camps are tossed back and forth, with both sides suspicious and accusing each other of having a hidden agenda. Some of them are not that hidden if one scratches beneath the surface of the agendas of those in favour of cigarette smoking. As a result, feelings of anger and distrust resonate and both sides fail to evaluate their arguments critically.

Ireland's vibrant pub culture has led to a forceful campaign by vintners and some hoteliers in an effort to secure some dilution of the legislation. The legislation has been diluted by allowing smoking in bedrooms of hotels, guesthouses and bed and breakfast accommodation, which is a tragedy. The legislation is already having an effect on hotels along the Border area in particular. For years, hotels on the southern side of the Border used to attract a large number of functions such as weddings, funerals and so on because of the excellent facilities available. People used to flock from the North for weddings. These hotels have now lost bookings which means money and jobs are being lost. While I am aware it is a contradiction, I believe that if an hotel bedroom can be exempt from the smoking ban, neither should there be a ban on smoking if someone books a private room in a hotel for a day for a private function. There should be some provision for this type of situation.

Similar bans do not appear to have sounded the death knell of the hospitality industry in the United States. The workplace ban is favoured by most health professionals. However, to ban smoking in psychiatric hospitals and hospices would remove the one crutch remaining to patients. It could have the effect of aggravating their illness, with a consequent increase in agitation. The withdrawal effects of nicotine addiction are very severe. It is not easy to go through these withdrawal symptoms. I went through it on a number of occasions, the last occasion being January 1999. It would be unfair to impose the ban on someone who is suffering from an acute illness. The psychiatric institutions have been well ahead of the law in terms of designating smoking areas in all their institutions. In that regard, the ban will not have a major impact because these institutions are well ahead of the posse in advising people to quit smoking.

Many of the health services have set up smoking cessation groups, which is welcome. The provision of patches to help staff stop smoking is also welcome. There has been much advertising recently on how to stop smoking, and the more that is seen the better. In the case of terminally ill patients in hospitals, it would be unmitigated cruelty to deny these patients the comfort of a cigarette in the final days of their life. It gets to the stage when there is no point trying to convert people. We should try to facilitate people who have just a certain length of time to live.

The main consideration in regard to any smoking ban must be public health. It is significant that Ireland will become the first country in Europe to implement such a ban in the workplace in 2004. We would all have been much happier if it had been a Europe-wide effort, or if we kept banging doors in Europe to have a European ban introduced. Ireland is out on a limb in this regard. Those involved in the tourism industry are worried because, as Deputy Finneran said earlier, people on the Continent are very heavy smokers. When I visit there I notice the large numbers of people who smoke. There is a possibility that we could chase these people away. I would have been happier if there had been a Europe-wide ban on smoking because it would have been easier to accept.

Trade union representatives are in unanimous agreement that smoking, having killed more than 150 bar workers in Ireland each year, should be banned in pubs. It is patently clear that the smoking ban in pubs and clubs is inevitable. Under the previous legislation, staff of airlines and bingo halls were happy to comply with the ban in the interest of public health. I recall when smoking was banned by airlines people thought it would be the end of the aviation industry. It was thought that people could never fly to the United States or Australia without smoking. However, this attitude has changed because it did not have this effect. It is much more comfortable for people to enter a smoke free environment, which is how it will be in future in pubs and clubs.

Publicans, loath to offend their patrons, were reluctant to agree to the ban. Recent surveys in Montana in the United States revealed that the incidence of heart attacks dropped dramatically, which is something we cannot ignore. Protecting people from tobacco toxins saves lives as well as making the environment more pleasant.

The smoking debate has heightened awareness that cigarettes are carcinogens and cause illness. A debate such as this each year might wake people up to this fact.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

I had the honour of chairing the health committee over two Government periods. I regard a report written by the former Deputy, Alan Shatter, in 1999 and discussed by the committee as being one of the major signposts in terms of dealing with an anti-smoking strategy. It was followed by a further report written by Deputy Gay Mitchell a number of years later. Having studied all the impacts of smoking, the committee unanimously recommended on both occasions that smoking in pubs should be banned. At the time we were regarded as being "out of our tree" and it has taken a long time for the wisdom of the reports to be implemented.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, must be congratulated on taking the initiative in this regard and ensuring that the whole issue of a healthy lifestyle and smoking is now in the mainstream in terms of the health of the nation. It is now accepted that smoking is injurious to one's health. All the figures suggest that 7,000 people die each year from smoking-related illnesses. It is interesting to note that in 1973 49% of people smoked. If one considers the current situation, one will find that cessation strategies have been working, perhaps not at the pace we would wish, but we have gone from a position where 49% of people smoked to 29%. It is hoped that figure will reduce to 20% by 2010. This will certainly be achievable given the expressions of interest, the element of legislation and the health promotion outlets that are beginning to manifest themselves.

