Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Health and Children debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 2014

Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2013: Discussion (Resumed)

I thank everybody for attending this morning. As we are in public session I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery that mobile phones should be turned off or be in flight mode for the duration of the meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment.

As members are aware, the general scheme of the public health (standardised packaging of tobacco) Bill was referred to the joint committee for consideration before Christmas. Before the Christmas recess, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and the Chief Medical Officer made a presentation to the joint committee by way of introduction to this important legislation. Last week, we heard from a wide variety of groups, as well as the Revenue Commissioners, An Garda Síochána and the HSE. This morning, we are continuing with a fourth meeting in the series that will convene over the next couple of weeks, culminating next week in considering the heads of the Bill. Today we will hear of the potential effects of legislation from a public health policy viewpoint. I welcome all our witnesses this morning from the Irish Medical Organisation, the Irish Thoracic Society, the Institute of Public Health in Ireland, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the TobaccoFree Research Institute of Ireland and St. James's Hospital. I will introduce the witnesses individually as we speak to them.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the long-standing ruling and parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Dr. Matthew Sadlier, president of the Irish Medical Organisation, and Ms Vanessa Hetherington, who is in the Gallery. I thank her for her co-operation for the meeting.

Dr. Matthew Sadlier

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address them on the issue. Ireland has been a global leader in the fight against tobacco since implementing a ban on smoking in the workplace in 2004. As such, it is crucial that Ireland continues to lead the way by legislating for cigarette packaging that is plain and contains appropriate health warnings.

Tobacco is unlike any other product on the market. It is the only legal consumer product that kills when used as intended by the manufacturer. Half of all smokers will die from a tobacco-related disease and not only are 90% of lung cancers caused by tobacco but it is also a contributory factor in 30% of all cancers. A quarter of deaths from coronary heart disease and 11% of all stroke deaths are attributable to smoking, and smokers are two to three times more likely to suffer a heart attack compared to non-smokers. It is also a risk factor for asthma in children. Tobacco is one of the leading preventable risk factors for non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, lung disease and diabetes.

The overall prevalence of smoking is declining but in 2012, some 22% of the population still smoked. Smoking is an addiction that begins in adolescence and according to a survey commissioned by the office of tobacco control, 78% of smokers started smoking before they reached the age of 18, and 53% started before they reached the age of 15. In 2010, some 7.9% of children aged ten to 17 reported smoking cigarettes every week. However, the percentage of children in that age group who report never smoking has increased from 50.8% in 1998 to 73.5% in 2010.

This new Bill provides the opportunity to capitalise on these developments further by reducing the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products to children. The Irish Medical Organisation has long championed efforts to reduce the number of smokers in Ireland, and at our last annual general meeting we passed a motion supporting the Minister for Health’s planned introduction of standardised packaging for tobacco products. As such, the IMO welcomes the tobacco-free Ireland policy and the proposed Bill.

However, the Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill only calls for 65% of the package to be covered with a health warning, which is the minimum required by the forthcoming EU tobacco products directive. The IMO believes this does not go far enough and advocates for 75% coverage by health warnings in order to protect the well-being of Irish citizens. There is a growing body of evidence on the effectiveness of graphic warnings. For example, a Canadian research paper, which surveyed individuals over a ten-year period, found that graphic warnings had a statistically significant effect on smoking prevalence and quit attempts. In particular, the warnings decreased the odds of being a smoker and increased the odds of somebody making an attempt to quit being a smoker. Cancer Research UK reports that all quantitative studies found standard packs less attractive than branded equivalents to both adults and children. Furthermore, a major piece of research by Cancer Research UK and the University of Stirling indicates:

...branded packaging presented positive user imagery and functional and emotional benefits to young people. Conversely, plain cigarette packaging was perceived as unattractive, reduced emotional attachment to the packaging and enforced negative smoking attitudes among young people.

Evidence is already available that plain packaging works. In Australia, the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes spurred a 78% increase in calls to the quitting helpline, according to a new study by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales. Smokers are more likely to consider giving up and they are also more likely to think the quality of their cigarettes has diminished with plain packaging. Research also shows that when young people look at plain cigarette packs, they believe the product is used by people who are less stylish and sociable, and not as attractive to mimic as alternative packaging.

