Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Obviously, I am here to discuss the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill but given that Deputy MacSharry raised the issue of home helps and home help hours, I would say for the record that, unlikely him, I do not accept that the cupboard is bare in terms of resources. In fact, the cupboard is far from bare. The problem lies with the officials who stand between those who need the services and the cupboard. There are plenty of under-utilised and unused home help hours available in the system. The difficulty stems from the Department of Health and the HSE not sanctioning those staff who are available and willing to work. That said, I will talk about the matter in hand and hope that whoever else is sitting in the Chair exercises the same kind of latitude that I have just seen when I speak in the future.

On behalf of my party, I welcome the Bill. It is important that the provisions specifically relating to plain packaging will finally be enacted following the passage of the Bill. In the past year, since the successful passage of the plain packaging legislation through these Houses, we have missed a crucial deadline in respect of the circulation of plain packaged tobacco products. This has rightly been a source of a lot of discontent to those organisations, such as the Irish Cancer Society, the Irish Heart Foundation and ASH Ireland, which have been campaigning hard on this issue for a long time.

When the Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Act 2015 was passed, there was a collective sigh of relief. Ireland was to be one of the pioneering countries to introduce plain packaging. We had stood up to the unscrupulous tobacco companies and their extensive lobbying efforts. Public health trumped corporate interests. It is regrettable that the 20 May 2016 deadline was missed. Factors, such as the general election and the protracted negotiations relating to the formation of the Government, meant that this Bill did not come to the House soon enough. In that regard, I, as the Sinn Féin health spokesperson, wish to see the smooth passage of this Bill through the Oireachtas so that we can finally ensure that plain packaging for tobacco products begins. This is vital as the commencement of the provisions of the 2015 Act relating to standardised packaging will be deferred until the enactment of this Bill.

What strikes me, and what is important when we talk about this particular provision, is that despite what the tobacco companies may crib and moan about, despite how many billions of euro they pump into public relations, advertising and lobbying worldwide in order to talk about profits, the industry and trade, they always neglect to mention that they are peddling death. There is no other way of saying it - they are profiting directly from death, familial and community decimation and heartache.

Profit, turnover or the needs of the industry do not lie at the heart of this Bill or the legislation passed last year. I am not my party's spokesperson on jobs, enterprise and innovation; I am its spokesperson on health. This is a public health issue. It is an issue that, should we choose to ignore it, would result in a lose-lose situation for the public. The public would lose out in terms of their own health outcomes as they risk capture by - on foot of heavy marketing, branding and the lure of the tobacco industry - and getting hooked on a deadly drug. We must also consider the cost to the public health system from treating the diseases caused by that same drug. Some people use the term "nanny state"; I call what we are doing being responsible legislators. This is a matter of public health.

It is important that we give people all the information they need in order that they can see the effects of smoking and will be 100% in no doubt of how this drug affects them and those around them.

When preparing for this debate, I read the transcripts relating to the legislation passed last year. In that context, I was struck by how far public health legislation has come in terms of restricting the advertising relating to and packaging of these deadly products. Looking at some old advertisements from the United States, it is blatantly clear why we cannot trust nor expect tobacco companies to have any regard for public health. If they had not been regulated, they would have continued to make such ludicrous claims for their products such as "For your throat's sake", "Scientifically proved far less irritating to the nose and throat", "I protect my voice with Luckies", "More doctors smoke Camels", "Just what the doctor ordered", "For digestion's sake", and "To keep a slender figure". They cannot be trusted with public health and that is why decisive legislation such as that before the House is badly needed. When those same companies tried to challenge democratically elected governments which were looking out for the public interest of their citizens, we should not have been surprised.

I, like many others, was happy to discover that the European Court of Justice rejected a case brought by big cigarette companies, which has meant that the passage of this legislation is now the last hurdle to the practical introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products. In a preliminary ruling last December, the advocate general of the European Court of Justice found that the standardisation of labelling and packaging is a proportionate measure. As we all know, the EU tobacco products directive, which was adopted in 2014, had been held up by a series of court cases. Earlier this year, this ruling was reaffirmed when the court said that such packaging requirements are "such as to protect consumers against the risks associated with tobacco use and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued ... the EU legislature did not go beyond the limits of what is appropriate and necessary." We should not run scared of these companies. We should stand confident in the fact that the research available to us demonstrates that standardised plain packaging will have a positive impact on health and that it is a proportionate and justified measure. Let us never forget that more than 5,000 Irish people die prematurely every year form the effects of smoking.

To return to the slogans used in the United States, think of the false and misleading nature of the health claims attached to them and the allure the companies employed. These items of legislation permanently consign that to the annals of history. Standardised packaging can reduce the appeal of tobacco products and increase the effectiveness of health warnings. It reduces the ability of branded tobacco packaging to mislead people about the harmful effects of smoking. When we consider that almost 80% of smokers start when they are children, these public health measures stop the normalisation of smoking before it starts.

