Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1988

Vol. 120 No. 13

Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.

There are many amendments on Committee Stage and I have arranged that the list of groupings of amendments will be distributed. Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 31 are consequential on amendment No. 7 and they may be discussed together.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 23, to delete "consumption" and substitute "smoking".

The purpose of this amendment is to hone in specifically on one aspect of the Bill. It seeks to delete the word "consumption" and to substitute the word "smoking". The reason for this is very straightforward. It is to exclude from the Bill the whole question of chewing tobacco. The Minister mentioned this in his Second Stage speech today. If the Bill goes through as it stands at present it will mean that the small, dwindling section of the population, mainly elderly, will be deprived of the right to chew tobacco which, as they have seen it, has been their right over a very long period of time. The Minister said that the consumption of traditional chewing tobacco is declining. He also mentioned that there are new derivatives of this practice which are a health hazard and which need to be legislated against. I would be quite happy to see that happen.

I am talking about a habit which most of us would regard as a rather filthy habit — the chewing of tobacco. It certainly is not fashionable. I do not know why anybody would start the practice. There are a number of people, generally not well off, who regard this practice as a right and who will find, if this legislation becomes law, that they will not be able to buy such tobacco. I do not think it is our job to try to change the law in a way which will deprive these people of what they have always regarded as a right. For that reason I ask the Minister to accept my amendment. We are talking about smoking, the health consequences of smoking and the discomfort visited upon other people by those who smoke.

There is no evidence that the chewing of tobacco can damage the health of others. It does not damage the atmosphere. It is not pleasant to look at a person chewing tobacco but, nonetheless, I think we are going too far in having this blanket denial of what has been a traditional right of people to exercise their choice in consuming tobacco in this way. Heaven and earth will not fall down if the Minister accepts this amendment. If there are specific named chewing substances which are coming on the market and which are being geared at young people, the Minister will have our full support in naming these and having them outlawed. I ask him to accept the amendment.

I support Senator Manning in proposing this amendment. I consider it a reasonable amendment on the basis that it differentiates between consumption and smoking. Of course this relates to the production in this country of a chewing tobacco. I concur with Senator Manning in his final remarks that there are certain chewing products which are imported into this country. The Minister has the full support of all Members of this House in restricting their importation. They are undesirable and they have been proven to be damaging and addictive. We are concerned about the limited number of people who chew tobacco. Generally speaking, it is limited to very old people and people in geriatric hospitals in particular. It is so limited that not all Members of the House would have knowledge of the practice, in spite of the eloquent quotations by Senator Norris on the previous occasion, which referred to another period.

There is a dwindling demand in this country for this product and there is still a demand internationally. It is manufactured in this country and if we banish its use totally it will have employment consequences. I do not condone this practice but I have to recognise that it happens. It does not create any problem except for the consumer. There is no smoke emitted from it. Originally the spittoon was provided in the old pubs and shops and indeed at a wake. It is a practice to which we should not close our eyes. Years ago many Irish people practised this habit with much pleasure. I think it is an awful habit. I will not describe it because another description this morning by Senator Norris was referred to as being unparliamentary and rightly so. We must realise that old people in particular, with very little pleasure left in life, not alone practise this habit but use snuff which can also be considered to be an unpleasant habit. Some people in geriatric hospitals have no other pleasures left in life. Many of these people are left to pine away and die in hospital without even a relative to visit them. Senator Manning is trying to achieve a balance here so that the Minister, in addressing this problem, will have regard to practices which are not a health hazard to anybody else.

In his Second Stage reply the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, was specific about the inclusion of chewing tobacco in the products to be prohibited under this Bill. I do not share his view that this practice should be totally prohibited. Some people have consumed tobacco in this way for 50, 60 or 70 years without anybody reprimanding them and if we pass legislation and make them outlaws, which they will be, I do not believe we will achieve anything. That is not the way to legislate in a progressive society who tolerate minority groups, minority interests and minority tastes. I do not believe there is any problem with the amendment, as proposed by Senator Manning, and I believe it would meet my concerns in this area.

I would like to add the precaution that if those who now smoke should suddenly take to chewing we may very well see smoke eliminated from our hospitals and spittoons used for more than the post-operative care of patients.

Senator Ferris has touched briefly on the matters I want to raise. I want to ask the Minister whether including the word "consumption" rather than the word "smoking" would affect the habit of taking snuff, which was not extensively referred to on Second Stage. It represents a situation that has been covered, and there are consequences if the taking of snuff is prohibited. It would certainly come within the margin of appreciation indicated by Senator Manning, particularly with regard to the fact that it does not really cause a danger to health to persons other than those taking the material. This is an important consideration with regard to the personal individual liberties of people. The Minister has introduced no medical evidence regarding the adverse consequences of taking snuff. I wonder if it is the intention that this legislation should cover the taking of snuff?

I do not agree with the points made by Senator Manning and Senator Ferris. The purpose of this Bill is not only to protect the environment, the atmosphere and the consequential effects of people smoking, it also has a public health objective to discourage unhealthy practices relating to tobacco. It is not enough to say that people who chew tobacco are no danger to anybody else. With reference to what Senator Manning said the last day, it is true we cannot legislate for virtue but we certainly have an obligation to legislate for health. I am not convinced about this compassionate argument that old people have very few pleasures left. Life is solitary, nasty, brutish and short, as was observed a long time ago, and they will after all, we are constantly assured, get their reward in the next life.

The Senator is becoming theological.

I will have to speak to my Church about Senator Murphy.

I must say I am getting very tired of the Senator's Church.

Not half as tired as I am.

I do not think the compassionate argument extends. One might as well say that old people should be allowed to smoke in hospital — a case which has frequently been put forward — because it gives them some residual comfort. I do not think that is acceptable either.

We should be very careful about raising the employment spectre in all this because without any doubt a consequence of this legislation, if it is implemented, is that it will affect adversely employment in the tobacco industry. We have to face up to that. It is to be hoped that in a proper economy and a proper society people will find compensatory employment elsewhere.

I am not convinced by this amendment. If, as a result of this legislation, tobacco smoking diminishes and the opportunities that young people have for access to tobacco consumption are limited, if this legislation is effective, then chewing tobacco may be no longer a minority taste. There is that consideration also: there is no guarantee it will remain a minority taste.

I have listened to the debate on this amendment and I wish to say I have a certain knowledge of chewing tobacco. I never actually experienced it but through wearing another one of my hats in the music business as it relates to a certain part of the southern states of America——

It is a hill-billy practice.

——chewing tobacco is a hill-billy practice. It is an absolutely obnoxious exercise and many country music entertainers for whom I had a wonderful grá before I met them put me right off when in the middle of conversations they kicked out the old spittoons from under the table and interspersed their interviews with an odd spit here and there. I am sorry for bringing this to the attention of the House in such an unhealthy way but I do not have much sympathy with people who chew tobacco. If the Bill prohibits tobacco chewing in public places I welcome it in this regard.

I defer to my illustrious, intellectual colleague, Senator Murphy, in relation to his belief that there will be a decline in the tobacco industry as a result of legislation of this nature. The Minister also referred to this in his reply on Second Stage. Strangely enough, the tobacco industry are not crying over legislation of this nature because, surprisingly, over the last 12 months, or the period for which figures are available, the smoking of tobacco products worldwide has only decreased by 1 per cent. The reason the tobacco industry are not wringing their hands in dismay — and I was most surprised to learn this — is that while there has been a decrease in the consumption of tobacco products in the more affluent western societies, this is now being balanced by a major marketing hype in the Third World and, consequently, overall the international figures for tobacco consumption are set to increase rather than decrease.

It is incumbent on developed countries such as Ireland to introduce this type of legislation. Smokers are being run out of our society and, despite the very serious employment implications for those who are involved in the tobacco industry, I am not sorry. However, as Professor Murphy said, I hope they will get alternative employment. Many of these cigarette and tobacco companies, for example Carrolls, are already diversifying into other areas. One hopes that in the long term, with the shedding and natural wastage, there will not be any wholesale redundancies and that people will not lose their jobs as a result.

Legislation of this nature is welcome if only that having got the tobacco companies on the run we can eliminate what is an obnoxious habit. While I will not use the word Senator Norris used earlier and for which he was admonished by the Chair, there is an old saying that there is no worse individual of the type the Senator referred to than a reformed one.

Might I suggest a circumlocution for my distinguished colleague — the illegitimate son of an illegitimate son of a corporal in the Mexican Army. It is a quotation of the great playwright Sean O'Casey and, therefore, cannot be unparliamentary.

I most certainly accept that as a wonderful interpretation of what I was attempting to say. As a former smoker I have no sympathy whatsoever for the smoking population and the sooner that habit is done away with the better. I welcome this section of the Bill.

Just to change the tenor of the debate and to leave aside the point which was so eloquently made by Senator Murphy — and which I illustrated in my picture of the hospital bed — there is a more serious point here. I do not know whether the Minister can answer it or whether he can compete with Senator Norris as an expert in philology. But is he absolutely certain that the word "consumption" does include, in the legal mind, smoking? I am sure lawyers might try to draw a distinction between the ingestion — which would be my idea of consumption — and the practice of smoking. One could argue that it would be possible to smoke without inhaling; it might be impossible without absorbing. I question whether the point of the amendment should not be that "smoking" is a preferable word to "consumption" in that it does cover the most important aspect of the whole exercise?