An often cited point by big tobacco companies is that plain packaging will increase illicit trade but a report conducted by Cancer Research UK in 2012 on smuggling and the tobacco industry found that there was no evidence that plain packs increase smuggling or illegal trade in cigarettes. On the smuggling issue, the IMO congratulates the Government on signing the protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products, and this treaty will, we hope, help mitigate the illicit trade of tobacco products globally. These companies try to influence policy for the sole purpose of increasing their profits to the detriment of public health. The IMO is also calling on the Government to place a "polluter pays" type of levy on tobacco manufacturers so they can make a contribution to the health care costs of tobacco use.

The IMO believes that Ireland needs to continue to be a front runner in the fight against tobacco. As such, introducing plain packaging with appropriately sized graphic health warnings would be a crucial investment in the long-term health of the country.

Dr. Anthony O'Regan, the chief executive of the Irish Thoracic Society, may now give his opening address. He is very welcome.

Dr. Anthony O'Regan

I thank the committee for inviting us here today to share our views on the public health (standardised packaging of tobacco) Bill. Over 5,200 people die in Ireland each year from tobacco-related disease. The Irish Thoracic Society represents respiratory health care professionals throughout Ireland and our members include physicians, thoracic surgeons, clinical nurse specialists, scientists and physiotherapists. Every day of our working lives our members meet patients who are seriously ill and dying because of tobacco, and this includes smokers and ex-smokers, as well as non-smokers who have been exposed to high levels of tobacco smoke in their home or work environment. Lung conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and lung cancer are painful, debilitating and often fatal. They are also preventable, and the most powerful form of prevention is ensuring that young people never light up their first cigarette. That is why this legislation is so important, as it represents a major step towards the Government’s vision of a tobacco-free Ireland by 2025, builds on previous initiatives and will put Ireland to the forefront of global health protection

One area of focus is tobacco's relationship to lung disease in Ireland. This legislation is vital for respiratory health in Ireland, as we have high rates of lung disease compared to the European average.

In Ireland lung disease accounts for 20% of all deaths, it is the third most common reason for acute hospital admission, and is the most common reason to visit a GP.

Smoking is the major preventable cause of respiratory illness. Lung disease accounts for over 60% of the 5,200 deaths from smoking annually in this country. Specifically each year in Ireland 1,500 people die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, giving us one of the highest death rates for the disease in Europe, and 1,700 people die from lung cancer. Smoking causes over 85% of these diseases. Smoking has also been shown to exacerbate many other lung diseases including asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, cystic fibrosis and even tuberculosis. Taken with its role in non-respiratory diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, other cancers, and osteoporosis, tobacco kills one out of every two smokers.

Tobacco use is among the biggest causes of health inequalities. Smoking rates are higher in disadvantaged groups and communities and this is where the burden of tobacco related disease is highest. Tobacco accounts for up to half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest groups in our society. Not surprisingly these differences are strikingly reflected in the prevalence and outcomes of respiratory disease. For instance, the mortality rates for lung cancer and COPD are over two-fold higher in the lower socio-economic classes.

Another significant trend is the increasing prevalence of smoking related lung disease in women. It is apparent from the 1970s onwards that the tobacco industry targeted advertising at women. The fallout from increased smoking in women is now apparent. In COPD there is a convergence of deaths and hospital inpatient discharges for men and women that mirrors the trends in female smoking rates. In lung cancer there is a 0.5% increase in female mortality each year and lung cancer is now the main cause of cancer death in women outnumbering breast cancer deaths by 6%. Lung cancer incidence and mortality in Irish women is amongst the highest in Europe.

Smoking causes damage to the lungs long before it results in clinically symptomatic disease. Although the majority of people diagnosed with smoking-related lung conditions are of middle or older age, most will have started smoking in adolescence or early adulthood. In fact, 80% of smokers start and become addicted before the age of 18. This illustrates the importance of early interventions to reduce smoking rates among our teenagers and young adults to ensure healthier life expectancy for our population into the future.

We know that legislation works. Over the past decade Ireland has made great strides in the denormalisation of smoking thanks to the workplace ban, the ban on advertising and on point of sale display. The success of these initiatives is best illustrated by the reduction in smoking in both children - from 21% in 1998 down to 12% in 2010 - and in adults - from 31% in 1998 down to 24% in 2010. We must continue on this path and indeed accelerate our efforts to ensure that today's generation of children and teenagers do not become tomorrow's COPD and lung cancer patients. The introduction of standardised packaging together with graphic images represents a significant step in achieving this goal.

