In a Seanad debate on 27th September 2006 on the 2005 Report of the Office of Tobacco Control, I said:

The success of the ban on smoking in the workplace proves that we can successfully change deeply rooted behaviour if we put our minds to it in the right way. Our task now is to ensure that we do not sit back following the implementation of the ban, that we move on the other areas of concern spoken about today.

The evidence shows that although the overall level of smoking remains static, there is a worrying increase, particularly in the numbers of young people and women smoking. How are we going to face up to this? Despite the success of the workplace ban, we should not be tempted into thinking that prohibition is an acceptable strategy in coping with the more general problem, as it is not. Down through the centuries and across the world, states have proved to be very unsuccessful in changing behaviour that is disapproved of. Generally speaking, when people are determined to act, they will find a way to do so whether inside or outside the law. We must persuade people not to smoke.

Research has conclusively proved that education, or propaganda if one prefers to call it that, can only go so far. It has a place in the overall scheme but its effectiveness is quite limited. It seems to become less effective as the level of smoking drops. As we heard today, we are lucky to have a relatively low level of smoking in Ireland, with only one quarter of the population smoking. Those smokers are the hard core and, as such, the most difficult to persuade to change their attitude.

We must face up to the fact that among some groups in society, namely, young people and women, smoking levels are increasing. We are fortunate that research also shows us the way forward. Repeated studies show the most effective persuader against smoking is price.

Significant rises in the price of cigarettes consistently produce significant reductions in the number of people smoking. There comes a point when everybody realises it is simply not worth it to continue smoking. That point is reached when the impact of smoking really hits the pocket. It is not surprising the latest report of the Office of Tobacco Control makes a renewed plea to the Government to sharply increase the price of smoking well above the rate of inflation. Small increases have no effect on changing behaviour while sharp increases do.

In the past, the Government ignored such pleas and we must ask why. Cynics might state the Minister for Finance wants to protect the revenue he raises from tobacco duty. I do not subscribe to that view. The political reluctance to do what is best for the health of the country and its citizens is due to the fact that cigarettes feature in the cost of living index. A sharp price increase in cigarettes would be immediately reflected in the inflation rate.

The inflation-linked index is a show-stopper and as a long-time implacable foe of inflation, I understand that. However, a sensible way out of the dilemma would be to remove cigarettes from the basket of goods which the Central Statistics Office uses in reckoning the monthly cost of living index. The problem would instantly disappear. Once cigarettes were removed from the basket they would not affect the rate of inflation no matter how much they cost. No wider political downside to a sharp increase in the price of cigarettes would exist. Smokers would object but the wider body of taxpayers would not be affected in any way.

Lobbying for a substantial increase in the price of cigarettes while the link to inflation remains is whistling in the wind. We know it will never happen. Serious campaigners against smoking should concentrate on getting agreement to remove cigarettes from the basket of goods used in calculating the cost of living index. If that is done, the political impediment to raising the price will immediately fall away.