I wish to thank Senators Fennell, Cullimore, Murphy, McKenna, Bulbulia, O'Callaghan, Ferris, Norris, Doyle, O'Shea, Brendan Ryan, Manning, Ross and O'Toole for their comments on this Bill.
Senator Nuala Fennell mentioned the experience of her son in Australia recently. This underlines the point that where no smoking restrictions are applied such as on the DART train service, the desired results are achieved. I appreciate her support for the Bill. However, I would like to take issue with her in relation to her remarks about the work of the health promotion unit in the Department of Health. The Senator referred to the unit's lack of visibility. In fact, the unit has been very active since its establishment. In the short period since it was set up, it has been responsible for a number of major initiatives in the areas of cigarettes, AIDS, cancer, drugs and food hygiene. All of these campaigns received extensive coverage in the press and on television. I am surprised that the Senator was not aware of these initiatives. Besides the high profile activities, the unit has put in place much of the foundation work for the effective long term health promotion strategy acting in concert with the various health agencies and professional associations, the educational authorities, industry and environmental interests.
The need for a new and more effective inter-sectional approach to the promotion of health has long been accepted. The new structure which has been in place since January and is now fully operational comprises, in addition to the health promotion unit in the Department of Health, an advisory council on health promotion and a committee of Ministers. The health promotion unit, in addition to taking on all of those activities formerly conducted by the Health Education Bureau, is also responsible for developing a wider policy on health promotion.
The advisory council is a broadly based group representing some of the main economic and social interests whose activities impact on health. It is chaired by Professor Ivor Drury, president of the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland. The council's remit is to recommend to the Minister for Health changes in public policy which it considers would impact positively on the health of the community. The council has been meeting on a regular basis and among its current concerns are the policy issues associated with tobacco, alcohol, nutrition, accident prevention and exercise.
The committee of Ministers forms the third level in the structure and ensures that there is a forum at the highest level at which the inter-sectional issues and, indeed, conflicts can be discussed and resolved. The committee is chaired by my colleague, the Minister for Health, Dr. Rory O'Hanlon, and includes the Ministers for Agriculture and Food, Education, Energy, the Environment and Labour, reflecting the collective commitment of the Government to progress in this area.
Finally, smoking will continue to be a major focus of the unit's work. The House will be interested to know that the unit is working at present on the development of a major new campaign directed at specific target groups. I am sure that Senators Bulbulia, Fennell, Murphy and Manning who highlighted the importance of educating and informing the public about the dangers of tobacco consumption will be pleased to hear this.
Senator Fennell also mentioned in relation to section 6 of the Bill that I will be cutting off an important source of therapy for persons who wish to give up smoking by banning chewing tobacco. I think she may be referring here to a medical product, nicotine chewing gum, sold on prescription through pharmacies. If so, I wish to confirm that this product will not be affected by the Bill.
In relation to the use of role models such as sports persons in the fight against tobacco consumption, the current tobacco legislation is such that it prevents the use of role models in the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The use of role models has been successful in previous campaigns and the health promotion unit will be considering all possible approaches such as the use of role models in the forthcoming anti-smoking campaign.
With regard to smoking in schools, under section 2 (2) (c) the Minister may make regulations to ban or restrict smoking in any part of a school. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senators Murphy and Fennell that teachers should give good example and encourage pupils not to smoke. Every effort will be made in the regulations to achieve the objective of section 2 (2) (c). From my experience at school, which goes back some time, I know that teachers regarded smoking as an objectionable habit. To the best of my recollection teachers always smoked in private. In my view a ban on smoking should be introduced in schools as soon as possible.
Senators Cullimore, Brendan Ryan, Doyle and Ross mentioned the difficulties of enforcing section 3 which relates to vending machines. As the Minister said in the course of his opening address, the section is drafted to ensure that vending machines are properly supervised in relation to the sale of cigarettes to young persons. When drafting the Bill there were three options open to the Minister. The first option was not to do anything and the second was to ban the use of vending machines altogether. The third option was to provide for the proper supervision of the machines. Having weighed up all the options, we felt it appropriate to go for the supervision of the machines by the owner or the person in charge and place this responsibility firmly with the owner or person in charge.
