I was summing up on amendments Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22 and 24 and I had replied to some of the points made by the Senators. Senator Ryan asked the number of people who die each year as a result of smoking. We estimate the number to be 5,000, that is 100 people per week. It is a frightening statistic and anyone who has seen a person dying from a tumour will realise the effect of it. The programme I mentioned earlier was very graphic. The patients who were interviewed were very ill and they said that if they knew then what they know now they would have changed their lives dramatically and would not have smoked. I cannot accept the amendments for the reasons I have already outlined.
Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No.2:
In page 2, line 23, to delete "either prohibited or".
— (Senator Manning.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connor, Nicholas.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Ferris, Michael.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
Tellers: Tá, Senators S. Haughey and M. O'Toole; Níl, Senators O'Shea and G. Reynolds.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 2, line 37, after "driver" to insert "including public taxi-cabs for hire, and private bus companies outside the State sector.".
This is rather a galaxy of amendments to take together, so I presume one can return and speak on them at some little length. I would find myself more conveniently able to deal with them as separate items, particularly since amendment No. 5 is to section 1, whereas as the other amendments are all to different sections. It would have seemed to me to be more appropriate to take amendment No. 5, separately. I wonder if the Chair would like to make a ruling on this. It seems logical.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair has said they may be taken together.
On a point of order, it is absolutely inappropriate that all these amendments should be taken together. They are not the same; they cover different areas.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
They are related.
Everything in the Bill is related. I wonder if this ruling could be reversed. Amendment No. 5 should be taken on its own and I would so propose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is a matter entirely for the House. The Chair tries to be helpful in grouping amendments that are clearly related. It is in order to avoid repetition as far as possible and to be helpful to the expeditious passage of the legislation. There is nothing sinister about it. It has always been the modus operandi here. There is absolutely no limit on the debate in any way and this is not designed to limit debate.
I accept the Chair's suggestion. I had to accept a similar arrangement of grouping in a previous case. My amendment, which was discussed in the previous section, cannot be formally taken until we reach the section, but it was related to the amendment that was before the House so it was appropriate to discuss it. All it means is that when we are finished discussing the amendments together we can deal with them in the various sections they come up under. That is the procedure. They are related to each other, admittedly in different sections.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Shall we continue with them as they are?
Yes, thank you. Amendment No. 5 proposed to expand the provisions that already exist in the Bill regarding smoking by persons in public service vehicles, including buses and so on. It would seem a very logical extension to include taxi cabs. Also, it seems quite illogical to appear to exclude private buses available to the public for hire. I would see considerable logic in making these extensions. It is particularly appropriate to point out how many of the speakers, from all sides of the House, have alluded to the taxi cabs.
On the first day when this was discussed, the question of notices in taxi cabs was raised. People from both sides of the House felt that the polite notices in taxis — which originated principally in North America, saying "We thank you for not smoking", were to be appreciated.
I am very well aware that not only passengers but also drivers of taxi cabs are most anxious that they should have some support in reducing the incidence of smoking — in fact, doing away with it altogether — in their taxi cabs. Apart from the question of health, there is also the question of the danger of taxi drivers from fire on late night runs, when taxis frequently are filled with inebriated customers. I know this because I happen to use taxis from the O'Connell Street rank quite frequently. The taxi men are decent people — not at all puritans — but they feel under some threat by virtue of the irresponsible behaviour of some of the occupants of taxis late at night.
I reinforce the point by saying that we have been talking at some considerable length about passive smoking. It is one thing for a non-smoker accompanying a smoker on a journey for the duration of half an hour in a taxi, who then gets out into the fresh air but the taxi driver, if there are not strict legislative plans laid to protect his or her health, will be placed continuously, in a very small and confined place, in the position of having to inhale particularly dangerous fumes from the lighted end of a cigarette. I would remind the Minister that he expatiated at some length on the dangers of passive smoking, on the fact that the non-inhaled fumes of the cigarette are the most dangerous.
We have heard a great deal about aeroplanes, how it is most unpleasant for people to have to be subjected to the smoke of other passengers and ludicrous to declare non-smoking areas were there is no physical segregation of the passengers in the aeroplane. You can multiply that many-fold when you are dealing with the interior of a taxi cab. It seems that there is great and persuasive logic behind this amendment which I believe will have support — certainly, moral support — throughout the House. Should I go on to the other amendments straight away?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You may discuss the amendments if you wish.
Other Senators may wish to contribute.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is it entirely up to you.
It might be more logical and it would keep the thread if anyone else who wanted to come in on this was able to do so. Otherwise the debate may tend to drift into a whole series of unrelated areas. I will, of course, be guided by you.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ferris.
This is an unnecessary amendment because it is already included in section 1 of the Bill in line 25. It says: "designated facility means an aircraft, train, public service vehicle or other facility which is used by the public". That includes taxi cabs for hire or a private bus company or whatever mode of conveyance the public use. If there are taxi cabs on the rank in O'Connell Street all they have to do is ask their fare if they smoke and if they do the driver will not take them. It is as simple as that. Many taxi cabs have a "no smoking" sign displayed and, generally speaking, people respect it. We are dealing with reality here. Let us not be either Utopian in our outlook or prohibitive about what ordinary people do every day of the week. It is a free society and if people choose to run a taxi for the convenience of people and allow their passengers to smoke, why should the Minister have the right to stop it? There could be a constitutional case here. We all love to look at the constitution which confers certain rights on individuals, perhaps the right of a taxi driver to smoke if he wishes to and to take passengers who smoke. That fact must be recognised. You can lay down all the laws you like but this law would be inoperable.
The Minister would not lightly start telling private people what they should do in their business, a private bus company, a private taxi or otherwise. It is a matter for the public to decide which mode of conveyance they want to avail of. We should not be as restrictive as Senator Norris suggests. I accept his bona fides in this but I caution that we are going down an impossible road in this regard.
I can deal with the rest of the amendments as they arise. First, I will deal with amendment No. 5 which we do not propose to accept. Senator Ferris is quite correct in the sense that the Bill gives us certain powers to designate non-smoking areas but it is not practical in relation to taxis. Most taxi owners or taxi drivers request their clients not to smoke. As I mentioned earlier in the debate, private car owners, for their own sake and that of other passengers, will have to lay down the rule that there should be no smoking in cars. I am sympathetic to Senator Norris's point of view but Senator Ferris has explained it fairly well from the practical point of view. It is not enforceable in a private taxi vehicle. Most taxi drivers are now laying down the rules in their own vehicles that they will not allow smoking. The drivers have no barrier between them and the passengers and they are putting their lives at risk by allowing passengers to smoke. The point made by Senator Norris is quite correct and it will be taken by taxi drivers. When they realise the danger they are putting themselves in they will lay down the rule themselves that they will not carry passengers who smoke. We will not accept the amendment but we have the power to designate certain vehicles, mainly public service vehicles. We do not intend to bring in a regulation in relation to taxis, private cars or anything like that. It would be unenforceable and we want the Bill to be enforceable. The Senator's amendment would be impractical and that is why I cannot accept it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Perhaps, as suggested, we could group the amendments together?
First I would like to come back to the points raised by Senator Ferris. There is a contradiction between what he says on the one hand and what the Minister says on the other and there are also internal contradictions in what the Minister says. Perhaps I may be allowed to expand slightly on this? Senator Ferris maintains that this question of public taxi cabs and private bus companies is covered in section 1 but clearly it is not. There is a possibility of it being covered by regulation. The Minister says that the possibility does exist but that he will not take it up, so there are two contradictions there. There is a contradiction in what Senator Ferris said — either it is covered already or it is not. The Minister says that it is not explicitly covered but it is potentially covered and he does not intend to use the regulations to cover it. There are a series of inter-related contradictions which is the precise reason I put down this amendment.
Like Senator Ferris, I claim to live in the real world. Possibly we have different definitions of the real world but the real world in which taxis operate is one in which certain practical considerations very rapidly emerge. It has been suggested, for example, that a passenger wishing to have a taxi ride in a non-smoking taxi merely passes along the line and asks if a particular taxi is a smoking taxi or a non-smoking taxi. There are certain taxi ranks at which you would be taking your life in your hands and we all know that perfectly well. You only have to consider the rows that went on in Dublin Airport and the squabbles between taxi drivers to realise this.
I am living in the real world and the Minister knows perfectly well that I am. You will only raise contention among taxi drivers if you have this kind of free range with tourists and other people passing up and down asking "Excuse me, are you...?""Get in and like it" would be the answer. The other situation is when taxi drivers may choose their customers. This is totally unrealistic, particularly in the early hours of the morning. I would like to see the taxi man who will tell a group of three gougers that they are not acceptable in his taxi because they are smoking, unsupported by an absolute rule. If we are serious about banning smoking this is the point at which we have got to make the stand. It is obvious that we must have regulations here for the protection of taxi drivers as well.
I would very much like the Minister when we eventually get to the point where he can reply — and I regret that perhaps we will have to go through the whole range but there is a certain logic perhaps to that, I do not know — to explain why there should be a difference between Bus Éireann's vehicles and those of the private bus companies. If there is a principle here why is it, for example, that somebody travelling back to Galway or to the very beautiful and civilised county of Roscommon should be forced to take a bus in which their health will be impaired? Why should they be forced to do so? Why should the office workers that engage in a mass migration from the capital city every weekend be placed in a situation where, possibly because of the inadequacies of CIE there is, as the Minister acknowledged a serious risk to health? Is there some difference between Bus Éireann and the private bus companies that has yet to emerge to the intelligent on-looker?
Amendment No. 11 reads:
In page 3, subsection (2) (b), line 15, after "specified" to insert "including hospital wards and waiting rooms (with one lounge reserved for smokers' use)".
I would like to urge the acceptance of this amendment also. We have heard a number of people talking on this amendment by a kind of serendipity, fortunate accident perhaps, because they spoke from all sections of the House and this indicates that there is very wide support for the amendment.
For example, Senator Mooney from the Government benches spoke as a some time expectant father about his concern for the next generation of Mooneys — and I speak not of a spiritual persuasion but of the ancient clan of this country — of when he entered a hospital ward and discovered that it was infiltrated by nicotine addicts and so on.