It is clear that marketing works. It has worked on behalf of the tobacco industry to the detriment of the lives of hundreds of thousands of Irish men and women throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century. We now have an opportunity to remove the last vestige of marketing power that the tobacco industry holds and we must grab it with both hands.

Australia introduced standardised packaging one year ago. While it will take time to fully measure the effects of the policy, preliminary evidence shows that compared with smokers who are still using branded packs, the plain pack smokers are over 66% more likely to think their cigarettes are of poorer quality and less satisfying, and 81% more likely to think about quitting on a daily basis. Plain packaging has also been shown to reduce pack and product appeal; increase the impact of health warnings; and to reduce confusion about product harm that can result from branded packs. Most importantly, research indicates that standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of tobacco products to young people who are the primary target for tobacco industry marketing. The campaign in Australia waged by the tobacco industry challenging this policy is clear evidence of the perceived impact of branding on target populations by these companies.

The Irish Thoracic Society would like to commend the Government on its commitment to the introduction of standardised packaging and to all parties for their support of the policy. This again places Ireland as a leader in the global battle to protect public health from the effects of tobacco. In particular, it puts Ireland to the forefront in the implementation of our legal obligations under the UN treaty – the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. By setting an example to other European countries the benefits of the legislation will not be confined to our shores alone. In order to ensure that this and future generations of Irish children, particularly those from underprivileged areas, can look forward to long healthy lives free of tobacco-related illness, we urge the speedy adoption of this legislation by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I thank Dr. O'Regan. The next speaker is from the Institute of Public Health in Ireland and I welcome Mr. Owen Metcalfe, chief executive, and Dr. Helen McAvoy, director of policy. Dr. McAvoy shall speak and she is very welcome.

Dr. Helen McAvoy

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the invitation to address the meeting today. The Institute of Public Health in Ireland is an all-island body established to achieve greater co-operation for public health on the island. Tackling health inequalities, a situation where the poorest people experience the poorest health and better off people experience better health, is a core theme in all of our work. Higher smoking prevalence and tobacco-related harm among the most disadvantaged in society means the Bill is of particular importance to us. The IPH was pleased to forward a written response in advance and our oral presentation will present key issues from the wider paper.

The IPH strongly supports the introduction of standardised packaging under the Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2013. We have carried out extensive work on tobacco and our latest publication, along with the Tobacco Free Research Institute, is entitled A Tobacco-Free Future – an all island report on tobacco, inequalities and childhood 2013 clearly laid out the data on tobacco and childhood, including the legacy of smoking and pregnancy.

The introduction of the Bill is necessary to support Ireland’s goal of being tobacco-free by 2025. It is an important stepping stone for our children on the road to a tobacco-free future. Smoking is a major public health issue with around 1 million people in Ireland smoking at present resulting in a cost of between 6% to 15% of the total health budget being spent on tobacco-related disease.

The institute's key message is that tobacco control works. A trend of lower uptake of smoking among young people in Ireland is consistent from 1998 to 2010. It is the direct result of a stepwise introduction of tobacco control measures that have succeeded in reducing the appeal and accessibility of smoking to young people. These measures have included the banning of advertising, removal of point of sale display and the introduction of smoke-free environments in workplaces and public spaces that "denormalises" smoking for all in society. International evidence shows that the more comprehensive the basket of tobacco control measures adopted the better the results. Therefore, standardised packaging is a logical progression for policy in Ireland.

Our next key message is that standardised packaging works. Systematic reviews, that covered 37 studies screened from 4,518 citations addressing the evidence on standardised packaging, concluded that there are strong grounds for believing that current packaging glamorises smoking and that tobacco products packaged in a standardised colour, typeface and form will improve the effectiveness and salience of health warnings, reduce the misconception of relative harmfulness of various brands, be they lights or natural, and will reduce the overall appeal of smoking.

This week a study, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, again reported a 78% increase in calls to a quitline that was associated with the introduction of standardised packs. The effect of this has been very sustained. We believe that reducing the appeal of tobacco to young people is essential and studies have found that plain packaging was considered a deterrent, particularly by younger respondents. It projects a less desirable smoker identity and further "denormalises" tobacco as a regular consumer product.

