Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1978

Vol. 90 No. 4

Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Bill, 1978: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Health (Mr. Haughey)

Although this Bill is a short one. I regard it as a most important piece of health legislation. It comes to the Seanad after a detailed examination on Committee Stage in the Dáil, during which it was amended and, I feel, improved.

I think it is fair to say that the Bill itself was regarded by the Dáil as a necessary legislative instrument by which I and my successors in office will be able to prohibit particular kinds of advertising and sponsorship, to restrict expenditure in these areas, to control the form and content of tobacco advertising, and to prohibit certain sales promotion devices such as gifts and price-cutting. These powers are contained in section 2 of the Bill, which also provides for the furnishing to the Minister of information necessary for the purposes of the Act. The remaining sections of the Bill contain the short title, definitions and provision for expenses and penalties.

It was the manner in which I intended to use the powers in the Bill in the short term rather than the Bill itself on which the criticism of some Deputies focussed. They felt I was not going far enough. I think I am, and what I propose to include in the regulations, which I will make immediately after the Bill becomes law, is a realistic and sensible balance between what it is necessary to do from the public health point of view and reasonable to do from the point of view of an industry upon which numbers of people depend for their livelihood and from the point of view of sporting organisations who are involved at present in sponsorship by tobacco companies.

Accepting that precipitate action would have been inimical to the objectives which I have set myself and to those people who derive their livelihood from the manufacture and sale of tobacco products, I have decided in the medium term to proceed by prohibiting or restricting the promotional activities of the tobacco industry in those areas in which it seemed to me they had the greatest impact. The introduction of these proposals will serve notice upon the industry that they cannot be permitted to undermine our efforts in the field of preventive health. They will be quite clear that the era of unlimited promotional activities is over and that in the future they face more and more restrictions on their advertisements.

When the regulations are made under the Bill, the only advertising media which will be left open to the tobacco companies will be the newspapers and magazines and internal advertising at points of retail sale. In these areas there will be a limitation on the content of advertisements and of expenditure upon it. Sponsorship will remain for a time but, again, expenditure will be restricted and advertising associated with it severely curtailed.

Radio, television, cinema and outdoor advertising will be prohibited and the glamorous advertisement in newspapers and magazines will be a thing of the past.

I intend to strengthen the health warning on packages of cigarettes and on advertisements and to require that it be clearly displayed and not obscured as it is on occasion now.

There was some discussion in the Dáil about the problem of sponsorship. On the one hand some Deputies felt that I was going too far in controlling this particular activity of the tobacco industry, whereas others considered that what I proposed to do was weak and pandered to the tobacco interests.

I have said, and I repeat now, that sponsorship is just another form of advertising. This is particularly true of tobacco sponsorship which, in the main, tends to concentrate upon the spectacular super-event from which publicity can be widely obtained. I intend, therefore, to curb its promotional content. Advertisements for the sponsored event in the press or magazines, for instance, or at the event being sponsored may not include any reference to a brand of a tobacco product nor any participants in the event be identified visually with a brand.

Furthermore, the tobacco companies will be restricted in what they spend. They will not be allowed to engage in new sponsorship activities without express approval, which will be given only in very exceptional circumstances.

To prohibit sponsorship immediately would have been too precipitate and would have given little opportunity to the organisers of events to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. Not only that, but it would have been counterproductive in the sense that arbitrary action tends to alienate people who otherwise would be sympathetically disposed to our objectives in the preventive health area.

Those objectives are essentially to encourage in the public an awareness of how much they can do to improve the state of their own health by adopting a sensible regimen of life, by taking a reasonable amount of exercise and rest, by not eating too much or drinking too much and, above all, by not smoking.

Finally, let me say that there was some pressure on me to require the tobacco interests to display the tar content of cigarettes upon the packets. The proposition has some attractions, but there is the danger that if the companies were required to do so there would be an implication that there is such a thing as a safe cigarette. There is not, and smokers are foolish if they delude themselves that there is.

Companies will not, however, in the advertising media remaining open to them be prevented from indicating the tar content of the particular brand. This will allow those who persist in smoking to choose a low tar brand if they so wish.

The passage of this Bill and the consequential regulations which I will make will enable this country to make a most significant effort in preventive health at the national level. It is regarded in Europe as an important piece of legislation from the point of view of the spreading international effort to prevent death and illness from smoking related diseases. This was very evident at the recent EEC Council of Ministers for Health in Brussels on 16 November at which the problems created by tobacco smoking were discussed. I should also say that a a conclusion to the meeting it was unanimously recommended that the Commission pursue the question of establishing a common attitude towards tobacco advertising in the nine member states.

It is in this spirit that I commend the Bill to Senators for a Second Reading, and I will be glad of their comments on its content.

Mr. McCartin

We may not be able to say that we welcome the Bill as the ideal solution to the problem that the Minister is seeking to solve. Nevertheless we welcome a number of comments that the Minister made and acknowledge that he is making an effort to awaken concern about what is a very serious problem, not only in this area but also as regards general standards of health and hygiene. The Minister, by his concern and dedication to his ideals in this area, is making an honest effort to create an awareness of the importance of health and the factors relating to health which are entirely within the control of individuals. The most welcome line here is the emphasis that has been laid on the fact that, for the future, the unrestricted right to advertise tobacco is a thing of the past. I regret that the Bill has not covered a wider area.

I feel that, for the protection of our young people, it is time that serious consideration was given to the sort of activities they engage in. We have always coupled tobacco with alcohol. I firmly believe that one area is as dangerous as the other. We have at our disposal much evidence that health is being damaged by alcohol as well as by tobacco. Statements by eminent psychiatrists in the recent past indicate that a very high proportion of people at present in some of our overcrowded mental institutions are there through problems of alcohol. The first observations of the development of bad habits in the young people leaving school is the cigarette in the hand. Now I notice that the glass is first with a bigger number of them. I do not know what the facts or figures are on this. I have not any, but I believe that more young people put their health at risk by starting to drink and smoke too early. I regret that the Minister did not take the two problems together, or make any reference in what he said to any ideas he has about coming to grips with the other half of what I consider to be more or less the same problem.

The Minister has pointed out, and it has been pointed out by others, that if we are to believe and place any confidence in what the medical profession have been telling us, there is an obligation on all of us to warn everybody we see with a cigarette in their hand of the dangers of smoking. There is no question about it any more. It is amazing the number of people who will say that they do not believe this and that there is no evidence to back it up. A bigger effort should be made to educate people, particularly the young, about what is involved. There is also the problem of the example of older people. I do not think anybody enjoys their first cigarette. I do not smoke any longer but I did for a period. I did not enjoy my first cigarette. I smoked because I saw other people smoking. Most young people endure the first 20 cigarettes they take just because smoking has been made to look glamorous on television or in magazines. They see other people smoking in what appear to be conditions of comfort and people give the impression that they get much satisfaction from it. Older people who are hooked on the habit and find it difficult to give it up, or feel that their health and constitution is sufficiently strong to resist any of the dangers, should be encouraged through our educational system to smoke out of sight. They should take themselves to some place where they will not be observed and will not pollute the atmosphere. In dancehalls and other recreational centres and in many meeting rooms people who do not smoke are forced to endure it. Until we make an effort to educate our young people and warn those who are smoking of the effects of their bad example, any other efforts we make will not be effective.