It is interesting to note in the recent debate the views of the hospitality industry in regard to smoking in public houses, hotels and so on. I can well understand that people who may have stocks in place and high overheads would have a vested interest. Of course these people are concerned about a loss of business.

I can understand that these people would promote a filtration system as being the answer. Unfortunately, the World Health Organisation and all the statistics, science and information available suggest clearly that any filtration system will not be adequate to remove the carcinogens from the atmosphere. Therefore it is important in terms of the health and safety of the workers that we look seriously at how to protect their health.

For those working in a bar there is a much higher concentration of smoking in that venue than in other areas. There is no doubt they have to deal with a high concentration of smoke and their health is at risk.

I have looked at tobacco companies suppressing the knowledge that cigarette smoking was addictive and the class actions taken in the United States on the basis of the suppression of that knowledge. If a Minister for Health and Children and a Government, aware that passive smoking is injurious to health, having put in place health and safety legislation to protect the rights of workers, did not take measures to protect the health and safety of those in the workplace, the Government, like the tobacco companies, could be subject to a class action.

I am always concerned about addiction and how we deal with it. I am concerned about the relationship between legislation, health promotion at Department of Health and Children level, at health board level and, particularly, the interaction with schools. Having chaired a health board for two years I am aware that much of our interaction with schools is hit and miss. We will have to look seriously at how to integrate better the role of the health promotion unit within the health boards and the schools. It is interesting that many of the posts of responsibility in various schools tend to be administrative in nature and structure. There would certainly be a post of responsibility for the promotion of sport. In this modern day we should seek to have a health promotion officer in every school. I urge the Departments of Health and Children and Education and Science to liaise to ensure that interaction takes place.

I wish to deal briefly with the price of cigarettes. In our studies, when compiling the two reports, we visited Florida and sought information from progressive countries such as Canada which found a direct relationship between the price of the tobacco product and consumption. It was gleaned that for every 10% increase on a packet of 20 cigarettes there was likely to be a corresponding 2.5% to 5% fall off in the level of smoking. Therefore, there is a correlation between the price of cigarettes and the amount of cigarettes smoking. When the Government is involved in negotiations with the partnership it is odd that the union representatives, who are there to look after the interests and the welfare of workers, have not yet agreed to remove the price of cigarettes from the consumer price index. That is a step the unions should take. It would be a leap forward and would be in the best interests of their workers. I am at a loss to understand why that has not happened.

I can speak only of the human misery brought about by smoke related diseases. I think of the families and the individuals affected by lung cancer, a stroke or whatever. There is a correlation between all of these diseases and smoking. In our report we deemed the matter so serious that we thought the State should take an action against the tobacco companies. I understood the Minister was to take it up directly with the Attorney General and was to ask if this case could be taken.

The cost of treating smoking related diseases in our hospitals is astronomical. It has been suggested the cost could be in the region of €100 million per annum. We would all prefer to see that money going towards those on social welfare, housing, improving the health services and other areas.

It is true that we take a fair share of taxation from the industry and that the product is heavily taxed. However, given the reduction in smoking, this will be an area of diminishing tax returns. In terms of people's welfare and the human misery being experienced we must try to move on.

It is disconcerting in all the Slán reports that there is a significant increase in the number of young girls taking up smoking. Obviously the placement and timing of advertisements was a contributory factor. Another factor that had to be taken into account was that if one smokes one will not put on weight. In any promotion in which we get involved we must target young girls to ensure smoking is not seen as chique.

The efforts made by the Minister will bear fruit in the long run. I pay tribute to the Opposition parties whose support has been constant in terms of an anti-smoking strategy in the House and outside. Many people must take courage from the fact that when vested interests, and others, tried to convince this House and the Seanad that a ban was not in people's best interests they stood firm, by and large, and this ban will now take effect later than it could have done.

I have several reservations about the regulations. When exemptions are made for one area, others will also look for exemptions. One can understand the exemptions for jails, psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes, but if it is injurious to the health of bar workers then it will be injurious to the health of people working in those other facilities, and I am concerned about that. I urge the Minister not to grant exemptions under any circumstances to RTE for some of the programmes it makes. Are our film makers and drama producers suggesting that they will portray the lifestyle we want, or one that we are trying to eradicate and change by putting in place an anti-smoking strategy? It would be appropriate to resist exemptions in that field.