One of my colleagues mentioned the question of employment; I think it was Senator Murphy. This is the greatest red herring of all. If the western world were to succeed in abolishing the consumption of cocaine large numbers of people in Columbia and South America would suffer considerable impoverishment, but that is no argument for being soft on cocaine. The truth is that tobacco will do far more damage to people in our society, indeed in western society generally, that cocaine is likely to do in the immediate future. We are concerned that people should have jobs but it is a matter of providing alternative jobs, not in any way sustaining existing jobs. As far as I am concerned it would be quite acceptable if we succeeded in closing down immediately every tobacco factory in the entire world.

I should like to take up the issue of employment. If one takes the Minister's own statistics seriously — and I take them very seriously indeed — one sees that the principal impact on employment will be in the undertaking rather than in the tobacco industry because the rate of deaths caused directly and clearly attributable to the ingestion, to use a neutral term, of tobacco is increasing constantly. The figures are very clear and precise on this. I suggest its impact will be on the undertaking industry, one which very few citizens would be sorry to see in some decline.

As the House knows, we are discussing amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 31 together. I do not propose to accept any of these amendments. Section 2 of the Bill is designed to protect public health and to create an overall environment which is conducive to reducing the consumption of tobacco products. The effect of the provision is to encourage exemplary behaviour on the part of our young people and to reflect the majority social behaviour of the adult population while simultaneously protecting their health. A few of these objectives and provisions have been drafted to prohibit or restrict the consumption of tobacco products in all of its forms. The provisions of this section will restrict the consumption of cigarettes, cigars, cigarellas, pipes and even nasal snuff. In this regard I must say that snuff, as such will not be banned but will be banned in areas where smoking is restricted. The sale of snuff will not be restricted. Because of the difficulty of enforcement which would arise and the need to ensure that tobacco is not consumed in any form in a designated area or facility, I cannot accept this amendment. While I can see the purpose of Senator Manning's amendment in terms of simply controlling tobacco I contend that the term "consumption" will lead to greater ease of enforcement of the provisions. I should like to have heard Senator Robb expound somewhat on what are the medical findings. I will be dealing in greater detail with the medical aspects on amendments Nos. 28 and 29. The chewing of tobacco is dangerous to health and leads to cancer of the mouth, dental problems and a number of other symptoms.

I sympathise with the minority who may chew tobacco but, unfortunately, we have to protect young people. In the United States there is a growth in the practice of chewing tobacco. Senator Mooney mentioned his experiences there, where companies are now diversifying their production from smoking to chewing tobacco. We want to ensure that we will not be flooded with chewing tobaccos, that young people will not get hooked on to this type of practice, while sympathising with those tobacco chewers who will be affected. My experience has been that very few people nowadays chew tobacco. I have visited quite a number of institutions, homes for the elderly and so on. Yet I cannot recall one person who actually chews tobacco. Certainly that would be very unacceptable behaviour in a welfare home, hospital or any other institution. What Senator Robb said about that is also important.

Senator Brendan Ryan mentioned the question of jobs. We cannot sustain jobs producing a product that is damaging the health of our people; that is unacceptable economics. The provisions of this Bill will have an effect. However, only 3 per cent of the tobacco factories involved produce this type of product. I will have to check but I doubt if we are banning the production of this product. There is a question mark over that. At this stage we are banning its use and will not accept amendments because we feel strongly about this and are adhering to the provision as drafted.

I might refer to other points made by Senator Manning. The sale of nasal snuff will not be prohibited under the provisions of section 6. However, the "consumption" of snuff, chewing tobacco and all smoking will be controlled in public places in which tobacco consumption is controlled under the provisions of the Bill. I share the distaste of Senators Murphy and Mooney at the consumption of tobacco in enclosed public areas. As Senator Murphy pointed out, the need for exemplary behaviour is an important objective of the Bill. We want to set our young people a good example and work toward a tobacco-free society. In those circumstances I must adhere to the terms of the Bill. I will be dealing in more detail with the health aspects on amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

I am very surprised that snuff comes within the ambit of this legislation, because, as far as I was aware, that was not the case. I suggest that it is making an ass of the law if you are going to prohibit in public places a habit that is (a) enjoyable, (b) harmless to the person that indulges in it and (c) harmless to those around them. I have to make a strong plea for snuff because my husband uses snuff, my children use snuff and, as far as I know, it is absolutely harmless. It is ridiculous to restrict or prohibit a harmless habit like that.

Senator Mooney suggested that chewing tobacco and spitting was an obnoxious habit that should be prohibited under the provisions of this Bill. I know of a lot of obnoxious habits in which people engage but I would not suggest that they should be included in legislation as a handy way to eliminate them. Before this debate I would have said: yes, let us ban everything that could be harmful to people, but the case, as made by Senator Manning, is persuasive. Why are we banning a practice that does not present a problem? I suggest that we should not ban the chewing of tobacco at this point because that will only divert it into the blackmarket. I contend that people who enjoy chewing tobacco should not be penalised in this way. As has been said, it is not harmful to people around and it gives a measure of enjoyment to those who use it. I support Senator Manning's amendment and I appeal to the Minister not to put snuff in the same category.

Without elaborating on this amendment, I am most reluctant to disagree with my friend across the way in relation to the obnoxious habit aspect but I must take issue on two points. The first is the contention that chewing tobacco does not harm anybody else. In order to chew tobacco properly you have to spit and if you spit, first, you are creating a public nuisance and, second, you are creating a health hazard. Allied to those, spitting in public is an offence.

We are getting into the prissy stages now. This is a good Bill. Members in both Houses want to see it on the Statute books. At a certain stage this good Bill becomes a busybody Bill and that is what I am objecting to here. There is an important principle in all of this. There are frontiers to what the State should do in the interests of health and virtue. At its most simple, we are saying to a man who is probably in his late seventies or eighties, who perhaps fought in the War of Independence, defended his State during the emergency, who has been a law-abiding citizen all his life, probably even votes Fianna Fáil, that he is now breaking the law if he chews a little tobacco, whether he uses the spittoon or not.

What sort of country is this? Are the gardaí going to be out in counties Roscommon, Carlow, Leitrim or Kerry taking to these people, taking their notebooks out, cautioning them, telling them that they may well find themselves charged with a breach of the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill, 1988, because they do something which they have been doing for the last 50 or 60 years? The habit is dying out. The production of this tobacco is a very small part of the overall production of tobacco in this country. If there are new-fangled substances which are being marketed in a way designed to lure young people, then by all means name and outlaw them. But why are we moving in here to outlaw a habit which is doing harm only to the person who willingly pursues it? In spite of of what Senator Mooney says, it is doing no harm to anybody else. We are now talking about taking away one of the few small pleasures an old man has in the twilight of his days——

God help us.

I am sincere and I am right in what I am saying. There is a new book, which is more than most people know, setting limits to the extent the State should intervene. Senator Murphy has been a great defender in the past of the rights of minorities against busybody civil servants and a busybody State. I take this amendment seriously. I want to see that right — and it is an important right — defended and preserved. I would ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. I am quite certain that if there was a free vote in this House there would be a majority in favour of this amendment. If the Minister talked to half a dozen people in his own constituency, he would find that they would all favour this amendment.

I am curious about something. Senator Manning, speaks extremely persuasively and puts his arguments forward with great clarity and conviction. The Minister said very coolly and calmly that he was not going to accept amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 31. We are set now for some few hours debate, I expect, on this Tobacco Bill. I would like to know if the force of argument, if the force of reason, if the conviction of Senators will convince the Minister to take any amendments at all on board, or are we engaged in an exercise which is purely one of verbal gymnastics and the putting forward of point and counterpoint? If the arguments are good, if Senators in the main agree, are we going to succeed in having any amendments taken on this Bill? I would like the Minister to clarify the position at this point in the debate.

That is the most relevant question that has been put. If the answer is in the negative just because the other House is in recess, then perhaps we should go into recess and go home. I think the Minister will find that this House, above anything else, when it has legislation before it wants to improve it, whether by amendment or debate, constructive and otherwise, and that the most important thing for all of us is that any legislation that is passed through this House would be operable and enforceable. One could say that this is a great House for sussing things out.

Snuffing them out.

It has snuffed them out today and you could put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Not to be sneezed at.

This House has now shown up an anomaly. As Senator Fennell has rightly said, the Minister has now confirmed that even snuffing is excluded from the public places designated. That is all that we are worried about. The next section will deal with the areas that the Minister will have the right to designate. I am prepared to sit here all day and all night to get the legislation right. Could we just for a moment as serious legislators — which we are in this House — address the problem that Senator Robb has raised about consumption, inhalation, ingestion, swallowing, chewing or whatever? What terminology will have a legal and binding effect?

If we consume something, we expect that it is will be ingested and through the whole digestive process will be assimilated and excreted. Tobacco inhalation is exhaled, to the detriment of all the people around, which is what Senator Mooney and other Senators are worried about, whether into a spittoon, or into the environment, or otherwise. I am particularly concerned about old people in geriatric and psychiatric hospitals. I made this point on the Second Stage but it was not referred to by the Minister. The Minister would have the power to designate hospitals and most people would agree that in an acute hospital there should be a ban on smoking.