The legislation is, in a sense, slightly irrelevant. It is more or less like setting up a commission of inquiry or having a study carried out. None of us know what exactly it is intended to do. Apart from the fact that the Minister said he intends, immediately the legislation is passed, to make use of it, we are not completely sure what exactly he intends to do. Furthermore, it places on the Minister, his Department and his advisers, a very weighty responsibility to pick the particular areas where they are going to first impose the restriction. It would be a far better approach to make up our minds about what exactly should be done about the problem. We should introduce clear, decisive legislation which would let everybody know what exactly we are doing so that there would be no misunderstanding about it, and no loopholes that could be used. There would be no hope that, if a sufficient case was made action would not be taken. This legislation gives no clear indication of what exactly will happen or how it will operate. There are a lot of questions to be answered. The Minister will be subjected to unnecessary pressure by people who do not know exactly where they stand but who know that in the Minister's two hands there exists the power to do this, that or the other. That is a big deficiency which will exist even when this legislation has been passed.

A lot of people expressed sympathy for the different areas of sport and loss of revenue for the advertising of events and so on. For a long time we have had knowledge of the damage that was being done by cigarette smoking. Therefore, the immorality of advertising it should not be short-taken by any legislation or orders which will be made. Any genuine sporting body will accept that it is wrong to allow their sport to be used in this way. They should have accepted a long time ago that this could not possibly continue indefinitely. Some sports have become more than a sport. They have become an industry. People who are consciously trying to achieve one end and yet put people's health at risk should examine their consciences to see what direction they are going in.

The question of revenue always arises when this subject is raised. The majority of people believe that any Government cannot seriously tackle the problem of controlling the use of either alcohol or tobacco because of the amount of revenue that is involved. Decisive calculations should be made by those whose responsibility it is. They should make up an inventory of what is coming in from those areas. By planning our programme for a healthier and more wholesome society we could set definite targets and objectives of what we hope to achieve over the years. We could gear our budgets and economic policy to working out to where we eventually hope to find ourselves. From the beginning everybody would know where the Government intend to go in this area and what exactly the finance involved means. Short of working out this sort of programme, people will be convinced that no Government could be serious in undertaking this task.

It is welcome news that, at European level, this subject is taken seriously also because of travel and the movement of papers, magazines and television programmes across boundaries. It is an area which can only be effectively tackled at European level. As one of the richest areas in the world—the habits. customs and culture of which we expect to spread into other areas as they become more affluent—we have an obligation not to sell them this side of our culture which is not a healthy one. The advertising and selling of tobacco and alcohol cannot be controlled by any national Government working solely on its own. It must be tackled at a wider level. We should be conscious of our obligations to the world which looks to western Europe as an area where many of the better things in life exist.

This legislation is not a solution to the problem. It has not gone far enough and has left too many people wondering what is going to happen next. The Minister will find himself in an awkward situation when he seeks to select the areas where he is going to introduce measures. People who will be making provision for alternative sources of revenue and who may have to look for other jobs should know all this well in advance. It should be clearly outlined to them exactly where we are going. On the other hand, we welcome the Bill as a sign at least of the concern of the Minister who needs to do something in this area. While it is not all that we expect, it is better than nothing.

Mr. Lambert

I had certain reservations about this Bill until I read the Minister's reaction to the Dáil debate and listened to his introduction. The fact that he is conscious that we are not dealing with automatons but with human beings in trying to persuade the community to adopt certain courses is very salutary. The Minister made the comment that he is proceeding wisely with a great deal of common sense and sensitivity. With his personal reassurance, as a Member of the Seanad who feels somewhat responsible for the health and education programme for the next generation. I support this Bill.

I am glad to hear the Minister assure us that he will be lenient towards the tobacco companies who are already involved in some worth-while sponsorships and that any decisions taken under the Bill will not discriminate against the Irish manufacturer who is responsible for the employment of a great number of people.

As a non-smoker I can speak objectively, and I would like to put forward points on behalf of the committed smokers who make up a fair percentage of our population. Like many others, I am concerned that this Bill will be the first step towards the ultimate aim of completely banning the sale and availability of tobacco which, like any other satisfying habit, will produce its own backlash and black market. Such action could produce a nation of neurotics unless it is accompanied by a very strong educational programme, particularly for the young, to influence them towards alternative outlets for their mental and physical energies. For the not so young, I would be worried about the side effects healthwise of giving up smoking too rapidly. It is an accepted theory that cessation of smoking leads to compensatory over-eating and probably to obesity and other worrying health hazards.

There have been many generations of advertising and sponsorship which highlighted the habit of smoking as the key to success in any situation in which men and women found themselves. It has established itself as the most sophisticated outward evidence of one's adulthood and maturity. Moreover, the addiction is considered relaxing and enables some people to cope with the strains and stresses of life, to overcome shyness, embarrassment and insecurity and an easier way to cultivate business relationships and friendships.

The most likely withdrawal reaction would be a build up of tension which is probably the greatest contributor to the cause of heart attacks. As a non-smoker, the smoking habit has in no way affected my life. Both my parents were more than moderate smokers and both of them lived until well over the age of eighty, Throughout my business and social life the most stimulating and enjoyable evenings have been spent in company with people who drink and smoke in moderation.

I find it hard to reconcile the theory behind this Bill with the flamboyant introduction of duty free facilities heralded as a bonanza to those who travel by sea and air, who can purchase drink and tobacco more cheaply. I must admit that I also avail of this facility, as I cannot resist a bargain. It seems a pity that drink and tobacco are so glamourised and that the monetary incentives are not extended to less controversial goods which could be sold, even less VAT, at our airports and on ships.

Whether one smokes or not the growing habit of disregarding the mannerly etiquette of not smoking during meals, particularly at official functions and dinners before what used to be known as the loyal toast is to be deprecated. I suggest to politicians on both sides of the House who give support to this Bill, that they have an opportunity to see that this formal procedure is re-established, so that people at official functions do not smoke before the toast of the President of Ireland is honoured. I am sure that the Minister could request that menus in future would cover this reminder. All of us have experienced the moment when one sits down at a dinner and someone says "I hope you do not mind if I smoke". Rather than lose a friend for life one mumbles a response which is immediately taken as assent. Perhaps the Minister could bring out a voluntary code of manners to those committed to smoking which will help his longer term campaign. I also suggest that a mass mediscan system should be extended to the new social welfare scheme as a form of preventive medicine.

My most important suggestion is that the Minister, who has earned such a world wide reputation for his action in the promotion and encouragement of the arts, should convince his Cabinet colleagues that it is in the interests of our future well being to allow personal and business taxation incentives for greater sponsorship in areas of charity, culture and sport. This gives me the opportunity to support the plea of Senator Alexis FitzGerald over the past year, that people should be encouraged to give money for good purposes. With adequate taxation incentives, people could be encouraged to give up smoking and direct their savings to more salutary objectives. This would also have the benefit of redirecting their energies to more active involvement in such good purposes.

