I welcome the Minister to the House. I am glad he was able to come in and deal with this matter. I bring the matter up because of representations made to me by concerned individuals, and every non-smoker is a concerned individual. I have also been asked to bring the matter up by the anti-smoking organisations, including a colleague of my own in University College, Cork, Dr. Des McHale, who has done trojan work for the anti-smoking cause.
The House will recall that in July we discussed at length the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act, 1988, and its Final Stages were passed on 6 July. In his contribution on Second Stage, Volume 120 of the Official Reports the Minister referred to the Bill as a vital and progressive piece of health legislation necessary to address one of the major preventable causes of ill health. He was particularly concerned with the issue of controlling smoking in public places and restricting the sale of cigarettes to young people and he dwelt on the injury being done to the health of innocent people by the proved hazards of passive smoking. So he came to the conclusion that whatever impact the reduction of tobacco consumption might have in economic terms, these consequences were far outweighed by public health considerations. We all agreed with that very much indeed as the debate made clear.
The Minister referred again to the desire of smokers themselves to overcome their addiction. There is a report in the papers today of a European community survey which bears out that something like 60 per cent perhaps or more of Irish smokers want to kick the habit. I may say also what makes my intervention topical at the moment is that there is a very important public tribunal going on in Cork at the moment about the Merrell Dow proposal to set up a pharmaceutical plant in east Cork. That reminds me of an occasion when Raybestos Manhattan were in trouble with the local residents in the Ovens area of County Cork. On both occasions I came to the conclusion that the damage to public health from cigarette smoking is far greater than the pharmaceutical fallout. Indeed, there was a telling scene some years ago in the parish hall in Ovens when indignant residents protested at the dangers to their lungs from Raybestos Manhattan but you could cut the air in a village hall from the cigarette smoking.
One conclusion from that is that we have a long long way to go in public health education. At any rate, a Chathaoirligh, five months ago the Minister gave us to understand that he would take on the tobacco industry and the pro-smoking vested interests, whoever they might be, within or outside the political area. Of course we were well aware that the Act was enabling legislation under which the Minister would have power to make regulations to prohibit or restrict smoking in a variety of public places. The Act made clear what areas were in the Minister's mind and that was elaborated on in the course of the public debate. I refer the House to section 2 of the Act which speaks about aircraft, trains, schools, concert halls and cinemas.
Section 3 of the Act deals with the very serious matter of juvenile purchase and consumption of cigarettes. My point is that five months on as far as I can see there is no apparent change in the dangerous situation to public health. What has the Minister done to give practical effect to his concern which was expressed on that occasion? Surely there is no longer any need to consult with relevant interests? Surely the consultation should have been going on before the Bill was processed through the Oireachtas? I cannot believe that it took all that time to consult with relevant interests. Is there not a limit to consultation? Must not a measure which would be unpopular in certain quarters be enforced in the public interest?
As regards access by juveniles to cigarettes, as far as I can see any child at all can still be sent down to the corner store to purchase cigarettes for himself or herself, or for their family, in flagrant defiance of the intentions of this Act. Why has the Minister not already designated the obvious places as non-smoking places? Why has he not already designated aircraft, buses, schools, hospitals and most sections of trains as non-smoking areas? As far as I can see the question of smoking on trains which was referred to in particular during the course of the debate has not improved at all. It certainly is subjected to quite unpredictable fluctuations. On one occasion you will get quite a lot of non-smoking carriages and on others you have to look for a non-smoking carriage.
In all of this and in the vital matter of publicising the Act, getting the public acquainted with this tobacco Act there has been an awful lot of delay, an unconscionable delay. Is this delay simply due to bureaucratic tardiness? Is it due to a lack of political will? Is it due to pressure from individual politicians who may have an electoral vested interest in the tobacco industry or is it due to direct pressure from one of the most sinister of all vested interests, the tobacco industry itself, which has displayed this enormous muscle in the United States, for example? Is it that the Government are reluctant to forego the revenue from tobacco consumption which I understand is somewhere around the region of £200 million, the better part of which must surely come from cigarette consumption. In any case the delay is most disturbing. I hope it does not mean that the Government are playing cynical games with public health. I am very glad of the opportunity to raise the matter and I hope the Minister will come clean, as it were.