Let us consider psychiatric hospitals. Anybody that knows anything about them, or has visited them professionally, or representing health boards, health authorities, or whatever, will know that agents of the State distribute daily quotas of smoking, snuffing and chewing tobaccos to people with psychiatric problems which, if prohibited will have to be replaced by drugs which could be addictive and create many more problems than ever have been attributed to tobacco. Members of this House should address themselves to the fact that this does happen. They can check on the budgeting of any health board. A certain percentage of pensions goes towards the purchase of tobacco for old age pensioners in psychiatric hospitals.

All that we are trying to make sure is that whatever legislation passes this House will be operative, will be enforceable and will not be seen afterwards to be an ass which it will be if it goes against normal habits. You can preach piously for ever about whether it is nice or not nice, whether it is fashionable, or whether it is unpleasant to us as individuals or otherwise. That is what is happening. How can we stop it by legislation without having a jackboot regime that will enforce the law in hospitals, psychiatric and geriatric, and all sorts of other places which the public frequent?

All that Senator Manning is trying to do is to make the legislation operable. He has defended the Minister's Bill in the overall context of what it wants to do. We want to try to improve it and make it workable.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach is going back to the very early days. I am not sure what Senator Murphy means by it "suiting" me. I listened to the debate here with increasing amazement. If people discovered a therapeutic drug which, on the one hand, conferred considerable benefits on people and made them better but had the adverse effect that tobacco has on so many people who consume it, the drug would not be allowed to go on sale. There is evidence of a drug that was banned from circulation last year, even though it had a considerable beneficial effect on people who suffer from arthritis. Because there was evidence that in a limited number of cases, it had very severe side effects, that drug was withdrawn from circulation, notwithstanding the benefits it conferred on some people. This is a similar case.

The fact that some people enjoy chewing tobacco does not get away from the fact that it is harmful and damaging to people's health. Sooner or later, we will have to take action to try to stop it. We are not just talking about one generation of old people at present. Somebody suggested that perhaps we should wait five years before this is implemented but the point is you cannot go on forever encouraging and supporting people in doing things that are injurious to their health. The medical evidence shows that chewing tobacco damages people's health. It is like any other drug. Unless there are overwhelming reasons for using it, if it has such an abundance of side effects which are harmful to people's health, the casual pleasure it gives to some people is not proportionate to the damage it can do and, therefore, it should be prohibited. That is why I would not dream of supporting this amendment.

Senator Manning spoke with unusual passion on a matter that some people might assume to be trivial. I do not necessarily think that it is and, even if it was, he is perfectly entitled to speak with that degree of commitment and passion on it. I hope that this will be followed up and that if he takes it seriously he will call for a vote. I note, with considerable seriousness, what Senator Bulbulia said and it is something about which I have had a brief discussion with her because it is open gossip around the corridors of this House that the Government have decided that no amendments will be taken before the end of this session. If this is the case and if what the Minister says confirms it, then it appears that the relevance of this House is about the same as the hind tit of a jackass. The sooner we establish whether this is the case, the better.

I most certainly will be calling for a vote on my amendments because I take very seriously the noble sounding words of the Minister in his various pronouncements on this issue when he made it perfectly clear that we are talking about saving human life. I do not think that the recall of the Dáil — which seems to be the principal stumbling block to the acceptance of any amendments — the inconvenience that this might cause to some holidaying members of the Lower House, is sufficient reason for taking measures which may save people's lives. I invite Senator Manning to call for a vote on the amendment about which he feels so passionately.

Senator Ferris asked us to be realistic about old people in hospital but is it realistic to think that you can somehow provide tobacco for a section of the population while restricting its use elsewhere? That is totally unrealistic. Of course, there will not be armies of jack-booted, law enforcers going around the geriatric wards but, sooner or later, whatever noxious habits are tolerated or permitted on compassionate grounds will be phased out anyway. I do not see how you can exempt a generation or a particular section of a generation from the law generally.

Senator Manning seems to be giving the impression that if there was a free vote, as he puts it, his impassioned plea would be welcomed by all sides, I oppose the amendment notwithstanding his impassioned, very genuine and sincere contribution. I do not wish in any way to diminish what he said but I have to go along again with what was said on the Independent benches by some of the Members. It is all very well to talk about depriving elderly people of pleasure — and I do not wish to be seen to be an old grouch or scrooge in that respect — but a start has to be made somewhere and in the context of this legislation the start is now being made.

If I were unfortunate enough to be in a public health hospital or geriatric ward of a public health hospital, because that is really where the legislation is directed at rather than at private medicine, I am sure that if the nursing staff were to come to me — if I was a heavy smoker or snuff taker or if I chewed tobacco — and said that the law of the land now was that I could not do so in public, it is possible that there might be some way around it if it would cause me great physical or mental distress. However, we must legislate for the common good and in that context I am against the amendment. Secondly, in these situations, one always tends to think of the victims of the effects of legislation — those who chew tobacco, those who smoke, and those who are snuff takers — but in the public area, as a non-smoker I resent having smoke blown in my face. I resent having to sit in a restaurant, a cinema, a railway station or a public institution and to absorb smoke——

Or in Leinster House.

Or in Leinster House. I do not want to be beside a snuff taker who sneezes and also causes me to sneeze. It may seem trivial but as Senator Manning has raised this amendment to a very high intellectual level I will try to reach that level with him and at the same time say that I am opposed to it.

The finger of suspicion seems to be pointed at me. I am endeavouring to be helpful here. In general terms we have all agreed that this is an unacceptable social habit and there is no doubting the feelings of Senator Manning on the issue. The terms of the argument put forward do not lead logically to his amendment. Senator Manning made the point that smoking is a pleasure but none of our pleasures is left unrestricted. There are restrictions on all the pleasures that are left to us no matter what age we happen to be — 73, 20 or 40, younger or older. We were just discussing the fact that there are such restrictions on us at all levels. However, if we are talking here about something which will hit, affect and restrict old people to a certain extent, it seems that the logical amendment — as was done with great wisdom in the Fisheries Bill — would be that people over a certain age be exempted from the requirements of the legislation. Perhaps Senator Manning would put down an amendment of this nature on Report Stage to exempt people over 70 years of age from the requirements of the Bill. I would welcome Senator Manning's view on that point. It does not cut any ice to say that because it restricts 70 year olds plus we should now make it available to people of 10 years plus. There is no logic there. The logic of the argument is to exempt the people he is worried about. I would like to hear the views of the proposer on that issue.

I was very interested in the approbation from the junior Senator from Trinity, asking me to call a vote. I will not call a vote for the sake of calling a vote. I would not see much point in so doing but I may yet call a vote if I do not get the proper reply from the Minister. There are still two or three points on which I would like clarification.

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I would like to ask your protection from the unjustified ire of the Struldbrug from University College, Dublin.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Deputy Manning to make his contribution without interruption.

I find it a fitting and simple description of the Senator's status. He is the junior Senator from Trinity in that he is the most junior member of the House of an official constituency. If offence is taken it certainly was not intended.

A number of important points remain to be made on the issue before us. First, is it intended to prohibit the production of this substance in this country? Can we have a clear statement on that? Secondly, on the question of snuff — in spite of what Senator Mooney said about the discomfort caused by people taking snuff — I think it is unrealistic that the taking of snuff in public places be prohibited from this point on? Thirdly, would the Minister answer the question raised by Senator O'Toole and Senator Bulbulia as to his intentions on the Bill generally?

Finally, in relation to the very helpful and as usual positive suggestions made by Senator O'Toole — and he is unfailingly helpful in his efforts to expedite the business of the House — I would find it difficult to accept a provision for an age limit. Such a provision would result in people going around with a snuff box in one hand and a birth certificate in the other. I do not want to hold this legislation up. There is an important principle and point here and I would like the Minister to answer the questions I have raised.

In relation to amendments, and I want to make it quite clear that I am under no obligation not to accept amendments, if amendments come forward that we can incorporate in this Bill they will be taken on board. I am impatient to bring this Bill out of this House as quickly as possible, have it signed by the President, bring it into law and have the regulations drafted during the summer. I confess to that impatience because I believe the Bill is very important. Senators are well aware of the difficulty of making amendments at this stage but if I feel I should accept amendments I would have no hesitation in doing so and let the Bill go on to the autumn session if necessary. However, it would be beneficial to have this Bill passed as quickly as possible. I accept the point made by Senators Bulbulia, Manning, Norris and others that the fact of the Lower House not being in session at present leads to problems. At this stage we have not come across any amendment that we find acceptable — I am referring to amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 31. — that is why we are opposing them and we will vote them down if the Senators so desire.

I want to clarify another point. The manufacture of chewing tobacco will be banned. Under EC regulations we are required to prohibit the manufacture of all forms of oral smokeless tobacco, including chewing tobacco. That is quite clear in section 6 (1) of the Bill. We do not want such product consumed here or anywhere else. We do not want to contribute to the damaging effect chewing tobacco has on the health of our population and on the health of the population abroad.

