Mr. F. McGrath: I welcome the debate on the Bill. I will put forward a different view and back it up with facts from the international and medical fields. I will challenge some of the points raised by Deputies earlier in the debate. I will put forward a different view that may not be politically correct or popular in this day and age, but I will call it as I see it and it will be a straight and comprehensive view.

So far, we have not had a balanced discussion on this issue. The flow seems to be in one direction. We need to examine the facts clearly and see the reality. We also need to respect choice and reject the idea of a nanny state and health police trying to tell people over 18 what they should do in their personal lives. I represent the voices of working people over 18 who want a choice and would like to go to their local pub to have a pint and a cigarette. What is wrong with that? What is the big deal? The point was raised about vested interests. The only vested interests in this debate are people who want to go out and enjoy themselves in a social setting. Despite this, people want to remove it from them.

I respect non-smokers and people who work in the trade. We can protect them and I will put forward proposals to do so but, above all, we must face the reality. Smoking is bad for a person, but too much of anything is bad for a person. Drinking is very bad for a person, as is over-eating. We have a crisis in this country with obesity. These are the realities so let us bring some balance into the discussion.

Environmental tobacco smoke, or passive smoking as it is called, is classified as a human carcinogen by the World Health Organisation. The issue is not about the nature of a carcinogen but what it does. Almost everything we touch, eat and wash can be described as carcinogenic to some degree. I am sure that the Minister for State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, is aware of the number of carcinogens that are present in a cup of coffee, for example. Are we to ban coffee?

On the figures of the numbers of deaths in Ireland, this is a matter about which the Government must be open and honest. A figure of 7,000 deaths in Ireland each year is widely quoted and was widely quoted in the debate as being attributed to tobacco-related illnesses. There is no scientific foundation for such a statement. However, we have all been fed this so often that we have begun to believe it. The figure relates to the number of deaths from cancers in Ireland.

Let us study the figures. The National Cancer Registry of Ireland gives a figure of 7,500 deaths from cancer occurring every year. The most common cancers within this figure are skin, large bowel, lung, breasts in women and prostate in men. It does not indicate that these are due to smoking. These are the facts. The original assertion was a lie. A number of people have quoted this figure in recent months. However, like the figure of 7,000, it is lodged in the public mind and, unfortunately, many people believe it.

The Minister may not be aware that the American Environmental Protection Agency study, which gave rise to this type of figure, was found by the federal courts in the United States of America to have, "knowingly, wilfully, and aggressively, disseminated false information with far-reaching regulatory implications in the United States and worldwide". On account of this, the court ordered a summary judgment against the EPA and nullified the agency's environmental tobacco smoke, ETS, risk assessment.

If one closely examines the expert report that was launched by two Ministers on the day the Minister for Health and Children announced his intention to introduce a ban, it was described by the Minister as being "unequivocal in its requirement for such a ban". Clearly the Minister should examine the report in more detail. The report is couched in numerous caveats, such as "maybe", "could be" and "might be". On one matter it is clear. In its conclusions, it recommends further research to assess the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke, especially in the hospitality industry. The report states: "that such a report is unequivocal in demanding a ban on smoking in the workplace, is bending the truth to an outrageous degree". These are the facts.

We all support proper ventilation. It has been proved that it can be effective, even though listening to the debate in the Chamber and on radio and television, one would think ventilation was not an issue and that air supply could not be improved. The Minister's advisers have shied away from this claiming that outdated technology of one air change per house was ineffective. We moved on from that point years ago. We now have specifications in force for 12 air changes per house. There are pubs throughout the country certified by the health boards as a result of the six-year old, ongoing initiative for clean air in pubs. That is the reality. I accept that some pubs need to get their act together, but they should be targeted and put under pressure by the health boards. One should not blame the average working man or woman—the taxpayers of this country—for the inefficiencies of others.

New studies are emerging about the efficiency of ventilation equipment, for example, the research carried out by the University of Glamorgan. Its research shows that ventilation can be highly effective at protecting bar staff and customers from the adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke. In the United States, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of Tennessee's study of restaurant and tavern workers in 16 cities and more than 1,500 subjects concluded a well-known toxicological principle that the poison is in the dose, and it is clear that the ETS dose is quite low for most people. A study carried out on ETS levels in the Canadian restaurant-pub, the Black Dog, indicated that ETS component concentrations in the non-smoking section were not substantially different from those measured in similar facilities where smoking was prohibited. The WHO suppressed its own 1998 survey results, which questioned the perceived health risks of ETS.

