It is true and it showed the Fianna Fáil Party doing what it does best, namely, garnering support on both sides of every argument, while at the same time giving its backbench Deputies an opportunity to make a little run during the silly season.
As the Minister is aware, the Fine Gael Party completely supports the ban. I also support it, not I hope with the zeal of a reformed smoker but because I and my party recognise that the evidence regarding the effects of environmental tobacco smoke is incontrovertible and the arguments cannot be answered. We have no choice but to proceed with the ban. Smoking not only damages the health of the smoker but also that of others, which is the reason it is a public health issue. Now that the evidence is available, the Minister, all employees, publicans and the hotel industry, or anybody who facilitates smoking on their premises, is liable to prosecution, which in today's society is increasingly likely.
As a former smoker I am conscious that this measure will be difficult for smokers. It will be particularly difficult not so much in pubs, but for those who in their everyday working lives do not have the flexibility to leave their desks when they feel a need to go outside for a cigarette. In the early days, as people try to adjust to the ban, I hope employers will show reasonable understanding that smoking is an addiction.
I am less sympathetic to smokers on the issue of the ban in pubs. No one is compelled to sit in a pub and people generally spend two or three hours rather than an entire day in a pub. Having said that, I do not underestimate the impact the ban will have on people's social life. While it may in the early stages also affect the profitability of publicans, I am convinced this will be temporary and normal patterns of socialising will be quickly re-established. Although I would not use the same terminology as the Taoiseach to describe people who have not frequented pubs in recent years, perhaps because they are asthmatic, perhaps they will consider socialising in a pub once the ban takes effect.
We have not heard a murmur of complaint from the majority of employers. Although we have heard the hospitality industry complain, we would have heard much less from it if the Fianna Fáil Party had not decided to make the industry's cause its summer project. The support the licensed vintners were garnering, not only from backbench Government Deputies but also from Ministers, gave them false hope that they would be able to change public policy and did a grave disservice to the industry. While Members knew this was a carefully choreographed performance to distract from the health service, the licensed vintners did not and genuinely believed they would be able to change public policy. Believing they had always been friends of the Fianna Fáil Party, they expected the party to ride to their rescue. They are now learning the hard lesson taxi drivers learnt, that when it comes to political expediency the party's interests will supersede those of any group.
During the summer the campaign being waged by backbenchers was shown by one opinion poll to be changing public opinion. It was a serious instance of toying with public opinion. The support they were giving to the licensed vintners suggested that this was a bad policy, that they did not support it and that it would be changed. The public believed it and the licensed vintners were threatening civil disobedience. They were genuinely convinced that they had won the campaign. I am glad good sense has reasserted itself among the public, with the latest opinion polls showing more than 80% support for the ban.
The Minister might not have been aware of one ploy used by backbenchers, which was to blame me. A number of publicans and representatives of the licensed vintners told me that the Minister really wanted to do a u-turn but was afraid to do so because I would criticise him publicly. He did not realise that the backbenchers were saying this to the licensed vintners. I do not know if my colleague, Deputy McManus, had the same experience. The inference was that the Minister was anxious to withdraw the ban and would find some formula to do so and save face, if only I would promise to keep quiet about it. That was an utterly improbable proposition but it gives one an idea of the nonsense that took place during the summer.
The vast majority of publicans agree with the ban. In their hearts they know that it is time for it. However, they have concerns about the legislation and the regulations. I have mentioned the concern about enforcement. I do not believe enforcement of the ban in pubs will be the big issue it was claimed to be during the summer. Most will obey the law and there will be a certain amount of peer pressure to do so. When somebody lights up a cigarette in the pub, their friends will object to it, as they already do. In some cases, people even refuse to go out with smokers.
Nevertheless, publicans will have some problems with enforcement, first because there is drink involved and second because employers have some leverage with their employees while publicans feel they have less leverage with those who are their customers. The legitimate gripe of publicans is that if they fail to enforce the law, they will be culpable. That is a new departure from established practice. If the smoker will not stop smoking, the publican will be fined. That is bizarre and defies all logic. It is contrary to the protocol in criminal legislation to link the offence to the perpetrator. In this case, the legislation transfers culpability for the offence from the smoker to the person unfortunate enough to own or manage the premises in which the offence takes place. This goes against all established practice and is unfair.
There should be clarity about the obligations of the publican and they must be reasonable. The legislation should be changed to articulate what the publican must do. It would be reasonable to provide that the publican should be able to ask a smoker who lights up to stop smoking and then refuse to serve the person and his or her companions drink. However, to ask the publican physically to stop someone smoking is going too far. Environmental health officers have said they will be reasonable about this but that is not good enough. It will be a constant source of contention if it is left in the legislation. The publican's responsibility for enforcing the ban must be clarified and limited to what is reasonable. If the Minister does not intend to change the legislation, will he at least give a commitment that he will review it in six months to see how it is working?
Many hares have been raised by the media since the regulations were published but they did not amount to much. One matter, however, has been raised previously and should be raised again. It is the situation where the workplace is also a home. I am glad the Minister has clearly ruled out the domestic dwelling. Trying to enforce a ban in that case would be not only almost impossible but also ridiculous. The next step would be the introduction of thought police. It is nonsense to think somebody should monitor whether a person is smoking while they have a person employed to clean the windows. We should not even go there.
There are situations, however, where people are in care in public or private institutions such as hospitals, hostels, nursing homes, homes for the handicapped and so forth. People living in such circumstances should have, where possible, the same freedoms as the rest of us. The prisons are a separate case. It is ironic that prisoners will be looked after but those who are vulnerable and need our protection are not. Some concession must be made for them in this respect. I accept that workers in these places have to be protected but the institutions, perhaps on an individual basis, should be able to negotiate some arrangement with environmental health inspectors whereby people will be permitted to smoke on the premises.
The proposed arrangement is not fair. It is also unsafe. In institutions such as St. Vincent's Hospital where there are terminally ill cancer patients, psychiatric patients and addicts, there is a genuine fear that there will be attempts to evade the ban and that these will present a fire hazard. That is a legitimate concern for those running the institutions. They fear there will be attempts to smoke, even under the bed clothes in some cases. We must accept that in some care settings this will be a problem and that we will have to be flexible. A reasonable accommodation should be reached.
I support the regulations and the legislation. They will reduce not just the damage caused by passive smoking but also change the culture and attitude to smoking. Many young people have started to smoke in the social setting of the pub. If it is no longer possible to smoke there, fewer people will take up smoking. I congratulate the Minister on overcoming whatever real or apparent objections were raised by Government backbenchers.