I compliment the Minister on the leadership he has shown in the meetings with the EEC Ministers. The introduction of this Bill is proof that the Minister practises what he preaches and that we afford a very high priority to our positive health policy. In this context I am glad that the Minister is aware of the overspill advertising, particularly in relation to imported magazines and newspapers. Even as a non-smoker I cannot help being mesmerised by the glamorous advertising in magazines such as Time which always contains at least two cigarette advertisements without a reference to the health regulations which are mandatory here. The Minister is to be congratulated on his untiring efforts, through the Department of Health, to highlight the health risks and dangers from various quarters. I wish them well in their continuous campaign against over indulgence in the habits which statistics have proved to be serious health hazards. It is hoped that the whole nation will soon jog or walk tall towards fitness and health. We certainly all need the physique and stamina to cope with the EMS.

Dr. West

I find it rather difficult to make up my mind about the provisions in this Bill. In general terms, some control of advertising on an even wider scale than this is necessary. Will the statutory controls on advertising of certain products really be effective? One does not know. I advocated for some time that there should be an advertising council which would introduce some controls on the veracity of advertisements over the widest possible range. It is rather a pity that we have not set up such a body. There is a difficulty when one tries to tackle a specific product or the product of a specific industry.

One wonders whether the control of advertising will really have the effect of reducing the level of smoking particularly by those who overindulge. Overindulgence is really the problem that the Minister is interested in getting at. That is really the aspect from the preventive medicine point of view that one wants to emphasise. Could some statutory controls not be introduced to restrict smoking in certain public places where appropriate? I am not sure if any legislation refers to this, but that would be one of the ways in which one might produce a beneficial effect.

I agreed with Senator Lambert when he referred to the need for an educational campaign connected with this type legislation. An obvious contradiction has been pointed out already, where sporting organisations accept large quantities of sponsorship from tobacco firms, if it is clear that smoking affects one's level of fitness. On has also to be careful, and think of the effect that a blanket prohibition would have on our behaviour. When there was prohibition on the sale of alcohol in the US the consumption of alcohol did not drop, it stabilised or increased and the prohibition just produced an enormous black market. One wants to be careful in these areas not to over-kill, because it produces a backlash. The educational approach that one needs to adopt is to get the idea across that if one smokes too much it affects one's level of fitness. The campaign for a higher level of physical fitness should be linked carefully with the fact that smoking affects one's level of fitness and that this is something which impinges on the individual. I wonder whether this Bill will do anything more than prohibit the advertising of tobacco. Will it affect consumption? It is hard to say. I have no facts about the reactions in other countries where this sort of campaign may have been carried out. Perhaps the Minister would refer to this if he has any such facts. I am not sure whether the Bill will in fact produce the right effect. The statistics seem to prove that there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer. I would argue also that there is probably a connection between air pollution and lung cancer. Statistics seem to corroborate this and it would be useful to have figures comparing the incidence of lung cancer in city dwellers with the incidence in rural dwellers. High levels of air pollution from exhaust fumes or from industrial effluent may be a major factor in the causes of lung cancer. That is another problem that should be borne in mind.

The Minister should see if he can do something about the restriction of smoking in public places. An ultimate prohibition would probably produce a backlash, and it would be better in this area not to take too big a step at once because it is very hard to foresee the effects either on the industry or on the health of the individuals of a restriction on advertising a product such as tobacco.

Professor Conroy

I wholeheartedly welcome this very necessary Bill. It is a timely measure which strikes the right note. It is necessary that there should be a control of advertising, but to be too draconian about it at this stage, as Senator West and the Minister indicated. might have a counter-productive trend. It is nice to see that this is part of the concerted European Community effort in relation to smoking. I am very glad that we are among the first off the mark in this very necessary matter.

There is another major aspect of this Bill from a health point of view in that it is a significant contribution to preventive medicine. For far too long we have perhaps devoted our attention to curing disease and stopping at that point. What would be very useful would be if we could in so far as is possible prevent disease and give more emphasis to positive health and positive prevention of illness. This is a very worth-while step in this direction.

Unfortunately, the ill-effects of smoking are indeed very serious. Here I would differ slightly from my colleague, Senator West, because the situation has been very thoroughly documented over the years, two major reports in the early seventies, one commissioned by the World Health Organisation, by Fletcher from the Royal Post-Graduate Medical School, and Daniel Home who is Director of the US National Clearing House for Smoking and Health, and a report the following year by the Royal College of Physicians on smoking and health, all too clearly indicate the position. It may well be that air pollution and so on are further contributory matters but there is unfortunately no doubt whatever now about the association between smoking and lung cancer.

That in itself would be a more than sufficient reason for the sort of measure we have in front of us, but apart from that there is evidence that any chest disease and heart disease can be made much worse by smoking. Indeed, there is a whole range of illnesses in which the mortality rate, the mobility and actual degree of illness is unfortunately increased by smoking. Perhaps another less widely known but also a very important factor is the association which occurs between smoking and a pregnancy. It seems smoking is likely to reduce significantly the likelihood of a mother being sure of having a normal baby. There are very many grave reasons why smoking has to be discouraged. I have used the word "unfortunately" several times because, as has been mentioned, there is no doubt at all that for many people smoking is something which they very much like, and it is a habit which it is extremely difficult to break.

There is also the aspect of the employment given by our tobacco manufacturers and so on, but taking all these into account, the ill-effects are so serious that unfortunately a measure such as this is necessary. It is necessary in the context of generally trying to bring about a reduction in smoking by, perhaps, trying to discourage people from taking it up in the first instance, or by attempting to reduce the amount of smoking by those who are already confirmed smokers or, better still, by attempting to persuade them to give it up altogether. Reduced smoking is not safer, it is merely less dangerous. When one cuts down smoking, uses filter tips or changes to a pipe or whatever, one is reducing the danger and is not in any way doing something safe. Just changing to a pipe and then inhaling the pipe as cigarette smokers will probably tend to do, is not really very much help at all. It is less dangerous if people switch to filter tipped cigarettes or if they switch to low tar cigarettes.

An unfortunate aspect is that very little progress has been made with attempts to introduce safer cigarettes. It seems as though cigarettes involving tobacco, of necessity involve these serious effects which have been mentioned to us. Hopefully some day there will be progress in this direction but at present unfortunately it is very disappointing and the era of safer cigarettes is by no means with us and there is no immediate prospect of such. It is merely a question of reducing the dangers by using filter tips or low tar content cigarettes.

These attempts to discourage people from taking up the habit of smoking, trying to reduce, trying to use less dangerous cigarettes, or trying to give it up altogether will all be nullified unless a measure such as this is effectively enforced by the Minister. The power of advertising has been demonstrated on many occasions and I have no doubt whatever that controlling this power is a very necessary measure even though it may be statistically very difficult to prove that one has had such and such effect, because one is trying to prove a negative.