Mr. J. Bruton

This Bill is about smoking, not passive smoking. The evidence in regard to damage from smoking is overwhelming. The legislation will have the effect of discouraging many people from smoking because they will not be able to smoke when having a drink with their friends in the pub. The social opprobrium that will attach to people attempting to smoke in a pub will deter them from smoking even outside the pub. It will gradually make smoking socially unacceptable. That is the real agenda behind this legislation. I agree with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe in regard to the effect of passive smoking in pubs because the concentration of smoke there is far higher than in other workplaces. That apart, smoking in workplaces in general is not a major problem but smoking is. I support the underlying agenda of this and related EU legislation, which will work, to make smoking unacceptable.

I have had sympathetic conversations with members of the licensed trade in my constituency about the issue of a staggered introduction. However, this would put the publicans to the additional expense of having to divide their premises for a year and then close off the divided part later, and they would have to put up signs then take them down. If one is going to introduce this ban it is best to do it immediately rather than try to stagger its introduction. Publicans are concerned about their customers and the first days of the implementation when they want to be able to tell customers that they can smoke at the far end of the bar, rather than throw them out. This may have a temporary validity but in the long run it is better to implement the ban at once and be done with it.

We have to recognise that this is criminal legislation, criminalising an activity which has not hitherto been a crime. People complain frequently that there are not enough Garda resources to enforce this or that law, yet those people frequently also suggest the criminalisation of more activities. There is tension here between saying that one does not want higher taxes to provide more salaries for people to become law enforcers and demanding the criminalisation of other activities. Any extension of the criminal law will displace activity from one area into another. This legislation will lead to more people drinking and smoking at home. Many people say they drink only in the pub or at a party and not at home, and they do not even have drink in the house. It will increasingly be the case that those who want to continue to smoke, and who drink, will do both at home. This will have consequences for their children. When they drink and smoke in the pub they are less of a problem to the children.

There is also the problem that if people get drunk and smoke at home they are much more likely to set their houses on fire. The legislation could lead to an increase in the number of house fires associated with people falling asleep, as many do when in a comfortable chair and the television is not as entertaining as it should be, cigarette in hand. They will not fall asleep in a bar. It is likely that there will be an increase in the number of deaths from fires caused by unextinguished cigarettes. That is why I am advocating that we should introduce legislation similar to that in New York state requiring that all cigarettes retailed in this jurisdiction be self-extinguishing. We are modelling our smoking ban on New York legislation but we are not following its precedent in regard to self-extinguishing cigarettes. Why not? If it can be done in New York, which is only one of the United States, why can it not be done in this State which is only one member of the European Union? The technology is relatively simple and does not cause a problem.

To make such a recommendation does not encourage smoking, it simply ensures that people do not die in house fires. If someone is smoking and drinking in the house and falls asleep causing a fire the likelihood is that four or five other people who are not smokers and did not volunteer to be in that situation will also die. By contrast, most of the people who might be affected by smoking in pubs volunteer to be there, apart from the employees. There is a very strong ethical case for introducing self-extinguishing cigarettes as well.

I am also concerned about the exemption for smoking in hotel bedrooms. For example, after a wedding some people might stay in the hotel while others will hang around drinking. Those who want to smoke will have their drinks sent up to the bedroom of the hotel guests and will smoke and drink up there rather than downstairs. There are already problems about non-residents drinking after hours in a hotel bedroom but let us assume that people want to do so within the normal hours, is this desirable? No. There will be less supervision of associated activities if it is taking place in a hotel bedroom than in the usual areas for serving drink, the bar or the lounge. That is another diversion of trade which will occur as a result of this legislation, on whose consequences the Government ought to reflect.

I understand there is an exemption for clubs which are not a place of work.

I assume this will mean that if, for example, my local GAA club, which does not employ a full-time barman, has a club member serving drink, people can smoke in the clubhouse. So long as the barman is not paid and the clubhouse is not constituted to be a place of work, there is an exemption. That will lead to a diversion of trade. All the smokers will join the local clubs to drink and smoke in places where they are served by someone working behind the bar who is not paid for that work and does it on a voluntary basis, as I did myself in my earlier days.