On 16 May, the British Medical Journal published a major peer-reviewed study on the health impact of ETS in California. This major analysis, based on 118,000 California adult studies from 1959 to 1998, concluded that the results of the Californian CPS 1 cohort did not support a casual relation between exposure to ETS and tobacco-related mortality, although a small effect was not ruled out. Given the limitations of the underlying data on this and other studies of ETS, and the small size of the risk, it seems premature to conclude that ETS causes death from coronary heart disease or cancer.

The editor of the British Medical Journal decided it would be a form of scientific misconduct not to publish this study. The research was initially commissioned by the American Cancer Society which then refused to publish it when it discovered the results. It was eventually published with funding from the tobacco industry. I accept that point. It is a fair comment. However, the Health and Safety Authority now claims that it was tobacco industry research, when it was first published in the British Medical Journal.

Let us be honest and open in this debate. I will take criticism directed at me on the question of smoking and health and I will accept the reality, but I also urge people to listen to the debate. The Government's position was taken on the basis of misleading, selective and cherry-picked scientific evidence with all contrary evidence being suppressed. That is my point in the debate. If we are claiming to be democrats, we must be open. If one is claiming to be a progressive democrat one must be twice as open.

Reliance is placed, even in the expert report, on experts who have lost credibility. One such expert, James Repace, was the individual who sought to prove that 150 bar workers died in Ireland every year from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. He now recognises that this as a lie, so that figure should be disregarded.

As someone who likes a drink and a cigarette—I will be open and admit that I smoke—I mix regularly in public houses and talk to bar workers, some 60% of whom in this State smoke. Despite this, people who claim to represent them and lecture the nation on the issue have not even asked them for their views. I do not think it is a very democratic state of affairs. I would also criticise the ICTU in that regard, because it did not consult its members on the issue. There should be a broader debate on this matter.

The proposed ban is based on a selective reading of the report on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace. More research is needed into the level of exposure of Irish workers to such smoke. The health effects of environmental tobacco smoke are far from proven, according to many studies. Those who have come to the conclusion that a smoking ban is the only option have not engaged in a thorough examination of the alternative control measures that could be put in place, such as quality ventilation or smoking rooms.

Some sensible suggestions have been put forward. Why should there not be designated areas where people can have a cigarette and a drink? There is no big problem in that regard. Such a measure would protect staff. Why are the ordinary people being hammered again? I refer to the working men and women who pay their taxes and want to have a break every now and then.

In arriving at the decision to ban smoking, sufficient consideration has not been given to advances in technology which reduce environmental tobacco smoke levels by more than 90%. The report on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace, commissioned by the Health and Safety Authority and the Office of Tobacco Control, acknowledges that the number of studies with direct observation of occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is limited.

The Minister for Health and Children should assess the economic impact of the proposed smoking ban. It is difficult to quantify this impact, but there are serious grounds for concern. I know from travelling in European countries like Italy and Spain that people from such countries will think twice about coming here after the ban has been introduced. They come to Ireland to enjoy particular dimensions of life in this country, such as music and social interaction. We do not have the sun—we have plenty of rain—but we have pubs, music and social interaction. When I spoke to people in Italy earlier this year, a common theme was the level of social interaction in Ireland. People from such countries like to go to Irish pubs to have a drink and a cigarette in peace, but the Minister is telling them that they will not be able do so. I do not wish to engage in scare tactics, but I advise the Minister to pay attention to next year's tourist figures. Tour operators, particularly those bringing tourists from continental Europe and short break visitors from Britain, have expressed concerns that the proposed ban will substantially reduce the volume of their business in Ireland.

Although I am critical of the Government and taking a politically incorrect view, I am also putting forward suggestions that can bring some balance to the debate. At least 50% of each area of a hotel, for example, could be clearly designated as a non-smoking area. I accept that the bar and service counters, where there is a concentration of staff, should be strictly non-smoking areas and that effective air handling and ventilation systems should be in place to provide at least 12 air changes per hour. The performance and maintenance of air handling and ventilation systems should be subject to technical certification, similar to the present certification system for passenger lifts. Clear evidence of the proper maintenance of air handling equipment should be kept on record and made available to health and safety inspectors. Hotel bedroom literature should include leaflets outlining the harm which tobacco smoking could cause. Such sensible suggestions should be considered during this debate, but the Minister, Deputy Martin, the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and others who want to introduce a new nanny state will not take account of them.

I respect the rights of non-smokers such as Deputy Callanan, who spoke earlier about his genuine health concerns. Just as non-smokers should always be facilitated, they should accept the rights of other people. I have said that I do not want to live in a nanny state. We should be able to accommodate each other. The State should be keen to accommodate difference, but the Government is not keen to accommodate the 35% of people who smoke. It will not surrender to those of us who are being hammered. This statement applies equally to other policy areas. There is plenty of room for compromise on this issue. I have urged the Government to carry out the research required from its own report and to consult fully with everybody.