We view the development as an evidence-based, logical, cost-effective and necessary response to the tobacco epidemic in Ireland. The World Health Organization has estimated that 20% of all mortality among males and 16% of all mortality among females in Ireland is attributable to tobacco. The current burden of tobacco-related disease, disability and death on this island is unacceptable. There is no age group, social group and family in the State that has been untouched by the loss of a loved one or friend through tobacco-related disease.

Over the past decade Ireland has been successful in improving life expectancy. Many more people can now look forward to living into their 80s and beyond. However, the gift comes with a responsibility to ensure that those extra years are spent in good health and as free of disability as possible. Successful tobacco control is an imperative if the health system is to meet the challenge of rising chronic disease and disability into the future. Reducing smoking is necessary as a means to end human suffering firstly. It is also necessary to contribute directly to a better population health - a cornerstone of human capital and a driver of economic prosperity and growth.

To be really successful in the most cost-effective way possible, tobacco control must extend beyond the use of health education and smoking cessation approaches. It must include evidence-based approaches to reduce the appeal and accessibility of tobacco products to young people and to "denormalise" smoking in society.

The development of the Bill is in line with our current tobacco control policy and Ireland’s commitments as a signatory to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The move towards standardised packaging of tobacco is now beginning to gain momentum across Europe and globally. In the UK in 2012 a consultation on standardised packaging showed consistent and strong support for standardised packaging by all parties with a declared interest in health.

As an all-island body, we welcome a harmonised, evidence-based approach to tobacco on this island. In this regard, we note the passing of a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland this week, whereby the Northern Ireland Assembly agreed that Northern Ireland could be included in amendments to the UK Children and Families Bill, which includes standardised packaging. This is a step in the right direction.

Committee members' support for this Bill, which represents a significant and necessary step forward for tobacco control nationally and internationally, will help to retain Ireland’s reputation as a world leader in tobacco control. The measure will contribute to the goals of the public health policy, Healthy Ireland - A Framework for Improved Health and Wellbeing, to increase the proportion of people who are healthy at all stages of their life, to reduce health inequalities and to protect the public from threats to health and well-being. I thank the committee for its attention.

I welcome Dr. Patrick Doorley, the faculty of public health medicine spokesperson on tobacco from the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland.

Dr. Patrick Doorley

Tobacco is a lethal, addictive drug. It is the most deadly consumer product ever marketed and it kills when it is used exactly as it is supposed to be used. One out of every two people who smoke long-term will die from tobacco. Tobacco kills 5,200 people in the country.

About three quarters of people who end up smoking have started as children. About the same proportion wish they had never started smoking. About the same proportion would like to quit smoking even if they feel they cannot do so right now. We need proportionate measures to tackle the scourge. It is one of the strong policy measures the faculty of public health medicine feels is badly needed.

Smoking prevalence in this country has declined from 29% in 2003 to 21% in 2012. Children's smoking rates have declined from 22% in 1998 to about 12%. The decline can be attributed to three strong policy measures. One is the tobacco taxation policy, which affects children disproportionately, the second is the ban on sales of tobacco in packets of less than 20, and the third is the removal of advertising at the point of sale. The point of it is that strong policy measures work. Government policy measures are among the strongest interventions we have to tackle tobacco addiction. In terms of the economics of tobacco, one of my former colleagues in the HSE has calculated that it costs hospital services alone €300 million per year. The cost to the entire health service is approximately €500 million. This has a huge impact on hospital beds. Government policy aims to reduce smoking prevalence from its current rate, 22%, to 5% by 2025. That is an extremely ambitious target that the faculty supports. It will require a rate of progress much more rapid than we have been achieving to date.

I refer to two systematic reviews of the evidence on plain packaging. I am talking about groups of experts who looked at high quality work. There is a lot of work that is not of a sufficiently high standard to be included in the review. The first review is mentioned by Dr. McAvoy and includes 37 studies conducted in different countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, among men, women and children. The thrust of the studies goes in the same direction. The findings are that there is strong evidence to support the proposition relating to the role of plain packaging in helping to reduce smoking rates, that is, that plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products, would increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings and messages, which is important because they are effective, and would reduce the use of design techniques that may mislead consumers about the harmfulness of tobacco products. In addition, the studies in the review show that plain packaging is perceived by both smokers and non-smokers to reduce initiation among smokers. One year later, the experts looked at the literature again and picked up another 17 studies that had been published after the initial review. The results were exactly the same.