When we speak of the legal threats of big tobacco companies and of the bully-boy tactics by these profit moguls who peddle their wares irrespective of the consequences or risks, it would be remiss of me not to mention one of the biggest threats to the success of this legislation, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. Countries across the globe have introduced legislation to protect citizens form the risks of smoking and to promote healthy lifestyles. As in the case of Ireland, this has included plain packaging for cigarettes and tobacco products. We have seen tobacco companies try to block such moves from becoming law. We have witnessed the extent of their lobbying. They tried to go even further with Philip Morris attempting to sue to government of Uruguay over anti-smoking legislation. This was the first time a tobacco group challenged a state in front of an international court and the first investment arbitration concerning tobacco control. Thankfully, it lost that case earlier this year. This David-and-Goliath situation is iconic because it is indicative of the way that corporations can use international investment treaties to attack those regulations made in the public interest.

The Guardiannewspaper earlier this year quoted Juan Fernández-Armesto, a Spanish lawyer and expert on investment arbitrators who said:

It never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all ... Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.

The ability of tobacco companies to take this action with European governments may be made possible because of the international state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism. This is why Sinn Féin opposes TTIP, which contains the ISDS. TTIP is not just a free trade deal. It will extend beyond the removal of tariffs to include the opening of markets on investment, services and public procurement and the removal of any so-called barriers to trade. The stated aim of TTIP is to remove unnecessary barriers to trade through regulatory convergence. However, these barriers are some of our most prized standards. Changes to regulation can have negative impacts at great social cost. We cannot have a situation where big tobacco companies can try to undermine the legislation and the public health concerns of individual countries because specific laws jeopardise their profit margins. The health of citizens is more important than the wealth of tobacco companies.

It would be a slap in the face in the context of this legislation and all the work that was put in by the Oireachtas and the relevant non-governmental organisations, stakeholders and health professionals if TTIP were not opposed. While I welcome the passage of the legislation and look forward to seeing plain packaging in operation, I worry that, should TTIP succeed and should the ISDS mechanism be introduced, all this hard work will have been in vain. I invite the Minister to outline the Government's position on TTIP in this regard.

Regarding the part of the Bill that amends the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013, I recognise the importance of ensuring that over-the-counter products continue to be available under the General Medical Services, GMS, and community drug schemes. Public health is paramount. Any measures we can take in the Legislature to ensure it remains paramount should be welcomed.

I wish to revert to comments I made, and to which the Minister responded, during a motion on pharmacy fees a week ago. One of the amendments I tabled sought to look at how dispensing fees could possibly be reduced for patients. In that regard, we recognised that the switching of medications from a prescription to a non-prescription basis could do this in some small way. The Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, oversees the reclassification of both prescription-only medicine to over the counter, OTC, in pharmacy status and from OTC to general retail sale. In our Better4Health policy document launched late last year, we note that at that time the authority identified more than 30 products that could be reclassified. These include topical antifungals, steroid creams and proton-pump inhibitors. The Minister noted that this was an issue for the statutory agency and I understand that the HPRA actively seeks applications from suppliers and gives ongoing consideration to the relevant issues. Following on from this debate, it would be interesting if the Minister could advise - perhaps not now but at some point in the future - how successful this call for applications has been, at what rate suppliers are seeking reclassification or why, perhaps, there is not a greater take up of this reclassification option. Similarly, if these medicines were reclassified, would they continue to be available under the GMS and community drug schemes or would further amendments to the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 be required?

I do not wish to speak for too long but I would like to encourage the swift passage of this legislation so that we might finally see plain packaging for tobacco products become a reality. This is a critical public health matter and, ultimately, I would like to see smoking eradicated completely. In our pre-budget submission today, Sinn Féin has proposed an increase in excise duty of 50 cent on a packet of cigarettes. This is on public health grounds, obviously, and is not intended to be a revenue-raising exercise, as I am sure the Ministers of State will appreciate. My colleague, Deputy Ó Caoláin, Sinn Féin spokesperson on disability rights and older people, will use a later speaking slot to discuss the amendment to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009.

While I have the attention of the two Ministers of State who are present, I would like to put on record that I was outraged to read media reports to the effect that a member of the Government will seek to oppose any measures designed to increase the cost of a packet of cigarettes. I am a former smoker. I understand it is incredibly difficult to give up smoking but I also understand it is incredibly important that we encourage people to do so in whatever way that we can. I would like to hear a clear statement from either of the Ministers of State or any member of Government that would distance this Administration from those potentially dangerous remarks. Remarks such as those that were reported in the media with regard to smoking do damage to any person who is considering giving up smoking. It is against public health policy. I would like to see members of this Government clearly distance themselves from those shameful and outrageous remarks.

It is not acceptable that a member of Government would seek to block an increase in the cost of a packet of cigarettes. I am sure there are no members of Government - at least I hope not - who are unaware of the damage, danger and cost to our public health service of smoking and smoking-related diseases.

See this speech in context