James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

Although I welcome the Bill, I have grave reservations about some the Minister's amendments. On Committee Stage I will table amendments to them.

When we debate a Bill of this nature, it is important we keep in mind the background to it. There are those lobbying for change to the original legislation, which carried a mandatory suspension from the retail register of three months, versus those who would wish it to stay in place. We can have a semantic and philosophical argument about the difference between the terms "vested interest" and "interest group". The interests groups opposed to the dilution of the original legislation are health-orientated organisations which wish to protect the health of our children and nation. They comprise the Irish Heart Foundation, the Irish Cancer Society and ASH, the latter which consists of many public health experts and cardiologists.

The chief executive of the Irish Heart Foundation, Michael O'Shea, wrote to me about this legislation. He stated:

On behalf of 10,000 families who lose loved ones to heart disease every year, I express my serious disappointment that amendments watering down the enforcement of tobacco health legislation will be hastily put forward on a Friday evening before recess. As the chief executive of the national charity supporting people with heart disease and strokes I welcome the arrival of this legislation as a positive step in the fight against tobacco. But like any legislation its success depends on enforcement by authorities and compliance by relevant parties.

However, I cannot hide my dissatisfaction at the hurried approach to push through amendments to a piece of legislation we believe will operate effectively in its current form [i.e. before the Minister's amendments]. Furthermore, I am extremely disappointed that our organisation has not been consulted as part of this process. I can only conclude that this last minute approach to amend otherwise sound legislation is a direct result of pressure from the vested interests.

I strongly urge you not to give in to this pressure and to strive to set the amendments aside - until the Dáil recommences in the autumn. Our country has led the way with the introduction of the smoking ban and we must continue to drive change to protect our children against the evil of tobacco.

Tobacco is evil. Its consumption has lifelong consequences, shortens lives and causes people to die, which is written on the back of a packet. These measures will ensure that adults, who under our Constitution have the freedom of will and can do as they desire, can choose to smoke as long as they are informed. Minors, however, who cannot be considered to have reached that age for choice, need protection from an industry that holds no bars in trying to get its product out. For years it has increased the addictive nature of its product while obfuscating on its real effects.

Michael O'Shea concluded his letter:

Furthermore, I wish to draw your attention to new signage which has been placed in retail outlets around the country which is contrary to section 43(4) of the Public Health Tobacco Acts. In the latest guidelines for those selling tobacco, it clearly states that only one prescribed sign is permitted per premises. However, it has come to our charity's attention that retail outlets are indeed carrying a second sign clearly designed to attract the attention of young people. This is yet another insidious ploy by the tobacco industry to attract young smokers by "bending the rules" and we strongly urge you to take immediate action to have them removed.

I have tabled amendment to that effect.

The Irish Heart Foundation does sterling work. We all will be aware of the extent of cardiovascular disease in this country, the number of people who die from heart attacks and from strokes, and from other peripheral vascular disease, particularly those with diabetes. It has been my experience that if a diabetic smokes, he or she faces the amputation of a lower limb. Anything that will avoid people taking up smoking must be commended, and I commend the Bill in that regard.

However, we must look at why we are diluting penalties. There must be a penalty. There must be an urgency about this. There must be a real threat to those who would consider doing otherwise.

This brings me to the next piece of information, which was sent to me by the Irish Cancer Society. In a key point, the society states that it welcomes the introduction of this progressive legislation in principle, but for the initiative to be effective the Government needs to follow through with a real deterrent. The society can see from the latest data from the OTC that a significant portion, 40%, of retailers are still willing to sell cigarettes to minors.

If 40% of retailers are prepared to sell cigarettes to minors, they need a strong message from this House and from the Government that this will not be tolerated and that they will pay a price. As the only reason they are selling those cigarettes is for profit, let us hurt them in their pockets where it hurts most. We are talking not about sending people to jail for three months, but only about removing them from the register to sell tobacco for three months. It is totally incongruous to compare this to the Intoxicating Liquor Act, which penalises somebody only for two to three days. Alcohol is not something we recommend for persons under the age of 18, and yet alcohol in moderation carries nothing like the same health risk as cigarette smoking because there is no such thing as any amount of cigarette smoke being in any way conducive to good health. It is erroneous to compare the two.