That is a very serious point, particularly taking into account the information I have. I may, perhaps, be called Big Brother again on this occasion but the medical information at my disposal suggests that the effects of nicotine consumption on the foetus in embryo is in fact far more serious than it is on the expectant mother smoking. This must also be true of passive smoking. In other words, if a pregnant woman is engulfed in smoke in a hospital ward, not only is damage being done to the mother's lungs but damage is also being done to that wonderful entity upon which the Government in their wisdom have conferred the status of citizen, the unborn. I would like to hear some reaction with regard to the right not to smoke upon what has been regarded and described with great feeling as the most vulnerable section of our society, the unborn.
Everybody must agree with this situation which exists in hospital wards. Senator Robb, a distinguished surgeon, spoke on this point earlier and I believe, had he been here, he would have supported this amendment. He indicated to me earlier in the afternoon that he would support it but unfortunately he was unable to be here. Are we not going to listen to these very powerful arguments from the heart of a profession that ought to know what it is talking about? The Minister will, of course, notice that within the parenthesis it is proposed that one lounge will be reserved for smokers' use. Nothing could be more eminently sensible on a whole variety of grounds than to accept this amendment.
I accept that it is important to have the Bill completed and sent to the President for signature but we have the clear suggestion from the Minister that there is no intention of proceeding with indecent haste, or of resisting amendments. He suggested clearly that it would be unthinkable that the Government should push this through in order to go off on holidays and that the recall of the Dáil would present no obstacle, that even if it did present an obstacle they would suspend the transit of this Bill until the autumn, if there were amendments with which the Minister could agree. I suggest that the Minister, who is a highly intelligent and sensitive person, will have very little difficulty in agreeing with this because he is, as Shakespeare wrote of another politician, an honourable man.
Amendment No. 13 States:
In page 3, subsection (2) (c), line 17, after "specified" to insert "and impose a ban on smoking in all school classrooms, lecture theatres and tutorial rooms, laboratories, gymnasia and libraries, and in similar areas in third level-institutes of education".
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me as to what his objection is to this or if there are other Senators who object to it, perhaps they will let me know what their objections are. Is it contemplated that there should be smoking classes or that there should be smoking drill in gymnasia because in order to ascertain the validity of this, one logical test is to invert the proposition and see if it becomes ludicrous? If the Minister does not support this, does he support the contrary or what is his position?
Again, let me reiterate that the enforcement of this eminently sensible Bill will act as a deterrent in school classrooms where there are students who might be tempted to smoke or, indeed, teachers or lecturers. People not only in second level but also in third level institutions have been known to smoke and set a bad example in front of their pupils. The Minister will notice from the array of amendments I have put down, that I can only contemplate the Bill as a sensible skeleton. I am trying to flesh out this sensible skeleton and give it some muscle, some bite. It is eminently sensible to include school classrooms, lecture theatres, tutorial rooms and laboratories. After all, is it excessive to suggest that people should not smoke in laboratories where, apart from anything else, one may be exposed to dangerous chemicals, dangerous gases and so on? What precisely is inhibiting the Minister from accepting this amendment other than the practical difficulties of ramming this legislation through? If every single amendment is rejected by the Minister people like myself will have only one conclusion to draw and that is that the Minister is the pawn of other more powerful political figures who are insisting that this legislation must be rushed through because, as I have said, he is an honourable man. If one amendment is rejected it is unfortunate; if two are rejected it is coincidence; if three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and up to 31 amendments are discovered by the Minister to have absolutely no substance, there is something a little strange and the observer of empirical fact would be led to conclude that something untoward was happening not entirely unrelated to the fact that this is the season of political closure.
Amendment No. 16 reads:
In page 3, subsection (2) (e), line 27, after "specified" to insert "including public sports halls, swimming pools, and all art centres, galleries and museums open to the public, whether fee-paying or free of charge".
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to a number of professional bodies and interest groups who suggested some of this material to me. I have simply attempted to interpret what is obviously in the Minister's mind. If my interpretation is correct how can the Minister possibly disagree with it? It seems to me that when dealing with sports halls, swimming pools, art centres, galleries, museums open to the public, whether or not they are fee-paying, it would be absurd to exclude by implication from the operation of this Bill precisely these places.
I want to point out — and I may come back to this — that the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, has himself been made aware of a number of these amendments and has responded to the anti-smoking lobby and the organisations concerned by saying he is considering them. It would be very remarkable if the Minister was, in fact, considering over 20 amendments put down and found not one of the amendments, which have the support of Senators from all sides of the House, was worthy of inclusion. I would find that a little difficult to believe, but perhaps I am not sufficiently gullible for my own good. Amendment No. 17 deals with the question of consumption of tobacco products in hotels and restaurants. It reads:
In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(f) prohibit or restrict the consumption of tobacco products in all hotels and restaurants listed in the Bord Fáilte ‘Dining in Ireland Guide', 1988 and following editions.".
It seems that this is again an eminently sane and practicable thing to do, and I would draw the Minister's attention and that of his advisers to the fact that it includes the phrase over which there was some contention this afternoon, "prohibit or restrict", so that nobody could come back and say, "Well, in the interest of tourism we could not do this" because there is sufficient flexibility allowed there for discretion to be exercised so that smoking areas can be provided. However, it also has the objective, and would succeed in my opinion, of giving some degree of bite to the intentions of the Bill. Again, I would say that the wholesale rejection of all these amendments would lead me to suppose that the Minister and his advisers have been caught up in what was earlier characterised during this debate as a perhaps unconscious desire to undermine the very principle of the legislation itself. Amendment No. 18 provides:
In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(g) prohibit or restrict the consumption of tobacco products in all bookshops, pharmacies, banks, building societies, investment centres, post offices, supermarkets, food stores, department stores and lifts.".
Again here is a list of places where it would be eminently sensible to implement this kind of legislation. In other words, here I have taken on board the Minister's own sentiments and given them some reality. I say to the Minister that without this kind of specific provisions the legislation is nothing other than wishful thinking. It remains in the area of a kind of dream landscape where people will be told, "Well, it would be much better if you did not smoke and we might have been able to penalise you but we thought on the whole perhaps a little bit of a warning would be better." I am not going to go through all the different categories, but in bookshops again there is a risk of fire. Regarding pharmacies, if somebody has a severe asthma attack and goes into a chemist's shop in order to get a prescription for medication for asthma and finds (a) the pharmacist himself or herself smoking like a chimney or (b) other customers smoking like a chimney, it is not going to be a very pleasant, satisfactory, civilised or comfortable experience for that person. I will leave aside investment centres because I have colleagues who are perhaps better capable of dealing with this. However, I am glad to say as a socialist that I possess no investments whatever, so I am unaware of the inside of investment centres and perhaps if the capitalists of this society smoke themselves to death we would all be better off.
In regard to supermarkets, food stores, department stores and lifts, I am not going to exasperate the House by itemising every single one, but out of a feeling of simple logic let me end this matter on lifts. Can you imagine somebody who was irritated by smoke — I use "irritated" in the medical, not the psychological sense — in other words somebody to whom the smoking of cigarettes causes serious distress, being put into the claustrophic environment of a lift and the lift jamming and the person being stuck there in a partially ventilated space? It seems to me absurd that the Minister will not accept this amendment. Amendment No. 19 reads:
In page 3, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(h) prohibit or restrict the consumption of tobacco products in all places of work, both public and private sector, where one or more non-smokers request a smoke-free healthy environment at work, under the Health Employment Acts.".
I urge this very seriously upon the Minister. He has spoken at great length about the need for people to take precautions against smoking, the dangers of passive smoking, the dangers of passive smoking in confined places, the dangers of passive smoking in the workplace and so on. Is there any reality behind the Minister's intention if we do not grant to non-smokers the right to work in a non-smoking environment? That is all this amendment seeks to do. In other words, it seeks to realise the intention of the Minister which otherwise will remain merely at the level of intention. I will be very surprised if any cogent reason can be found not to accept his amendment.
I rise not because there is anything to add to what Senator Norris has said but simply to compliment him on the thoroughness of his amendments. I support them all. I would wish that the Minister would accept them all, but I believe the Minister has a profound obligation to give us a good reason for not accepting them. I have been in this House long enough to have got to the stage of anticipating non-acceptance rather than acceptance of amendments by members of the Government or representatives of the Government.
These amendments are all serious attempts. For instance, it is perfectly sensible of Senator Norris to suggest that it is daft to go to lengths to ban smoking in certain areas and yet in a case where a person is confined in a lift to permit somebody on one side to produce enormous plumes of smoke from a pipe and somebody on the other side to produce equally enormous plumes from a large cigar. It is absolutely at variance with the entire intent of the legislation.
My only regret is that Senator Norris has not confronted the single greatest area of tobacco consumption in our society, that is the public house. It is far too easily presumed that because one enjoys drinking and the ambience of public houses, one must therefore suffer through the offence of having people smoke in one's face. I cannot understand how somehow in all the thinking and talking about smoking, most of us have to put up with more smoke in public houses than in any other place where we spend sometime or congregate. It is time that area of air pollution was dealt with.
I support all the amendments and I commend Senator Norris for introducing them. I wish them well and I tell the Minister that if his good intentions are to be taken in the least bit seriously he had better have a good, thorough, detailed response to all these, not of the "it is not appropriate" kind but the reasons he thinks they are not appropriate. I have had fair experience in the last two days of Ministers pronouncing up on high that things are not appropriate. Reasons are much more important than Ministers' views.
I am very much inclined to support Senator Norris's amendments. I agree with the thrust of them and I think we should make this Bill as strong as possible. Let me suggest the amendments are rather aspirational at this point because the Minister will have the powers under section 2 to make whatever regulation he sees fit. It is right that these proposals should be put at this point and suggestions made as to what Members feel about the matter. Given that these regulations under section 10 cannot be put into force until they are passed by both Houses, and that cannot happen until after the Dáil and Seanad recess, it would be more appropriate if we had the present debate when the regulations are before us. This would suggest that there is no great urgency about ensuring that none of the amendments are taken tonight. The Bill will not be much good until the regulations are made and passed. Therefore, while it would be desirable if these amendments were agreed to, it will not be so bad if they are not, because we can debate them when the regulations are before us.
