The decision by Mr Martin not to specify a ban on smoking in pubs is a disappointment. Even though the Minister does say he has the power to introduce a ban once the Bill is passed, it seriously weakens the Public Health (Tobacco) Bill 2001 he published this week.
There are many fine measures in the proposed anti-tobacco legislation, but it is worrying that the Minister has not named pubs and other places of indoor public entertainment.
By omitting a specific ban, he has failed to protect non-smokers from the serious health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
There is strong evidence of the detrimental effects of passive smoking on adults and children. ETS comes from two sources: smoke exhaled by the smoker (mainstream smoke) and smoke from the tip of a burning cigarette (sidestream smoke). Both types contain more than 4,000 chemicals, 43 of which are known to be carcinogenic.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified passive smoke as a Group A carcinogen, placing it in the same risk category as asbestos.
What are the actual risks to non-smokers from environmental tobacco smoke? Those who live with smokers have a 26 per cent increased risk of developing lung cancer. They also have an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease. Passive smoking is the third leading preventable cause of death in the US.
Children, in particular, are victims of passive smoking. ETS causes young asthmatics to have more attacks and also worsens their symptoms. Passive smoke exposure is associated with higher levels of bronchitis and pneumonia. Family doctors report a greater number of chest infections in the children of parents who smoke.
And although it could be argued that children are not in pubs often, many are brought by parents to hotels for weekend afternoon socialising.
A recent study, in the April edition of the Irish Medical Journal confirmed the high level of exposure of children to passive smoke. Secondary school pupils, 265 of them aged 12-17 from Sligo and Leitrim, were surveyed by the Department of Public Health of the North Western Health Board.
Dr David Swann reported a 74 per cent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the wider community. It is not just non-smokers who benefit from clear indoor air policies. Where legislation is properly enforced daily smoking has been reduced by almost 20 per cent.
So why hasn't the Minister been more specific? He said: "We have given ourselves the power in the Bill to ban smoking in pubs and other places." But why not now? A suspicion remains that he avoided a commitment to placate the powerful publican lobby.
But he should draw courage from US evidence that there is a strong consensus for a strict ban on tobacco use. The Minister might also reflect on additional results in the North Western Health Board survey. Seventy per cent of the pupils would like to see more restrictions in public places where people may smoke. In political terms, that is an overwhelming majority.
Mr Martin deserves great praise for so many elements of the proposed legislation. He should complete the package by specifying the public places where smoking will be banned and by giving a firm commitment on its implementation.