I do not agree with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe that cigarettes should be removed from the consumer price index. One could make a case for removing many undesirable items from the index because they are supposedly unacceptable. On that basis one could make a case for alcohol being removed from the CPI because, to my knowledge, it does not do people any good in the sense of what is deemed to be good in this assembly.

The social partners should agree that they will have one index which includes all goods legitimately on sale, including cigarettes, and another for wage adjustment purposes. There should be two indices, but we should not interfere with the integrity of our statistical system. The consumer price index should be an accurate and full account of prices. It should not be socially engineered for another purpose. If one wants to use part of the index for another purpose, a separate index should be created. It is important to have comprehensive, accurate and non-judgmental economic statistics. For that reason I do not agree with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.

The Deputy also suggested that, for every 10% increase in cigarette prices, there is a 12.5% fall-off in smoking. I agree, but there might also be a 1% increase in crime. I am aware that the Provisional IRA has been and probably still is involved in the cigarette smuggling business in this State to fund its inestimable activities. Other gangsters are also involved in the business. The reason is the price of cigarettes. If they can provide lower price cigarettes which are not subject to excise tax, they have opportunities to make a profit. We must recognise that the more one drives activities and commodities into the black economy, the more market opportunities, so to speak, one creates for the Provisional IRA and similar organisations such as the Real IRA and so on.

Deputy Batt O'Keeffe also questioned the notion that we should allow film makers to show films in which people are smoking on the grounds that we should not allow the screening of films which portray undesirable lifestyles. I can understand why the Deputy might say this given that he is a member of Mr. de Valera's party, which believes that we should only ever portray comely maidens dancing at crossroads. If one were to accept his logic, one could not show a crime movie, because crime is certainly not a lifestyle we want to portray. If people are not allowed to be seen smoking in a movie, they should not be allowed to be seen stealing in one either. Under the O'Keeffe test, almost all movies would have to be banned. Have people thought this through? If the idea is that a socially unacceptable activity should not be portrayed in a movie, then cigarette smoking is not the only socially unacceptable activity. There must be some underlying and consistent principle.

Any Government policy on smoking should be related to some rational risk-based strategy which assesses the reality of various risks. Findings in the United States by Tyler G. Miller indicate that natural radon seeping into homes causes between 15,000 and 22,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States every year, which is approximately 10% of all lung cancer deaths. This would put it far ahead of passive smoking. US research indicates that the number of deaths from passive smoking amounts to only 3,000 deaths per year in the United States compared with the 15,000 to 22,000 deaths attributable to radon. That means that naturally occurring radon accounts for between five and seven times as many deaths as passive smoking. Natural radon accounts for 55% of all radon to which human beings are exposed.

We have a Government which is quite rightly taking action on passive smoking, but which abolished grants for eliminating radon from homes. If the Government is adopting an accurate risk-based policy in regard to cancer risk, it should be as concerned about the 91,000 houses with excessive radon levels which dramatically increase the risk of fatal lung cancer and are between five and seven times as dangerous as the situation created by passive smoking.

According to maps published by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, in my county there is a radon concentration in excess of 200 becquerels per cubic metre in the Stamullen-Gormanston, Skreen-Dunshauglin and Moynalty-Nobber areas and in Athboy. There are slightly lesser but unacceptably high risks of radon being found in Slane, Duleek, Ballivor and Crossakeel, the latter being the area from where Deputy Johnny Brady comes, in case anyone is unaware of that. Navan is safe, as is Dunboyne, I am glad to say. There may be some relation between the political affiliation of people and radon. Perhaps radon makes people Fianna Fáil. I had better be careful or I might lose a few votes in some of the areas to which I referred.

The Government should treat this as seriously as it treats smoking. One cannot draw up a David and Goliath scenario, so beloved of the media, with a Minister as David taking on Goliath in the form of the licensed trade and tobacco industry. That makes for a good dramatic scenario which gets attention for the Government and perhaps draws attention away from issues from which the Government wants it taken away. There is certainly merit in that for the smoking argument.

One cannot do that in regard to radon. One cannot blame the British, the tobacco industry or anyone for radon. It simply exists. It comes up through the floorboards of 20% of the homes in the places to which I referred and people are at a high risk of dying of cancer unless they do something about it. What has the Government done? It got rid of the one set of grants that were available for introducing the necessary testing and ventilation to identify the risk and, if necessary, undertake steps to eliminate the risk of lung cancer deaths from radon exposure. These grants should be reinstated.

I commend the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland for having published maps which I have been able to use in identifying places in my county where radon risk exists. Such maps are there for everybody's constituency and one can see exactly the areas with the greatest risk. I am concerned that so little is being done about that.