In relation to the amendments put down by Senator Norris, I suspect he has been in contact with the Irish Association of Non-Smokers and that they have put forward some very useful suggestions. We have been in communication with that group about this legislation and other tobacco-related legislation, and they have been very helpful. I know Senator Norris has direct contact with that association through the chairman.
In dealing with amendments Nos. 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 to section 1, the points made by Senator Norris may be covered in regulations and the points he is putting forward will be considered in that context. I do not propose to accept any of these amendments. Senator Norris's amendments are of a very specific nature, and many of his suggestions can be implemented under the provisions of section 2 (1) of the Bill which empowers the Minister to restrict or prohibit the consumption of tobacco products in any area or facility so designated by him. Section 2 (2) specifies particular priority areas in all or part of which the Minister would intend to implement smoking controls. It is not necessary, therefore, to be as specific as Senator Norris proposes in his amendments Nos. 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19, but nevertheless the points put forward by Senators Norris, Fennell and Ryan will be taken on board in relation to the regulations. There is no need whatsoever to go through the specific details in this legislation.
I dealt already with taxis. They are not controlled specifically under the Bill. Taxis are normally used singly or are voluntarily shared by friends who can easily agree a common attitude towards smoking in this facility. I am heartened to note that many taxi drivers do not allow smoking in their vehicles and this is a further example of how a non-smoking climate is evolving in Ireland.
Senator Norris mentioned private bus companies in amendment No. 5. The Bill as drafted in section 1 enables the Minister to control smoking in all buses which have a seating capacity for more than eight persons, irrespective of whether they are privately owned or owned by a State company. Airport lounges and bus stations may be controlled to the extent that section 2(d) of the Bill applies.
With regard to amendment No. 11 proposed by Senator Norris in relation to hospital wards and waiting rooms, I would like to point out that the definition of "health premises" included in section 1 of the Bill is specifically drafted to encompass all premises in which public health services of any kind are provided. The specific nature of smoking control in particular types of health premises will be determined by regulations. Senator Norris's amendment is in relation to hospitals only, but there are other health premises as well. We are very conscious of that. We will draw up regulations which will be acceptable in a sense but also enforceable.
The provisions of section 2(c) of the Bill allow the Minister to control smoking in first and second level schools. These provisions are intended to protect the health of students and staff from passive smoking but, more importantly, to ensure exemplary behaviour in school and to impress on school children that non-smoking is the majority adult behaviour. Senator Norris's amendment would extend these controls to third level institutions. The Minister did not include third level institutions as priority areas for smoking control for a variety of reasons. First, these institutions are used by adults and are not normally confined to classroom-type situations. In addition, it is likely that enforcement would arise in relation to smoking in common areas, restaurants, etc, in third level institutions, and the Minister does not feel it desirable to impose smoking control in areas where there is likely to be little public support.
Senators who have not been as close to the development of smoking control as we have been in the Department of Health may not appreciate the stategies and inherent difficulties involved in attempting to change behaviour to improve the environment in this area. The position of third level institutions is an example of how we must proceed gradually.
In summary, we will bear in mind the amendments put down by Senator Norris in relation to the regulations. I wonder if the Senator will be looking for a job in the Department of Health when we are drawing up those regulations because he has such specific detailed submissions in relation to this matter. I assure him that we will bear what he said in mind. It is difficult to draw up regulations to encompass all types of buildings, but we have a list of priorities that we will take on board as quickly as possible.
I would be very happy to accept any additional employment, if it carries a degree of remuneration. I accept a certain amount of what the Minister said and take it on trust. However, he can scarcely expect me, being a logical person, to accept what he said in regard to the question of taxis because he has already given the game away. The Minister has already said there is absolutely no intention to govern this by regulation. This is clearly a situation in which I could not accept what the Minister has said.
The Chairman of the Irish Association of Non-Smokers also took a similar attitude. I understood this from a letter the Minister was quoting, dated 8 June 1988, signed by a private secretary on behalf of the Minister for Health, dealing with the question of taxis. He said, and the Minister quoted, that they are not controlled specifically under the Bill because it is felt that they are normally used singly or are shared by friends who can easily agree a common attitude towards smoking in this facility. The Minister must be very lucky in his friends, or else has a very idealistic understanding of the nature of friendship, particularly post 11 p.m. Serious altercations have been known to break out between persons on this score. I do not believe it should be left to a capricous and tenuous nature of friendship to determine this.
Whereas I would be prepared to accept what the Minister says with regard to some of the other amendments, and I am very grateful to him for having indicated that these matters will be looked at seriously when the time comes to draw up the regulations, it would be scarcely logical of me to accept as a blanket guide the fact that regulations will have to be drawn up, when the Minister said he had no intention of drawing up anything approaching the kind of regulation I am seeking on the advice of the Irish Association of Non-Smokers with regard taxi-cabs which is covered in amendment No. 5. How could I logically be expected to be happy with the fact that the Minister has said: "No, thank you. We are not going to accept this and, furthermore, we are not going to include it in the regulations. Theoretically we could if we felt like it, but we do not feel like it". He blows me a very polite raspberry and expects me to sit down and be content. I will sit down but I will not be content, and I will be calling for a vote.
Amendment put.
Vótáil.
The question is: "That the amendment be made." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Members calling for a division please rise in their places?
Senators Norris, J. O'Toole and Ross stood.
As fewer than five Members have risen in their places, I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment declared lost.
The names of the Members who rose in their places will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to ask the Minister a question which has to do with the second last definition of "school". I just want to make it absolutely clear and stitched into the record that "school" means a first level school or a second level school which is recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education. I am asking the question if the first level school is also governed by the adjectival clause, "which is recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education". I want to know precisely if that is the case. We are talking here about first level schools which are recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education.
The schools referred to as primary and secondary schools.
We are talking about schools which are recognised by the Minister for Education.
All the primary schools and secondary schools are grant-aided and recognised.
Having established that the legislation and the definition of school "refers to those schools which are recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education, I must say that I think it is outrageous that there are private primary schools — I hold no brief for them and I am totally opposed to them and what they stand for — but I have some concern for the pupils who attend those schools and that is the reason I object to those schools. I now find that not only are those pupils outside the State system but they are also outside the parameters of this Bill. The Minister has identified for us which schools will be covered by the Bill and the position is that private schools are excluded. I see no reason, no argument and certainly no case for excluding private schools from the definition of "school" in section 1 of this Bill. I could not see how anybody could support that section of the Bill as it stands.
I appeal to my colleagues on the Fianna Fáil benches as I now believe that the Minister is trying to develop an argument against my point of view. The Minister has confirmed my interpretation of the definition of "school" in that section of the Bill. This means that the other schools are excluded and therefore there is a small proportion of primary school pupils who are going to be subjected to the worst abuses of smoking and passive smoking. I put it to the Minister that this point alone is enough to justify rejecting this legislation. Earlier we talked about the rights of minorities and the need to support smaller groups. I think that the parents who are unwise to sent their children to private schools, and some of my colleagues would fall into that category, are still deserving of our support. For that reason I could not support this section of the Bill. Now that I have drawn the attention of the Minister to a weakness in the Bill I am sure he will accept my point of view.
Senator O'Toole made an interesting point and in so doing he ventilated a certain prejudice he has. I would remind him of the fact that——
Mr. O'Toole
Philosophy rather than prejudice.
——the education of one's children, for parents, is a constitutional right. There are some parents in this country who choose — whether wisely or unwisely is a matter for their own judgment — to have their children educated in private preparatory schools outside the State system. By so doing they must be made aware that their children will not have routine health inspections, dental inspections, and optical inspections and they are disadvantaged to that extent, but presumably parents who opt for this system are aware of that and make their choices accordingly. I dare say that they in many instances have more of an input into the actual structures of those schools and the rules and regulations operating within those schools than parents of pupils who attend schools within the State system who do not have the same democratic rights and who have to withstand many things that they might be unhappy about. However, I am unhappy about this debate about the regulations and the nitty gritty that we are getting down to. I welcome the Bill and I support what the Minister is attempting to achieve. I think this is very important, substantive and seminal legislation.
What we are doing now is actually having a debate on the regulations. We will in time be able to have a debate on the regulations and all of these amendments can quite properly be discussed in that context. I feel that in a way we are to some extent abusing the privilege in this House by having this kind of detailed discussion on the Bill rather than in the context of the regulations where I feel it more properly belongs. I ask my colleagues who have put down so many amendments which properly apply to the regulations to perhaps consider what I am saying because I feel that the point I make is absolutely valid.
I am afraid, with the greatest sadness, I have to reject completely what Senator Bulbulia has said. The Senator has been here throughout the entire debate and must know that what she says is palpable nonsense. I stand over the use of the word "nonsense". "Nonsense" means it is not sense. It is not sense to maintain, as Senator Bulbulia has, that the proper place for discussion of this is when the regulations are discussed and debated. The Minister has very clearly indicated that it is not the intention of the Government to incorporate this section or its purpose into the regulations, so now is the time to fire the first shot if we are at all serious. I would like to know do we have an Opposition in this House, apart from the six Independent Senators, or do we have a collaboration of comfortable intellectual sloths? It seems that that is what we have. I must say that I indicated to the Minister that I will be——
Senator Norris, I know you have a tremendous vocabulary but certain words you use here can be used in other places but I do not think it is parliamentary language——
I am greatly tempted to dispute this with you a Chathaoirligh, if I would not consider it an ungracious response to your gracious self but I will confine myself merely to suggesting that if you isolate any of the words I have used you will find none of them to be unparliamentary. "Comfortable" is a very parliamentary word, "intellectual" is one would like to think was a parliamentary word and "sloth" is a parliamentary reality. I have indicated——
I have ruled the last word you used out of order and I will not accept your ridiculing my ruling.