Control over advertising must be supported by positive measures particularly, the force of example. Members of the medical profession have a particular duty here not to smoke if possible. It is fair to say that smoking among the medical profession has fallen very dramatically over the last ten or 15 years. They are one section of the population who have certainly heeded the warnings perhaps through their sad direct knowledge of the effects and consequences. They have a responsibility not to smoke in front of their patients, or in public. Another group with this responsibility are teachers, who have a great potential for influencing health. One would respectfully recommend that teachers should if they can, possibly for their own health, give up smoking, and that they should also consider their pupils. If they must continue smoking they should at least do it in private. If parents set an example by giving up smoking not only for their own health, but for their children's health, they are more likely to discourage their children from taking it up.

One group related to advertising in general and to which one would like to appeal in conjunction with this measure. are the people prominent in the entertainment world who set an example for so many of our youth. People in the entertainment world can set an example here, preferably from their own point of view by not smoking, but if they do smoke by trying not to smoke when appearing on television, on the stage or wherever. They should try not to advertise that smoking is glamorous, but rather the reverse.

The actual details of the powers given to the Minister in this Bill are just about adequate at this moment. One small point here is in relation to the background advertising on which the Minister may be able to enlighten us. Advertisements for cars, for drink and for cosmetics, often include as a part of their background advertising for cigarettes. I would hope that it will be within the power of the Minister to prevent such background or secondary advertising of cigarettes or tobacco products.

Mr. Haughey

It is usually the other way round.

Professor Conroy

It is usually the other way round, but it happens.

Mr. Haughey

The cigarette companies use all the other glamorous things.

Professor Conroy

I am very glad to hear that the Minister intends to make the warning on cigarette packets more effective. At the moment there are times when one would almost think the warning was a recommendation and a much more effective warning on cigarette packets would be extremely useful.

I hope that the excellent work of the Health Education Bureau continues and that they will increase their positive advertising for health and against smoking. I wonder in this respect if it would be possible to show on RTE, or if it has been already shown, to repeat it, the Thames TV film which was so appropriately named `Dying for a Fag'. The showing of this on a couple of occasions resulted in a fairly significant drop in the number of smokers, perhaps up to 160,000 in the UK, which is a fairly significant percentage of people. I hope that this film could be shown here. Perhaps the Minister, through the Health Education Bureau, could encourage its showing on RTE. This Bill is only half of the measures necessary. This Bill is the negative half to prevent advertising and encourage people not to smoke.

Mr. Harte

I welcome the Bill, which is clearly an attempt to prevent high pressure salesmanship and misleading advertisements to induce people to indulge in taking a damaging drug. The Bill in itself will not have the necessary strength to put a real curb on the advertising habits of the tobacco industry although it may change them. I know the Minister had a difficult task in this area, and I congratulate him. I realise the problem in regard to employment and the question of how to circumvent the effectiveness of high pressure salesmanship. At the same time the advertising people are in the business of advertising and they will find some way to advertise. That does not take away from the fact that the Minister has had the courage to introduce legislation and I compliment him on it. The Minister's Bill will probably not cause too much trouble for advertising companies.

It might have been better in dealing with this question of health if the term "misrepresentation Act" were used as it is more appropriate than the present title of the Bill. We are really talking about nailing offenders and this possibly might be the best way. I use the term "misrepresentation Act" deliberately because the Bill talks about controls, but is limiting the Government to preventing advertising in one or two ways. I do not think it will do enough to prevent the prohibition being overcome by other subtle means.

I agree with the introduction of this legislation because anything which has adverse effects on the health should certainly be tackled. Despite my welcome for it I have tremendous concern about where one stops when one introduces measures to control advertising. In a free enterprise society we are generally lectured on the value of competitiveness, freedom of choice and so on. Where does one go in that respect? Do we finish up having a look at a policy on corporation law to see whether that has some effect on how advertising comes across? Do we eventually get into the area where the discussion takes on real meaning, for example, in the agricultural field about the effects of hormones on meat and the antibiotics injected into cattle? Finally, we get some effective research demonstrating that people's health suffers as a result—do we then introduce some measure of control? If we do set about controlling it, does it mean that we are going to exercise a whole range of controls by a variety of different Departments? The Department of Agriculture would have one form of control and deal with some problems but many others would be dealt with in a different way and under a different Department. As we said earlier, we could well come to the point where we might be in trouble about the meat.

There is a discussion going on now about the problems of the effects of anti-biotics injected into cattle and so on. Where do you properly begin—and end—in a society where there is freedom, where competition has been encouraged, where they are encouraged to bring it into our sitting rooms to bombard us and influence our children? It worries me in another way: if we develop to the point where we are controlling something and somebody says that there is a lot of misuse of it somewhere else and there are health hazards involved and the dialogue begins in that area. If people who are being, if you like, discriminated against in this case begin to make a case a Minister must listen to them. He must listen to the objections of people in consumer associations and so on in the same way as he has to listen in this particular area and probably solicit some opinions.

Where does it begin and end? We live on the choices of values; because of advertisers we judge the value of what we consume. I am a bit puzzled about it. I wonder if it is a wise comment at all to embark on controls. I do not say it is not. I shall not take on a man of the Minister's calibre in this type of debate. but I wonder is there any way that you can exercise control over one specific thing, and then say that you will not introduce legislation in other areas. If you do say that you will introduce legislation in other areas, what is the total effect of that on the freedom of competition and so on? What is the possible effect on employment? I have always heard in my time as a trade union official that competition and freedom of choice were always the best guarantee; they offered more protection than bureaucratic schemes of standardisation and control. I am a little bit worried about how far we can go in a competitive and free choice society. Admittedly, where there is a health hazard there is a specific case, but if the health hazard crops up in some other area, in a vital industry like the agricultural industry, can we then say that we are going to exercise exact control to the detriment possibly of the agricultural sector?

Can you really apply control in one specific area without having a global look at the whole question of advertising in the home? For example, when we come to the question of drink, we shall have another problem in that particular area. Both the tobacco and the drink industries have been wonderful sources of revenue to the Irish economy for many years. It is worrying to think that in our bureaucratic approach to controlling standards we might affect employment in that particular area. There is a great possibility of one thing leading to another. Again, if you had a situation where you accuse the media of having influenced you or your children or someone else to become a drug taker, in the sense of using tobacco, and alcohol, would it not follow that the Consumer Protection Association would be entitled to take up time on television to explain all the hazards in the way Senator Conroy explained them a few minutes ago, and explained the other problems about agricultural products being injected with anti-biotics and hormones and so on? Would that not have the same effect eventually? Would it be counterproductive? I would not like to be the Minister having to make a choice in such a field, but when he did I think he went about it the best way he could in regard to the employment situation. I am still not too happy about the overall question of protection because the goods are misrepresented to the public in a million ways. We know the codswallop about washing powders, about nine different people using washing powder.