The use of snuff is not being banned but it will be controlled. It can be used, for example, in enclosed public places which will be specified in the regulations. As Senator Mooney has said spitting is equally a problem in enclosed areas and so is the effect of taking tobacco which I understand causes sneezing and has a damaging health effect, too. We do not find that practice acceptable. If people wish to use snuff they can use it in open spaces or in their own private domain but under this legislation it will be banned — as well as smoking and chewing tobacco — in certain places.

With regard to chewing tobacco for the elderly and for those in welfare homes, in psychiatric hospitals and so on, I am very sympathetic. I have not come across this habit even though I move around in the constituencies and visit welfare homes and so on. It may be that it is not allowed in the places I visit. Nevertheless, I am aware that people chew ordinary tobacco — that is plug pipe tobacco — and that is not being banned. The new chewing tobacco products which are coming into use and which were not available heretofore are becoming more attractive. We are banning the production and sale of those products. Patients in welfare homes, psychiatric homes and anywhere else, are used to chewing plug pipe tobacco. They do not as a rule purchase specially manufactured chewing tobacco products. The regualtions to be drafted under section 2 (2) of the Bill will give the Minister power to designate certain areas within health premises as smoking areas.

When we are drafting the regulations we will sympathetically bear in mind the points made by Senators in relation to chewing tobacco in welfare homes, psychiatric hospitals and so on. Where elderly people chew pipe tobacco we will bear in mind the points made by Senators and we will be conscious of the tradition of elderly people in this regard. Basically, we are trying to ensure that young people do not become hooked on this health hazard of chewing tobacco, smoking cigarettes and other such products. We want to avoid that and we are avoiding it by banning it. That is specified in this Bill. I will be dealing with this issue in greater detail on amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

In summary, I want to say that this legislation is vitally important. Senators should not feel that we are trying to force this Bill without amendments. If this Bill is proved by Senators to be defective in some way we will have to take that on board and bring the Bill back to the Dáil in the next session. We are not under any instructions to get this Bill through here without amendments, but the Minister and I are anxious to get this Bill through before the summer recess in the Seanad, draft the regulations during the summer months and bring the legislation into operation as quickly as possible. This is a serious matter. The health of the population is involved and I feel it would be preferable to have the legislation in operation without delay.

The Minister has gone a considerable part of the way. If, when the regulations are being drawn up, we could have an assurance that the provisions he has mentioned as likely to be considered will be considered, and if there could be some provision in the regulations which would allow the traditional chewing tobaccos to remain on sale, that would meet my major objections. The suggestion about snuff is clearly silly and inoperable and probably can never be enforced in practice anyway.

I am a little concerned that a Bill is brought in here at this stage in the parliamentary session and we are told that either we accept it and allow important reforming legislation to go on the Statute Book — the impact of this Bill is 95 per cent plus or good or we vote in some amendments which means it will not become law for another two or three months. That is a bad way to do business. We are to a certain extent faced with a fait accompli here today. Either we accept what the Minister says or we run the risk of the obloquy of holding up important legislation. The regulations will come to this House in the fullness of time — is that not correct? The regulations must be approved by this House. We saw last week that the regulations on the granting of licences to restaurants were plain daft and silly. This House, unlike the other House, did something to expose the general restrictive nature of those regulations and of the capitulation to one lobby. We could come back and find regulations which do not meet the concern expressed in this House here today and that we have taken on faith something which is not going to appear. Therefore, if I can have an assurance that the regulations will make an attempt to embody the bona fide concerns expressed here today, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I certainly will press it to a vote.

The first response to Senator Manning was about the prohibition on the manufacture of chewing tobacco and the Minister confirmed that in section 6 the manufacture will be outlawed in this country. Whether we like it or not, whether we think it moral or immoral, economically viable or otherwise, the manufacture of chewing tobacco is going on here. I understand that in the other House the Minister gave a commitment that he would have consultation and a process of dialogue with the company concerned. You cannot suddenly close down a factory because all people who have a concern in the matter in question consider it appropriate to legislate. You cannot do that without the efforts of the company to rationalise and go into other areas of production which, as I said on Second Stage, the tobacco companies are doing. Because of the serious implications involved in this case, I hope there will be a process of dialogue. I will not say I am condoning the manufacture of chewing tobacco but the legislation will create a problem from an employment point of view and so on.

We are at a complete loss to know what the Minister is at. He does not even meet Senator Mooney's reservations now. He suggests that he will allow people to chew pipe tobacco but that he will not allow people to chew chewing tobacco. Who is to know what a person is chewing, whether it is chewing tobacco or pipe tobacco? It would be impossible to devise regulations that would allow for differentiating between chewing a jot of pipe tobacco and chewing a jot of chewing tobacco?

You would have to produce a receipt of purchase.

Either it is wrong to chew tobacco in any place designated or it is not wrong. Changing the quality of the tobacco does not meet the Minister's whole concern in this area. If you are serious about it you will ban all chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco and everything else, in all places designated and you will ban all snuff and all smoking tobacco. If that is what the Minister wants to do let him be honest and up front with everybody and tell them this is what this Bill is doing. Then at least we will have some credibility. You cannot now tell a person he can buy a jot of tobacco which is legal to manufacture, that he can chew it and spit it out but that he must not chew chewing tobacco which is illegal to manufacture.

Let us talk facts up front. What is the Minister talking about in this area? Is he talking about all tobacco products for chewing? The consumption is the concept of the amendments, and the Minister has not addressed himself to the question raised by Senator Robb about chewing, consumption, smoking, inhalation and otherwise. Somebody might bring a case to court where questions would be asked about whether people were consuming or smoking tobacco, smoking chewing tobacco, smoking smoking tobacco or chewing smoking tobacco. Now it is highly technical. Fair dues to this House, even by way of amendment it has at least sussed out some of the problems in this area. From our knowledge of what happened in the other House, nobody was aware, first, that snuff was included or that deliberately the manufacture of the product for export would be forbidden. Let me repeat what I, Senator Manning and others have said, that we have defended the ban on the importation of special products which were coming in and which the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Barry Desmond, also forbade to be inported, by way of Ministerial order. That was defended by everybody because it was recognised that a particular product which we identified and named on Second Stage was undesirable, but that ban did not refer to what was manufactured here in the way of chewing tobacco. Now at least we know the Minister is going to ban the total production of chewing tobacco, but I am worried that he is going to allow people to chew pipe tobacco in certain designated areas. In my humble opinion there is an incompatability about what we are trying to do because people will be still spitting it out and will be offending all sorts of people on both sides of the House if they do that. This provision seems to be incompatible with what the Minister is trying to do here.

I would be very shocked if I thought Senator Ferris was suggesting that it should be possible to manufacture under licence products that were regarded as noxious for our domestic consumption and allowed them to be exported to other jurisdictions. I believe as a matter of principle that this would be utterly wrong. Certainly I will support the Minister if he is taking a principled stand on the basis that what is not good enough for the Irish people is not good enough for the Irish people to foist upon other peoples around the world. I reiterate a point I made previously when discussing this kind of legislation, that I hope sincerely that the Government will stick to this principle when it comes to the manufacture of mercury soap.

As a relatively new Member I have been hearing comments on legislation on occasions in this House which may not meet with a particular point of view, such as, "Ah, Minister, sure it is not enforceable, the law in an ass, this is daft". I am beginning to wonder if there is not a very serious implication in many of the attitudes portrayed in this House. As I said and as I think is agreed on all sides of the House, this legislation is a beginning. It has been initiated by this Government but it was planned by previous administrations, and efforts were made by the last administration, as Senator Ferris has said correctly, to curtail this activity.

The legislation was initiated and it is being put through as a direct result of a growing public objection to what is increasingly seen to be anti-social behaviour. I wish we could say the same about the abuse of alcohol. Unfortunately, we have not reached that stage yet, but we seem to be close to reaching a stage where the consumption of tobacco products of whatever ilk, is being increasingly seen by the vast majority of the population, if statistics are to be believed, as being anti-social.

While I fully accept the bona fides of what my colleagues on the other side of the House have been saying in relation to the specifics — and I will be awaiting the Minister's reply to the questions raised by Senator Manning and Senator Ferris — once this legislation is in place, it will be a very brave person, man or woman, who will attempt to go into any public area and consume tobacco products, whether the law specifically states that they should, can or will in a specific instance. I believe there is a very strong moral force behind this legislation because many people are interested in it. There is widespread public acceptance of the principles behind the legislation, despite the difficulties which seem to have arisen here on this section, and once the legislation is in place, it will be operable.

I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily — I have been accused of saying that every time I stand up and might as well reinforce the stereotype at least — but I think we are seeing problems that do not exist at this stage. Section 6 defines what is being banned for import, manufacture, sale or otherwise, as an oral smokeless tobacco product, which is a product or substance made wholly or partly from tobacco intended for use only by being placed in the mouth and kept there for a period or being placed in the mouth and sucked or chewed. If a manufacturer attempts to market a product which is unsuitable for smoking then the market will not buy it and it will go off the market. On the other hand, if people who want to chew tobacco choose tobacco which is manufactured for smoking, then there is nothing in this legislation to prohibit it.