I am not ridiculing your ruling. I am just talking about the use of language which is an expertise of mine. If it causes you displeasure I will withdraw the word "sloth" and I will resist the temptation to replace it. I am sure that that will be satisfactory. However, the practical outcome of this remains the same and that is that having indicated that I would take on board the Minister's goodwill and assurance of good intentions with regard to some of the regulations, I cannot possibly be expected to take with any degree of comfort the Minister's perfectly clear statement that there is no intention whatever of including this in the regulations. I do not know what it seems like. Can I say it seems like nonsense? It seems like nonsense to me and I will be calling a vote on it.
There is a certain dilettante quality creeping into all of this. Much as I enjoy Senator Norris's verbal meanderings which are skillful, witty and entertaining, I hope he will accept the bona fides of the Fine Gael group as I accept his bona fides and his very genuine concern about this legislation. There is a rigorous parliamentary Opposition to this legislation. I would also advert to the fact that both Senator Nuala Fennell, our spokesperson on health, and I, have opposed from within, so to speak, certain amendments coming before this House because we sincerely believe in them and have adopted a very principled approach. I would be far happier if Senator Norris chose to recognise that fact rather than indicating that he felt that there was not a proper parliamentary Opposition. What we are doing is probably far more difficult to do than to merely oppose for opposition sake. We cannot necessarily have the same indulgent attitude towards legislation as some Independents. I still hold that the debate we are having more properly belongs to the regulations. I hope the Minister will take on board the very fine and detailed argument which is taking place during the course of debate on the amendments and also take on board some of the points that are very seriously, being made out of concern and out of a wish to see this legislation being effective, strong and intelligent and reflecting the realities of health and the research that has gone into the background of this Bill.
I thank my colleague, Senator O'Toole, for making what is a very serious and very important point. I am very grateful to him for several reasons and for personal reasons I do not want to go into, but it is extraordinary that private schools should be discriminated against in this Bill. It is not the sort of thing you look for in a Bill because you look for quite the opposite. That is quite a worry now because my children are at private school, the same private school as Senator Bulbulia's children are at, and I have developed a concern not only for my own children but for Senator Bulbulia's children as a result of this Bill.
This is touching.
It is important that the Minister should take this point seriously. It is important to make a general point on this section as well, that is, that this is a serious, constructive and an easy point for the Minister to accept. I deeply resent the fact that amendments are not accepted at this time of the year simply because the Dáil is in recess. That is the reason these amendments will not be accepted and that is the reason we should call a vote on every amendment here tonight because we are going through some absurd motions. We are going through the motions of pretending that there is a debate, when it is a foregone conclusion.
Is the Senator speaking on the section?
I am speaking on the section because I am anticipating the result of the section which I am entitled to do, but I resent the fact that not a single amendment has been accepted since the Dáil has gone into recess and this is a serious amendment to do with the welfare of children. I could understand if there was a political——
We are dealing with the section, Senator Ross.
We are on the section. I would be grateful if I could continue, without getting into guerilla warfare with the Chair every time I speak. I am speaking on the section of the Bill. It is a very large section and I am talking about school and the difference between private and public schools.
I can interrupt you as often as I like.
Of course you can a Chathaoirligh, but it would make it easier for the order of the House if I was not interrupted every time I speak. It has been a very long time since I have not been interrupted by the Chair. I would think, if I am in order, it would be easier if I was allowed to continue. I am speaking about schools on this section.
I am going to interrupt you again, Senator. What you said there was uncalled for. You said that I interrupt you practically every time you speak. That is untrue, Senator Ross. I do not want a debate between private schools and public schools on this section.
This is specified in this section.
I do not take sides where schools are concerned.
May I read you what it says in the section to indicate why I think it is relevant? It says: "‘school' means, as the context may require, a first level school (including a special school), or a second level school, which is recognised and grant aided by the Minister for Education". The whole point, as I understand it, of what Senator O'Toole is saying is that private schools should be included. That is the point we are trying to make and that is why it is relevant to the section.
I certainly do not wish to delay this very important Bill. In the past ten minutes we have discussed our educational systems and private schools versus public schools; the merits of the English language; the role of the Opposition in Parliament. We have had three very extensive debates in five minutes which have had nothing to do with the Bill. May I appeal to Senators to stick to the issues in the Bill? We do not need the other issues brought up at this time.
I will be very brief. I feel there is no personal confrontation between either myself and the Cathaoirleach or myself and the Minister, but I would have to say in reply to Senator Haughey that the reason I am sticking at this point is very clear and I think it is legitimate. It is that, within this section is contained amendment No. 5, and the Minister has very clearly indicated that it will not be the intention of the Government to include this amendment or anything resembling it in the regulations. Now is clearly the time to discuss it. As an earnest of the fact that I am not obstructive or difficult, I will resist the temptation to call for the protection of the Chair when language describing me as being indulgent, meandering and dilettante is used which I could I am sure claim was as unparliamentary as the word sloth.
I wish to allay the fear of Senator O'Toole because all schools are recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education. They are all recognised. The point made was completely unnecessary. Some schools may be outside the system such as Montessori teaching at the junior cycle. It may allay the fears of Senators to know that under section 2 (1) of the Bill the residue of the private schools can be brought in under regulations. The so-called private schools and the public schools are covered by the Bill. The regulations applicable to this Bill will apply to all.
Senator Ross said we cannot accept amendments. We have no objection to including amendments which we feel are right. We have amended many Bills here in the Seanad over the past 12 months and we will do so again. There is a technical problem, as the Senators are aware, in relation to the Lower House. Nevertheless if it would make this Bill better, we would accept an amendment. It would entail delaying the Bill but if it made the Bill better it would be better to delay it for three months than to bring a defective Bill before this House.
We will be designating the schools and we will nominate them. There is no difference between private and public schools in this regard. There are a few schools like the Montessori schools which are not inside the system but we can cover them under section 2 (1) if so desired.
I am sorry, but not only can I not accept the Minister's reply, but it is incorrect. The Minister said that the Minister for Education recognises all schools whether they be private or otherwise. First, that is not true. Second, it is irrelevant because what the section says is "recognised and grant aided." It is certain that not all primary schools are grant-aided. I can give the Minister a list from the top of my head of three or four of those schools immediately. Similarly our inspectors do not recognise or visit them and it goes on and on. The schools are not recognised.
I wish the Minister at least would say that he accepts the point I have made because I went to the trouble of asking him at the beginning what kind of schools were covered by the section and he told me very clearly what those schools were. I then identified for him those schools which were not covered by the section. Having identified them, the Minister now stands up and tells me that they are covered anyway. At one stage or other the Minister must have been misleading me. Before I go on to talk about private hospitals covered under health premises — which is an even more difficult area to deal with — I now want to get a very clear answer on that point.
I also want to refer to a number of other issues which have arisen so far in the debate. I did not raise the difference between private education and public education. I asked for an interpretation of what was written in this Bill, when it says "school" means etc. Having been told that, I then pointed out that there were other pupils who did not attend schools covered by the definition and, therefore, were not covered by the Bill. For that reason I felt it was important to raise the point. I do not challenge the constitutional right of parents to educate pupils as they wish. I recognise that schools are there in loco parentis and I accept that parents have the right to send their children to schools of whichever type they want, so that is not an issue.
I want to raise the question of regulations. I took the troulbe here last week to discuss with the officials the question of how regulations are presented and dealt with by this House. It is not relevant to discuss the regulation in regard to restaurants at this stage. However, I went to some trouble to work out the procedure involved. It was made clear to me that the regulations are presented for acceptance or rejection to the House and not for amendment. Therefore, when regulations are presented we vote for or against them and they are accepted or lost on the basis of that vote. One could have a minor objection to one provision in the regulations but it would not be possible to have them amended.
I should like to point out to the Senator that regulations are dealt with in section 2.
I accept that but it was the Minister who referred to regulations. When he referred to section 2 (1) I was amazed the Chair did not interrupt him. If the ruling is that the Minister should not have referred to that subsection I will sit down but as he referred to it I believe I am entitled to respond to his comments.
I do not want the Senator to accuse me, like Senator Ross did, of interrupting him very often but, for everybody's sake and so that we will have the best legislation possible, I would prefer if the Senator did not get involved in a wider debate on education. I do not want the Senator to get upset about that statement. I accept that he has a soft spot for that topic, as I have, but a debate on education cannot be permitted now. The Senator should confine his remarks to the amendment under discussion.
That is reasonable. If the points I have made are not clear I should like the permission of the Chair to expand on them. The first point I should like to raise is the interpretation by the Minister of the schools recognised in the Bill. I pointed out to the Minister the schools that are not covered in it. When the question of regulations was raised the Minister told the House that they will not deal with the interpretation of section 1. It is important to point out that those regulations cannot be changed by the House and that the only way we can have any impact on this flaw in the legislation is by rejecting or changing section 1. That is logical, simple and straightforward and the Minister has not said anything that will cover the points I have made.
Section 1, which deals with regulations, outlines the power of the Minister under section 2 to designate any building or otherwise as being an area in which the consumption of tobacco products is either prohibited or restricted. The Minister has said that he intends to make regulations in areas where they were enforceable. He expressed the view, one that I share, that he could not enforce a regulation that would deal with taxis available for hire by the public. People have certain rights and a taxi-man has rights. He can refuse to allow smokers into his car and a non-smoker can refuse to sit in a taxi if the driver is smoking. We are talking about the freedom of the individual to choose. I accept that that may cause some problems and may mean that people will have to run up and down a taxi rank inspecting the vehicles but I do not think we can insist on the regulations specifying taxis used by the public.
Senator O'Toole has raised a valid point in regard to schools. A school is defined as follows, "as the context may require, a first level school (including a special school), or a second level school, which is recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education". The Minister of State has told us that the regulations will apply to grant-aided schools and those which are recognised by the Minister for Education but Senator O'Toole asked if a private school that is not grant-aided will be covered by the regulations. I understood the Minister to say that he will have power under section 2 to extend the regulations to a private schools if he accepts Deputy O'Toole's point as valid. I do not see anything argumentative about that and we should not be running off on tangents. The Minister has satisfied me that he can include any area, a private school, a public school, an aircraft or a taxi in the regulations. However, he was honest in telling us that he would not include taxis because it would not be possible to enforce regulations in regard to them. He pointed out that health board officials or gardaí could not patrol taxi ranks at night to ensure that the regulations were enforced. That is the position or are we living in a different world?