I want to raise some technical, not to say legalistic, points. The Short Title of the Bill refers to a list of EU directives which the Bill is supposed to implement. My understanding is that legislation shall not go beyond the scope set out by the Short Title, yet it seems that action is being taken that may well go beyond its remit. I would like it clarified that there is no problem in this regard.

Section 15 of the legislation refers to prohibiting or restricting the smoking of tobacco products in certain premises. I question whether this should be confined to particular premises at all times or whether it should not be possible also for the Minister to say, "I shall prohibit smoking in these premises during these times and not at other times." Periods of time rather than areas of space should also be capable of being the subject of a smoking ban. I suggest an additional paragraph 15(1)(h) which would provide for other premises between particular hours when such premises are being used for work. There are premises that are used for work for one or two hours a week. I cite the example of a community centre where people pursue entirely voluntary activities but where a cleaner is paid to clean the premises for one or two hours a week. It should be clearly the case that smoking is prohibited or capable of being prohibited during the period when it becomes a place of work. There does not seem to be a facility in the Bill to make such a provision.

On the previous occasion when this legislation was being discussed I expressed the opinion that legislation should be precise. It should not give to the Minister any powers that are vague or potentially excessive. It is the function of this House to ensure that the Executive is strictly limited in what it may do and that it may only do that which is necessary to the achievement of the objectives which the House has determined should be set. On that basis I have a problem with section 15(1)(g), which provides that the Minister may prohibit or restrict the smoking of tobacco products in all or part of any other premises or place generally, or of such a class as may be specified in the regulations. That could allow the Minister to make a ban applicable anywhere. I do not think that is what the House intends and that section should be more tightly drawn so as to confine it to what the House intends at this time. This legislation should not be a blank cheque.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again on the vexed issue of tobacco and the controversy it causes. I am pleased to see the former Taoiseach in the Chamber. He is a man for whom I have the greatest admiration. It is good to see that he is not only in the Chamber but that he is mentioning far-flung and little-known places such as Nobber, Slane and other points in his constituency.

Mr. J. Bruton

They are well known to me.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Deputy John Bruton may no longer be the Taoiseach but he certainly has not gone away; he is very much part of this House and part of the tradition of public service which he and his family have pursued for many years in various fields and not just in politics.

I advise Deputy English that he might have to play the understudy for quite some time if Deputy Bruton continues to make contributions such as this. He made some very serious and significant points, all of which seem to suggest he will be staying around for quite some time to come to guide Deputy English. Unfortunately for Deputy English, he may not be disappearing off to Brussels or some part of Europe—

Mr. English

I am delighted to have Deputy Bruton beside me.

Mr. C. Lenihan

From the point of view of Deputy English, Deputy Bruton seems to be showing an unhealthy interest in places in his constituency.

Mr. English

We are a successful team.

Mr. C. Lenihan

We will move on from those small, minor matters.

Ms O. Mitchell

Why should we?

Mr. C. Lenihan

This debate provides an opportunity to discuss the issue of tobacco. Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco to Europe in the 1580s and since then we have had a very unhealthy and romantic interest in cigarettes and cigarette smoke. It reached a high point when Ella Fitzgerald sang about a cigarette with lipstick traces and airline tickets to romantic places. Since the 1580s, European society has enjoyed a wonderful relationship with tobacco where tobacco has been romanticised beyond the facts. In my view, James I was correct when he described it as the "noxious weed". He seemed to have got the health argument right quite early on although it does not appear to have helped him. The phenomenon has spread since he made that pronouncement.

Mr. Durkan

This is very poetic. I am not able for this.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I pay tribute to all the Opposition Deputies who have upheld what I would term a cross-party consensus through very difficult times over the last few months on the issue of the smoking ban and the control of tobacco. It has become a matter for consensus across the floor of the House, like the consensus on matters pertaining to Northern Ireland and social consensus in the partnership process. It has also become a matter for consensus in many other Parliaments across Europe. Political parties do not seriously disagree about tackling and taking on the tobacco industry and the habit which forms from the use of tobacco.

I am a smoker and I would like to kick the habit but one must live in hope in that regard. This Bill is a courageous move by the Minister. It is noteworthy that Ireland has always taken the lead in this area. This House is often criticised for always slavishly following directives and regulations, the diktats from Europe and Brussels, but we have led in the area of legislation governing smoking and advertising of tobacco. Another former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, initiated this process during his wilderness years in the Department of Health when he was waiting to take charge of the country. He saw fit to take on the tobacco industry and many of the controls and regulations he introduced at that time became the model for subsequent European directives.