That is the thrust of peer-reviewed research on plain packaging and its impact. It has a greater impact on children than adults in respect of initiation among children. That is very important. That is why the faculty of public health medicine strongly supports the measure. We have a few specific comments on the Bill. The packaging policy should take into account the possibility that variant descriptors, such as menthol and light, can mislead smokers into making inappropriate product attributions. The colour of the brand text, business or company name or variant name is not specified in the Bill and this is to be prescribed in the regulations. We recommend that the findings detailed in the reviews I mentioned relating to colour and perception should inform these regulations. The size and the dimensions of the packs should be specified in the Bill. Members may be aware that some packs are shaped like lipstick containers and these are attractive to young females and probably also to young children. The faculty of public health medicine welcomes the measure and, coming as it does in the context of recent policies in recent years, it brings us one step closer to the day when children in this country can grow up tobacco free.

Our next speaker is Dr. Finbarr O'Connell, consultant respiratory physician at St. James's Hospital.

Dr. Finbarr O'Connell

I thank the Chairman and the members for the invitation to speak to the committee. I work in St James's Hospital and I run a large lung cancer practice so I see the real patients who suffer from the worst disease that smoking causes. Dr. O'Regan has outlined some of these points. Dr. Sadlier said that 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking. In this country, it is 95% and that is not a big difference but it means that practically all lung cancer in this country is caused by it. We re-audit the figure year on year and in our lung cancer practice it is 95% of people. We have very few incidences of non-smoking lung cancer. Lung cancer could essentially disappear as a disease if long-term we were tobacco free as a country. That must be the goal.

Smoking also causes or contributes to many other cancers. Dr Sadlier said that 30% of all cancers are caused by smoking. That is approximately right, and the others include upper airway cancer of the nose, lips, throat, mouth and larynx, oesophageal cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, cervical cancer and bone marrow and blood cancers. All these, which are most cancers, have a contribution from smoking. Smoking probably directly causes 30% of all cancers. Dr O'Regan referred to other chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, COPD. Given that fewer than one in five people smoke, somewhere between one in four and one in five of those people will develop a COPD. That means that one in 20 people can develop a severe chronic disabling respiratory disease, ultimately ending up on long-term oxygen treatment and unable to breathe, at huge expense to the health sector and at a cost of terrible disability to themselves. It is a dreadful disease that is sometimes in the background but should be to the fore in this discussion. The other diseases caused by smoking are ischaemic heart disease, coronary artery disease, angina, heart attacks, cerebro-vascular disease or stroke, peripheral vascular disease, adverse effects in pregnancy and childbirth such as increased rates of pre-term delivery, increased rates of stillbirth and low birth weights. It will also lead to reduced potency and fertility in men, osteoporosis or thinning of the bones, dental and gum disease, cataracts and poor control of diabetes. These are not rare diseases but are diseases that people get, suffer and die from. Tobacco plays a role in most of these diseases. It plays a large role in those I mentioned first.

Quitting smoking reduces all the risks of the above diseases. That has been shown. Previous speakers referred to the long-term aim being the denormalisation of smoking. It is the greatest single preventable cause of death and illness in Ireland and worldwide. Perhaps 6 million deaths per year worldwide, or 7,000 Irish deaths per year, are directly caused by smoking. These are shocking numbers when we reflect on them.

Any legislation or measures which assist in de-normalising smoking must be supported. It is about a change in culture. Undoubtedly there has been a tangible change in culture in this country with regard to smoking. It is very real, it has momentum and this legislation will support that further.

I am not an expert on packaging but my understanding is that attractive packaging encourages young people to take up smoking. Preventing younger people from starting to smoke is essential and will allow the medium-term aim of Ireland becoming a tobacco-free country to be realised. The Irish body politic has shown global leadership in the area of anti-smoking legislation and must be congratulated for that. This Bill represents an important further step on the road.

Thank you Dr. O'Connell. I welcome Professor Luke Clancy and Dr. Kate Babineau from the Tobacco-Free Research Institute and invite them to make their opening statement.

Professor Luke Clancy

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the invitation to address them on this important public health issue. I represent the Tobacco-Free Research Institute, whose aim is to investigate and support the development of a tobacco-free society by engaging in research on all aspects of tobacco from a public health perspective. The institute was set up by the Department of Health and Children in 2002. At present, I am the director general of the institute and am also a respiratory physician. Like my colleagues, I have spent most of my clinical life treating patients with smoking-induced lung diseases. I am almost exclusively involved in research at present so most of my presentation will be about the research aspects of tobacco control.