If the Minister wanted to be totally draconian, he could have banned all tobacco on the grounds that people could chew some kinds but he chose not to do that. I am coming to the conclusion that the whole thing should be made illegal anyway. There is no logic in not making tobacco illegal. It is probably the most socially damaging and health damaging and offensive drug in widespread consumption. The logic of other people's use escapes me although I do not dispute their sincerity and goodwill. Nevertheless, if some other drug, like cocaine, was in widespread consumption and then we discovered how damaging it was, would we have similar arguments about the need to be careful, sensitive and concerned? We would not. We would say it is appalling and should be stopped. It is a bit like saying that where people have been drinking and driving for 20 years, we should have a transition period during which they are allowed to drink and drive until they get used to the new regulations. No such latitude is offered because what is being done is so damaging to health. The sight of old people smoking can often encourage young people to do the same.

The Minister has come a long way — in fact, further than I would be inclined to encourage him to come — in saying that the regulations will recognise the concerns and the feelings of old people. If he was to say that the present generation of old people were to be recognised by the regulations, in other words, to have a temporary clause to cover the needs of the present occupants of psychiatric hospitals and welfare homes. I would say fine, but I do not think we should necessarily have a permanent exclusion of old people from the provisions of the Bill. It may well be necessary as a transition measure but not as a permanent measure. I do not see any merit in the amendment. The Minister is right, if anything, he does not go far enough.

It is quite clear that under section 10 every regulation will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the regulation as passed by either House in the next 21 days in which the House has sat after the regulation is laid before us, the regulation should be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. That clarifies that point. The regulation will come before the House in the normal way and can be debated at that stage if Members wish.

I want to clarify a point for Senator Ferris. In the course of the debate we were pointing out a few facts. Under section 2 the chewing of pipe tobacco will be controlled by regulation in common with the use of snuff and types of smoking tobacco. For obvious reasons, it is not realistic to ban pipe tobacco. We recognise that pipe tobacco is chewed by a small number of old persons. We do not condone this, but we recognise it as a fact. In the debate I said we understand that quite a number of older people who have the habit of chewing tobacco, were chewing tobacco before some of these new products came on the market. The chewing of that type of tobacco will be banned in the restricted areas as laid down in the legislation.

At present there is one brand of chewing tobacco being manufactured in this country and it only constitutes 3 per cent of all the hard-pressed tobacco manufactured by that company. There is not a significant economic interest in the manufacture of chewing tobacco here and that will have some effect, but very little effect, on that particular company. As I said, the manufacture and consumption of that product will be banned. I want to make this point as clear as I can.

I welcome the fact that Senators are eliciting information about this Bill because it gives me an opportunity to make crystal clear, exactly what we intend in this legislation. The points made by the Senators will be taken on board, but we cannot vary the legislation. I want to make it quite clear to old people that chewing tobacco products will be banned, and there will be no exemptions. We realise that quite a number of elderly people chew pipe tobacco, and we are not banning pipe tobacco. If there are any other points I will be delighted to clarify them.

I wish to put a query on the definition of "consumption".

We are satisfied that the word "consumption" covers smoking. Our legal advisers and the parliamentary draftsman have assured us that that word is in order and clearly covers smoking and inhaling tobacco, chewing and so on. We are satisfied that the word is correct and is to be included.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential on similar amendments Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15; amendments Nos. 22 and 24 are related and may be discussed.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, line 23, to delete "either prohibited or".

When this Bill was being discussed on Second Stage, a number of Senators, including myself, made the point that the Bill insisted on an absolute prohibition on smoking, whereas there are those of us in this House and in the other House who felt that there was a very strong case for a restriction on smoking in certain places, but not for a total prohibition. In all of these amendments I am proposing that all the references to an outright prohibition of smoking be deleted and that we confine the Bill to providing for a restriction on smoking. This would enable the rights of smokers to be respected, subject to the overriding rights of the non-smokers. To a certain extent these amendments anticipate the regulations which will be framed by the Minister when this Bill is enacted as being extremely restrictive. There is no doubt that the mind of this Minister differs very little from that of his predecessor in his attitude on this question. Both the former Minister, Deputy Desmond and the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, have made it clear that they take an extremely restrictive view on smoking. Their view goes virtually as far as an outright and almost blanket prohibition on smoking in all public places. I can accept that there must be a wide range of restrictions on smoking in all places of indoor entertainment. I would like to see large areas of restaurants designated as smoke-free areas, but I am worried about what I see as the excessive restrictions involved in this Bill.

I would like to see the concept of prohibition used as sparingly as possible in a free society. It is for the reasons which I outlined in my Second Stage speech, that I prefer education to a regime of coercion, to persuade people rather than prohibit them in a blanket fashion, that I am moving these amendments. I do not expect that the Minister will accept them. But I am concerned that the minds of this Minister and the previous Minister are excessively rigid on this question. I would like to ask that when the regulations are being drafted some consideration should be given to the rights of choice and to the rights of non-smokers in this regard.

The amendments as grouped deal with two different sections. Our amendment No. 6, deals with section 2. In this Bill we have to qualify what we are trying to do in the area of legislation on smoking. None of us on any side of the House is removing the right of the Minister to restrict the use of any tobacco product in designated areas. Many of us welcome the fact that the Minister is doing this. According to the survey which was carried out, even smokers agree that it is appropriate that there should be certain restrictions, but I do not think I can go along with the total prohibition of smoking by way of regulation in any designated area. The concept of our amendment is that after the word "may" the words "having regard to the rights of non-smokers and smokers respectively" should be inserted.

It has been argued here on Second Stage — and possibly again today — that smokers have no rights. Many people hold that view and I respect that view. People feel it is a health hazard for them to be passive inhalers of cigarette smoke etc. None of us condone the fact that there should be the freedom to smoke in any place if one so wishes. I agree that there should be limitations on the rights of smokers. What we are asking is that the Minister would, in the laying down of regulations and restrictions, have regard to the fact that there are people who need to smoke and that he recognise that he cannot totally prohibit it; some area will have to be set aside in all of these institutions, public or otherwise, where smokers can participate in what is now regarded as an unhealthy pastime, pleasurable as it might be. It is not unreasonable for the Minister to restrict smokers, but he should designate places where they can smoke.

I am prepared to accept that whether on public transport, aircraft, in restaurants or anywhere else, the greater part of those areas should be designated in the Minister's regulations as being for the pleasure and enjoyment of non-smokers but he should not forget that there are a group of people who may need to smoke. Whether we regard them as having rights or otherwise, prohibition will confer no rights on anybody. It will prohibit everything and everybody. Restrictions would at least recognise that there are people who need and want to smoke whether we like it or not. Let us not outlaw everybody by way of legislation.

(Interruptions.)

Senator Ryan now suggests that there should be two different air lines to transport two different categories of passengers, non-smokers and smokers. I agree with that.

(Interruptions.)

I am speaking as a non-smoker but I have smoked and I recognise that people still may want to smoke. Let us not preach at them from our pedestals. Let us recognise the fact that some people do smoke. It amazes me that some people who express all sorts of liberal views in every conceivable area are so right wing on this issue. I cannot relate to it.

On a point of order, the Senator might understand that there is a difference between being progressive and being liberal.

Do not be so smug.

There is a difference. It is a pleasure to listen to that kind of interjection. It is even more pleasurable than having a smoke. When the Minister makes his regulations he should not totally prohibit everything. He will get our support about all the restrictions and the percentage of areas he wants to designate as non-smoking. Let us do it that way but let us sit down and talk about it because other people have rights, whether we like it or not. What did we do for the past 60 years with all these people? What did we do with the 110 year olds who have smoked all their lives and who have never contracted any disease?

They can thank God they were lucky.

Thank God they were lucky, but it goes to show that science is not as infallible as people think. Some people have confounded all the statistics that have been published in this area.

Smoking is good for you.

I never said that at all; that is why I gave it up. I realised that it was not good for one, but not everybody has the same willpower as I have. I have the willpower to sustain interruptions. Anybody who thinks that I do not have that willpower has still some lessons to learn in this House. These amendments are not unreasonable, and I look forward to the Minister's positive response, irrespective of interruptions.

I would have been much more in sympathy with Senator Ferris's point of view the day before yesterday than I am today. Having just returned from a surgical conference in Iceland I had a fairly long trip on an aeroplane. On the first plane, which was Iceland Air, smoking was completely prohibited all the way from Reykjavik to Glasgow. On the second plane, which was British Airways, I asked for seating in a non-smoking area, but I found myself in the front line of the non-smokers area and in the back line of the smokers there was the most prodigious smoker in the whole plane. In fact, had I chosen the front row of the smoking compartment I would have been in a better health situation than I was behind the back row of the smokers' compartment and in the front row of the non-smokers'. It can be seen that smoke has a considerably confusing effect and I am sure it was highly deleterious to my state of health and wellbeing. Having said that, I hope that we do not become so restrictive in our thinking that we overlook all situations. For example, in hospitals we have to deal with the relatives of very sick and dying patients who have to sit, very often, in not very comfortable surroundings, through no fault of their own, for very long periods during the day and night. They may be smokers and that may be their way of releasing some of the understandable tension they would be suffering. The ideal of course would be to have a smoking room and a non smoking room for relatives. I hope we will gradually move in that direction and, beyond that again, that we will not have to deal with this problem at all because as the health hazards associated with smoking become more fully appreciated no one will smoke.

