Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I found the debate to be very informative and I thank Deputy Buttimer in particular for synthesising the work of the Joint Committee on Health and Children and presenting statistics on age cohorts, usage rates and what has happened over the years in terms of how many people died have directly or through smoking related diseases. It is shocking that 100 people die every week from a habit that has received acceptance from society. That is the equivalent of five primary school classes.

Cigarette and pipe smoking has been an accepted behavioural pattern in society for more than 100 years. Compare this with asbestos, which was the accepted way of insulating buildings in the 1960s and 1970s. Asbestos had its own brands and trademark names, but as soon as it was discovered that it could cause asbestosis, a form of cancer that developed many years after people breathed in asbestos fibres, the buildings containing it were evacuated. The UN building in Brussels was deemed to be a health hazard and nobody was allowed to work in it. Imagine if the burgers that contained horse meat were allowed to remain on the shelves. They did not even cause deaths; they were simply substandard in quality. They were whipped off the shelves and out of the factories and we were able to trace them back to their origins. However, when it comes to cigarettes there appears to be a vague and foggy tolerance even though we are irrefutably aware of the death and destruction they cause.

Deputy Coppinger made a robust and comprehensive contribution. I fully support the introduction of standardised packaging and frightening pictures of what smoking does to an individual's health and body. If such packaging does not make a difference, why are tobacco companies and those involved in the trade exercised about it? Clearly it makes a difference. Younger people are impressionable. When I smoked the red packets of Carrolls Number 1, it was regarded as a superior product to Sweet Afton untipped.

It was "Aaah" for an Afton and meant to be like breathing in fresh air but it was not fresh air.

It was a great idea to remove smoking from the workplace and public places but there is now a tolerance for creating areas on the doorsteps of pubs and lounges, which makes them a social space for young people. In such areas, the lethal cocktail of alcohol and cigarettes looks cool, as this is where people are sociable and have a chat. If people want a drink or two while having a chat, they have to almost run a gauntlet in getting through this "social corridor" into the pub. The cool conversations, cigarettes and alcohol are on the doorsteps.

Television channel BBC4 did a documentary a couple of years ago about Philip Morris and British American Tobacco and their efforts to ensure they expand production and sales across the globe, particularly in developing countries. I do not know how senior managers and the boards of directors in these companies can face humanity knowing what they do. It is ironic that a recent chairman of the Bank of Ireland moved from that position, with a salary of approximately €500,000, to a job worth £600,000 per year as chairman of British American Tobacco. Banks were badly and irresponsibly led for seven or eight years so maybe it is an easy move for such people.

There is the issue of contraband and the problem of security packaging being easily counterfeited by illegal organisations and criminals. It is possible to put into the proposed standard packages with off-putting pictures of harm to the body some form of security printed coupon. Packages can have the equivalent security level as legal currency in some countries, and high-quality security printing can be done so packages can contain coupons. Perhaps that would help in the detection of counterfeit products. The fines relating to criminal activity and illegal importing are not particularly off-putting, so perhaps penalties should be imposed on those who ship the products. Even if they are innocent of what is in the containers on the ships, if there was a possibility that a fine of €500,000, for example, would be imposed if illegal cargo is found, the shippers would ensure they know the contents of their cargo. We can get real about this.

In an effort to put off people from using cigarettes, the highly flavoured and sweetened additives for tobacco could be substituted through force with compounds that smell awful. The people currently addicted would have a new flavour that may help them break the addiction. It would certainly put off younger people if the taste was bad. When most people start smoking cigarettes, it is not a pleasant experience and they do it to identify with a peer group or be "cool". Deputy Joan Collins described the struggle of addiction to cigarettes and anybody who smoked knows about it. Nevertheless, the day a person gives up cigarettes comes down to a decision. It is the same for a person on illegal drugs such as cocaine, and one day that person has to decide whether to stay on the treadmill of addiction, which could lead to disimproving health and perhaps death. It is not easy to make such a decision.