The other point that must be made is that an off-licence found in breach and losing its licence is out of business because it sells alcohol in the main, whereas what we are talking about here are many retailers who run small shops who will still be allowed continue to sell newspapers and other products. It is not comparing like with like, and it is particularly disingenuous of the trade to suggest otherwise.

While there is agreement here and I know we come under pressure, there is a time when we must stand up for what we believe is right, and for the rights of our children. The tobacco industry is one that seeks to make the product more addictive and the golden goal is the 20 pack. If one can get the child to smoke 20 cigarettes, one has him or her addicted. That is the aim. It takes years to get them off those cigarettes, while the costs associated must also be taken into consideration. There is also the annual cost to the health service generally of cigarette-related illnesses due to hospitalisation and medication.

This is why the point of sale legislation should not be amended. Young people would be the group impacted upon the most. Some 80% of smokers start before the age of 18, and 53% start before the age of 15. Is this coincidental? Does the Minister think that this industry, which has honed its advertising skills to the last and is probably streets ahead of any other industry, is not focusing on this area? There is a consequence to its advertising and to its activity. It is a frightening statistic that 80% of smokers start before the age of 18. This is what we are trying to prevent.

According to the Irish Cancer Society adult smokers are the most brand loyal of any good on the market. This measure is aimed at young people and will affect young people, a section of the market to which retailers should not be selling in the first place.

On the deterrent being removed, what is measure without enforcement? Surely that is the key. It is not fair on those who do comply, who will lose income as a consequence while they watch somebody up the road selling to minors. However, the real point is that 1,600 people die each year from lung cancer of which cigarette smoking is intimately causative; 7,000 people die each year from smoking related illnesses and there are 1 million smokers in Ireland today. Most worrying, despite the smoking ban, which seemed to have a great effect initially, is that the most recent National Health and Lifestyle Survey from 2007 showed the number of people who smoke increased from 27% in 2002 to 29% in 2007. When one allies that fact with the statistic that 80% start under the age of 18, it shows how critical this legislation is.

ASH Ireland is similarly concerned. It, like the agencies to which I referred, would like this legislation left for a more considered debate in the autumn.

I have no issue with some of the amendments, particularly the amendment on the airports. Nor do I have a problem with the amendment on the specialist tobacco suppliers. However, the one at which I am truly alarmed, which was not clear to people when the amendment Bill was first mooted, is the 90 day mandatory suspension, and its now diluted effect, which would apply to all sections of the Bill, including the sale of cigarettes to minors. I have no issue with there being discretion around breaches of the signage and other small breaches, but I consider sacrosanct the issue of sale to children because that goes to the heart of what we are trying to stop. We spoke about this in the case of food advertising in the context of the time at which advertisements appropriate for children to view should be on television. Subtle or unsubtle, advertising works.

The issue of signage is mentioned in the Bill. It shows how devious this industry is that it put out a sign straight away advising on the age one must be, but it is designed in such a way as to mirror their previous advertising products. There is no end to how far those in the industry will go to protect their profit and there should be no end to how far we will go to protect our children.

I do not wish to delay any more than necessary. I plead with the Minister of State that when we come to Committee Stage she would take cognisance of the concerns of all of these agencies. We all accept that people must make a living, but surely not on the back of the health of children. That must be the bottom line. When we come to Committee State I would hope that the Minister of State would take on board the amendments.

I will not vote against the Bill on Second Stage because I fully concur with its principles and attempted purpose. We are disappointed that the Government has diluted down the main deterrent in the Bill and I hope the Minister of State gives due consideration to that rather than rush through this legislation which may then require amending legislation in a year's time. People will be watching closely to see who offends and what penalty and consequence he or she faces for the offence.

See this speech in context