Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this issue. An important aspect of the legislation we are discussing - the fact that it has been necessitated by a European Court of Justice ruling - has gone pretty much unnoticed. In some cases, I find it difficult to get my head around the competencies of the European institutions when it comes to issues like this. Different societies and different member states across the European Union have different expectation levels and different ways of addressing public health issues. We have grappled for a number of years with the issue of the number of people in this country who smoke. I will speak later about the number of people who consume alcohol. I am concerned about the initiative by the European institutions and the decision on this matter by the European Court of Justice. Our nearest neighbour is having a bit of a convulsion in its relationship with the EU and its institutions. I have heard a commentator suggesting that the EU is essentially parked in one's front room so it can dictate everything that happens in one's life at a micro level. We should have some concerns when sovereign Governments are faced with making legislative changes of this nature in the absence of any reflection of the societal differences between member states. We need to ask ourselves whether that is the type of EU we want to have. Do we want issues of public health to be determined in the fashion in which they are currently being determined? The previous speaker suggested that the Government has reacted responsibly to the European Court of Justice ruling. I wonder why we are doing this at all. It brings us back to the question of the manner in which the European institutions have entered into all of our lives on a daily basis.

I would like to refer to a contribution that was made earlier in this debate. It had the potential to turn into a three-ring circus. One Opposition Deputy was almost looking for an opportunity to take the nails out of his hands. He seemed to suggest he was the closest thing to the patron saint of smokers. It demeaned the argument and it demeaned the whole debate. It edged closely to the possibility that the Deputy was attempting to break the link between smoking and illness. Many people have referred to cancer and stroke, but chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has not yet been mentioned. Anybody who has seen someone struggle each day with an oxygen tank, a nebuliser and up to 20 tablets that may have to be changed on a weekly basis if antibiotics are needed as immune system resistance breaks down, will be aware that smoking-related illnesses affect those who are ill and those who care for them. I have personal experience of this. I agree with the sentiments expressed earlier by Deputy Catherine Murphy from County Kildare, who spoke about her personal experience in this regard. The remarks made by Deputy Finian McGrath were very insensitive to those who are suffering from smoking-related illnesses and those who are caring for them. He tried to create some sort of smokescreen, for want of a better word, as part of his attempt to break the link between smoking and the health effects of smoking even though smoking ultimately kills people. He did absolutely nothing to promote his cause, which involves making sure smokers are not somehow treated as pariahs. I accept that is important.

As Deputy O'Reilly said, if Walter Raleigh arrived in Europe with tobacco plants today, this substance would be banned. That is the point from which we need to start to look at this issue. It is a highly addictive toxic carcinogen. It has the potential to destroy people's lives. I have a concern from a public health point of view. We are talking about minimum pricing. I appreciate that the decision of the Scottish Executive to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol is the subject of a European investigation. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, has an interest in this as well. I would like the Minister for Health, in his role as chairperson of the EU Council of Health Ministers, to emphasise that there are different public health issues in each member state. Society is different in each member state. The expectations of citizens are different in each member state. Our cultural expectations and our smoking and alcohol thresholds are totally different from those of the Mediterranean countries. I think that needs to be reflected in what the European institutions are asking us to do. We will have to keep a close eye on the decision to be made by the European institutions on the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing by the Scottish Executive. That decision will have repercussions in Ireland. I appreciate that the European Court of Justice judgment does not prevent member states from banning below-cost selling. If it did, it would have a detrimental effect on our attempts to ensure younger people do not start to smoke. The European Coal and Steel Community was originally established to promote the free movement of goods, services and persons, but it has gone through a metamorphosis to the point where we need to pass this sort of legislation today. It is difficult to understand why this Bill is needed at a time when many people are dying of smoking-related illnesses; the Government is being proactive in terms of the excise duty that is applied and public health campaigns are being run on a daily and weekly basis.

The Australian Government needs to be commended on the manner in which it has introduced labels and obvious pictures on cigarette cartons and packages. I would like that to be done here as well. There is an opportunity for it to be done across Europe. I would hate to think the European institutions will stick their noses into anything that is done in terms of labels and regulations in Ireland or any other member state. Someone could construe such efforts as an interference with the market. It is important that we do not go down that road. The earlier an intervention is aimed at ensuring people are fully educated and informed about the actual implications for their health of the decision to light a cigarette and go down the road of addiction, the better. This is also of relevance to the whole issue of childhood obesity, which is another hobby-horse of mine. When a young person picks up a packet of cigarettes, he or she will see a piece of lung that has turned black or rotten because of the tar, the carcinogens and the nicotine that have been inhaled over time. The earlier we can get such powerful images into the psyches of younger people who have not yet taken up smoking but may be about to do so, the better.

It is important that we are not seen to pillory in any way those who are struggling with this addiction. If we were talking about those addicted to heroin, cocaine or alcohol, we would be referring to them almost as victims. Those who are trying to give up smoking should be treated in the very same way. As Deputy O'Reilly said, they need support from the public health agencies, from the Department and from us as legislators. Any support we can give should be given. The legislation that has been proposed represents a mature response to the European Court of Justice ruling. I have a greater problem with how we wound up in this situation in the first place. I have concerns with regard to the competencies of the European institutions that are allowed to have their say on these issues even though societal norms are totally different across the 27 member states. I think we need to address this aspect of the matter as we go forward.

See this speech in context