Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I concur with all I have heard in this debate. It would be difficult to oppose the Bill in that I consider it to be correct in principle. As Deputy Breen was speaking, it occurred to me that it is necessary for the State to intervene, in so far as it can, to protect people from themselves. While it is a shocking state of affairs that this must be done, I recall a time, perhaps seven or eight years ago, when I served on an Oireachtas committee on health. At that time, the tobacco companies were making a case that somehow or other, nicotine would not cause one to become addicted to smoking. At one time, the tobacco companies went to the trouble of bringing their so-called medical advisers from America to this Parliament. Members can imagine the kind of damage such activities would do unless the State was there to protect people from such propaganda. Ever since then, whenever I hear representatives of the tobacco industry comment on what it is or is not able to do, I always take such comments with a grain of salt. This is a dangerous poison that has poisoned countless thousands of people in Ireland. Unless we understand, accept and believe that this is what nicotine will do, we are in a false paradise.

I wish to raise two or three aspects of the entire business of smoking. Like my colleague, Deputy Breen, I am a lifelong non-smoker. However, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and other Members are aware, before the introduction of the ban, politicians spent most of their lives in the smokiest places on earth. One never had a real expert on the economy unless he had a pint in one hand and a fag in the other at 2 a.m., whispering in one's ear about how to run the country. I did not have to see the statistics on young people smoking because I see a huge number of young people smoking. Maybe I have the statistics wrong but it seems to be primarily young girls who smoke. There appears to be a massive increase in that category.

I am realistic enough to know, as is the Minister of State, that if one buried tobacco in the bowels of the earth, some people would find it. The onus is on us to act in respect of a number of issues. We must change the culture because that will prevent people from going any length to get tobacco products. In fairness to the Government, clamping down on smoking in public places was a great step in the right direction. I have no problem with people smoking and I take no notice of it, even though maybe I should. I notice a great number of people objecting to those who smoke in public places. I assume that is a good thing to do, even though I do not do it. It is important that we hold the line and the ban is now adhered to by 97% of the population. If that is the case, we are on the right line.

There was a trend that a few specific items got people to come into a shop. One went in for the morning newspaper and one usually bought a pint of milk. While people were there, they would buy a packet of fags. There is no particular connection between these products but that is what people had on the way out of the shop. When cigarettes are removed from view, I agree that there is a lower chance people will want to buy the packet of fags on the spur of the moment. It does not mean that hardline smokers or youngsters will not follow the fags no matter where they are.

I cannot understand why the legislation was changed since it was published if many retailers seem to have sold this product to under age persons. This will form the basis of one of Deputy Reilly's amendments. Why was it deemed necessary to change this? As I read the legislation in March or April, there were well-defined fines to apply to those who break the law. That provision seems to be watered down. We are now saying the judge will have discretion. I do not see anything terribly wrong with that but if people believe nicotine is poisoning the people of our country, the less ambiguity and wriggle room for the implementation of provisions to stop that happening, the better for everyone. One knows that this is what is coming if one breaks the law. The two options are "A" and "B", there should not be any grey area.

When the Minister of State, who has a great interest in this and whose interest coincides with mine-----

See this speech in context