John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. I note his obvious determination to deal with this public health matter, which is also a private health challenge, and restrict, reduce or prevent smoking. To use the Minister's own words, to wage war on this product is commendable. This level of determination is welcome but will, unfortunately, be necessary. He painted a very powerful image in his speech when he said that the customers of the tobacco industry die younger and in greater numbers than the population at large and that in order for the industry to sustain its level of profit, it must find replacement customers. This is a terrible, stark image. The replacement of customers comes from the deliberate and specific targeting of our children. The Minister held up some packages a while ago. I was not even aware of this practice. It is remarkably deceptive, sophisticated, subtle and insidious. This is what we are dealing with. If we attack it head-on in the manner that many people are prescribing we will not really deal with the issue, because we must attack it on several fronts. As well as highlighting the danger associated with the product, we must also move to some sort of cultural change whereby the use of tobacco products is not seen as cool any more.

The Minister will come across some people, in this battle, who will be opposed to the steps he is taking. They will put up arguments about freedom of choice and how we are all adults. The tobacco industry will look on those advocates in the same way as Stalin looked upon the crazier Communist states. He called them "useful idiots". The tobacco industry will look on advocates who make those arguments in a similar fashion.

Sometimes the directives we receive from Europe throw up some very strange situations, bedfellows or positions. Policy objectives in one area sometimes appear to contradict those in another area. This certainly seems to be one such conflict coming from the European Court of Justice - public health versus competition law. I see Senator Norris's argument, although I do not fully understand it. It is similar to several other arguments in law where one can see that the legislation under which the challenge has been brought very often determines the result or priority attaching to the ruling in one area as opposed to another. I have seen it in this country. If one was to bring in legislation dealing with gender equality versus health and safety, very often, a court could come down on one side and those on the opposite side of the argument would feel there was something wrong with the judgement, and perhaps there would be. That is the nature of the judicial process. I do not think there is a conspiracy. Maybe there is but I cannot see it here. I think it is the way the judicial process grinds on in its inordinate fashion.

I commend the Minister on moving to ensure this Bill will bring a sense of policy consistency into the area. It is about time we had it. It is a very short Bill, consisting of three sections. The Minister outlined what those three sections contain in his speech so I do not intend to repeat it. I used to smoke up to about two years ago. Since then, I have taken up jogging. One might not think that to look at me, but I have. When I am scaring the dogs on the back roads of Cork with my puffing and panting, it is not the cigarettes that are causing it. It might be the few extra pounds of weight I am carrying but I would not have thought of going jogging two years ago when I was smoking. These are benefits that I have gained and I am sure many people in my position, at my age and with my physique would also benefit from them. I will say no more about it. We will talk about it again on Committee Stage. It would be remarkable if we could find any amendments to put forward at that stage but we will wait and see. I again commend the Minister. Anything he wishes to do to prevent new customers - our children, in other words - from taking up cigarettes will have my support and the support of the Labour Party. I urge the House to fully accept and embrace what the Minister intends to do.