The institute has been seminally involved in the evaluation of the smoke-free laws that were passed earlier and is also involved in a number of EU-funded projects examining price and taxation. I have prepared some data on the ill-effects of smoking but the committee has already heard much of it from previous speakers so I will not rehearse it in great detail. However, I feel it is justified to restate that tobacco causes heart disease, cancers, stroke and numerous respiratory diseases, including asthma, COPD, lung cancer and respiratory infections, including tuberculosis. Smoking has an effect on children in the womb and in childhood. It is responsible for many of the complications of pregnancy and remarkably, sudden infant death syndrome. In young children, it causes ear and other infections and neuro-biological retardation. We all know the damaging health effects of tobacco and it is difficult to understand how we tolerate them.

In terms of our research, I particularly want to mention the issue of illicit trade. The committee may hear from the tobacco industry that this legislation will increase illicit trade in tobacco. If the industry is really against illicit trade, it should sign up to the WHO protocol on illicit trade. That would show the industry's real intent. We have examined in great detail the illicit trade in tobacco in Ireland and all over Europe and our results are very different to the data put forward by the industry. In our study, for example, we found that 4% of packs were identified as illicit and roughly 10% as non-domestic duty-paid, giving a total of 14.9%, but the figure in the KPMG report for the industry is 20%. I would caution the committee that when it is presented with figures on illicit trade, it is important to check that the methodology used to estimate those figures is given. For obvious reasons, it is very difficult to measure illicit trade accurately but there are validated methods and we have used these. We have also declared our methods but the methodology is redacted from the aforementioned KPMG report. I would urge the committee not to accept figures on illicit trade which do not include full details on the methodology used and which are not peer-reviewed. It is no good just bandying about figures on something which is so hard to accurately measure.

In the context of this law, we must ask what else works in terms of tobacco control. We have heard from many of the previous speakers regarding price, banning advertising of tobacco and restricting its sale to children all work. Smoke-free registration also works, as does regulating the packaging and labelling of tobacco products. The use of mass media to promote a life free from tobacco and smoking cessation services are also effective. All of these are both effective and cost-effective and they need the support of this committee. It has also been found that what works for adults also works for children. This is probably because children want to be adults. Schemes focused directly on children are not always very effective.

However, in international studies, price is the most important measure in tobacco control. We have studied the role of different strategies in Ireland, using what is called the SimSmoke model, and have shown that in Ireland too, price has been the most successful tool in reducing the prevalence of smoking from 34% in 1998 to 26% in 2010, representing a 22% relative reduction. However, the committee should note that the same rate of progress, which was very good, will not get us to 5% in 2025. Better and more interventions are necessary in that regard.

Regarding the evidence for plain packaging, it has been rehearsed already and I will not go into the detail again. However, I will reiterate the point that plainly packaged tobacco products are perceived as less attractive, of poorer quality and taste and, more importantly from the perspective of children, less cool and sophisticated. Plain packages increase one's ability to recall health warnings, the type, size and positioning of which are important. We have been mocking up the type of packs that may result from this legislation, as derived from the heads of the Bill and the EC directive and they are very different from what is currently available.

The committee has heard that a public opinion poll conducted here showed that the introduction of plain packaging would be popular. A huge majority is in favour of this approach. We also found this to be the case with smoke-free legislation. We also found that after the legislation was introduced, it became even more popular. The committee need not be worried that the people will not support this legislation.

The committee may have noticed that many people are not sure how this is going to work in practice. This highlights the need for planned implementation of the legislation and focused, independent monitoring of the resulting effects of the law. Therefore we strongly recommend that the committee ensures that this legislation is not only introduced, but also that resources are provided to ensure that appropriate research is conducted to measure its effectiveness and to meet the predictable challenges of a malevolent industry which will claim to have negative data.