Where do you begin and end? This is the thing which has me rather worried about how to deal with it. I have no objection to the sacred cow of advertising being attacked: by all means, attack it. It is the problems that it may lead to that I am concerned about. We live in an aggregate society. We are all encouraged to be owners; even the fellow in the country likes to own his own ditch. The minute we get to the point of owning something, somebody has to tell us it is either good for us or not good for us. So, you come to the dilemna of the whole matter of advertising. I would not like to see the advertising agencies brought into disrepute. At the same time I think they have the subtlety to get over many of the controls brought in. Perhaps in the whole matter we are all taking up attitudes of being overprotective and looking over our shoulder. We may in fact affect valued industries such as Guinness, Bass, and Murphys and other people that are producing goods financing the economy and the whole agricultural sector could be affected. It is time to consider this. Apart from the idea of misrepresentation where you can actually nail down somebody within the terms of the advertising code, I believe a national consumers authority might be the way to go about it.

I would not like to be in the Minister's position. I think he is a great man to take on this task and do it as he has done it. Clearly, he had regard to the question of the effects on employment and revenue because I remember getting a letter from him some years ago when we wrote to him about the taxation of beer telling me that the evidence was that it was very buoyant. I know that he knows where the revenue comes from. I would like to have some reassurance on this whole question: if you start controlling one producer even though it is for medical reasons, where do you end? Is there any way in which you can say to the rest of the people in the country who live in a free society, who are urged to be free in their competition, that you will control one and not another? I meant to quote from Article 19 of the United Nations Charter but I forgot it and I cannot remember the correct wording. It deals with the matter of putting across ideas in a free way. Again how do you allay the fears of genuine firms, producers of goods who are doing their best to be as careful as possible about their advertising?

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. It goes a long way towards meeting the needs of people who do not smoke, who do not want to smoke, who know the effects of smoking and those who have suffered from the diseases which are caused by smoking.

There is much talk about civil rights in this country but non-smokers are, in a sense, deprived of their civil rights in that if they go to a film, if they sit in a pub, if they sit in a public place they are deprived of the civil right of being able to sit there without being affected by smoke. Senator West said that he was not too sure about the effects of smoke in the atmosphere. A United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare document on the health consequences of smoking states categorically that tobacco smoke can be a significant source of atmospheric pollution. Occasionally under conditions of heavy smoking, poor ventilation the maximum limit for an eight hour work exposure to carbon monoxide may be exceeded, the upper limit for carbon monoxide in ambient air may be exceeded even in cases where ventilation is adequate.

It goes on to say that carbon monoxide at levels occasionally found in cigarette smoke filled environment has been shown to produce slight deterioration in some tests on psychomotor performance, especially attentiveness and cognitive function. This is very relevant in a sense. Many of us who have been subjected to a smoke-filled atmosphere for a long time have found that on leaving it and getting into a car our eyes are not as good as they were before we went into that atmosphere. This could cause an accident. I have felt it myself. I have often sat at a meeting or having a few drinks and I have come out afterwards and found that the signposts are a little bit hazy. It is a fact that part of the problem has been caused by the smoke in the atmosphere.

This Bill does not give non-smokers all the rights that they should have but it does go a long way. In effect, it dissociates cigarette manufacturers and advertisers to a large extent from the benefits they are getting from sponsorship, particularly in sport. For too long we have been watching sporting events being sponsored by cigarette manufacturers. If these cigarette manufacturers are in the advertising game they are there to get the maximum benefit from the sponsorship, not to give the maximum benefit to the particular sport that they are involved with. Too often we hear of sporting events which are not called golf events or hurling events or jumping events, or in soccer the league event; they are called by the name of the particular sponsor. Somebody ends up being the champion, with the cigarette manufacturer's name inserted. The public, to some degree might think—and there are many people who would think this way—that if this person is winning an event sponsored by a smoking manufacturer, that it is all right to smoke because here are top athletes accepting sponsorship and competing in events which are sponsored by cigarette manufacturers.

The benefits to the sport in many cases have been very few and the benefits to the advertiser and to the manufacturers have been great. If you can get somebody to sponsor an event it makes people lazy: they do not have to do the work themselves. In this regard sponsorships of all natures should be looked at in very great depth by people who are considering them. After all, what is sport? It is something from which we should get enjoyment: it is not something from which people should make money. It is part of the philosophy of life that we should keep our bodies healthy by getting involved in sport, and if we get involved to the stage where sport becomes an advertising medium we must look very carefully at the effects of this.

Somebody once said that smoking should be confined to consenting adults in private, and I think there might be some truth in that. The saying has been used in other contexts also.

Much has been said here about the effects on our revenue if smoking is discontinued. I wonder if we could measure the amount of money that is spent in curing people who have been involved in drug-taking—which includes cigarettes, alcohol and whatever other type of drug that you care to mention—against the number of jobs that are being provided because of the manufacture of cigarettes. I feel that you might lose a certain amount of revenue on one side but the benefit to the nation and the lowering in the cost of our health services on the other side would be enormous.

It was said also that cigarettes are a relaxant; that people feel relaxed when they take a cigarette, and particularly people who have been off cigarettes and go back on them. People who have been on drugs for a long time, who have given them up and go back on them, find them very relaxing. People who have been off alcohol and go back on it after a long time find it very relaxing. One of the features of withdrawal symptoms is that you feel relaxed if you go back on to the particular drug. I am not a doctor, but from talking to various people I think that there might be some truth in that argument.

In a particular paper read at an international symposium on preventive cardiology in 1975 here in Dublin it was said that hospital physicians have a particular responsibility for smoking since about 4 per cent of hospital beds are occupied as a direct result of the effects of cigarettes, that stopping smoking is the most effective treatment of chronic bronchitis.

This was stated at a symposium on cardiology by Keith Ball, London. He began in his paper on cardiology by stating that the most effective treatment for chronic bronchitis is to give up smoking. So, there is an effect, apart from the effect on the heart, on the lungs and on the breathing system. I have never heard a doctor saying that smoking is of any benefit to anybody or that smoking is anything but a habit and that it is detrimental to one's health. At that particular conference on cardiology, it was said that 30 per cent with first myocardial infarctions will shortly develop new angina.

Control of risk factors like the cigarette habit show that about half the major events of coronary heart disease occur among the percentage of the population who smoke. Cigarette smoking also results in increasing heart rate and high blood pressure. Throughout the symposium it was made clear that there are various other reasons why people get heart attacks and chronic bronchitis, but in each and every one of these papers there is one thing in common, and that is the incidence of cigarette smoking as a positive danger to health.

A small town in the USA carried out a very major study on the incidence of heart disease amongst the inhabitants of that place and it showed that, of the people who did get heart disease, 60 per cent smoked. It does not prove that smoking was the cause of them getting heart disease but it did prove that a big proportion of the people who did get heart diseases were smokers. St. Vincent's Hospital has been doing research work since the early 1960s and it has been shown that coronary patients smoked more than twice as heavily as people in the healthy population and relatively few non-smokers and ex-smokers were found amongst them.