From my period of service with the European Commission I am aware that it does not always act in a neutral manner on the issue of tobacco or the health-related side of the argument. There are significant European countries which are still producers of tobacco and are heavily dependent on it. Some wealthy European countries still have a vested interest in promoting tobacco and that makes it difficult even at Commission level to push through certain regulations.

The Minister has again taken the centre stage with the issue of tobacco and the Hanly report. He has fought against terrible odds on behalf of both. The publicans are an influential lobby and in my view, over-reacted to the proposed regulations. Whether by accident or design, the Minister has arrived at a position where the implementation has been staggered and delayed to February and that is to be welcomed.

The owner of my local pub is planning to phase in the smoking ban as the final deadline approaches. Publicans are now being proactive in acclimatising their customers to the new reality. Many people wonder if it will be possible to enforce the ban but if the publicans take this type of responsible attitude, acclimatising their customers ahead of the full implementation by designating certain areas as smoke-free ahead of the Bill becoming law, that is a healthy attitude and is a sign that publicans are prepared to work with the legislation.

There has been some controversy because 14 of the 53 sections of the Bill are being re-enacted in the House. It is unclear whether this has occurred through accident or design. The advantage is that it has led to a later deadline and it is to be welcomed from the point of view of due caution. For obvious reasons, because of the legal action taken by the tobacco industry, the Attorney General was being very cautious, as lawyers always are, in my experience, and perhaps even excessively so in this case, about the potential for a downside risk such as a legal challenge or ambush. The Attorney General in his wisdom decided that these sections should be re-enacted. I disagree with his view, not in a political but rather a principled way. I believe that on the grounds of public health alone one could have enacted these provisions without having to re-enact the Bill.

The Minister is taking the advice of the Attorney General. I believe all Members of this House would be very disappointed if for whatever reason, some tendentious legal action by the tobacco industry were to seriously scupper or delay the enactment of this legislation on public health grounds.

They have decided to be cautious – that is how lawyers and Attorneys General behave and the Minister is right to listen to them.

It also allows for the happy accident that the regulations will be phased in with due warning and not immediately on 1 January. Many people feared the ban would be introduced overnight on 1 January, when people make all sorts of promises and, within a week of taking on pious hopes, they feel dejected because they did not fulfil them. It would be an odd time of the year to introduce a full ban because many people travel in hope rather than expectation and end up being disappointed.

The detailed provisions are in line with the thrust of European governance on tobacco control. I agree with Deputy John Bruton when he disagreed with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who is vociferous in pushing the case for preventing film and programme makers for RTE and other broadcasters from allowing actors to play out their roles while smoking. The only way this practice can be discouraged is by moral persuasion rather than the blunt instruments of policy and regulation. It is dangerous to interfere with the artistic desire to be creative and it would be foolish to legislate to prevent creative people from depicting situations which may not be healthy but are common. There is no point in being more of a roundhead than a cavalier; the tendency to punish all forms of joy is also unhealthy.

I was taken by some of Deputy John Bruton's exceptions. I doubt people will crowd into hotel bedrooms after weddings in Nobber or Slane to have a smoke and drink, that will not happen.

Mr. English

It happens already.

Mr. C. Lenihan

When people retire after weddings, it is generally for activities other than smoking and drinking, such as sleeping or making love.

Ms O. Mitchell

Not in a group.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Hotel bedrooms in my experience are generally places of rest or sexual joy.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy should not go there.

Mr. C. Lenihan

They are not places to where people retire to have a serious smoking-fest late at night. That fear is misplaced, like that of people crowding into GAA clubs to have one last gasper because the person behind the bar is a volunteer rather than an employee. GAA clubs staffed by volunteers in a club atmosphere could be designated as non-smoking areas because the bar counter is a workplace regardless of whether people are working voluntarily. I am open to contradiction – I see Deputy Olivia Mitchell shaking her head.

Ms O. Mitchell

Those volunteers will be very popular in the clubs.

Mr. C. Lenihan

There is flexibility and it is important that the Minister has reserve powers should such situations arise.

Mr. Durkan

He could inspect the clubs himself.

Mr. C. Lenihan

The GAA can be ingenious in the manner it attracts customers to its clubs to enjoy themselves but it will not be in a position to encourage such action.

