I welcome the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to the House, although the absence of the Minister for Health and Children is unfortunate. As a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, I am familiar with the two reports produced by it. The two rapporteurs were Deputies Shatter and Gay Mitchell. A tremendous amount of research was undertaken by the joint committee and many presentations and submissions were heard and read. Dr. Fenton Howell from Action on Smoking and Health made a very interesting presentation and his recommendations were welcomed both by the Minister and the Opposition.
Although this matter has been debated continually in the two years since those reports were produced, I welcome this opportunity of highlighting, once again, the serious issues associated with tobacco. The statistics are still shocking. Has there been a decrease in the number of people smoking, particularly young people, in the year since the Minister introduced his Bill in the Dáil? Has the 50p increase in excise duty on a packet of cigarettes caused a reduction in smoking? The joint commitee was convinced that increasing the price of cigarettes would be a deterrent and I would welcome ongoing research and evaluation of this measure.
One wonders whether people are immune to statistics. Tobacco kills between 6,500 and 7,000 people every year. I have been told that the figure for deaths from tobacco in 2001 was 5,700, which represents a small reduction, but nonetheless a huge number of people. It is estimated that 31% of the population smoke and that a huge percentage of children are smoking before they reach the age of 18 years.
The joint committee heard an interesting presentation last week from a witness from California regarding the banning of smoking in public houses. He suggested that if smoking was banned in public houses, the 70% of people who do not smoke would come back to public houses. The banning of smoking in bars in California has had no negative effect on their turnover. Some might argue that public houses in this country are very different from bars in California. I do not believe that is so because there are now Irish pubs throughout the world. Many concerned about environmental tobacco smoke or who do not like to have their clothes reeking of tobacco have returned to bars in California where the measure has had no negative effect. I am sure the same would be true here. The Minister could have banned smoking totally in public houses.
We are all concerned at the large number of deaths from lung cancer, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. I am concerned at the large number of young women who smoke, particularly in the lower socio-economic groups. As a teacher, I was concerned by the number of first year pupils already addicted to tobacco at the age of 12 years. Many parents dismissed concerns by saying they would prefer their daughters to be smoking tobacco than taking drugs. This attitude underlies much parental thinking with regard to smoking among young girls.
I do not understand the reason stark statistics have not persuaded more people to give up smoking, but I am sure it is easier said than done. I am a non-smoker and do not like to dictate to others, but in my experience it is amost impossible to persuade people to give up cigarettes, which highlights the fact that tobacco is certainly addictive.
I had hoped the identity card would be introduced. There are many ways for young people to acquire cigarettes, despite the abolition of the packet of ten cigarettes.
By 2030 there will be 10 million deaths from smoking worldwide per year and smoking will cause one in every six deaths. There are now 1.1 billion smokers worldwide and by 2025 that figure is expected to have risen to 1.6 billion. There is definite evidence that nicotine is more addictive than heroin or cocaine. The joint committee was also told that most smokers do not continue to smoke out of choice, but because they are addicted to nicotine.
Dr. Luke Clancy, consultant respiratory physician in St. James's Hospital, spoke at a recent conference about the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It was the danger of ETS which persuaded Californians to ban smoking in all public places. Those exposed to ETS have a 20% to 30% increased risk of contracting lung cancer, a huge percentage. I am simply giving the facts as enunciated at the conference by Dr. Clancy. He said the same substances are present, even if in lower dosages, when second-hand smokers inhale. It is shocking that one is a victim of smokers when one is in an environment where there is tobacco smoke.
It is well documented that smoking in pregnancy has an adverse effect in terms of low birth weights, perinatal deaths and suddent infant deaths. It is extraordinary to see so many young women smoking during pregnancy, despite the negative indicators. Some of them who give up smoking during the nine months cannot wait to smoke again. I am aware of one girl whose baby was barely born when she went out to have a cigarette. She had the gumption and strength of character to give up smoking for the nine months, but it shows the latent addiction that the cigarette was the first thing she sought. In the United States no gynaecologist will take a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks as his or her patient. That is a fact of life. His or her concern is litigation, but I wonder how strongly gynaecologists and general practitioners speak to pregnant women about giving up cigarettes during the nine months.
