Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for making their contributions this morning. It is good to hear both sides of the argument.

Back in 1964, Luther Terry, the then US Surgeon General, identified that smoking was a cause of death. The average number of people who die in this country as a direct result of smoking is 5,000 per annum, so a 250,000 people have died in the 50 years since 1964. That is greater than the number of people killed in conflicts that are reported on our news bulletins every night.

The witnesses identified this whole issue in respect of property rights. In particular, they referred to articles in the Constitution about property rights. How are those rights established? How can the witnesses maintain that the State has an obligation to them to protect those rights, when the State also has a legal obligation to protect the health of its citizens? All the evidence shows that 5,000 people per annum are dying as a result of smoking. If a pharmaceutical product was being sold in our pharmacies and was identified as causing death, the Government would be obliged immediately to remove that product off the market, yet the witnesses want us to leave everything as is in respect of dealing with something that is causing death.

To go back to the property rights issue, if I am the owner of land, the ESB is entitled to put electric wires over my land and I am not entitled to compensation. People might not be aware of it, but that is the position, because the provision of electricity is for the benefit of the citizens. Likewise, the work being carried out by the Minister for Health on trying to reduce the number of smokers is for the benefit of all the citizens. We can use all the arguments that it will not help, but every step that we take is there with the intention of trying to reduce the number of people smoking. The submission from John Player & Sons refers to fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Perhaps Mr. Meagher might identify what particular article he is talking about in the charter, because there is also an obligation on the State to protect the health of its citizens. If we do not take on this problem, then the State is failing in its duty to its citizens. Do the witnesses not accept that under the Constitution, the State is also obliged to protect of its citizens, and that people's health takes precedence over property rights?