I am surprised that Senator Ferris is of the opinion that taxi cabs cannot be subject to the law on this matter. They are already subject to a licensing authority and in other jurisdictions the regulations we are suggesting apply and are observed. I hope that disposes, effectively, of Senator Ferris's reservations in regard to the amendment. I do not see the direct relevance of introducing this notion of a health inspector. Such an official is not necessary for the implementation of the law. I hope I am not wandering too far outside the scope of the debate and that I am allowed, because of the intellectual justification and irrefutable logic of this, to point out that another amendment has been tabled to cover this. A member of the public could register such a complaint at a secondary level with the authority involved.
It seems to me that the very cogently argued case put forward by Senator O'Toole has illuminated an area that I did not see. There are two joined ideas in the phrase and I am not sure that they are legally separable. I am referring to the phrase, schools which are recognised and grant-aided by the Minister. Will the Minister give us a legally advised reading of that phrase? Is it necessary to incorporate both considerations, as seems logical? I note the Minister is nodding. If what I have said is correct, then Senator O'Toole has proved his case and, apart from the other matters, this has made this evening a valuable exercise in illuminating a potential area of difficulty in the legislation.
There is a genuine drafting difficulty in regard to this. It appears from a reading of the section that Senator O'Toole has made a valid point in that private preparatory schools which are not State-aided and are not recognised cannot, despite the Minister's good intentions, be covered by the legislation. I know the Minister would wish to give something at this stage because there has been very little give on his part today. He has displayed endless patience and a great understanding of the views put forward by Senators but there has been no capitulation or agreement by him. I imagine it was in an effort to make progress that he indicated he could make the regulations apply to the very few private preparatory, Montessori or Froebel schools which exist here. I do not see how the Minister can make his rules or regulations apply in the private sector, a sector of education which does not have any State involvement and is not the recipient of public health visitations like State primary schools. They do not receive any subvention of teachers' salaries or grants.
I do not think the Minister can say he wishes this legislation to apply. I expect that it will apply anyway but it will be largely due to the goodwill of those who operate these schools rather than by legislation or regulation. Those who drafted this section of the Bill overlooked the existence of this small number of schools. A very valid point has been raised by Senator O'Toole. Obviously one would wish that, under legislation, all children would be excluded from any risk from passive smoking but I do not see how it can be done given the existence of these schools where the State has no remit whatsoever.
I would like to comment on the general section and to refer to taxi cabs. I was not aware that regulations could not be amended or altered. I sincerely believed that when the regulations for this Bill came before us we would have the opportunity to propose changes and I regret we cannot do so. I think it is wrong. Regulations as important as they should be open to scrutiny and the Minister should be open to proposals or amendments. One must question why we have a debate on them at all if they are going to be rubber-stamped anyway. I feel very strongly about this matter.
I support Senator Norris's amendment No. 5 in that taxi cabs should be included. I say this very forcibly in view of the fact that we will have to accept what is in the regulations. Very few people travel long journeys in a taxi cab. The journeys are usually short. I do not think it would impose any stress on people to have to abstain from smoking while in a taxi. I support this amendment and I hope the Minister will take it on board when the regulations are being drafted.
In regard to the educational position, I want to make it clear that the draft has the approval of the Department of Education. The actual detail of the schools involved could be best defined in legislation. We should bear in mind that it will be much easier to enforce this legislation when the inspectorate of the Department of Education is involved. The majority of fee paying private schools are grant-aided by the Minister for Education and are, therefore, State controlled schools. For the information of Senators, I want to make it clear that the actual detail in this Bill was approved by the Department of Education as the best way to describe the schools involved.
Senator O'Toole has made the point that quite a number of schools do not recieve any support from the State but are totally private first level schools. In drafting this legislation we had to define a school. A school means, as the context may require, a first level school including a special school or a second level school which is recognised and grant-aided by the Minister for Education. That drafting was approved by the Department of Education and there is no reason for any great concern about it. Approximately 99 per cent of the schools are in this category. We can bring in the regulations for those schools and in time, after the enactment of this legislation, we will have power to bring in regulations in relation to other private schools.
We have power to include taxis in the regulations, as Senator Ferris rightly said, but I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage. We have to take this legislation step by step. We will introduce the regulations as a matter of urgency and in time we can add to them to cover other public buildings, vehicles and so on. Quite an amount of consultation, with airline companies and so on, is involved in relation to how best the regulations will be enforced. We want to see these regulations enforced. We do not want to bring forward any regulation that is unenforceable. All those considerations must be borne in mind. I want to assure Senators that the points raised by them will be taken on board when my Department are preparing the regulations under this Bill.
The points raised by Senator O'Toole and other Senators in relation to private schools outside the so-called State support system will also be considered when drafting the regulations under this Bill. I hope I have clarified this matter. I want to thank Senators for raising the issue for clarification purposes. That is the advice I would give them in relation to the definition of schools in the context of this Bill.
I thank the Minister for his clarification of the matter. I find his final reply more acceptable than the earlier one in which he tried to explain that section 2 (1) could have dealt with the matter but does not do so. Section 2 (1) could in no way be extended to include primary schools. I have no doubt that these regulations were approved by the Department of Education. In the Minister's own words, they were approved by the Department of Education for the schools involved. I was not worried about the schools involved. We have been through all that before. It is the schools that are not involved and that we have now identified quite clearly that I am concerned about. We have not progressed in any direction. We have identified a problem and accepted that the subsection does not cover these pupils. The latest statistical report from the Department of Education, which unfortunately is two years old, gives a figure of close to 5 per cent of pupils attending private primary education and these pupils are not covered by this legislation. It would be remiss of me as a legislator, and in a sense it would be an abrogation of my responsibility to ensure that we have proper legislation if I were to accept this section. It would be impossible for me to do so.
What saddens me somewhat is that I know the Minister agrees with me. I have much respect for the Minister and he has made a very clear and concise point. It would be more appropriate, if the Minister finds it impossible to accept the rejection of this section, that we should perhaps stop the debate on the Bill at this point and come back in the next session with a redrafted section 1. Otherwise, we will deal properly with this problem. It would be irresponsible of us to pass this section.
I wish to refer to the question of private hospitals. Health premises are referred to under the Health Acts, 1947 to 1970. Are there hospital or clinics which are not covered by that legislation? I hope the Minister accepts that there is a serious flaw in section 1 as it deals with schools. It could not possibly be acceptable to this House.
I support Senator O'Toole. He has done the House a very valuable service by extending to us his insight into this crux in drafting. One of the most valuable things this House can do is to illuminate an area where there may be a possible legal difficulty and he has very clearly done that. I welcome the very slight degree of movement the Minister has displayed with regard to the question of taxi cabs. Without being pestilential, I believe this is precisely one of the points in this form of parliamentary procedure — you simply come back to your point, attempt to expand it and illuminate it so that eventually pressure is applied of such a nature that a small degree of movement become visible. That small degree of movement has now become visible and apparently it has been gathering support from within the Opposition benches, which it did not have earlier.
Nonsense.
I say this in the most positive way possible to my distinguished colleagues because they will agree that initially they believed this was not the appropriate time to discuss it. They have now put on the record that they are convinced that it may well be because of the impossibility of amending, in any substantial way, the regulations. This was the method the Minister used to fob us off, despite the fact that he indicated he did not intend including this material in the amendments.
I should like to say, tedious as it may be, that this process is useful because it is part of the parliamentary method of exerting pressure in order to achieve some degree of change. Unfortunately, the level of alteration in the Minister's attitude, gratifying though it is, is not sufficient to fob me off. In addition to the points I have made, the points so ably illuminated by Senator O'Toole have convinced me that we would be failing in our duty if we did not attempt to have this section of the Bill withdrawn. I should like to join my voice to that of Senator O'Toole and say that I believe that because of the consistent series of defects that have been revealed in the Bill the proper thing to do is to send it back to the parliamentary draftsman and require him to incorporate the amendments recommended.
I was wondering which way I was going to vote on this issue and surprisingly enough I have been convinced by the arguments put up by Senator Bulbulia, Senator O'Toole and Senator Norris. It is absolutely evident from what we have discussed here that this is an extremely valuable exercise and that the Minister, with the best will in the world, has actually changed his ground. First, he told us that this covered all schools but then he said that it covered 95 per cent or 99 per cent of schools. This is unacceptable. It is an obvious and classic case for redrafting and the Minister should come back to us in the autumn and tell us what this really means. It is not good enough that these Bills should be rushed through the House because it is summer. Senator O'Toole raised a very important point, maybe late in the session and maybe late in the day. Under scrutiny and examination a flaw has been found in this Bill. That is why we are here and that is why this section should either be taken back, withdrawn by the Government or defeated by this House.
I want to make it clear that there was no crux in the drafting of this Bill. I have no intention whatsoever of deferring this Bill until the autumn because it is a crucial Bill and the lives of young people are at stake. It is crucial that this Bill be brought forward as quickly as possible and the regulations brought in to protect the health of young people who are affected and the nonsmokers, or so-called passive smokers, who will benefit under this Bill. We should all co-operate to ensure that the Bill goes through the House as quickly as possible and the regulations drafted.
Senators can bring up as many so-called difficulties as they want but I want to make it quite clear that all the points they raised are covered in this Bill.
The Bill will give the Minister the power to designate those areas. I will not go through section 1 again in detail except to say that "designated area" is defined in section 1 as "...a place or building specified in regulations made under section 2 of this Act as being an area in which the consumption of tobacco products is either prohibited or restricted; ..." Senator Ferris put his finger on this throughout the debate. That provision gives us an immense amount of power in relation to the regulations. I cannot gives the precise percentage of schools — and I will not go into that area here — but the majority of schools are covered directly under the section referred to. Ninety-nine per cent of health premises are covered and other premises in the educational and health areas are covered under section 2 (1) of this Bill. We have covered every possible area and avenue.
