Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

I congratulate the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and the Ministers of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley and Deputy Callely, on the introduction of the Bill. I am glad Senator Feighan has firmly indicated his party's support for this imperative measure. All fair-minded people will acknowledge that the Minister and his Ministers of State have been pathfinders and have driven this measure to its current position. Nobody said it would be easy, and it will not be. However, it is never too late to do the right thing. What Minister for Health and Children worth his or her salt would not introduce a measure such as this in the long and short-term interests of the nation?

The point of this prohibition has been lost in many of the arguments against it. In excess of 7,500 people die every year as a result of smoking related illness and many more are seriously ill. What impact does this have on our health services? We hear ad nauseum in this Chamber of the number of hospital units which need to be opened and made operable. Many hospitals would be redundant if smoking was stopped and this has been proven.

This is a choice between saving lives or profits and we should choose lives every time, a point paramount in the mind of the Minister and every right thinking person. Given the expert opinion on smoking and its effects, it can only be seen as a long-term form of suicide. Over the years, smokers have asked what harm they are doing to anyone but themselves by having a cigarette. That myth has been exploded by increased knowledge of the effects of environmental tobacco smoke and the arguments of public health experts. The public and workplace employees are increasingly aware of the threat to their health from toxic tobacco smoke and of the necessity of the measures being introduced to protect them.

It is important that this initiative is based on emphatic advice from health experts. As a member of the Committee on Health and Children, with Senator Feighan, I was interested to hear Dr. Howell tell the committee that tobacco addiction is greater than heroin addiction. There is proof that a famous world leader was able to kick a heroin addiction but not smoking, which speaks for itself. There is consensus within the international scientific community and the World Health Organisation about the damaging effects of tobacco smoke and that there is no safe level of exposure to this known carcinogen.

It has been suggested that designated smoking areas should be allowed as a compromise. This ignores the fact that staff would still be required to work in such areas. Also, tobacco smoke is not stagnant. It permeates the entire atmosphere of a room regardless of where the smoking takes place and without regard to areas which are designated as "smoking" or "non-smoking". This is not a realistic or acceptable option.

The suggestion has been made that improvements in ventilation technology, referred to by Senator Feighan, can deal with the problem of second-hand smoke. On 30 January 2003, a report, The Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace, was published by the Health and Safety Authority and the Office of Tobacco Control. The research, which included an examination of international research, was drawn up by an independent group of scientists including specialists in toxicology, epidemiology, occupational medical services, public health medicine specialists and a radiation-aerosol physicist. The group of scientists concluded there is consensus among the international scientific community that environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace increases the risk of lung cancer by between 20% and 30% and that involuntary smoking increases the risk of heart disease in non-smokers by between 25% and 30%. Given this evidence, it cannot be said that only the smoker is harmed and it indicates the degree of addiction associated with tobacco products.

When representatives of some of the tobacco companies attended the Committee on Health and Children, they denied to hell and back that smoking was addictive. I told one of the representatives that if the facts jumped up and bit him on the nose, he would still deny them. Not alone did the tobacco companies withstand the reduction of the level of contaminants in cigarettes, they increased it to make smoking more addictive. When one considers that smokers staring death in the face will still continue to smoke, is it not the case that, in tandem with other substance addictions, smokers suffer serious denial and delusion?

Reference has been made to smoking among the young and to peer pressure. I agree with Senator Feighan that the health boards have done a marvellous job in promoting the anti-smoking campaign. A survey was carried out among leaving certificate students in a number of secondary colleges in County Westmeath. A very high percentage of the boys and girls smoked, notwithstanding all the publicity about the risks associated with smoking. It is a social drug, which makes it all the more dangerous. We have drug squads trying to prevent people taking drugs like LSD, yet here we have a social drug killing people on a daily basis and sending many others to our care institutions.

The group drew particular attention to the 2002 decision of the International Agency for Cancer Research of the WHO to declare environmental tobacco smoke a known carcinogen. Research shows that ventilation technologies are inadequate to give workers full protection from the hazards of tobacco smoke. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the US and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists have concluded that even proposed new technologies such as displacement ventilation systems, which may reduce environmental tobacco smoke exposure levels by 90%, still leave exposure levels which are 1,500 to 2,000 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants. That is an important point and should settle the argument that ventilation systems are the answer, because they are not. Senator Feighan referred to this earlier.

The expert group concluded that a smoking ban remains the only viable control measure to ensure that workers and patrons are protected from exposure to the by-products of tobacco combustion. It is very important to bear in mind that the majority of Irish people, 70% of the population, do not smoke. The smoking ban being introduced on 29 March does not come a minute too early. If the same level of discussion and effort applied to seeking loopholes in the legislation was focused on promoting the improved environment which workers and the public can look forward to, those now voicing their concerns would be able to look forward to an opportunity to substantially improve their business and work environments. The fact that the majority of people will benefit is surely the basis on which to plan for the future.

Irish respiratory consultants have backed the proposed workplace ban on smoking, saying it would save many people from a debilitating killer disease. The Irish Thoracic Society annual conference passed a motion urging all politicians, employers, including publicans, and the general public to support the move. Their support coincides with World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness Day. The symptoms of COPD range from coughing and sputum production to shortness of breath. It affects well over 110,000 people in Ireland and accounts for almost 10,000 hospital bed days a year. The conference heard of World Health Organisation statistics which show that Ireland has the second highest COPD mortality rate of 28 industrialised nations, behind only Hungary. We have a place on this graph of which we should not be proud.

Vested interests here may continue to try to divert the debate on the ban away from the core issue of health, but there is no arguing with the fact highlighted by lung experts that tobacco smoking is one of the major risk factors for death and disability in Europe. A recent report from the Office of Tobacco Control indicates that the cost of smoking to the State amounts to around €5 million per day. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out what that costs. We should think of all the projects we could bring on stream if we did not have to spend that money. Not only will this ban save lives, but it will also save our economy money that we can put into other areas.

It is not right to expose workers in Ireland to a carcinogenic that is as dangerous as asbestos and I welcome the Minister's courageous and relentless determination to potentially save the lives of these workers. However, we must live in the real world. We cannot expect to impose the ban everywhere people live. People have rights, even though those rights may sometimes impinge on others.

I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, Ireland holds the European Presidency and should show the way by ensuring the ban is effective. People have asked who will enforce the ban and I believe the public will do it. I do not doubt that. I had a group of visitors in the House yesterday from a retirement club in Mullingar. Two of them left the visitors' bar because of the amount of smoke in the atmosphere. One lady said if she stayed in the bar for any length of time, she would have to be carried out. I commend the Bill to the House and I thank Fine Gael for indicating its support. All right-minded people will support it.