James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am very pleased that I have a fellow doctor in the Chamber because I cannot imagine any GP wanting to certify that somebody is fit to use a sunbed, when they know that sunbeds cause damage to the skin. Any tanning is evidence of damage to the skin. They would not want to give a certificate to anybody in their full health to say they were fit to smoke cigarettes. Senator Cullinane's point was there were no half measure when the smoking ban was introduced. They did not ban the sale of cigarettes. They did ban the sale of cigarettes to people with chronic obstructive airways disease, asthma or cystic fibrosis. We live in a free country. Adults are entitled to exercise freedom of choice.

We must be very clear in raising awareness so that people have the full information when they exercise their right to choose to smoke, to use a sunbed or to eat foods with a certain calorie content. I believe the consumer is free to make a choice. We live in a democracy. We do not live in a nanny state.

I will try to explain this in the least controversial or confrontational way that I can. I think the public is with us on these things in a major way. Some 80% of people supported the smoking ban and support what we are doing in relation to plain packaging. I was pleased to get that proposal through the Cabinet yesterday. If we are seen to go too far, in terms of interfering with people's freedoms, we will lose them. If we are overly zealous, and we insist on removing people's rights in certain areas, I think we will get ourselves into trouble. I am not in favour of interfering with the right of people to exercise choice. People need to make informed decisions and to be sensible. We need to continue to raise awareness.

Senator MacSharry's reference to his mother's sallow skin illustrates the difficulty that would be associated with basing a prohibition on skin type. Sallow skin would not necessarily be categorised as skin type 1 or 2. Aside from all the administrative and other problems that would be caused by the measure that is proposed, as a doctor I do not believe I have the right to tell a patient what he or she can or cannot do. I can advise them of what the consequences of different actions would be if they were to choose them. I can hope they are sensible enough to take that advice. As a politician and as a democrat, I do not believe we should go into that area.

I would like to express my gratitude to all the Members who have tabled amendments. I thank them for showing an interest in the Bill and expressing general support for it. I think it shows that the Oireachtas as a whole can and does work, that it has people's public health at heart, that it is trying to protect citizens from harm and, most importantly, that it is prepared to fight to protect our children's health. As part of our duty of care to our children, we must take actions to protect them. When they are old enough to make their own decisions as adults, that is another day's work. Cigarettes are very different in this regard. If a person is already addicted to them by the time he or she reaches the age of 18, can he or she choose to exercise one's judgment at that stage? He or she is already addicted.

On that basis, I cannot accept either amendment. I hope the Senators will understand that. I thank them for their expressions of support for the Bill before the House, notwithstanding the Irish Cancer Society's proposed amendment. I rarely find myself at odds with the Irish Cancer Society. On this occasion, I think that what it is seeking might represent a step too far. Ten, 20, or 30 years from now, perhaps society will have changed and we will have a much more paternalistic approach to life, for lack of a better word, than we do at present. I hope that does not happen.