Derek McDowell (Labour)

The Labour spokesperson, Senator Ryan, is unfortunately not able to be here today, so I am filling in for him.

I confess to being a little confused about the purpose of the Bill. I am aware that it essentially re-enacts 14 sections of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002, but I am not sure what happened to those 14 sections in the interim period. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify for me whether, during that period, those sections were commenced or which ones were or were not commenced. Perhaps he could also clarify whether there were any prosecutions under those sections that clearly applied during the interim period and whether the view of the Department of Health and Children and the legal advice that it is getting is that the law as we thought it to be will stand up. Are we effectively admitting that the law was infirm over the past year or so, at least in respect of those 14 sections? If so, how stands any prosecution that may have been taken for offences that were created by the 2002 Act? I am interested to hear the Minister of State's clarification of those matters.

The Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Martin, got a fair measure of grief in the Lower House due to the technical oversight, as we shall call it, of not putting the provisions through Brussels. I do not intend to repeat that today. It is remarkable that something of that nature can happen, but I am disposed to believe that it was human error and that, when one thinks of something as a public health measure, one does not think of it concerning trade restrictions. Nonetheless, it is unfortunate that it happened and it is compounded by the delay that arose subsequently in submitting to Brussels the regulations on the smoking ban in the workplace. That does not give the impression of the highest degree of confidence that one might expect from the Department or the Office of the Attorney General. The most important thing to do is to repair the infirmity. The Labour Party will co-operate in doing that and did so in the Lower House.

On the more substantive issue, the figures adduced by the Minister during the course of his presentation are frightening. He referred to 7,500 annual deaths from tobacco related illnesses and listed a frightening number of pretty horrible diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema where smoking is a major contributor and which lead to an unpleasant death. All the figures hide the reality of individual suffering. Many of us have relatives who have been affected by cancer, heart disease and so on, brought on specifically by tobacco-related carcinogens.

Other statistics are more interesting. The Joint Committee on Health and Children produced a report a number of years ago which suggested that 80% of all smokers start smoking between the ages of 14 and 16. This emphasises the importance of trying to discourage kids from starting to smoke. Almost everyone starts smoking at an age when it is actually illegal for them to buy cigarettes. This means we must do everything possible to cut off the various means through which children are encouraged to smoke, such as advertising, sponsorship of sport, vending machines and so on. I know this Bill is intended to deal with some of those means through which children are targeted.

One point that is very striking is the behaviour of the tobacco companies which are huge multinational conglomerates in a very profitable industry. They were not only aware of the addictive qualities of nicotine for many years, they also hid this fact. They had a deliberate plan of concealing it for as long as possible and, to an extent, they continue to deny that nicotine is an addictive substance. It is now proven that they also added extra nicotine and carcinogenic substances to tobacco for many years to ensure they got people hooked, specifically children who were more liable to addiction. This is an unscrupulous industry that has deliberately targeted children to make exorbitant profits.

When dealing with a multinational industry, we must act on a multinational level. There is an overwhelming argument for dealing with this on an EU basis. In that regard Ireland has been to the fore in taking a lead in issues such as the workplace ban and the ban on sponsorship. We saw very clearly what happened with the Belgian grand prix when the Belgian Government attempted to ban sponsorship and the grand prix was effectively pulled by the tobacco company that sponsored it. These companies are profitable and unscrupulous and will do everything in their interest for as long as they can continue to push the weed.

My party supports the smoking ban, as do I personally. I agree that 29 March will be a remarkable departure if those who promised to give up smoking on that day do so. That will bring a further improvement in the numbers the Minister outlined, which I feel are already encouraging. He stated that the number of smokers was now down to 25% of the population, a reduction of 15% or 16% in a short period of time. In the past, the numbers dropped very slowly, perhaps by 1% over a two to three year period. It is probably an exaggeration to refer to the recent reduction as a collapse but it is significant and suggests that with a concerted effort over a whole range of areas — health promotion, prevention of tobacco companies targeting children or trying to break the links between the movie industry, sport and smoking — results can be achieved. What is most important is that it is no longer trendy to smoke in Ireland. That is something which produces a momentum. When smokers are under threat there is a social pressure which is probably the most important factor in reducing the number of smokers. Legislation can play its part but ultimately it is people's evaluation of themselves and social pressure that will bring about the reduction we all seek.

There has been some reference to the nanny state and its effects. This is an argument with which we must engage. The suggestion is that it should be entirely up to individuals whether they choose to smoke. However, there is a likelihood that sooner or later one will become a burden on the State and its taxpayers because one will end up in hospital requiring lengthy treatment. Moreover, passive smoking damages the health of others so it is not a choice for individual smokers and is one they cannot be allowed to make. If we can use the law as well as social pressure to discourage people from smoking, then that is what we should do.