Senators are arguing on the specifics of the enabling legislation. The Bill has been drafted by the parliamentary draftsman to deal first, with specific priority areas and, second, with other areas. I have listened to the points raised here in the discussion on the Bill and I welcome these because they have clarified certain points in relation to the powers the Minister will have under the Bill. The regulations will be put before both Houses of the Oireachtas and if, within 21 days, there are objections to those they can be rejected by both Houses. I am anxious to get this Bill through but if there is an area which could cause some difficulty in the enforcement of the Bill, it will be my responsibility to ensure that such an amendment will be taken on board. However, I have not been so convinced. There is no crux. The Bill covers the points raised by the Senators. We should get on with the business of getting this Bill through so that we can get on with the regulations.
A Chathaoirligh——
I want to say at this stage that if the Senators want to refer to the last reply of the Minister and query a point that is all right but I ask Senators not to be repetitive if they can help it. They have given the Bill a good airing and if they wish to raise a point on the Minister's last statement the Chair will allow that. Senators have been very good in teasing out this Bill and they have done it very well. Inasmuch as the Minister wishes to get the Bill through — as I am sure most Senators do so that they can go on their summer holidays — it is imperative that the Bills which come before this House are teased out, as Senators are doing with this Bill this evening, but I ask them to refrain from repetition. If Senator O'Toole or any other Senator has something to ask the Minister on his last statement I will allow that.
I wish to refer specifically to what the Minister raised in his reply. I also want to state for the record, lest there be any misunderstanding, that whatever rush I might be in to take my summer holidays I would not go on holidays if I thought there was unfinished business in the sense of improper or unacceptable legislation. I am sure the Chair will agree with me on that point.
Acting Chairman
The Senator will agree that it is traditional for this House to go on summer holidays every year.
Not only do I understand that point a Chathaoirligh but because I understand it — and you may not have been in the Chair when I said this to the Minister for other reasons, but which would also cover this point — I believe that rather than going through bad legislation we should not deal with it further now but we should deal with it in the next session. Unfortunately, the Minister said he would not do that. I would be prepared to accommodate you, a Chathaoirligh, if you are proposing that we should leave this legislation and come back to a redrafted version of section 2.
Acting Chairman
I was making a suggestion.
It is a proposal from me and a suggestion from you, a Chathaoirligh, to the Minister and we will wait and see how he responds to it.
On the precise point of the Minister's reply, he said that this legislation dealt with the issue. That is unfair, incorrect and misleading. I would prefer the Minister to stand up and say, "this covers 96, 97 or 98 per cent of schools and pupils and, therefore, I want to get it through." That, at least, would be honest and I would accept it. It is not true to say that this Bill, by regulation or otherwise, can cover the schools I have identified. I want to spell out the reasons for this, with some brevity.
Section 2 (1), which the Minister referred to earlier, refers to regulations in designated areas or facilities. We are discussing section 1, under which designated areas and facilities are defined. "Designated area" is defined as "a place or building specified in regulations made under section 2...".
The object of my rising this evening was to have the Minister identify the place or building which he kindly did and confirmed that there was an anomoly in this part of the Bill. Having done that, I thought we had agreed on the issue. The best possible way to deal with this matter would be for the Minister to say: all right, this needs to be changed; it does not cover all schools; it covers those schools which are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. It is not true to say that the provisions of the Bill cover private primary schools. For that reason I cannot accept the section. We can remain here until tomorrow morning. Words, as they are written down in legislation, are open to interpretation. They should not mean what a Minister or anybody else would wish them to mean. I wish they meant all the things the Minister maintains with regard to all schools but, unfortunately, they do not and, because they do not, we cannot accept the section. Since we cannot accept it, we must argue against it. If our arguments are not accepted we have a duty to vote against it. It is as simple and clear as that.
With regard to this question of summer holidays that you yourself, Sir, raised, a number of us have spent the entire day here in the rather stuffy confines of Leinster House. I do not think we have done so for any frivolous reason. I am quite sure that the Minister — despite the fact that he has displayed enormous patience and forbearance — and you yourself, Sir, do appreciate that none of us is here simply to play games. There are serious points to be teased out, sometimes levelled with humour. But, in the course of a long day, that can be a useful method of relieving tension. If it is not, if it irritates people, then in respect of any small contribution I might have made to that, I apologise. But I should say that my contribution is made despite the fact that today I should have much preferred to have been out in the open air.
I find the points made by Senator Joe O'Toole very convincing. I will leave it at that. But I should like to comment on the Minister's attitude because two kinds of pressure are being brought to bear on us. Of course, from the Minister's point of view, it is perfectly legitimate to do so — and he did so in the course of his last statement. One is to reiterate his concern, which I believe to be genuine, for the health of young people and to say it is important that this Bill be passed. However, basically what he is saying there is, that half a loaf is better than no bread. At the end of the day we have to accept that half a loaf to the starving probably is better than no bread but it is clear, from the protracted discussions here and from what I must say I accept are cruxes in the Bill, that it is half a loaf only.
I should like to make one final comment, which is that it is unfortunate that a number of people have criticised the attention being paid to linguistic detail. I should like to place on the record of this House that language is the instrument through which legislation becomes manifest; there is no question about that. Therefore, the minute examination of language is a very appropriate part of parliamentary responsibility. I make, and will make, no apology to persons in this House or outside it for exercising my responsibilities to bring my special expertise — which is in linguistic analysis — to bear on the legislation. Whereas it may sometimes be tedious, occasionally interpreted as being frivolous, there is a serious intent behind it. I would remind the House that the Seanad was specifically established as a vocational Chamber which would bring to bear on legislation the very specialised talents represented by different professions and groups within society. Therefore, it is appropriate that we should do so in this House.
I want to adhere to my interpretation of the language used in the section. We are opposed to the section for different reasons. I contend it is all-embracing, giving the Minister power to designate, say, private schools, nursing homes, whatever. Again I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that in this section "designated area" is defined as follows:
"designated area" means a place or building specified in regulations made under section 2 of this Act as being an area in which the consumption of tobacco is either prohibited or restricted;
Section 2 (1) says:
The Minister may, by regulations, either prohibit or restrict the consumption of tobacco products in a designated area or a designated facility.
All of the other subsections of that section are without prejudice to the generality of that section. Therefore it is possible that the Minister can so designate any place he likes.
Furthermore, "designated facility"— in section 1 — is said to mean:
an aircraft, train, public service vehicle or other facility which is used by the public...
That can be a private facility such as a taxi, or a private building, a school, or a private nursing home which is not grant-aided under the provisions of the 1970 Act. There are some private nursing homes that do not receive any bed subvention or grant of any kind.
I might point out that, in the provisions laid down in the next section, these regulations will have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as maybe thereafter and annulled within 21 sitting days. Therefore, rushing through this Bill will not bring the relevant regulations into being any quicker than when the Dáil reconvenes. I want to be absolutely fair to my colleagues and say that, rather than rush through legislation with which they are unhappy, there will be no time lost by sending the Bill back for further examination because of the 21 sitting says' stipulation. Even if the regulations have been prepared and are ready now it will be Christmas before they are passed by the other House. For that reason it is no advantage whatsoever to the Minister to have the legislation passed and signed by the President. We could still have the ban on those obnoxious weeds in being before Christmas, when people would no longer be able to exchange seasonal presents in the form of cigarettes or cigars.
Perhaps we are now all enveloped by a cloud of smoke on this issue. Like Senator Norris I have been here all day also. It would appear we are now attempting to rush through a Bill when there is no need to do so. If my colleagues want to call a vote on it, I shall be voting with them.
I should like to ask the Minister if Senator Ferris is right because he made a very important point. I have to admit that I was completely ignorant of the point he made with regard to timing. If that is correct, the Minister is completely wrong about having this Bill passed as quickly as possible and enabling enforcement of its provision throughout the summer, which is what he was saying. It would be very interesting to know if that is correct. Is it true that the regulations cannot come into effect, and therefore the legislation cannot come into effect, until October-November. Could the Minister clarify that for us?
I was inclined to let my case rest in relation to the section. In fact Senators are now dealing with the regulations referred to in section 10. I do not know whether I should go into detail on that section at this stage. In order to allay Senators' fears I should say that, if and when this Bill is passed, the regulations must then be drafted, which takes time, and they cannot be drafted until the legislation is passed.
You will appreciate that the sooner the legislation goes through, the sooner the regulations can be prepared. They have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made. If a resolution annulling the regulations is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which the House has sat after the regulations are laid before it, the regulations shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
Basically, what it means is that we could publish the regulations, say, in August and they would be in operation and within 21 sitting days after resumption in October, they could be annulled at that stage. It is important that we get the Bill through so we can have our regulations prepared and published. If within 21 days after the Oireachtas resumes they are annulled, so be it. This is covered in section 10 of the Bill. It is standard practice in relation to all regulations. I would like to get on with the section.
With all due respect, the question was asked whether Senator Ferris was right or wrong in his interpretation.
Acting Chairman
The Minister has given a reply.
No, he has not. He says he wants to get on with the Bill. It is quite clear, therefore, that what Senator Ferris says is absolutely correct; in other words, that the taking of this Bill in the next term would not in any sense delay it. Under section 10 it cannot come into operation until the House has sat for that number of sitting days. In other words, if we come back here——
Acting Chairman
The position is as the Minister has stated. They can be annulled in 21 days if they are not passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
They will be in operation before that if the Bill is passed.
In other words, the Chair is saying that what we should do now is facilitate the introduction of regulations which do not cover the problems which we have raised and we should do that simply to accommodate the Minister for a reason which has not been made clear. That is a disgraceful carry-on. It is totally unacceptable.
Acting Chairman
That is not so. We are debating section 1.
With respect, the Minister read section 10. This is the second time tonight that this has happened. I have attempted to respond and I have been told we were debating section 1. The Minister read three-quarters of section 10.
Acting Chairman
In reply to Senator Ferris.
Does that mean we cannot refer to it in our reply?
Acting Chairman
The position is as stated by the Minister.
Which is that it does not make any difference. This House can come back in September, late September or even early October and make changes in this Bill and the regulations still will not come into operation, or can be rejected for 21 days after both Houses, or the second House sits.