The effects are not only seen during pregnancy, but also in later stages in childhood. When I was teaching I noticed a tremendous increase in the incidence of asthma among young girls. The incidence of asthma, middle ear infection disease and other respiratory illnesses increases in children of smoking parents. When one thinks of the difficulties parents experience dealing with these diseases it is astounding that young women continue to smoke. The lure of the cigarette despite the negative effects is striking.
The concerns regarding health are extraordinarily important. This relates not only to the money that must be spent eliminating disease, but also to the quality of life and the lower life expectancy of those who smoke. It is extraordinary that despite all the interventions to help smokers the addiction is so strong they continue to smoke. One point that disturbed me enormously was contained in a letter from a representative of the company, John Player and Sons. He stated the company would have been happy to have been involved in discussions with those who were drafting the policy on tobacco control. He went on to say the company welcomed new legislation, but that some provisions were disproportionate and unbalanced. He continued: "Unfortunately, no invitation to attend the Joint Committee on Health and Children to discuss the Bill was received by John Player and Sons, which would have allowed us to communicate our views on this proposal, both positive and negative, to the members of the committee."
However, on 1 June 2001, the same company wrote that it had to decline the sub-committee's request to attend the joint committee. These are double standards. The company stated it had been advised that the objectives of the joint committee were in excess of jurisdiction and, therefore, unlawful. This was primarily because the intention of the joint committee was to assist litigation against tobacco companies in Ireland. In what world are they living? The company wanted an input to the Bill in order to control what the Minister was trying to do and allow more smoking. These were two contradictory letters.
The tobacco companies also took the joint committee members for amadáns when we raised the issue of addiction to which Dr. Howell referred in his presentation. It was stated smoking was as addictive as surfing the Internet. Whatever about addiction to chocolate, which leads one to become overweight but has not killed anybody, the comparison with addiction to surfing the Internet was trite and dismissive in relation to what the committee was trying to do. That says it all with regard to where the tobacco companies stand. They could not care less other than to increase the number of young children who smoke.
John Player and Sons, the letter states, "neither wants nor encourages children to smoke." I won der who believes that. It continued: "We believe that the risks associated with smoking are well known and that adults should be allowed to choose whether or not to smoke." The company went on to question the fact that the Bill would remove any possibility for manufacturers operating in the Irish market to communicate to their existing adult consumers about certain aspects of their products "or to successfully introduce new products onto the market." The company stated it could not do its business because the Bill excluded it from doing so. It stated this is disproportionate and "likely to infringe constitutional protections, including intellectual property rights and certain competition rules and other EU internal market principles."
Another point should be raised. We seldom get an opportunity to consider the tobacco companies' stance on this issue. They state they share the Government's goals of combating under age smoking and ensuring a regulatory environment is established that is workable, fair and proportionate. I do not believe that. We have been told that molasses and sweeteners are among the ingredients of cigarettes because they hook young people on smoking. We also believe that in their aggressive marketing they are seeking to replace the smokers they lose. Their targets are young people.
The one way the tobacco companies will be beaten – this point was emphasised at the conference – is to tell young people they are the targets, that they will be dictated to by the sophisticated and subtle pressure on them to be smokers and that they should not allow any tobacco company to dictate their lifestyle, especially when their health will be so badly affected if they smoke. I see nothing positive in how the tobacco companies believe they will address the issue of young people and the effects of smoking on their health.
What were the joint committee's recommendations? They ran to several pages. I am trying to be positive towards the Bill, but I am extremely concerned about the Office of Tobacco Control. It will have powers of enforcement, but I am concerned about the resources that will be given to it to ensure it will be effective. I received a letter from the voluntary group concerned with tobacco control. It has branches in 12 counties and asked me to stress the point that resources must be provided to implement the Bill. One can have good legislation, but it must be enforced, monitored and eventually evaluated. This will have to take place on a daily basis given the tremendously negative impact of smoking on everybody. That is the most important point in relation to the Bill.
The joint committee recommended that at least £20 million per annum be spent on a comprehensive anti-smoking strategy. In all the presentations it received, the most interesting point made was that instead of giving moneys to various groups, it would be better to channel all funding to a specific group to address the issues involved. Otherwise there is duplication and it will take longer to evaluate the effects of implementing the legislation and whether we are getting value for money as regards enforcement.