Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As has been said by others, up to 5,200 people, including relatives, friends, colleagues and fellow citizens, die from smoking every year. That is nearly 20 times the number of people who lose their lives on Irish roads each year. While there is always some initial grumbling, measures to improve road safety and save lives on the roads are generally put in place and adhered to without a struggle. However, with tobacco the situation is very different. The process of regulating and restricting the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes has been a struggle that has been ongoing for decades. The power and might of the tobacco companies and their lobbyists have acted as a deterrent to legislators and public representatives across the world.

Only this week we heard from US public representatives on the threat this Bill poses to business interests and rights. This is indicative of a growing trend of international pressure being brought to bear on Irish public representatives and others. International groups and, more significantly, international resources and money, are featuring increasingly in the democratic process here in Ireland. We have seen this most recently in other health-related legislation, and I have no doubt that we will see it again during the marriage equality referendum campaign, most likely because that referendum will be the first nationwide referendum on that issue. Without doubt, there will be those trying to exert an influence from outside Ireland in the hope of shaping the outcome on the question of extending the right to marry to all citizens, irrespective of sexual orientation.

On the issue of smoking, it is intriguing to see the pressure and lobbying in favour of tobacco consumption continuing long after the negative and deathly consequences have been demonstrated. For decades, inescapable proof has been available to show that smoking kills. Smoking causes a range of illnesses that cause suffering and limit lives, yet the progress made in combating the public health threat has been slow, not least because of the pressure placed on public representatives.

In Ireland, the first efforts at effectively warning people of the dangers came in 1964 with the launch of a voluntary code on advertising. It was another seven years before tobacco advertising was banned on television and yet another seven until the Oireachtas introduced legislation in the form of the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Act. A further ten years passed before the sale of tobacco products to children was outlawed with the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act 1988. It was only in the 1990s and early years of this century that successive Governments intensified efforts with the amendments to tobacco control legislation and new regulations. Perhaps the most widely known measure is the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Act 2004, which introduced the smoking ban in workplaces, as alluded to by Deputy Coffey.

Health is a subject that occupies a huge number of column inches and radio and television airtime. Most of the commentary and news coverage is negative, and unfairly so. The successes of our health system are rarely accepted or highlighted and the Minister for Health has one of the most difficult jobs in any Government. There is a constant barrage of criticism and a constant stream of negativity, which surely erodes confidence and positivity. However, no citizen, public representative, lobbyist, journalist, broadcaster or commentator can dispute the commitment of the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, to combating the public health crisis that smoking represents. He has been steadfast in his commitment to improving and protecting the health of the people by tackling smoking and by utilising the national Parliament to achieve this.

Given the facts, the extent of opposition to tobacco control and other measures to help people avoid the deadly addiction beggars belief. One in every two smokers will die of a tobacco-related disease. The cost to the State of tobacco-related diseases in 2009 was €500 million. The cost to the State of premature mortality caused by smoking in 2009 was €3.5 billion. The most important fact is that 5,200 Irish people, from every city, town and village, die prematurely from smoking-related illness every single year.

The Public Health (Standard Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2014 is the Minister's latest legislation aimed at saving lives. It is not an issue of restricting rights or damaging retailers. It is about saving lives. The Bill will control the design and appearance of tobacco products and cigarette packaging and reduce the appeal of tobacco products. Nobody can deny that colourful and eye-catching packaging attracts the attention of consumers. The size of health warnings will be increased so that a person is left in no doubt about what smoking is doing to them. The Bill will also eliminate some of the misleading nonsense peddled to consumers about the effects of smoking. Many stakeholders with an interest in protecting and preserving public health agree it will discourage young people and, hopefully, adults from taking up smoking. Increased health warnings will give people further reasons to reflect on the activity. I commend the various groups involved in warning us about the dangers of smoking, including the Irish Cancer Society, ASH Ireland, the Asthma Society, the Irish Heart Foundation and Croí in the west of Ireland.

The arguments against this Bill do not stand up to scrutiny. One argument is that it will make counterfeiting easier, but if groups or criminal organisations are intent on counterfeiting tobacco products, no amount of legislation will dissuade them. Another argument is that placing further restrictions on tobacco products harms the retail sector. It probably is the case that some business in retail stores is generated through tobacco sales. The retailers will speak about the importance of getting footfall through the door because customers will also purchase other products. However, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to do nothing to combat an activity or addiction which is so harmful to smokers and the wider society.

Another concern expressed about illegal cigarettes pertains to the quality of their contents and the potential that they include higher quantities of harmful products. It has been estimated, based on assessments of discarded packaging of whether duty was paid on them, that up to 30% of cigarettes are illegal. I commend all those involved in the recent seizure of cigarettes, which was the biggest seizure in Europe this year. We need to remain vigilant of the criminals involved in the illicit trade in tobacco. We also need to tighten the policing of those who are intent on breaking the law. I understand the need to save money in a recession but converting from legal to illegal cigarettes does not save as much money as giving them up entirely. This Bill will go some way towards reducing the number of people who take up smoking.

Another argument put forward is based on intellectual property rights. The Irish Cancer Society has pointed out that while the Constitution protects property rights under Article 40.3.2° and Article 43, it also recognises that in a civil society property rights have to be regulated by principles of social justice and in accordance with the common good. By introducing plain packaging, this legislation seeks to protect and promote public health by preventing young persons from taking up smoking and consuming tobacco products. On the issue of trademarks, the society pointed out that the Bill does not cause the loss of any rights under the Trade Marks Act 1996 but only a justified and proportionate restriction of the use of trademarks. We already restrict the use of tobacco related trademarks in that they cannot advertise on television, billboards or retail premises.

Another argument against this Bill is that no evidence exists to show that standardised packaging will put customers off. If this was really the case, why do companies from every sector spend substantial sums of money on designing packaging to attract customers? Why would companies go to this expense if it did not influence a person's purchasing choices? Standardised packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and it has had the desired impact of reducing the number of people who smoke. Standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of tobacco products to young people and end the belief among smokers that some cigarettes are less harmful than others. It will also make health warnings more effective and increase negative feelings about smoking. This has been demonstrated in surveys carried out in Australia. A recent study carried out in the state of Victoria found that those who smoked cigarettes from standardised packs perceived them as being lower in quality and less satisfying, were more likely to have thought about quitting at least once per day, rated quitting as a higher priority and tended to support the policy on standardised packaging. Research published in the Medical Journal of Australiafound that the number of calls to a quit line increased by 78% following the introduction of standardised packaging. New research by the Cancer Council of Victoria observed a decline in the number of patrons who smoked in cafés when packs were displayed on tables. The research clearly shows that the policy works. If it did not work we would not be subjected to such a level of lobbying from opponents of the Bill working in the tobacco industry. They know the Bill will help to reduce the number of young people taking up smoking, and that is why I support it.

See this speech in context