Senator Murphy made a number of interesting points and I should like to reply to some of them. He said that section 2 was vague. As I said at the outset, the discretionary powers in section 2 will enable the Minister to either restrict or prohibit smoking, depending on the nature of the areas concerned and the length of time people spend in those areas. The Bill enables a Minister to do certain things and, when enacted, will provide a comprehensive and appropriate framework to take the action necessary based on public health considerations. I can assure the House that the regulations will be based on those considerations. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Minister of the day the power to take whatever action is appropriate in line with the medical evidence pertaining at the time, evidence which is evolving all the time and is pointing to the increasing and serious consequences of passive smoking.
The other major point made by Senator Murphy related to enforcement. The Bill contains adequate enforcement provisions but, perhaps, we should look at the thrust of the Bill from another perspective. By prohibiting or restricting smoking in public places, as appropriate, an environment will be created which will be hostile to smoking and conducive to the health of the non-smoker and smoker alike. There is evidence that this type of approach works. I have quoted the example of the DART and Dublin Bus, and Senator Fennell mentioned the position in Australia. However, the Bill firmly places a responsibility on the owner of the premises or facility in question to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the law is complied with. I will be discussing this matter with the interested parties when preparing the regulations, but I will be imposing those responsibilities on those who own facilities. This can be done by whatever means are considered appropriate in the facility in question. In this context the simple "no-smoking" signs work in those facilities in which smoking is currently banned or restricted.
Senator McKenna referred to the problem of children who were sent to buy groceries and cigarettes. Many Senators referred to the need for role models and I put it to the House that parents should act as role models for their children and not ask them to buy cigarettes for them. That might be the simplistic approach to adopt but there is a limit to which the State can intervene in what goes on between parents and children. The Bill sets the right balance in this area. In section 3 any person who as a shopkeeper sells cigarettes to a person under 16 years of age under any premise will be subject to a fine of up to £500.
Senator Bulbulia mentioned the desirability of a collaborative approach between the statutory and non-statutory agencies in the fight against cancer and tobacco consumption. There is, in fact, continuous contact between the Department and the relevant agencies in this area. For instance, in the recent past this collaborative approach was evidenced on Ash Wednesday when a National No Smoking Day was held. On advertising and sponsorship, the Department's legislation is amongst the most restrictive in Europe. Since 1986 expenditure on tobacco sponsorship has been frozen at its 1985 level and cannot be increased. Sporting events which were not previously sponsored by tobacco companies cannot now be sponsored. However, as Senator Bulbulia said, I recognise that there is a problem with over-spill tobacco advertising and sponsorship from other countries. I am glad to say that that is being addressed on an international basis through the EC's "Europe Against Cancer Programme". This is the only way to bring appropriate control over the over-spill of tobacco advertising and sponsorship from countries abroad.
Senator Ferris's essential point related to the individual's right to choose where to smoke. The Senator did not balance that right with the right of the majority non-smoking adult population to clear air. I do not accept the Senator's view that the Irish people ignore guidance and facilities which are designed to safeguard their health and safety. Indeed, those who had an opportunity of watching the recent UTV programme, "World in Action" will be concerned about the effects of cigarette smoking which were clearly demonstrated. Let us take the case of wearing seat belts as an example.
I do not propose to take an abstract or philosophical approach to this but the facts are that Irish smokers and nonsmokers alike support a ban on smoking in public places. I set out the level of this support in detail in my opening address but I should like to quote once again the success of DART and Dublin bus in creating and maintaining a smoke-free environment. In this regard we all have a responsibility to consider our private bans in our cars. In America many people are imposing a smoking ban in their homes, even for visitors. That may sound restrictive in the Irish sense — it is one I could not adhere to at this stage — but it is an indication of the deep concern people have about the ill-effects of direct smoking and passive smoking.
I appreciate the work being done by the management of the DART and Dublin Bus in promoting and maintaining a smoke-free environment. I should like to confirm to Senator Ferris that all forms of chewing tobacco will be prohibited under section 6. I have given the reasons for that. Piped tobacco will not be affected by the Bill. Senator Norris referred colourfully to the tradition of chewing tobacco in Ireland. The chewing of tobacco is regrettably not as harmless as Senator Norris makes out. There is now available a wide range of chewing tobacco aimed at young people as a safe alternative to cigarettes. The use of chewing tobacco has become increasingly popular with young people internationally and it is now estimated by the World Health Organisation that almost 10 million people, mostly young people, are chewing tobacco products in the USA. If I were to exclude chewing tobacco from the scope of the Bill there is no doubt that the international manufacturers would exploit the loophole in the legislation. It is incumbent, therefore, on the Minister, and legislators, to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill. To put legislation on the Statute Book which is defective would be wrong.
