asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that all tobacco advertising has been abolished in Norway since 1975 and that strict regulations were introduced in Sweden in 1979; and whether his attention has been drawn to recent reports that these measures have been followed by a sharp fall in the number of people smoking; and if he is yet prepared to ban similar tobacco advertising here.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tobacco Advertising.
11.
I am aware of the statutory provisions relating to tobacco advertising and the fall in tobacco consumption in the countries mentioned by the Deputy. The provisions of the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Regulations, 1979, restrict the use of advertising media and limit the content of advertising of tobacco products. These provisions are similar in most respects to those in operation in Norway and Sweden.
Figures for the percentage of smokers in the population aged 16 and over show that the percentage of both male and female smokers declined more rapidly in recent years in Ireland than in Norway. In 1973 the percentage of such smokers in the population in Norway was male 51 per cent, female 32 per cent, and in Ireland was male 48 per cent, female 38 per cent. By 1978, the percentage of smokers in Ireland had declined by 8 per cent (males) and 7 per cent (females) compared with a decline in Norway of 6 per cent, males, and 1 per cent, females.
In these circumstances, I do not propose at this stage to amend the current provisions.
Is it not a fact that the purpose of advertising is to sell a product and in the case of tobacco advertising to sell tobacco? This is the reason the Minister's colleague got the Bill relating to tobacco advertising through this House. Is the Minister now saying he believes tobacco advertising has no serious effect on the consumption of tobacco?
As the Deputy is aware, a variety of regulations have been introduced the effect of which is to restrict the advertising media that may be used, to limit the content of advertisements, to require that certain advertisements and packages of cigarettes shall bear one of the prescribed health warnings, to provide for the curtailment of expenditure on advertising and sponsorship, to limit the form which advertising associated with sponsored events may take and to prohibit the use of coupons, gifts, substantial cut-price offers and so on. The measures taken have proved particularly effective and, in comparison with the figures in respect of Norway, our figures are better.
I am pleased the legislation has been used to some extent to restrict advertising, but if it has been so effective why not ban tobacco advertising? If it has been so effective simply by restricting it, why not ban it totally?
The Deputy is suggesting that the measures taken in Norway may be more effective but I have shown that the steps taken in Ireland have been more effective. This is a matter that will require a good deal of consideration.
I am calling Question No. 12.