Acting Chairman
This has not arisen as yet. The passage of the Bill is necessary and that is what we are trying to do now. I am putting the question now.
Question put.
Vótáil.
The question is: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?
Five or more Senators stood.
The division will now proceed.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19
9; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane, P.N.
Tellers: Tá, Senators S. Haughey and M. O'Toole; Níl, Senators J. O'Toole and Ross.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 5, after "may," to insert "having regard to the rights of non-smokers and smokers respectively,".
Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed. Is it being pursued?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Connor, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- O'Shea, Brian.
Níl
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Norris, David.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Shea and Connor; Níl, Senators S. Haughey and M. O'Toole.
Amendment declared lost.
This Bill has got a reasonable airing in this House and most of the problems associated with the Bill have been aired. This is a health promotion and protection Bill and everybody has had an opportunity to put every point that it was possible to have made on this Bill. I propose at this stage that, "notwithstanding Standing Orders, the Committee and remaining Stages of the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill, 1988, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. by the putting of one question by the Chair."
I am deeply unhappy about a suggestion that we should in some way diminish the function of this House and decline to give this legislation the thorough examination and fine combing which it warrants. I do not know if the Leader of the House was present during the painstaking debate which has taken place to date. If he was, he would see that not every aspect of this Bill has as yet been addressed by Senators. The attendance at this debate is particularly good. The contributions are thoughtful. People are genuinely concerned and wish this Bill well and want to see that every aspect of it is held up to rigorous examation. As such, I ask the Leader of the House to think again about his proposal which we on this side find quite unacceptable and which we will oppose if it is put.
If we continue at the pace we were going we would probably be finished by 11 p.m. anyway. I think it is unnecessary to put the question as it is being put now. Perhaps the Leader of the house would have patience until about 10.55 p.m. and then see if he still considers it necessary to put the question. A lot of the debate has already taken place on all these amendments and they will not be debated again. It will be a question of whether they are withdrawn or not. In the interests of continuing the same atmosphere we had the whole afternoon I suggest that the Leader of the House should wait for a later period before he actually puts the guillotine motion.
I can understand the impatience of the Leader of the House and his anxiety to get this business concluded but I would point out that we have dealt in great detail with a considerable number of amendments and I think we have produced material the Minister and his advisers have found useful. That is the function of the House. There are nine amendments remaining. I think virtually all, if not all, are in my name and as a public representative I would seriously resent and would certainly resist an attempt to guillotine debate on what everybody here agrees and shows by their attendance is a most important matter.
I am absolutely amazed. I do not know what the Leader of the House thinks are the functions of this House. We have debated this matter fairly constructively for the past two hours that I have been here and for a long time before that. I think the Minister has given plenty of evidence that this debate has at least been constructive, and that the suggestions he has received will be listened to and possibly complied with. It seems to me that there must be some other reason why there is an attempt to curtail the debate on this particular issue.
The Leader of the House has given absolutely no reason whatsoever for his proposal. It is possibly the worst motion that has come before the House in my time here, to curtail discussion on a Bill for a reason which to me is not the real reason given to the House. It is absolutely untrue that it is being given full and frank discussion. It is a very dangerous precedent, that because the Leader of the House and maybe some other Members of this House do not particularly like being here at this time of night and want to finish this and other Bills that we should finish and not discuss certain sections in this Bill. It is quite outrageous and I am deadly serious about this.
I know it may be uncomfortable for those who are not interested in this Bill to be here but that is why they are elected to this House and that is exactly why they should be here. I am sorry if they are being kept late and I am sorry if they are being kept late by the Independent group, but they should not be in this House if they want to go to bed early, or if they want to get away, or if they simply want to discuss something else tomorrow or if it does not suit the Government's timetable. This is possibly what is happening: that discussion on this Bill does not really suit the Government's timetable. It has taken longer than they expected. That is not something which we should comply with. It is a very dangerous precedent and I strongly oppose it.
There are nine amendments left to be dealt with and they are in three different groups. I think it would be appropriate that all amendments could be discussed. I do not know the reasons why the Leader of the House is proposing this motion at this time. I feel that a more appropriate motion would be that all the remaining amendments which are in the name of Senator Norris, as far as I know, should be dealt with and perhaps be open for discussion at this point.
I also agree with Senator Ferris: I think the Bill will be concluded by 11 o'clock and the main part of the debate is over on the issue. I suggest that the Leader of the House should refrain from putting that motion for half an hour or so and to re-assess the situation at that point. At this stage we should open the debate on the remaining amendments and to reassess the position at that particular point rather than to create a precedent.
Is the amendment in the name of Senator Lanigan agreed?
I bow to the judgment of the other Members and suggest that all nine amendments which are in the name of Senator Norris would be concluded by 10.55 p.m. and that the question be put at 11 o'clock.
I have a few amendments down.
I was just taking Senator O'Toole's point——
We will either conclude at 11 o'clock and the question will be put or the House will debate the rest of the amendments between now and 10.55 p.m. I am amenable to the wishes of the House but the question will be put at 11 o'clock.
With regard to my amendments——
The question is: "That the motion be agreed".
On a point of order, before you press that motion to a decision which I think would be regrettable, I think there is a solution in our hands at this stage, that the discussion goes ahead, that the remaining amendments be discussed and that the Leader of the House re-assess the position at 10.55 p.m.
This has to be put anyway, Senator O'Toole, because we are finishing at 11 o'clock.
I will withdraw my motion until 10.55 p.m. At that time no discussion will be allowed and the question will be put.
It has to be allowed. It will have to be put again, a Chathaoirligh.
Wait a moment. I put the question here, as Cathaoirleach——
It has to be withdrawn.
The question setting the 11 o'clock time limit has to be put.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 19
9; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Tellers: Tá, Senators S. Haughey and M. O'Toole; Níl, Senators J. O'Toole and Connor.
Question declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 19, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are alternatives and amendments Nos. 23, 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 3, line 30, to delete "fine not exceeding £100" and substitute "minimum fine of £50, for first offence and for a second offence, upon convication, to a minimum fine of £100 up to £200 maximum".
These five amendments have one single intention and that is to increase substantially the level of penalty involved in infringements of the regulations. I do not intend to make a lengthy argument. I intend to defer to the spirit of the House. I would like to place the amendments on the record. Amendment No. 21 reads:
In page 3, subsection (3), line 30, to delete "£100" and substitute ‘£500".
Amendment No. 23 reads:
In page 3, lines, 35 and 36, to delete "to a fine not exceeding £500" and substitute "to a minimum fine of £1,000 up to £2,000 maximum for first offence, and for a second offence upon conviction, to a minimum fine of £2,000 to £5,000 maximum".
Amendment No. 26 to section 3 reads:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 5, after "£500." to add "These machines should be restricted to areas accessible by adults over eighteen years old, with a minimum fine of £50 on conviction for the first offence."
I will permit myself one brief remark on this amendment which is that this is not simply a matter of making the penalties more severe; it also contains the intention of further protecting the under-age. Amendment No. 27 reads:
"In page 4, line 22, after "£500", to insert "and a minimum fine of £50 on conviction for a first offence".
I should correct myself and say that not all these amendments are in my name. Amendment No. 21 is in the names of Senators Shane Ross, John A. Murphy and Joe O'Toole and I apologise for withdrawing it. I understand it is being withdrawn. The amendments other than amendment No. 21 which I understand is being withdrawn, are in my name.
You moved amendment No. 20, Senator Norris, but the rest are being discussed with it. Then it can be withdrawn.
How do I withdraw this amendment? Can I withdraw it now? What is the procedure?
Which one?
Amendment No. 21.
It has not been moved yet. It is being discussed with amendment No. 20.
Let me make it clear at the start that I do not propose to accept these amendments. With reference to amendments Nos. 20 and 21, the appropriate and realistic deterrent under section 2 (3) for individuals is a fine of the order specified. Equally the fines provided for under section 2 (4) and section 4 are also appropriate. It is necessary to look at the Bill in total and in particular at the specific provisions in relation to enforcement. The spectrum of fines which may be imposed under the Bill reflects the relative roles and responsibilities of individuals, owners, persons in charge and corporate bodies. The overall scheme for enforcing the provision of this Bill is intended to ensure that individuals responsible for smoking controls effectively enforce them.
The Bill does not set out to penalise smokers as its primary objective. The principles of graduated fines was considered but it was felt that for social misdemeanours of this type it would not be necessary to keep records of offences and with these the resultant bureaucracy would make the legislation cumbersome and expensive to implement. The control over vending machines was a major consideration when developing the Bill.
As the Minister said in reply to the Second Stage debate, and as I said, too, section 3 (2) of the Bill was considered to be the best approach to this question in so far as its effects will be to limit the location of vending machines to where they can be effectively supervised and not used by persons under 16 years of age. The Bill provides for a fine not exceeding £500 for offences under section 3 (2) and I feel that the objectives of amendment No. 26 are already met under section 3 (2). If I were to accept the amendment it would dilute the effect of the provisions contained in the Bill.
For these reasons I do not propose to accept the amendments. Therefore, in the overall context, it would not be possible to accept the Senators' amendments without disturbing the balance which is required in legislation of this type.
In my opinion the next two amendments that are down in my name are of greater substance and so, having heard the Minister — although I do not agree with him — I am prepared to withdraw these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 3, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) The right of admission shall be reserved to these establishments, also the right to eject any members of the public refusing to observe the no-smoking regulations, without refunds where applicable, by security guards and/or ushers.".
This makes specific the Minister's intention in prohibiting the smoking of tobacco in certain premises. It seems to me that it would be quite ludicrous not to have some effective method of policing this particularly in terms of places like nightclubs restaurants and so on. If the proprietors of these establishments do not have the specific authority to legally remove persons infringing these regulations, what is the purpose and function of them? This should be a non-contentious matter and it is one which I urgently request the Minister to give positive consideration to.
