Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. We have rarely had a victory such as that represented by the Public Health (Tobacco) Act. Both Houses should be complimented on having brought forward this legislation unanimously and with the support of trade unions that were conscious of the safety of their members in the workplace. It is hardly any wonder that the Public Health (Tobacco) Act is being challenged by the tobacco industry. Is that the same industry that from time to time increased addictive substances contained in tobacco products? That ensured that smokers would continue to be addicted, thus sustaining their habit. Dick Turpin may have worn a mask but he was a decent man. This is an outrageous insult to the public's intelligence.

I join with others in expressing sympathy to the family of the late Tom Power. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, I came to know him well. In the embryonic stages of this legislation, I had much contact with Mr. Power whom I found to be a committed and dedicated person in pursuit of the objectives now contained in the Public Health (Tobacco) Act. Since its enactment, the legislation has represented a victory for Members of the Oireachtas, trade unions and society in general. Unfortunately, it was one of the rare proactive measures taken over the years to deal with the scourge of smoking.

As a former smoker, I had great difficulty in kicking the habit. I worked in the psychiatric services where the cigarette or pipe was an integral part of the habits of residents of such hospitals. It does not happen as much as it used to but it was probably associated with their condition. We all welcome this proactive measure because the reactive measures can be seen in our hospitals when people reach the respiratory clinics and may need a lung transplant.

The general function of the Office of Tobacco Control is to promote a tobacco-free society in accordance with the Government policy document Towards a Tobacco-Free Society. In tandem with the experience of the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Power, I was pleased to attend a seminar in Luxembourg entitled "Towards a Smoke-Free Europe". On that occasion, this little dot on the edge of western Europe called Ireland, received resounding tributes for the proactive measures it adopted in the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002. It was pleasant to listen to highly-placed and well-qualified people paying tribute to the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, as well as to the Oireachtas generally. I was pleased to have taken part in that seminar.

Now that the Act has been enforced, it is time to carry out an audit on its success or failure rate. When I entered the psychiatric nurses' training school in Mullingar, most of my colleagues smoked. By the time I had given up smoking, however, of the ten other student nurses only one smoked. That shows that many people had kicked the habit.

Research shows that the number of smokers in Ireland has declined to 23.6% in August 2005, which is less than one in four of the population. That represents a decrease from 31% in 1998, which was almost one in three people. Over the last two years, there has also been a significant drop in the number of cigarettes being smoked, particularly among heavy smokers. However, there is no room for complacency. Almost one fifth of 15 to 18 year olds continue to smoke even though it is illegal for tobacco products to be sold to them. Retailers have to obey the law and we must now turn our attention to more vigorous enforcement of the law in this regard. In particular, leadership within the retail sector must offer more creative solutions to this problem. In addition, we need to acknowledge the reality that cigarettes are affordable, particularly for young people. This issue needs to be addressed as a priority. I agree with my Opposition colleagues that there should be a significant increase in the price of cigarettes.

The problem with tobacco is that it is a legal drug and to some extent it is socially acceptable. In the fullness of time, however, the process whereby people who must now vacate licensed premises to smoke outdoors will bear fruit. They must make a conscious decision to get up from their comfortable seat indoors to got outside in mid-winter to a cold area to smoke a cigarette. Surely some of them will realise that what they are doing is not in their best interests.

This summer, the Department of Health and Children invited submissions regarding the banning of the sale of cigarettes in packs of less than 20. It is my hope that once packets of ten cigarettes are prohibited this worrying trend will decline. Surveys for the Office of Tobacco Control have also found that 92% of under 18s who bought cigarettes were not asked for ID. So much for the laws that this House and the other House pass. We can only enact laws, we cannot enforce them. I ask those whose responsibility it is to enforce the law to do so vigorously in the case of tobacco consumption.

In July, the British Government announced that it plans to raise the legal age for tobacco consumption to 18 and to introduce tougher penalties for retailers who sell tobacco to under age smokers. For retailers who sell tobacco to under age smokers the one simple remedy is to take away their licence. We have to get tough. Perhaps there is something we could think about in implementing the British proposal here. The British Minister for Public Health, Carolyn Flynn, pointed out that the younger people start smoking the more likely they are to become lifelong smokers. Someone who starts to smoke at 15 is three times more likely to die of cancer, due to smoking, than a person who starts in his or her late twenties. That is not a pleasant statistic.

Another measure demanded by anti-smoking groups, which has proved effective in combatting teenage smoking in Canada, is the use of graphic images showing the damage caused by tobacco on cigarette boxes. Belgium is about to become the first EU country to introduce this measure this year. We must continue to target cessation programmes to support smokers to quit.

In March 2003 a Harvard study found that Irish pubs under smoke-free law in Ireland show a 91% lower indoor air pollution level than Irish pubs in cities around the world. A study of air pollution levels in traditional Irish pubs around the world has found that indoor air pollution from secondhand smoking in authentic Irish pubs in Ireland is 91% lower than in Irish pubs located in other countries and cities where smoke-free legislation does not exist. The study conducted by researchers from Harvard School of Public Health and Roswell Park Cancer Institute in conjunction with the Office of Tobacco Control, the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society and the environmental health department in the HSE, western area, assessed air samples from 128 Irish pubs in 15 countries in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. It is ironic that virtually every major city in the world has an Irish pub but only those in Ireland and a handful other cities, primarily in North America, have clean healthy air. That is convincing evidence of the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke.

The Irish law has also brought health benefits to the public as early research indicators have highlighted. Its successful implementation and enforcement is encouraging to other countries which intend to follow suit, including our closest neighbours in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We encourage other countries to do likewise.

Environmental tobacco smoke and the practice of smoking tobacco has been proven to be a known and established carcinogen. One has only to speak with the experts and visit our hospitals for that proof. The challenge by the tobacco industry of this law is grossly irresponsible. I am deeply disappointed but not surprised.