This is far away from the Bill that is before the House but in fact it gives us an opportunity to talk about the effects of cigarette smoking. There have been suggestions that we should ban the advertising of cigarettes completely. If we were to ban cigarette smoking I believe you would have a situation similar to what existed in the United States in the 1920s where in a puritanical type state you had the introduction of a prohibition on alcohol consumption and you suddenly had people consuming alcohol because it was barred. It led to the gang wars of the twenties and it led, I feel, to the Mafia of today because the successors of those people who began importing alcohol illegally into the States are there today in every area of life in the States, which is not right. If we tell people that we are bringing in legislation to stop them smoking, this could happen in a different manner here but the effect would be the same. It would be totally counterproductive.

Mention of alcohol has been made and there has been a suggestion that we should be treating advertising for alcohol in the same manner as we are dealing with advertising for cigarettes. There might be a reason for doing something similar. This Bill is a step towards taking away from younger people advertising which is injurious. For some time we have had advertising on television prohibited, but if you are watching a golf match for three-and-a-half hours and it is sponsored by a cigarette company the effects of that advertising are much greater than if there were ten 30-second advertisements on in a particular night. As regards cigarette advertising on hoardings on the roadside, I see where Tony O'Reilly in his annual report in the Irish Independent states that the greatest increase in revenue they have had in the past 12 months has been from a company they have in Germany which is advertising on roadside hoardings and that it is found in Germany to be the most effective type of advertising and that is going to grow. Some people treat these advertising hoardings on the roadside as not being of much consequence, but the effects of these are seen to be otherwise by the advertisers.

I shall not delay the House any longer, but I am delighted that this Bill is going through. It is a start on the road to stopping our younger people from smoking. I think cigarette manufacturers in Ireland are coming to the conclusion that at some stage in the future people may stop smoking, and these companies are branching out into other forms of industry and are spreading their wings. They would not be spreading their wings if they saw that their future lay in cigarette advertising. I hope that this Bill speeds up the day that they will get out of cigarette manufacture altogether.

Mr. McDonald

I shall be very brief. As a matter of fact some of our Italian colleagues say they will be telegraphic. That really means an hour when the Italians say that. I am disappointed that the Bill is not more comprehensive. Perhaps it is because the Minister has not the power to prohibit smoking in public places. I notice, for instance, in Italy, it is not permitted to smoke in their restaurants or any public place; likewise in France, people are prohibited from smoking in stores and on public transport. The Government could have introduced prohibition on the public transport which, after all, the Government own. In some of the taxis here in town there is a "No Smoking" notice in the front. This is something that would be beneficial. The only places that I know of in this country where people are not allowed to smoke are in the Dáil and Seanad chambers and in the churches. You can get away with it anywhere else you would like to light up.

I do not like speaking of a measure of this kind because I do not smoke. Therefore, I could be accused of having a biased view. Nevertheless many people like to have something in their hands or like to be using their hands: people who smoke pipes, tor instance, make great gesticulations in the art of smoking a pipe. I would hope that the Minister's restrictions will not force people to go back to the old snuffing habit that I vaguely remember. The medical people have never said anything about snuff. I see it more and more in Europe. Many of our colleagues have resurrected these silver boxes and I am not sure if snuffing will take on here again. Some years ago many of the old people had that habit and you always knew them because there was a nice yellow streak down their lapels to indicate that they were not sparing the stuff.

It is good to have the Government focusing attention on this matter because, obviously, it is an educational problem and people should at least be encouraged to smoke with moderation. I have read that some of the brands on offer have a very low tar content and therefore it is claimed they are not injurious to health. As Senator Lanigan said, quite large numbers of people who themselves do not smoke yet are subjected to plenty of cigarette and tobacco smoke from other people. The Minister should endeavour to ensure, certainly in so far as public places and public transport are concerned, that smoking would be prohibited and that those people who do not smoke will not be subjected to the fumes. I, too, very often emerge from a meeting—not merely political meetings—almost with tears in my eyes. I think I would be better off smoking than having to inhale everything else. In many of the meeting halls throughout the country where there is what you could call inadequate ventilation it is quite a problem for many of us and it is difficult, especially if one is a guest in a place one cannot stand up and start cribbing about the atmosphere. Perhaps you could get away with it but I would not like to try it. I wish the Minister success with the Bill, but I would like to express dissatisfaction that he has not taken any practical steps to clear the air for some of us.

Mrs. Cassidy

As the first smoker in the House to speak on the Bill, what is there left for me to do but give it an unreserved welcome? The Minister has gone as far as he possibly could in this legislation without interfering with our personal liberty to kill ourselves if we so wish to do.

At the Minister's behest, amendments were added to the Bill in the other House. As Senator Conroy pointed out, one cannot be too draconian in this type of legislation. The Bill defines advertising and it empowers the Minister to control it. I am glad to see that television advertising of cigarettes has disappeared. In this consumer age many of us feel that television advertising is an unwarranted invasion of our privacy. There is little the individual can to about it except to turn the set off. One can also, as I do, resolve never to buy anything that is advertised on television. But, unless that is done by sufficient numbers of people, so as to make an impact upon sales— manufacturers are very sensitive to sales figures—it is a rather futile exercise.

The figures which the Minister has quoted are frightening: 2,000 deaths per annum directly attributable to the effects of cigarette smoking. There is a risk of respiratory infection, gastric upset, heart condition and the toxic effect on the unborn. The Government's health warning on cigarette packets is not severe enough. I would prefer, instead of the elegant gilt script on the side of the packet which tells me cigarettes can damage my health, something stronger on the front—perhaps in black lettering, the phrase "smoking kills". I do not advocate anything very dramatic like the skull and cross bones that used to appear on bottles containing poison, but I do think the health warning might be a little more definite. It would benefit housewives particularly who are vulnerable, since smoking for us is a symbol of relaxing. One feels that there is the occasional five minutes when one can put one's feet up and have a cigarette before all hell breaks loose and the children come home. Many women who very sensibly give up smoking when they are pregnant go back to cigarettes when their babies are born.

A recent study by a team of Boston researchers reported that amongst American women under the age of 50 who smoke more than 34 cigarettes a day the incidence of heart attacks is 20 times higher than among non-smokers. An estimated 40,000 out of 100,000 American women under 45 have heart attacks every year and 75 per cent of these heart attacks could be avoided by not smoking.

I find that social attitudes to smoking are changing. It is regarded as a rather anti-social habit when one is out at meetings. I fear that smokers like myself will soon be driven to take refuge behind the locked doors of our bathrooms, which is something I have not done from the time I was about seven years old.

I would like to refer the Minister to an historical precedent for his legislation. King James I of England wrote a pamphlet in 1604 which he called "A Counter-blast to Tobacco". He obviously did not include smoking amongst his bad habits. He described it as a "custom loathful to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, a branch of the sin of drunkness, which is the root of all sin".