On section 8, amendment No. 30 reads:
In page 5, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) (i) Concerned members of the public, including members of relevant voluntary bodies, such as the Irish Cancer Society, Irish Heart Foundation, and Irish Association of Non-Smokers, shall have the right to report any breaches of this Act, directly to the appropriate officer, with a view to prosecution, under this Act;
(a) they shall also be entitled to notify the managers of public places, if the no-smoking policies are not being observed, and to request them to take immediate action,
(b) if this is not done, they may then report these managers to the relevant officer as noted in (i) above.".
This is self-explanatory and I will resist the temptation, because of the pressures on time, to go into it in any great detail. The Minister realises that I have already indicated, in dealing with previous sections of the Bill what I believe is at least part of the relevance of this strengthening machinery within the Bill.
While I would agree with many of the sentiments that were expressed by Senator Norris and I fully understand his motives in putting down these amendments, in relation to amendment No. 25, in the case of a number of establishments which are now being covered by this legislation, the right of admission is reserved by the owners, for example, places of entertainment, theatres, concert halls etc. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that and amplify a little on the other areas covered by the legislation. It seems to me that while the motives for putting down the amendment are of the highest, they may be somewhat irrelevant.
In relation to section 8, amendment No. 30, I fully endorse everything Senator Norris has said. I agree that if this legislation is being put in place bodies such as those mentioned would be the first to benefit from any improvement in the figures for non-smokers among the population. However — and again I ask for the Minister's guidance — it seems to me on reading this section that there is nothing to prevent any of these bodies or any member of the public from informing the relevant law enforcers or those who are responsible for enforcing the legislation about breaches of the Act in public places. I do not wish to sound as if I am encouraging people to make a nuisance of themselves but I would hope that the two thirds of the population who are non-smokers will identify breaches of this legislation where they see it if it is constituting a public nuisance or is being injurious to the health of people around them. While I would fully endorse the sentiments expressed in the amendment, it is somewhat irrelevant and superflous to the legislation. I would not be in favour of it.
I would like to come back very briefly. In particular I would like to address my remarks to some of the views expressed by Senator Mooney. With regard to amendment No. 30 I would point out that this has been placed at the request of one of the bodies mentioned in it, the Irish Association of Non-Smokers. I assume they feel it is important that this should be done. However, I would have to say that this is probably the amendment with which I am personally least in sympathy because like Senator Mooney and many other Irish people, I feel a little bit distanced by the notion of inviting people to become informants. I am not terribly worried if this section lapses. It is just an indication of my good faith with regard to the organisation that I put down the amendment. I am not terribly keen on it. I am, however, very keen on the earlier amendment, amendment No. 25.
We do not want draconian legislation and I am rather surprised that the Senators have put down these amendments. I am not going to accept them for the following reasons. It is the Minister's intention to authorise environmental officers of the health boards to enforce the regulations made under the Bill. By so doing he will be engaging persons who are accountable to both the State and the public, thus ensuring that they act within the framework of their statutory responsibilities. While I admire greatly the work done by organisations such as those mentioned by Senator Norris in amendment No. 30, the monitoring in regard to compliance with the legislation has to be undertaken in the context of accountability. However, fundamental responsibility for enforcement will rest with the owner or person in charge of the facility in question and such persons have the right to do what Senator Norris proposes in amendment No. 25. In a public facility in which smoking is banned, refusal to comply with the ban would be a breach of the peace and can be dealt with accordingly — the Garda Síochána would have a responsibility there. It is not, therefore, appropriate or necessary to include details such as those in the Bill.
Our approach basically to this matter is reasonable. We do not want any draconian legislation. We do not want people enforcing this themselves. We want officers of the health boards, who are accountable to the State, to be responsible for the enforcement of the regulations and the Bill itself. I have no hesitation whatever in not accepting the amendments put forward by Senator Norris, however well intentioned they may be and despite the fact that he may have responded to representations made to him by an organisation on this matter. Maybe the Senator should not always respond to representations received against his best judgment.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
I am afraid I cannot withdraw amendment No. 25. I have already indicated that I feel virtually all the amendments are important significant amendments that are positive in construing the legal intention of the Minister in terms of the Bill. I have, however, indicated in honesty that I am less than 100 per cent enthusiastic about amendment No. 30. That is the only one I have this delicacy or hesitation about. I would like to say at this stage because there will not be another opportunity to say it again that I am a little dismayed that my prophecy earlier this evening has proved to be absolutely true. Despite the fact that the Minister did say he would consider amendments if he was convinced of their virtue, integrity an logic and would take them on board, nevertheless, out of 29 amendments so far discussed it is remarkable that not one single one has been accepted by the Minister despite the fact that he was seen frequently nodding his head, which can usually be translated into agreement. I will finish on this point as I would like Senator Ferris to have the opportunity to move his final two amendments.
That is a sign of good legislation.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
No.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 26 has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 27 has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 29 is consequential on amendment No. 28 and they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 7 and 8, to delete "an oral smokeless tobacco product" and substitute "goods described in subsection (2) of the section".
Subsection (2) describes an oral smokeless tobacco product as any product or substance made wholly or partially from tobacco, etc. My second amendment suggests that we delete subsection (2) and substitute it with a new subsection (2) which would take account of the views expressed in both these amendments. We have put down these amendments on the basis of what the Minister has already said about this section under which the manufacture or export from this country of any of these products would be prohibited. We have defended the Minister's right, and his predecessor's right, to place an embargo on the importation of undesirable chewing tobacco products but we contend that the criteria which apply to imported chewing tobacco products do not apply to chewing tobacco products manufactured in Ireland.
The Senator's amendment seeks to exempt a specific type of tobacco product from the controls proposed in the Bill. This product is sold as solid chewing tobacco. In recent years a wide variety of oral smokeless tobacco products have been developed and promoted in North America, Scandinavia and more recently in the European Community. These products are being promoted to young people as an alternative way to enjoy tobacco and it is estimated by the World Health Organisation that about ten million people, most of them teenagers, in the United States of America are now using them.
These products cause serious health problems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organisation, has determined that there is sufficient evidence that these products cause oral cancer and their use also causes serious dental damage. Continual use can cause white patches to appear on the gums which may become cancerous. The use of these products can also cause damage due to receding of the gums here the tobacco regularly becomes in contact with the mouth. In June 1987 a World Health Organisation study group on smokeless tobacco control recommended a preemptive total ban on the importation, production and sale of all types of smokeless tobacco.
The Minister for Health and I are deeply concerned at the potential availability in this country of the types of chewing tobacco which are being promoted in other countries to young people as safe alternatives to smoking. The scientific and medical evidence relating to the range of oral smokeless tobaccos, including chewing tobaccos, is such that it would be remiss of the Minister and me not to provide comprehensive legislation protecting the public against these products. To exempt any specific oral smokeless tobacco could not be justified on health grounds and on exemption of a specific class of an oral smokeless product would leave the legislation open to exploitation. Given the current developments by the tobacco industry internationally of new forms of tobacco consumption I have no doubt that any gaps in the law will encourage the development and promotion of the products exempted. The range and variety of oral smokeless tobacco products now being promoted is remarkable and is evidence of how the industry is trying to diversify the ways in which tobacco is marketed. There are varieties of solid chewing tobaccos and finely cut tobaccos which are either loose or in teabag satchets, intended to be placed in the mouth and sucked or chewed, powdered moist tobacco products for sucking and even toothpastes and confectionery products contain tobacco.
Because of the serious health risks posed by these addictive products and because it is likely that their promotion would result in a new generation of tobacco users at the very time when tobacco smoking is being discouraged, the Government decided that the full range of oral smokeless tobacco products should be prohibited. There is no point in bringing forward legislation which would make it illegal for people to use them in this country while allowing a company to produce them here for export. That would be totally unacceptable and I do not think we could accept it.
Recently I have seen young children using a confectionery product, an imitation of a cigarette. I am making an appeal here and using this forum to request shopkeepers to voluntarily ban this particular product. This product resembles a cigarette and its sale is unacceptable. I do not know if we have powers to do so but I have checked with my Department to see if we can ban the sale of this product. Once we give children an opportunity to imitate smoking they will then go on to the next step. It is very irresponsible of any retailer to sell these products and I think there should be a total ban on them.
In relation to the employment aspect, I appreciate Senator Feris's concern but this product which has been developed as a chewing tobacco forms only a very small percentage of the production of any of the factories at the moment.
Finally, while we have differed very slightly in respect of views here today I think we all support the concept inherent in the legislation. This is another major step towards preventing the abuse of addictive products. Recently there has been talk of legalising certain drugs. I hold the view that no drug is safe and under no circumstances would I encourage any debate for legalising so called "safe" drugs.
There are no safe drugs. Drugs lead to abuses and addiction. Some prominent people have called recently, and I want to take this opportunity of refuting those calls, for the legalisation of so called harmless drugs like marijuana and other products. They lead to addiction and to the hard drugs. As national chairman of the Drugs Advisory Group I want to say that I totally oppose and will never allow any such legislation to come in. To act otherwise would be to allow a most dangerous situation to develop. Nicotine is regarded as being responsible for so many deaths that we in the Department of Health are very pleased with this legislation going through the Houses. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of Deputy O'Hanlon and the Department to express our appreciation to this House for the very excellent contributions made during the passage of this Bill. I want to make clear that all the points raised by the Senators will be borne in mind in relation to the regulations. I want to place on record the work that a previous Minister for Health, Deputy Barry Desmond, did in this area when he was in the Department. I include also in that tribute all the officials in the Department, including Michael Lyons and Cecil Beamish who are with me and who have been working on this legislation for some time.
It is now 11 p.m. and in accordance with the order of the House I am now required to put the question on the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill, 1988, and the question is that——
I was just going to reply to the Minister's comments, some of which I agree with totally.
The Senator will appreciate that this is out of my hands at this stage.
Question put.
Senators
Vótáil.
The question is: "That the Committee Stage be hereby completed, that the Bill be reported without amendment, be received for Final Consideration and do now pass." Will those Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators J. O'Toole, Ross, Norris, O'Shea and Ferris stood.
The division will now proceed.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Ferris, Michael.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
Tellers: Tá, Senators S. Haughey and M.O'Toole; Níl, Senators O'Shea and Ross.
Question declared carried.