Deputy John Bruton was right that much of this is to do with persuasion. When the idea of the smoking ban was raised many people asked how it would be enforced, would there have to be gardaí or environmental health officers telling people to put their cigarettes out? Once something is known to be coming into force, the people will enforce it. That is obvious when using airlines or public transport because people are not foolhardy enough to take on their fellow passengers. There are, of course, exceptions. The major one I have seen when travelling on the bus is that people are more likely to light a joint than a cigarette. There are reckless youths on a number of bus routes lighting joints rather than ordinary cigarettes to enjoy themselves.

The publicans over-reacted to this measure and they have now recognised that they will have to work within it. The Taoiseach was right when he said that certain people would now return to the pubs as a result of the smoking ban. There is a high rate of asthmatic and bronchial disorder in Ireland and many people who like a drink do not go to the pub because they feel the atmosphere is not conducive to their good health. They do not like to leave a pub after an hour with the intense odour of cigarette smoke on their clothes and skin, a huge issue for many people. I see a boon for the licensing trade with customers who are passing up the opportunity to go to a pub returning to it as a result of the ban.

The smoking ban throws down a challenge to publicans to become more competitive. Economic growth has reduced but it is still healthy, and they can address the issues of price and entertainment. Do they provide food and entertainment other than alcohol? The licensing trade can be legitimately criticised for the way it has developed in Ireland, although I do not blame publicans because there are multi-faceted reasons this has occurred, but we must move beyond the pub being a place purely for imbibing. Historically and culturally it is a social centre in Irish life and the publican is under an obligation to address prices. There has been a huge increase in wealth in the country and although the inflation problem has been somewhat banished, the price of drink has not been brought down in this period. There must be a sign that prices will reduce and that there will be a diversity of entertainment in pubs by way of music, food and other distractions.

Mr. Durkan

Lap dancing can be a dangerous distraction.

Mr. C. Lenihan

That will require investment and ingenuity on the part of publicans. In my constituency, the publicans who are investing in entertainment and keeping their customers happy are those who do best and have most repeat business. No business can rely on passing trade or the phenomenal appeal of the large, trendy pubs in town which capture the young drinkers for a period and then lose them within a year to someone else. They must invest in the repeat customers who go there because they like the ambience and the way the staff behave, perform and interact with the customers and the other people who go there. That is the only way to keep a pub in business.

Mr. Durkan

We do not want to encourage the staff to perform.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I am not sure what the Deputy is implying but staff need to be able to perform and interact. There is a danger of our encouraging a pub culture where there is smoking and drinking but no interaction between bar staff and customers. The staff fire out drink and change for cigarettes and the place fills with smoke. Such an industrialised application of the licensed trade is not attractive. It is unhealthy and may contribute to the phenomenon of excessive drinking that now exists.

On the restrictive licensing hours, we should move as best we can to a system where there is open availability of alcohol at all hours, perhaps even on a 24 hour basis, and a much lighter regime in terms of regulation. I understand why the Government has moved to impose restrictions at certain times – it is because of the public order issues – but if we were a mature people in terms of our relationship with alcohol we would be able to cope with all-night openings and there would not be the sort of reckless experience we have seen to date when we extended those hours. We should be able to aspire to having round-the-clock licensing hours but we have a unique problem with alcohol and cigarettes – I do not say this in a patronising way about our people – and we need to address both of those issues in a sensible and ordered way, though not in a zealous way that will restrict people's rights to imbibe and enjoy themselves.

When the debate about this ban was at its height, I moved around my constituency in the normal manner meeting bar staff, publicans and customers, and the idea was quickly reinforced to me that while publicans were making a strong case against it, their staff were coming up to me privately and saying, "Well done, keep it up, please bring this in." The same staff, unfortunately, were subjected to pressure to sign petitions against it. They signed them but they did not believe in them. They believed in what the Minster and all the parties in this House are doing. The Minister is not doing this alone. He is doing it in conjunction with the fine support that has been given on it by the members of the Opposition who have decided, in a very responsible manner, to stay with the cross-party consensus which we need to deal with this difficulty occasioned by our smoking habits.

I hope the Department will listen to me when I say that in addition to the tablets, the gum and the patches, the Bill should be extended to include acupuncture as a way of treating this addiction. We need to increase the number of people who can get a diversity of treatments under the GMS and the medical card to help them kick the habit.

Dr. Cowley

Tá áthas orm bheith ag caint ar an mBille seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ar fad, agus ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an Aire as.