Mrs. Hussey

It is very brave of Senator Cassidy to admit she is a smoker. I do not know how she can deliver that address with such sincerity and then go to her tea and have a cigarette afterwards. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill, which is the first of this kind of legislation that I have had an opportunity to consider. I hope it is the first of many such pieces of legislation on a wide variety of areas, because we have to get rid of a laissez faire attitude which has governed too many problems like this in the past.

At this stage, I have to confess that I am a reformed smoker and I am well aware that there is nobody as zealous as the convert, so I must be very careful not to over-state the case. It is very important that people who have given up smoking successfully should come out and say that it is not at all as dreadful as it might seem and that it is quite easy once you get down to it. It would be nice to claim that I had gone through torment in trying to give up cigarettes as I was a heavy smoker, but, I did not go through any torment at all. We have had lots of figures quoted. We have all gone and searched for these horrific figures. I have this terrible statistic in front of me here of lung cancer deaths in 1977 of 1,246. The link between lung cancer and smoking is established beyond all doubt and that figure signifies a most frightful amount of personal suffering by the victims and their families. As has been mentioned, the work-days lost in the country from related diseases connected with smoking are incalculable and enormous. We must all be mad to be as calm and cool as we have been for so long about this habit. There is all the difference in the world between alcohol and cigarettes. There is no such thing as a healthy cigarette. It is perfectly normal and healthy to have an occasional drink of alcohol. We cannot go overboard on comparisons between the two.

I found some figures relating to the amount of money we are spending on tobacco. We spent £150 million in 1976. Of that apparently—I find it almost incredible—£97 million of the £150 million went to the Revenue in tax. The next figure I would like to throw out is that it cost £108.75 million to abolish car tax and rates. If one does a very simple exercise one sees that had we made cigarettes so expensive that the habit became impossible, thus losing £97 million in revenue, we would have £11 million left over to use to convince the people that they were better off without cigarettes and to accept not smoking. We could have used a good proportion of that £11 million to provide employment for the people who had been working in the industry. That is a very simple way of playing around with figures, I do not for a moment accept that it is possible to win elections by promising to deprive the population of the main drug they indulge in. Some simple comparisons of the kind of priorities that, as a people, we have had, bear thinking about.

This Government have now got a very strong mandate from the people and a very big majority in the other House. I would not keep away from or be afraid of draconian measures in the health area. I hope that we will have more legislation like this coming before us. As has been mentioned, we must come to terms with the nonsensical business of having cinemas so blue with smoke that you can hardly see the screen while at the same time, the Health Education Bureau have £1 million to cope with its programme of health in every area. Its budget is £1 million for 1978. I do not blame the Minister for such a small budget but, as a people, we will have to realise that our priorities are very strange. I tried to find some estimate of how much was spent on the advertising of tobacco in this country for 1978 and I found it impossible to get hold of any figure. But it is many times a multiple of £1 million.

A lot of people have mentioned alcohol in connection with cigarettes. It has been pointed out to us, and I am sure the Minister is aware of this, that we have a very dramatic problem affecting children, that is, the refined sugar intake of children which is extremely serious not only for their teeth but for their general health. I do not wish to have an 1984 type of situation where we are restricted in what we can do. If people are not going to be allowed to see cigarette advertisements because they are bad for them, sooner or later we must face the fact that little children who watch television programmes in the afternoons are being saturated with advertisements for the harmful substance sucrose, 55 kilos of which we consume a year per head, which is one of the highest consumptions in the world. One of the highest proportions of family budgets in the world go on sugar sweet soft drinks in this country. This is the kind of area I am glad to see we are turning our attention to.

We have a Minister with imagination and determination to cope with this kind of advertising and harmful trend. As Senator Lanigan pointed out, it is very important that the manufacturers of cigarettes realise and admit that they are, in fact, in a business which kills. There is no simpler way of putting it, they must get out of that business very quickly.

Mr. Mulcahy

I welcome the Bill, but I am always concerned when I see another bit of freedom disappearing. Every time we legislate on something like this another piece of freedom seems to go. But we need legislation of this kind. We are free to drive on the left hand side of the road fairly safely when we are using our cars only because we know that the people who are coming towards us are also on the left hand side of the road. Restrictions provide freedom as well.

I would like to comment on tobacco manufacturers who provide employment and do a lot of good things besides. So far in the debate they might come across as the robbers of society. Some of these firms have made great contributions and not just to revenue. We are attacking one of the dimensions of the marketing mix which is the dimension of promotion and advertising. In the area of marketing, some of these firms have been instrumental in developing our marketing expertise in a way that was badly needed and in some cases, set up separate companies which provided the kind of marketing service that we did not have before.

I would not like the debate to be completed without showing that side as well. I hope that, in time, given that the correlation between tobacco and cigarette smoking and lung cancer has been completely determined, these firms will get into other kinds of commercial activity which will keep up employment and enable them to continue contributing to the expertise that we require to gain the markets that are needed to support our growing population. The Minister when replying might avert to that.

Minister for Health (Mr. Haughey)

I want to thank the Seanad for the manner in which they have received this legislation. It is some considerable time since I have come to the Seanad with legislation which has received such a broad spectrum of agreement and has been so honestly and fairly dealt with. It is very difficult for me, on an occasion like this, with the captive audience of Senators not to lecture or preach or avail of the opportunity to get across the particular message to which I am, as Minister for Health, rather passionately devoted. I will endeavour to refrain from doing so. I will deal with the legislation more or less on its merits.

First of all, I would like to mention a number of points which were made by Senators. In opening the debate. Senator McCartin made reference to one very important point, and that was the problem of alcohol. The Senator regretted the fact that this Bill did not deal with alcohol as well. There are two points I want to make in reply to that. The first was dealt with by Senator Hussey, who pointed out that there is a real difference between tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is totally bad. There is no way in which tobacco can benefit humanity. Cigarettes are deadly. Cigarettes kill. Cigarettes cause illness. Cigarettes cause hardship and suffering. Alcohol may do that but it need not. We have to have a different approach to smoking and drinking: to tobacco and alcohol. We have to try to persuade the greatest possible number of people to stop smoking altogether. It is as simple as that.

We would like to see as many people as possible not drinking at all. On the other hand, we must all be sensible and mature enough to understand that alcohol can be one of God's gifts to mankind. It can be something which is good and enjoyable if properly used. That is the fundamental difference. I would immediately admit that alcohol is grossly and seriously abused in our society. I agree with all the Senators who have averted to this fact. There is a very real social menace of excessive drinking by the young. But let us not single out the young. Every age group in our population abuse alcohol, drink to excess and turn what should be a benefit into a very serious abuse. Without condemning the young specifically, we must recognise that, in their case, it is much more serious. The abuse of alcohol is far more worrying so far as young people are concerned. We will have to turn our attention to the abuse of alcohol and to excessive drinking. I am already doing that. So far, I am not doing it in a legislative way but I am, I want to assure the Seanad, very earnestly coming to grips so far as I can with this problem of the abuse of alcohol. In fact I am meeting a section of the drink industry tomorrow to take the whole process of the control of drink advertising a step further. While it is not in this Bill it is something that is very much present in our thinking in the Department of Health and in our programmes and policies.