The Government should talk to everybody rather than giving its opinions and lecturing the nation, as such an approach does not work. I have been surprised by the approach that has been adopted. The Minister thought that it was a trendy and popular issue to pursue, while distracting the public from the problems in our hospitals, such as waiting lists. He is engaging in the politics of distraction. I feel that a sensible and productive agreement can be reached which avoids the problems with the current proposal.

Science and truth have been manipulated and betrayed in pursuit of what the perpetrators believe is a legitimate cause - to discourage smoking. This is a clear case of the end justifying the means, regardless of the cost to society. I ask the public to listen to all the arguments that have been made before making an informed decision.

I support sections 4 to 18 of the Bill. Section 4 relates to the "prohibition of advertising of tobacco products" and section 8 provides for the "prohibition of certain marketing practices". I accept that people under the age of 18 have to be defended and that we have to be very careful. There is a need for legislation to deal with the retail sale of packets of less than 20 cigarettes and certain marketing practices.

As the title of the Bill suggests, this is a public health issue. We have a duty to promote public health, but we should not be distracted from certain issues by blaming those who enjoy a cigarette and a pint. There are between 35 and 40 people on trolleys in Beaumont Hospital, which is in my constituency. Why are such people on waiting lists? I do not want to be told that the people in question are smokers. Having visited the hospital and spoken to patients many times, I know that 99% of the illnesses for which patients on trolleys are being treated are not related to smoking. I ask the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to get off the stage in that respect.

My understanding of public health relates to protecting society, defending patients and improving the health services. Although the Government has been in power for almost seven years, over two terms, some people cannot even get a bed in a hospital. It is a disgrace. We should take a reality check when we discuss these issues.

We should wake up to the real problems, such as disability services. I am glad that the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, is present because I have tormented him about this issue for the last six months. Such issues need to be dealt with. While I welcome the fact that last week's budget provided an additional €25 million, when one speaks to families and the almost 2,800 people who are on waiting lists, one is told that another €10 million is needed. The reality is that people with intellectual disabilities and their families were seeking €35 million, but they were given €25 million. The Government gave €15 million to Punchestown, which was absolutely over the top.

I would like to mention the serious and comprehensive Hanly report in this context. Although this is supposed to be a public health debate, nobody has mentioned the golden hour—the first hour after a person is injured, for example in a traffic accident. The Government proposes to move certain services from communities. Most GPs and medical personnel say that there is higher chance of saving a patient's life if he or she is treated in the first hour. This is a public health issue. The Government proposes to relocate services so that it will take people two or three hours to get to a hospital. It is not acceptable.

I will not take any lectures from the health police about the realities. If one speaks to ambulance drivers, nurses, doctors and people in rural areas, one will be told that the golden hour is very important. I am quite lucky because I live in an urban area which is within ten minutes of Beaumont Hospital or the Mater Hospital. People in other parts of the country have to drive for two hours to get to a hospital. The Government is walking away from these issues rather than discussing them. It will not even question them.

I mentioned earlier the rights of workers. As somebody who has been active in the trade union movement for 20 years, I respect the rights of workers. Most of the workers I have met have not been consulted about the proposed ban. Some 60% of workers have said that they will live with a compromise on the smoking issue. Some of them would love to see such a compromise. I know of many non-smokers who like to go to bars to have a pint and to enjoy the smell and atmosphere of smoke. One does not hear that mentioned very often. It seems that people are afraid to say it. I will not take any lectures on morality or health in this regard.

I hope that prisons and psychiatric hospitals will be excluded from the proposed smoking ban. When I spoke to a psychiatric nurse recently, I was told that assaults on staff would increase by 50% if patients no longer had the right to sit down and have a smoke. Serious problems in prisons and hospitals have often been defused when a member of staff gave a cigarette to a person to help him or her to calm down for five minutes. Such problems were resolved in a peaceful manner. Nurses have expressed their concern to me that the Minister's proposals will aggravate matters.

I referred to old folk who have worked all their lives, many of whom are in their 90s. I do not accept that the Minister should decide they cannot have the right to enjoy a drink or a cigarette, whether they be in old folk's homes or at home. The Minister's ideas are off the wall.

In the area of advertising we have a duty to protect citizens. They must be given the correct information. Children must also be protected as they have rights. Adults, however, have rights as citizens. They should always have the right to make decisions. We are supposed to live in a democratic society, though some of us would even question that. There are now people who tell us regularly what we can do in our private and social lives. We must broaden this debate and listen to the facts. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill and put the other side of the case.

If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area. Postal delivery is free within the European Union.

Go To Secure Sales Area

ATHOL BOOKS HOMEPAGE

Past IPR Editorials