However we cope with it, we must at least be aware of the difficulties and be practical in our approach. I always come back to the great ideals pronounced in the Litter Bill when I look at the state of Ireland today. Let us hope that in pushing forward an anti-smoking Bill we will not find in five or six years time that nobody has paid any attention to it at all because we did not exercise our commonsense in the passage of the Bill through these Houses.

The last two speakers, Senators Ferris and Robb, spoke with great commonsense on this question. Senator Ferris in particular outlined the type of changes he would like to see made in the Bill to ensure that smoking would not be totally prohibited. He made a very reasoned case. Senator Robb gave some examples of cases where sheer humanity would dictate that the provisions of the Bill could be unduly restrictive. I do not want to be offensive but what worries me are the attitudes of the backbenchers on this side today, the serried Savanarolas, who are going to make people good regardless of whether they want to be good.

They are showing an intolerance and a smugness which I find baffling. They are going to force on others their view that, "Big Brother is watching, Big Brother knows best and Big Brother is going to make you behave the way Big Brother thinks you should behave". The rights of minorities that are constantly being called for from that backbench are in this case out the window. I ask people in the back row today to try to inject a little of the humanity of Senator Robb and the commonsense of Senator Ferris into this provision. Then we might make a little progress on it.

I am astonished at Senator Manning, to say the least. When he talks of minorities he should equate the effects of a most harmful drug, whether he likes it or not, with the more illustrious activities of minorities or the aspirations of some of my colleagues on the backbenches. I do not see the correlation at all. I agree with Senator Manning when he says that we cannot legislate for moraltiy. We cannot force people to be good. I go down the road completely with him on that but what we are talking about here is the prohibition or restriction on the consumption of tobacco products in aircraft, trains, public service vehicles and other facilities as may be specified. We shall consider what the implications of this legislation will be.

It takes the vast majority of people who travel by air to our cross-channel neighbour, Britain, one hour to do so. There are others who travel further and it would take them two hours to travel as far as the heart of Europe. In relation to train journeys, the longest journey one could make on a train in this country is — I am not an expert on this — perhaps three hours to Cork.

It takes much longer to get to Tralee.

I am sorry, four hours.

What about from Cork to Belfast?

One cannot go direct, one would have to change trains at some stage. Let us take, for example, the question of a restriction or prohibition on smoking in health premises. I could not help thinking, when Senator Robb remarked on the provision of smoking and non-smoking rooms, of my experiences of smoking and non-smoking rooms, the most recent being in February when I found myself among a group of people waiting anxiously and nervously for news at the National Maternity Hospital. I went into the room provided for, what could loosely be called, expectant fathers only to be met by a billow of smoke despite there being nobody else in the room. There was a sign there stating, in black and white: "No Smoking. Smoking is a Health Hazard". I checked with the nursing staff and they agreed that although it was a no-smoking hospital they found it very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent particularly anxious fathers-to-be from smoking.

I accept what Senator Manning says about the difficulties there will be in trying to enforce this legislation but I still cling to the hope that this legislation will lead to a change in attitudes. Attitudes are already changing. I still retain the right to say, that as a non-smoker, I resent having smoke blown in my face. I resent, too, being in cinemas in which sections are blocked off for smokers. There is medical evidence to prove that passive smoking is equally injurious to one's health as is active smoking.

I may sound very right wing and intolerant. That is not intended but I just believe as passionately about this legislation as Senator Manning does about the points he has raised. While I accept what Senator Ferris has said in relation to his amendment on legislating for smokers as well as non-smokers, I am afraid I am intolerant. I believe it is time that legislation in this country reflected the majority view. I hope that this legislation will ultimately lead to the position where the number of people smoking will be very minute. That is why I go along with all of what is contained in this Bill.

I would like to reiterate that what we are seeking in this legislation is, surely, the Republic of health, not the Republic of virtue. Therefore, we cannot be properly accused of being killjoys or restrictive in the sense Senator Manning wants to make us out to be. Surely, the overriding principle is the right of all the citizens to breathe clean, smoke-free air when they are in public places. That is the only right. In the public context, smokers have no rights. If they are mingling with non-smokers, sharing the same air, they have no right to pollute that air. It is nonsense to talk of smokers having rights in that context. I must say that I have rarely seen such a stupid suggestion as the one contained in this amendment, which uses the phrase "having regard to the rights of smokers". Smokers simply do not have any rights. Senator Manning said that we should be seeking to persuade and cajole people instead of forcing them to do things. The day for that has gone. Asking people, voluntarily, not to smoke in public places has, by and large, been unsuccessful. We require this measure as a measure of public health.

I was rather surprised that Senator Robb brought up the compassionate case once again of mourning relatives gathered around a hospital bed. I am afraid, quite simply, that they should get used to a situation where smoking is forbidden. One cannot behave anti-socially and one cannot do it in situations of joy or in situations of grief because once you begin to make exceptions the legislation falls apart. I remember, not so many years ago, asking a ticket collector on a train to ask two ladies who were smoking in the same compartment, a non-smoking compartment, to cease smoking. He chatted with them and then went away for a while. When he came back they were still smoking. I asked him if he had asked them to stop smoking as they were sitting in a non-smoking carriage and he said: "sure, I did not like to be too hard on them." That is exactly the philosophy behind the amendments of Senators Manning and Ferris. The attitude is "Ah, sure God help us, we would not like to be too hard on them. Let us not take this legislation seriously, to that extent: We do not want to upset people."

In short, the amendments undermine the principle of the Bill. I do not see how Senators can put forward these amendments and maintain that they support the Bill as a whole. I would go further and ask the Minister, when he is designating by regulations areas where tobacco products may not be consumed, that he include many areas of Leinster House as prohibited areas where smoking is concerned. Why should we have to endure other people's smoke in the Library, in what is now a very confined and unsatisfactory premises? Why should we have to breathe people's smoke in a crowded self-service restaurant? Surely this House should give an example. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously designating these areas of Leinster House as no-smoking areas. In Leinster House there is no lounge as such. People use the Library as a reading lounge, a working place and so on. Certainly smoking should be prohibited in that area and I hope it will be done before long.

I am loath to appear to disagree with my colleague. Senator Manning. The amendments he has put down are largely personal amendments and spring from a certain sympathy which is part and parcel of his delightful nature. He seems to think that most of the recalcitrance came from the back row but I am pleased to tell him that there is somebody here in the front benches who thinks slightly differently.

The stridency is missing.

Just you wait. There is a certain rearguard action being fought on this legislation in relation to these amendments. I understand the thinking behind it, the unwillingness to be harsh, the sensitivity, the feeling for people and so on. That is all very nice but I do not hear any allusions to the health evidence, to the statistics, to the research, to the information and to the facts which the Minister gave us in his introductory speech to this Bill and to which those of us who believe passionately in the need for this legislation gave chapter and verse when we contributed on Second Stage.

Freedom is fine but freedom is always relative and I agree with Senator Murphy when he talks about the rights of non-smokers and the fact that smokers as such have no rights except when they are smoking in private. This is public health legislation and I would like to think that we have sophisticated attitudes in relation to public health in this country. Whenever I visit a Third World country I notice there is a degree of smoking and indulgence in tobacco which was the norm here in the thirties, forties and fifties but which has, thankfully, undergone quite a change and a change in attitudes will be even further enforced by virtue of this legislation.

Senator Robb referred to hospitals and the needs of anxious people who are visiting their relatives who are gravely ill or terminally ill or dying and the need to have a place for them to relieve their tension and frustration by indulging in the habit of smoking. I understand that and I appreciate it and I believe hospitals should, perhaps, provide a facility for this activity because they wish to be compassionate. Such people often go for a walk on the perimeter of a hospital to smoke a cigarette and go back in again. I have seen people who were visiting patients in a hospital smoking in a room where oxygen was in use despite the fact that there was a large notice up to that effect and warning signs in red letters. It is horrifyingly stupid to light a cigarette in such circumstances apart from the fact that it is an obnoxious habit.

I was interested to hear the arguments being advanced about designating part of Leinster House as a "no smoking" area. I find my enjoyment of the Library in Leinster House spoiled to some extent by the fact that so many people wish to smoke there and by the presence on the tables of ashtrays which positively reek of tobacco. If one happens to be reading a newspaper in the area of one of those ashtrays it is quite an unpleasant experience.

I would also be concerned that the Minister when he is publishing the regulations might have something to say about local authority meetings. It is my misfortune to sit in the proximity of the two smokers who are members of my local council and I patiently pass the ashtray to one of my colleagues who sits immediately beside me at the corporation meeting and whom I suspect is not too far away from me in this gathering here today. This person manages to refrain from smoking when he is in this Chamber. Everybody who sits in this Chamber refrains from smoking but it seems to be a more difficult exercise to refrain from smoking at a local authority meeting or, perhaps, the tensions, stresses and politics of local authority meetings are so much greater and require people to indulge in their habit, which is not the case when they are in this House.