A number of Senators raised the question of a total ban. The attitude of the Seanad generally in this regard is very wise and mature. Of course, we cannot have a total ban. Senator Mulcahy mentioned a restriction of freedom but that is something that cannot be said legitimately in relation to this legislation. In this legislation we are not stopping any individual person doing anything that he wishes to do. We are stopping other people putting pressures on them to do something. We are removing, hopefully, a pressure of advertising, promotion and sales devices from individual members of the community. We are giving them freedom. We are trying to make them more free to decide things without the pressure of insistent, constant, glamorous advertising. We do not want to ban tobacco. That would be a serious interference with the freedom of the individual. What we hope to do is persuade people not to smoke because it is not in their best interests to do so. After putting all the arguments fairly and squarely before them, if they still wish to smoke then we as a wise Seanad will say: "that is your own affair. We have done our best. If you wish to pursue this course we are not going to prevent you or attempt to prevent you by legislation or any other way". That is the difference. We are banning, prohibiting or controlling a particular form of commercial activity which, in itself, restricts people's freedom. It crowds them, pressurises them and persuades them to take courses of action which are not in their best interests. What we want to do is remove these pressures and leave the individual citizen, particularly the young person, free to make a sensible, balanced, rational and mature choice.

The question of smoking in public places also came up for discussion, and it is very relevant. I have taken the view that it is better not to have an incursion into the freedom of the individual by legislation in this regard. If you had to prohibit smoking in public places by legislation that could be a curb or restriction or interference with the liberty of the individual to do as he wants to do. One could perhaps argue reasonably strenuously that, by smoking in public places, one individual is interfering, as Senator Lanigan pointed out, with the freedom of another. We should try and deal with this problem by way of sensible voluntary regimes. It would be very desirable if in public places smoking ceased. We must try and work towards that. Eventually it will come about. Maybe in ten or 15 years' time people will be quite amused that we were even talking about these things. They will regard it as slightly ludicrous and ridiculous that we were going to the extent of having legislation and arguing about whether or not we should prevent smoking in public places. For the moment, what we have to do is try and achieve results by persuasion, common sense and wisdom.

A number of public authorities and companies are already active in this area. Somebody mentioned CIE. CIE are doing a very good job. Aer Lingus are doing a good job. Aer Rianta have now assured me that they intend to follow suit. I hope that, throughout the commercial and industrial world, the example of these companies will be followed. The public authorities, the health authorities and the hospital authorities are all now beginning to direct their attention to making more and more public places smoke-free. Senator McDonald suggested that it should be done by legislation. It is tempting, perhaps, to do so, but, on the whole, it is better to begin at any rate by seeking to have it done step by step and having portions of public places, in the first instance, set aside as smoke-free and then gradually extend these areas.

Senator Conroy gave a very good outline of the dangers involved in cigarette smoking and, as a doctor, he is in a particularly strong position to deal with that aspect. I dealt with it in the Dáil at some length, and Senator Hussey quoted some of the more startling statistics which I gave in the Dáil. It is interesting that people are prepared to grant the Minister for the Environment practically any powers he wants to stop drunken driving on the roads. There is no doubt at all that cigarette smoking is a far greater killer than road accidents as a whole, never mind the number of road accidents which are caused by drunken driving. We are quite prepared, as a community, as a society and as legislators to enact very restrictive legislation on the physical liberty of the individual as far as drunken driving is concerned. If only people were as convinced and as alert to the dangers of smoking there would be no hesitation whatever in giving completely all-powerful legislation in the area of tobacco. It has not come to that yet. In pursuance of the whole general approach to health education, positive health and preventive medicine our approach in this legislation is just right at this moment.

Senator Harte opened up a very broad question and I do not intend to deal with the very big, fundamental, philosophic type of issues which he raised. They are very relevant and are the sort of issues that increasingly in our society we will have to come to terms with. Many Senators know that there are an increasing number of people in modern society who are prepared to discard progress entirely because of the disadvantages that it brings. An increasing number of people are questioning the whole notion of development and growth economics, largely for the reasons that Senator Harte outlined. Should we have a greater agricultural productivity if it is going to result in antibiotic-infected agricultural products? They are very deep fundamental questions and very interesting. Perhaps some day the Seanad might have an opportunity of coming to grips with them in a composite and general way. Perhaps we do, in some way, touch on these questions in this legislation. I suggest at this stage we could perhaps proceed with this very limited measure without going into the very broad issues as to whether or not any restrictions on freedom of choice and so on are justified. This is not legislating for the behaviour of the individual at all. We are not restricting the freedom of the individual to smoke. This Bill does not say to anybody, "Thou shalt not smoke". All it does is say to certain people in our community who are commercially motivated, "Thou shalt not use persuasive techniques excessively to make people smoke." I find Senator Mulcahy's defence of these commercial organisations interesting.

However, I do not think that any normal person outside the halls of the Irish Management Institute would be inclined to put the health and welfare of the individual behind the importance of the development of management techniques——

Mr. Mulcahy

I did not say that——

Mr. Haughey

——and sales promotion methods. Sales promotion and management development skills are important but we cannot permit them to be used excessively in promoting the sale of products which have now been conclusively established to be detrimental to the welfare of the individual.

As I said, I must resist the temptation to lecture and to avail of this opportunity to preach the positive health message, but I am very encouraged to find so many Senators convinced of the importance of positive health programmes and preventive medicine. Without being patronising I take the liberty to say that this House is far ahead of the other place in wisdom and maturity in that respect. One does have a great deal of sympathy for the unfortunate Senator who has to confess to being a smoker in this rarified atmosphere. Perhaps we will be able to make another convert before the debate concludes.

As a number of Senators have rightly said, this is only a step, but it is an important step because it demonstrates that we are serious about positive health. No matter how much money we give to the Health Education Bureau their efforts would be farcical if side by side with giving them a better budget and better staff we permitted the environment to be littered with persuasive advertisement for cigarettes and alcohol. They would be fighting a losing battle. In that context I should like the Seanad to look at this legislation. It is just an earnest of our wish to be serious about positive health, in so far as this area lies within our control to deal with by legislation. There are so many areas in this field outside our control. Whatever we may do by persuasion, education and encouragement, we cannot legislate for improvement in a number of areas, but this is one area in which we can bring about an improvement by legislation.

I am very glad that the Seanad is so accommodating and so willing to give me these powers, because they are fairly draconian powers. I have indicated that I hope to use them in a reasonable, sensible and graduated way. Nevertheless, the powers in this Bill are comprehensive. They will certainly give future Ministers the power and the scope to do anything they want to do in this area.

Senator Hussey said she hoped the Seanad would see many more similar pieces of legislation, which is my wish too. A great deal can be done by programmes, policies and the expenditure of funds. In a number of areas there will have to be legislation, and I am very encouraged by the reception the Seanad has given this piece of legislation and to know that if I do come back on another occasion with legislation directed to the same ends I will get the same warm welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Business suspended at 6.05 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.