Despite what James Joyce described as being a common practice in Dublin many years ago the chewing of tobacco in Ireland is now very much a declining practice among older people. There is now only one brand of domestically produced chewing tobacco and consumption of that product has decreased by 30 per cent in the last six years. It represents only 3 per cent of all hard-pressed tobacco manufactured by the company in question. Nevertheless, the issue here is that internationally chewing tobaccos are being developed once again to replace a decline in cigarette consumption. Those products are being formulated, packaged and marketed in such a way as to appeal to young people. It is this development which the Government aim to counter and the balance, in my consideration of the provisions of section 6, therefore was to ensure that young people are protected from those products.
Senator Ryan mentioned, amongst other things, the desirability of a ban on smoking in restaurants and pubs. Section 2 gives the Minister power to ban smoking in any designated facility which could be a restaurant or a pub. Section 2 (2) specifies the place where research has shown that there is a widespread public support for a ban on smoking. I propose to commence with those areas and progressively build up to the stage where there will be a general restriction on the majority of public places.
Senator Manning referred to the important role of education in encouraging people not to start smoking or to cease the practive. Education and information programmes on the dangers of tobacco consumption are a central part of my policy on health promotion and will continue to be so. I agree fully that education is crucial in developing a smoke-free environment. The Department have successfully run health education programmes during the past ten years which have resulted in a reduction in the prevalence of smoking in the population by about 10 per cent. Education, however, has to be supplemented by environmental controls. As I have said already, the health promotion units campaign will take account of the new legislation.
The Senator said that prohibition or restriction is wrong and that it contravenes the rights of smokers. I would like to point out once again that this Bill reflects wide support from smokers and non-smokers alike for legislation of this type. I accept that there is a balance to be achieved and great care should be taken to ensure that the legislation is not draconian. Responsibility for enforcing the legislation will essentially rest with the owner or person in charge and the regulations will be devised to take account of what is required to protect the public health.
Senator Ross pointed out that the provisions of section 2 appear to be too flexible and leave the Minister and Members of the House open to pressure and lobbying. The provisions of section 2 are key elements in the development of a framework appropriate to a healthy and smoke-free environment. Section 2 was drawn up with great care and with a view to giving the Minister the flexibility and discretion which he needs now and will need in the future to take whatever action is needed to protect public health in the light of the medical evidence pertaining at that time.
Senator Ross and other Senators questioned whether or not the Act and the regulations can be enforced. It is our intention to authorise officers of the health boards to enforce the regulations. I am confident that the enforcement of the regulations will be as successful as the 1986 regulations relating to the removal of external tobacco advertising. Some Senators mentioned the possible economic consequences of tobacco legislation. The Government have considered all aspects of this issue and have decided that the public health considerations are of such magnitude that they far outweigh the marginal economic impact which a gradual reduction in tobacco consumption over a number of years will effect. I want to make it quite clear that the health of the people of Ireland is of paramount importance. We cannot sacrifice people's health because of the tax limits on the consumption of tobacco.
By and large the tobacco industry is becoming increasingly more automated and the labour force within this industry is ageing. As a result the industry is not a significant provider of new jobs. The gradual reduction in tobacco consumption could be arguably coped with through the natural wastage which is occurring in the labour force of the industry. The other side of the economic equation, however, is the stark fact that 5,000 persons die each year as a direct result of tobacco consumption. It would be remiss of the Minister for Health to delay a protective and preventative health measure which is widely demanded and favoured by smokers and non-smokers alike.
Finally, I wish to thank all those concerned with the drafting of this Bill, the officials in the Department and previous Ministers who were involved in its preparation. I thank Senators for their constructive contributions to the Second Stage debate. I hope that Committee Stage will be dispensed with as quickly as possible so that we can draft the regulations and bring this Bill into force.