Overall, the question must be asked, if this legislation is for real — and I hope it is for real — who is going to enforce these regulations? The Minister has to put this on the line, because if he does not and if we do not know and if the legislation has no credibility because there is nobody to enforce it then we are largely wasting our time. I agree with Senator Murphy's point about the guard on the train whose attitude was: "Ah, sure I did not really like to ask them; ah, sure they were enjoying themselves". We have to get away from that type of thinking and that type of attitude. I hope the Minister will tell us that he will fund a large body of enforcers to ensure that this legislation is going to be realistically implemented. It is important that he should spell that out in no uncertain terms.

I think these amendments are quite outrageous. The suggestion that somebody has the right to inflict their noxious emissions on me I find entirely outrageous.

We did not say that.

I am sorry, people are talking about the rights of smokers. People have a right to smoke in a room on their own, which in my view should have a skull and cross bones on the door saying: "Warning, if you insist on using this room, you are putting your life in danger". I am a committed liberal, committed to the freedom of the individual to do anything, including to commit suicide if they wish. If people wish to put their lives in danger I will defend that right, but I will not defend the right of anybody to put my life at risk in order to indulge in their own filthy habits.

We all have to live with these things but that does not mean that we should pretend that people have rights to do these things. Like Senator Murphy, I travel frequently by train — thankfully at this stage smoking on trains is widely prohibited — and the presence of one smoker in a carriage of non-smokers at the very far end of it immediately becomes evident to those of us who do not smoke. The fact that the mere presence of a smoker causes offence at this stage is offensive. In addition to being offensive it is also a threat to my health. As I occasionally travel by train or other forms of public transport with my three children, who are all under the age of ten, I particularly resent having them subjected to any prospect of passive smoking at that age. The idea that people who smoke have any right to inflict their habit on me or my children or anybody else is a load of nonsense.

There is so much fuzzy thinking about the issue of smoking. For example marijuana is banned in this country. It is a criminal offence to have even the smallest quantity of marijuana in one's possession. There is some medical debate going on among scientists and doctors about the health hazards associated with marijuana but I am not going to get involved in that red herring at this stage. Nobody has suggested that if I consume marijuana I will do the person beside me any harm but, quite rightly, we still make it illegal to possess it and, by implication, to consume it. I am not a prohibitionist because I believe that prohibition is often counterproductive, but we have decided as a society that the risks involved to people and society of possessing any quantity of marijuana are such as to justify its prohibition.

On the other hand we have tobacco and there is no further doubt among scientists and doctors about its damage either to consumers or those who have it imposed upon them. Yet, we have some sort of libertarian notion that those people have the right to impose their habit on the rest of us. If people want to charter trains and planes so that they will be occupied entirely by smokers, let them at it. However, I reject that they have some right to impose themselves on me on a four or five hour plane or train journey and smoke because they have become addicted to a particularly offensive drug. If they want to find little rooms for themselves in private out of the way places where the rest of us neither have to notice or put up with their habit, let them at it and I will defend their right to do so. I defend the right of many people to do things in private and I, perhaps, would not necessarily approve of or actively engage in. However, I do not defend the right of people to engage in public in a habit which not only damages themselves, and that is fair enough, but also damages my health and the health of two-thirds of our adult population who choose not to smoke.

It is about time that a lot of the nonsense about cigarette smoking was got rid of. People were shanghaied into this habit by peer group pressure, by seductive advertising and many other ways. The reason cigarette companies are so successful is that they persuaded people to start a habit which becomes physically and psychologically addictive. It is our duty to break that cycle of addiction by every means possible. That is why the idea of not allowing a Minister to prohibit the use of tobacco in a number of areas is such an appalling proposition and why the amendment is wrong. The only thing that is wrong with the Bill, and Senator Norris to his great credit is trying to remedy that, is that it does not go half far enough. I hope the Minister will accept all or most of the amendments tabled by Senator Norris because he identifies a number of areas of public congregation which so far, regrettably, are not covered by the Bill. Those of us who do not smoke and do not wish to have smoking imposed upon us should not be afflicted by the nefarious activities of this decreasing minority.

I agree with those who have expressed the view that these amendments serve to undermine the intention of the Bill. For that reason I join with the Government party in opposing them. Of course, I accept certain elements of the civil liberties view with regard to smoking but I would like to put it in a phrase with which I am sure the Minister will not be surprised that I am familiar, that is, that I believe in the right of consenting adults in private. Smoking is something that only consenting adults in private should be allowed to engage in. Like other Senators I am rather surprised that provision is made for smokers throughout Leinster House, with the exception of the debating Chambers. It came as a considerable surprise to me to see the lavish and obviously longstanding provision made in the Library for smoking and in the restaurant although there was a small gesture there in terms of a notice in the self-service restaurant which asks us to please not smoke while close to the food service area. However, that type of notice is redundant because people smoke while they are queuing for a meal because there is no clear ban. Where the issue is fudged people will cross the boundary into the grey area. I have just come from an office in the House where there is a minority of smokers and when I let it be known that we were discussing the Bill the junior members of the staff expressed great pleasure but the senior members, whom I gather are addicted to nicotine, were by no means so pleased. There is a crux here because nicotine is an addictive drug.

It should be possible for one person in an office to require the atmosphere to be declared a non-smoking area. Where possible if a person is seriously addicted to nicotine a caring employer should provide a smoking office for that person. Nicotine is a very serious form of drug addiction and one must have some compassion for those who suffer from it, including those like myself who are recovering from it. The amendments under discussion are specifically designed to water down the legislation and on this occasion, paradoxically, I hope the Minister will not accept them.

The Chair will be glad to hear that I can be persuaded by debate and, having read the amendments to be proposed by Senator Norris, I am sympathetic to the point of view he has expressed. It may be possible to ensure that in such places as hospitals there will be a clearly designated smoking ward and smoking lounge. We should not forget that, while we have a smoking room, the people who may have to lie on their backs for four or five months, at a time when they are most vulnerable if they are addicted to nicotine, have a greater need. They may not have had the benefit of the type of education most Members have had. We should consider what is a designated smoking area. It should be assumed that the place is a non-smoking area but with provision for people to smoke in a designated area. The small designated area must be capable of coping with all the operatives, not just the board of directors in a nice cosy and well-appointed smoke room.

Senator Robb had put out amendments in the proper context. I do not want them to be misrepresented by any Member. They have been misrepresented in that some Members believe that we do not recognise the right of people in non-smoking areas to enjoy that smoke-free environment. We have not suggested that people who wish to smoke should have the right to interfere in areas reserved for those who want a smoke-free environment. It is important that that is made clear.

We want the Minister to recognise in the regulations the need to set aside areas for those who smoke. I expect that the members who are highlighting their rights will not enter a smoking area in a hospital, psychiatric institution, waiting rooms and so on. Occasionally, on a train a non-smoking passenger may have to sit in a smoking area. In that case the passenger must make the choice of whether he or she wants to sit for the remainder of the journey and tolerate the smoke or stand in a smoke-free carriage. Those who must spend two hours on the train journey from here to Limerick Junction on occasions have to make such a choice and often at the end of the journey regret their choice of staying with the smokers.

We want the Minister to designate areas in public buildings where people can have a smoke without being imprisoned or watched by patrols of health board inspectors or tiers of another bureaucracy the Government do not have any intention of funding. If that occurs we will have people appointing themselves as the upholders of the legislation. They will preach to everybody.

Vigilantes.

Yes. I hope we do not rule out the prospect of certain areas of health board premises being designated for smokers. That would meet the point made by Senator Robb and it will have to be the case if we accept the position that exists in psychiatric hospitals. If we designate the whole psychiatric hospital as a non-smoking area it will be like a prison and it could not function as a psychiatric hospital. Other drugs would be needed to quieten the unfortunate people who are committed there. The section gives the Minister power to prohibit smoking on an entire aircraft, an entire train or an entire public service vehicle. To prohibit smoking on an entire aircraft would be the ideal.

It was done in America.

Senator Ferris, to continue without interruption.

Suppose it happened that the Minister decided to designate a particular flight to New York as one for non-smokers and a smoker wanted, for perhaps some extraordinary humanitarian reason, to get that flight, would he have to stand back because the Minister had decided that not even a toilet could be designated as a place where one could smoke?

There is no smoking allowed in toilets.

Now we are even prompting him into saying that you can never smoke in toilets anyway.

Senator Ferris, I would prefer if the debate did not get flippant. You should be totally serious.

I am absolutely serious. This is how the section is worded. It gives the Minister certain powers in relation to such premises as hospitals and even schools. We have all preached about the desirability of not smoking in schools. The Minister still has not excluded the entire school. This section gives the Minister power to designate part of the school designated as a no-smoking area. This recognises the fact that, as Senator O'Shea said, a teacher might want to have a smoke but not in the presence of his class, and rightly so. It is appropriate that good example is given. The section gives the Minister power to designate part of a facility or building as a non-smoking area but there is no such provision for aircraft. The section refers to the whole facility. Senator Norris wanted to have taxis included. Many taxis display no-smoking signs. You can always ask the driver at the taxi rank if he caters for smokers or non-smokers.

Taxis are dealt with in the next amendment.

The Bill refers to prohibition in about eight different areas. We want to prohibit smoking in many areas but we must recognise the need for a proper education programme on the dangers to health of smoking. Until there is a majority of people who do not smoke it will not be possible to make this legislation operable. That is a day we would all welcome but in the meantime we must realise that there will be a section of the community who will need some smoking facilities. Everybody is entitled to his opinion and everybody's view should be respected. We have a right to express our views in this House and I intend to implement that right.