This is an issue of extreme importance which has major implications. We have all heard that prevention is better than cure and this measure is one way of dealing with this problem. No more than Mr. Haughey's toothbrushes, this legislation has become a smokescreen for addressing many issues which we should have more time to discuss in the House, such as the situation in Castlebar hospital where 11 people are currently on trolleys and there is lack of capacity in the hospital, although that is nothing new. The manager spoke about this on radio today and mentioned the need for people to stay away from the hospital. The staff are hard working and I hope they get the support they need.

Smoking kills nearly five million people per year – 7,000 Irish citizens die every year as a result of smoking. In his contribution the Minister outlined very well the scale of the problems that arise from smoking. Smoking is the largest preventable cause of cancer. That is a major problem.

Deputy John Bruton talked about radon gas, but radon gas and smoking have a cumulative effect when combined. I support the Deputy's call for grants for remedial measures to be introduced. I was one of the first people to talk about the health implications of radon, although Dr. McLoughlin in UCD was the pioneer in this area. It is important to remember that preventative measures make a difference. That is not to take away from the situation regarding passive smoke, which is a major problem.

These are problems we can do something to address. We can do something about stopping people from smoking. I know when people start smoking they do not realise the harmful effects of cigarettes. How can they know? When the generation before me started smoking – I am not that old – they were told that Craven A soothes the throat and that smoking was good for them. We now know that is not the case. When I started in medicine we studied all the reports from Doll and Hill, which were published years earlier, but the tobacco industry never accepted those reports or the link between smoking and ill health. If we were depending on the tobacco industry, we would still be waiting and the harm would continue. There was talk about immoral earnings, but the fact that cigarette companies earn large amounts from cigarettes is immoral and it has to be seen in that light because smoking damages health and destroys families, and it will continue to do so.

What really influences young people are the smoking habits of their families and peers. What their friends do is very important to young people and if their friends are smoking, they are likely to smoke. If their parents smoke, they are likely to smoke also. Many parents tell their children, "Do as I say and not as I do." They tell them not to smoke, yet they smoke themselves. They tell them not to drink, yet they drink alcohol. The children do not get these habits from the wind, and it is important that we look at our own habits.

Another aspect that influences smoking habits is the price of cigarettes. I ask the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to continue to raise the price of cigarettes. Advertising also has a strong effect on people and this legislation deals with advertising. There is direct and indirect sponsorship and we all know about the effects on young people of glamorising smoking.

It is obvious that smoking has become an anti-social practice. The Irish Cancer Society called for the removal of tobacco from the basket of goods in the consumer price index because it is a major block to Government putting substantial tax increases on tobacco products. I call on the Minister to do that.

It is said that 80% of young smokers become addicted before the age of 20 and that they have little awareness of the damage they are doing. The addictive effects of tobacco are enormous. Tobacco is one of the major addictions and there is great difficulty in trying to give up cigarettes. Eight out of ten young people become addicted in their teens. The current aggressive advertising campaign shows atheromatous plaque being squeezed out of the aorta, the main blood vessel in the body. Atheroma does not come with age, it results from smoking and so on. These are great advertisements and they need to be shown.

I remember as a student the first time I saw the lung of a smoker I was horrified because it looked more like a sack of coal than the pink, vibrant organ responsible for aerating the person's blood and keeping him alive. That horrific scene should be depicted on every cigarette packet, and I am glad to see the legislation moving towards that. Shock tactics are needed because the effects of this serious problem are great. The World Health Organisation has said that smoking is the biggest cause of premature deaths.

Chronic bronchitis is very common in Ireland – like England, we have a damp climate – it is called the English disease. Many people have what is called smoker's cough, although the tobacco industry would deny that, but it is really the start of a very serious disease which does untold harm and will result in more people getting respiratory infections. They wake up in the morning with phlegm, they may have a cough for three months during the winter and eventually have it all year long. The person is constantly coughing up phlegm. The delicate cells that the Lord has given us convert to graveyard cells which produce mucus. These delicate cilia, which are responsible for excreting foreign substances from the body, are turned into mucous cells which produce mucus. That mucus is our bodies' reaction to terrible abuse over the years. The proposed measures will make a difference to the people who smoke because smoking is so harmful. Young people do not have any excuse and it is good they get the information they need.

I used to smoke, but I gave them up when my first child was born. As I am an ex-smoker, I do not like being in pubs because people smoke there and I would be tempted to start smoking again. I tried several times to give them up before I finally succeeded. I was a doctor at the time, so I should have known better.

Debate adjourned.