The tolerance of smoking in society makes us a bit wishy-washy about this. This packaging measure is a start and it will take out the glamour from being introduced to what could become a smoking habit. It is a deterrent but I would go further. I would force manufacturers to include an additive with a bad smell or taste. It would lead to an outcry but so what? When horsemeat was found in burgers, everybody wanted products whipped from the shelves. There was a Perrier water scandal because the company was unsure of the contents in some bottles and every bottle was removed from the shelves. Nevertheless, the cigarettes we know for certain will kill one from every two smokers in the long run, amounting to 5,200 people per year, are still on the shelves. Perhaps younger people could see patients with emphysema in hospitals struggling to breathe on visits to wards. Such real-life experience would do much more than seeing a photograph, which is inert. People have been desensitised and a photograph will not do as much to put off people than hearing somebody struggling to breathe and coughing. Such a sight can be very upsetting.

The Minister is dead right that this is part of a range of measures to bring smoking rates to 5% or less by 2025. It is aimed at teenagers, for whom smoking is like a rite of passage. There is a cocktail involved in this rite, consisting of alcohol and cigarettes. There are also iPhone apps for gambling on football matches, etc., which leads to more instant gratification and rebellion. That can happen as soon as a boy's voice breaks or he gets some fuzz on his chin. These are rites of passage into the adult world. Young people do not see the truthful counterbalance as everything is packaged, as Deputy Coppinger noted, in glamorous presentations. It is the big lie.

We can now see in television soaps pub scenes which glamorise drink, chat, socialising and easily accessible betting apps. In the more upmarket soaps like "The Good Wife" there are top-class lawyers at the peak of their careers and after a day's work in the court, they are rewarded with a big glass of red wine. They sniff it to savour the vapours and have sophisticated social chat while using mobile phones. This is a subtle suggestion to people that these are little moments of enjoyment which take the edge from daily living but that is misleading.

This brings us back to the point of sale of the product. The Minister is right, the fact that all his medical colleagues fully support the Bill and that the manufacturers of cigarettes and tobacco are against it makes it a slam dunk that it is the right thing to do. As Deputy Penrose said, the other way to get at this is to start putting upward pressure on the price of cigarettes through taxation. I know people will say that is regressive taxation because so many who do not have the benefit of education are severely addicted and it will hit their pockets more than it will the pockets of those who are well-to-do. If the Minister explains that the extra revenue to be gained temporarily from this move will be ring-fenced and directed to sports investments for young people or medical supports for people with emphysema and so on, the message becomes clear. It will connect the tax with something which we hope will be eliminated from our way of life. Those extra taxes will be used to support the physical costs of that habit.

Breaking the habit is a decision and people can use supports to help commit to that decision. Deputy Joan Collins said she was off cigarettes for two years then went back on them. That could happen at an occasion or a celebration where somebody says, "ah go on, just have one". Unfortunately one cannot afford to go back. I speak from personal experience. A total of 100 people a week, the equivalent of five primary school classes of 20, die unnecessarily. Our society came to accept smoking, although it did not accept toxins in food. Inhaling cigarette smoke is as bad as ingesting toxins in food. We have zero tolerance for anything that contaminates our food. Perrier spent €5 million or €10 million when it removed its product from the shelf over two days. It did not want its brand name hurt. The irony is that cigarette manufacturers talk about their trade marks and brand names, which are instruments of death. They might as well be called Kalashnikovs.

I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. It will, I hope, make young people aware that smoking is better avoided. The sociable buzz of the annexes to pubs and lounges where people enjoy beers, which is fine at the right level, and cigarettes, makes them the cool place to be. Unfortunately, it counteracts the direction of this Bill. Why can we not just legislate to force manufacturers to introduce a distasteful ingredient rather than one that improves the taste. To add to the addiction, as they do, with scent and pleasant flavours, such as menthol, is doubly sinister and wrong.

Huge fines should be imposed on shippers and importers even if they say they did not know their containers held cigarettes. If they are fined €500,000 they will begin to know and take an interest in what is in their containers. That will complement the efforts of customs and excise officers and the police to counteract the activities of criminals. Contraband includes perfume and spirits as well as cigarettes on the mainland of Europe. This trade can be tackled if the penalties are serious and applied.

See this speech in context