I wish to ask the Minister to explain why he has singled out schools under paragraphs (c) and (d) where it is said that he will restrict smoking in such part of a school as may be specified. Paragraph (d) refers to such part, as may be specified, of a building to which the public have access and which belongs to or is in the occupation of the State or a body established by or under an Act of the Oireachtas.

That may be more appropriate to the section.

The amendment tabled by the Labour group refers to the rights of non-smokers and of smokers. Senator Ferris was allowed to argue his point in relation to parts of buildings and I am attempting to respond to that. I just wanted to ask the Minister to specify the reasons he is singling out schools and parts of schools. Perhaps I am straying a little from the point.

Paragraph (e) refers to such other place of indoor public entertainment as may be specified. Why did the Minister not include cabaret and ballrooms in the places of entertainment. Is it because the phrase "indoor public entertainment" is seen to cover all public entertainment?

Senator Ferris spoke about the rights of smokers. According to statistics, the majority of people in this country are non-smokers, so to say that there will sometime be a majority of such people is misleading. The major decline in smoking is among the upper age groups, the over 25s. Unfortunately, the biggest increase in smoking is among the teenage group, from 12 or 13 years up to 21 or 22 years. Within that group it is mostly young women rather than young men who seem to smoke. We should attempt to restrict and prohibit smoking as much as possible among this age group, particularly in schools and in cinemas and theatres where young people in the main congregate. We should restrict and prohibit smoking in those areas so as to inculcate an attitude of mind that at least if we cannot save this generation we will save the next.

I wish to put on the record of the House what the amendments would mean, if they were accepted. Under section 2(2) the Minister could not prohibit the consumption of tobacco products in an aircraft, train, public service vehicle or other facility. He could restrict it but could not prohibit it and that is what people have stated they are in favour of. Under paragraph (b) he could not prohibit the consumption of tobacco products in such part of a health premises as may be specified. There is nowhere in a health premises that the Minister could prohibit the consumption of tobacco if that amendment was carried but he could restrict it. Similarly, under paragraph (c) the Minister could not prohibit the consumption of tobacco products in such part of a school as may be specified. He could not prohibit it in any part of a school but he could restrict it. As the Bill stands, he can prohibit or restrict it in such parts as he sees fit. I think that is far too generous and I am seriously contemplating putting down an amendment on Report Stage to delete "or restrict" from all these paragraphs. My considered and very strongly held view is that smoking should be prohibited in all these areas.

Under paragraph (d) the Minister could not prohibit the consumption of tobacco products in such part, as may be specified, of a building to which the public has access and which belongs to or is in the occupation of the State. He could restrict it and say that people could smoke in one half of a room but not in the other half but he could not designate a particular part of any public building and say that nobody could smoke in that area. If that is the intent of the people who proposed that amendment it is outrageous. If they did not read the legislation they have wasted much of our time.

That is an outrageous suggestion.

It is not a generous comment to make. We read the legislation. It refers to restriction and recognises the Minister's right to restrict the consumption of tobacco but if somebody wants to prohibit it in all areas let him say so.

That is not what is stated in the Bill.

I do not support the amendment. I subscribe very heartily to the provisions of this Bill. They are long overdue and will bring us into line with regulations in other countries. For instance, in the United States you can choose to have a smoke-free floor in a hotel if you so wish. What will happen, and it is not a bad thing, is that if smokers are intimidated out of their bad habit by the fact that there is prohibition they will feel like a hunted species. Apart from the long term effects of polluting the air for all of us who are entitled to have clean air, there are also immediate effects for anybody who spends time in a smokey room. When you come home you can get the smell of smoke on your clothes and hair and it can affect your voice and eyes. These are immediate discomforts that I resent.

One area on which I would possibly not feel as strongly as others is the prohibition on smoking in hospitals. Some people have to go into hospital for long periods of time and I believe it would be unnecessarily cruel to impose on people who are sick, the withdrawal symptoms and all that is involved in giving up smoking. I should like the Minister to find a way — and I think there is a possibility of doing this under the section — to give some consideration to this group. Like Senator Bulbulia, I do not support these amendments and I agree with the provisions of the Bill.

I hope the Minister pays particular attention to the prohibition of tobacco in schools. I know he will but I want to make the point — and Senator Mooney has reminded us of this — that the greatest problem is among the young and the need for good example, particularly among teachers, is paramount. It seems to make a nonsense of the good intention of the Bill to say, "We would not expect a teacher to smoke in front of his pupils because that would be a very bad example but he may go in to the designated common room in the school and smoke away to his heart's content".

Pupils are very knowledgeable about these things. They are very straight and honest and they know that teachers are going into the common room to smoke. The bad example will be all the greater if the pupils knew what teachers are smoking in the designated area. The only solution to this is to make schools absolutely prohibited zones, whether they are publicly funded schools or private schools. I do not accept that there is a valid distinction there. I am beginning to wonder whether Senators Manning and Ferris have not among their constituents a disproportionately large number of smokers.

The Cultural and Educational Panel is probably no different to any other panel.

From listening to the debate on this amendment one would think that we are discussing the prohibition of smoking. This discussion has almost come around to deciding whether we should allow people to smoke.

The objective of the Bill is quite clear; it is only a restrictive or protective measure. This amendment seeks to subvert the Bill. It is inherently contradictory to what the Bill sets out to do. The arguments made for the amendment seems to suggest that the Bill will stop people from smoking. It will not. The Bill sets out to address those people who act with less than a complete social responsibility.

In my Second Stage contribution on the Bill I referred to a conference which I attended on the abuse of different substances and smoking in public places was one of the topics discussed. People from the enlightened parts of the Continent, particularly Scandinavia, found it unbelievable that people would smoke in a public place and they felt that such legislation should be unnecessary.

The Irish psyche is somewhat different. I would refer the proposer of the motion to an excellent publication by a good friend of mine, Micheál McGréil which is about the tolerance and the rights of minorities in Irish society — I cannot think of the precise title — and was published some years ago. He makes it quite clear that the only way we will change the views of Irish society is by first legislating. We have had all sorts of experience of this. I refer in particular to the equality legislation, the only legislation which managed to get parish priests and people like them to address the problem of equality. It is only when there is a legal base on which to fight an argument that one can get through the long-held and very regressive views of some of our population. Of course, I would not in any sense apply that to the proposer or seconder of the amendment.

Moving back to the amendment, I would have to say that when referring to the rights of smokers, of minorities and so on, I think there is a certain confusion about what is meant by the protection of the rights of minorities. The protection of the rights of minorities has never meant an abuse of the majority or an imposition in any sense on the majority. It is a sense of living together and a sense of live and let live. It seems to be an intolerable intrusion on half our nation, or whatever portion of our nation, that they should be subjected to the polluted air, smoke or exhalation of the other half of the popoulation who choose not to control their habits.

I am not making a judgment at this stage about the goodness or otherwise of smoking. We have been through all that. Neither are we saying that these people should be stopped from smoking or that they should be stopped from carrying on with their suicidal intentions. We are saying that whatever they do should not be an imposition on the rest of the population. That is very little to ask and that is what the Bill sets out to do. I believe this amendment subverts the objective of the Bill and this is why I would be totally opposed to it.

Perhaps the Minister could remind us again of the number of people who die each year directly as a result of cigarette smoking in the context of what we have discussed about the rights of minorities.

I propose to deal with amendments Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22 and 24 together. There are a number of reasons why I do not think it would be correct to accept these amendments. Section 2 gives the Minister for Health the general power to prohibit or restrict smoking in designated areas or facilities. Subsections (2) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) simply highlight the specific public areas which I would regard as priority areas for the enactment of these controls.

In his 1986 report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking, the United States Surgeon General stated that the scientific case against involuntary smoking as a health risk was more then sufficient to justify appropriate remedial action and the goal of any remedial action must be to protect the non-smoker from environmental tobacco smoke. The goal of section 2 of this Bill is to protect the health of non-smokers. Therefore, given this objective the Minister for Health must retain ultimate discretion to exercise his responsibilities in protecting public health. He must retain the power to prohibit smoking when such action is justifiable on public health grounds. Protection of public health must be the overriding concern. We are also protecting of course, the health of smokers by restricting them from smoking in these areas.

However, in making regulations for the control of smoking in particular areas or facilities I will, of course, consult with all the interested parties. Any legitimate concerns which are presented regarding such issues as safety will be considered when drafting the regulations. This is particularly obvious in relation to aircraft a matter which has been mentioned already. We will have discussions with the management of the airlines with regard to their safety requirements before we bring forward the regulations.

With regard to amendment No. 6, this would restrict my room to take the necessary measures required on public health grounds. Following on what Senators Murphy and Bulbulia have already said, the protection of public health is my primary objective in this Bill and a restrictive provision of the nature proposed could, arguably, jeopardise my responsibilities towards this end. Medical evidence indicates that the simple separation of smokers and non-smokers within the same airspace may reduce but does no eliminate the exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke. Therefore, to ensure adequate protection in enclosed indoor areas for the majority of the non-smoking population I should wish to be assured that effective segregation is possible before considering partial restrictions on smoking.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share