In conclusion, I commend the Oireachtas for its commitment to the introduction of standardised packaging and for securing all-party support for this policy. In particular, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, who has restored momentum to the legislative approach to tobacco control in Ireland and made a major contribution to EC tobacco control, where his work on the tobacco product directives has greatly enhanced Ireland's EC standing. As the committee will know, during Deputy Martin's time as Minister for Health and Children, Ireland's standing was at its highest, with the introduction of smoke-free legislation and the setting up of the Office of Tobacco Control and our own research institute. During the tenure of Ms Mary Harney, that momentum was lost, to the amazement of our international colleagues, who are now once again looking to the Oireachtas for leadership in the battle to protect our citizens from chronic disease and premature death. I have every confidence that the Oireachtas will give this leadership and that our children and future generations of Irish men and women will live longer and healthier lives, free from the profit-driven scourge of tobacco-related diseases. This can be done be ensuring speedy implementation of the legislation, by making sure that Ireland persists in using all other tobacco control interventions that scientific research has shown clearly to be effective and by supporting the continued monitoring of the health and social effects of these interventions through independent, scientific research.

I welcome the witnesses. We welcome the fact that they have come to give a presentation on the subject before us. They have reinforced the views that are widely held by everyone, in particular in terms of the clinical outcomes of smoking and the impact it has on people's lives and health. We are probably all in agreement that we must do everything we possibly can to reduce smoking. Based on the clinical experience of the witnesses, the prevailing view seems to be that when a person starts smoking they will, in effect, be smoking for life. That is what the tobacco companies hope, and if a person dies then they have to recruit someone else at a young age to take up smoking and keep the momentum going in terms of sales and marketing.

It was said that we must ensure standardised packaging is introduced in terms of size and shape so that one will not have packaging that looks like lipstick or other attractive designs aimed at young people. What specific issue within the confines of the Bill on standardised packaging of tobacco should we include to ensure that we keep a genuine focus on reducing the consumption of tobacco?

Several speakers outlined why 22% of the population smoke. It will become more difficult to reduce the number of smokers in the future. We have extremely well-resourced forces against us. International tobacco companies are hugely resourced and well organised and there is massive support in terms of other professional bodies that support them because they are funded by them. We are a small player in a powerful fight. We all know that if tobacco was discovered tomorrow and brought to our shores it would be an illegal substance and would not be allowed in. We are where we are and we must try to row back on the situation. I am interested to hear whether there is something else we should include to strengthen the legislation or that we could recommend to Government for future legislation if it is not possible to incorporate it in the Bill under discussion.

I do not know what would prompt Professor Clancy to suggest that politicians would even look at polls to make suggestions or that we would define a policy in order to be popular. That would not enter our minds at all. I smoke from time to time. I have tried to stay off cigarettes for most of my life. I am shattered when I see young children smoking. Given what we know now based on clinical and empirical evidence across the world there is no logical or good reason to smoke. When we were growing up the advertising campaigns were starting to say that smoking was bad but I can remember the Marlborough man advertisement. Are there other ways in which we could target smoking? Given the resources available to the State in terms of legislation or taxation and focusing on advertising and education what steps could be taken to discourage young people in particular from taking up smoking? The role models for young boys in many cases are health conscious sports people, for example, soccer players, rugby players and hurlers among others. We have a cohort of young girls in particular whose role models are not necessarily positive in terms of why they are famous. One sees the message given by waif-thin models and the association there is with smoking. All those things are being portrayed in a covert way by powerful forces. We must examine that area as well. Standardised packaging of tobacco will help but I am keen to hear whether there is anything else we can or should do either in the Bill under discussion or in another public health policy area to focus on young people in particular, especially young girls, because the statistics suggest that they are vulnerable in terms of the implications on their health and in the longer term on the health of the nation.

I very much welcome the panel of experts who have addressed us and attended the meeting this morning. The exercise is unchallenging because every member of the committee here present shares the view and outlook of the witnesses. They have no project to peddle to convince us. I do not know if anyone will take up the role of devil’s advocate and try to argue the contrary position. I will not, but I will try to tease out some of Dr. Sadlier’s comments. He should please understand that I support the legislation. There is no question of our shared position on this matter.

Dr. Sadlier referred to evidence that is already available. I did ask in a number of earlier engagements on the matter for witnesses to show the evidence that this is a worthwhile step and that it is not just to give the impression of doing something. I really want this to be meaningful and that it will do as it says, dare I say, on the pack. Dr. Sadlier said evidence is already available that plain packaging works. He went on to make the point that plain packaging spurred a 78% increase in calls to the quit line. I am taking an awkward position; that could mean that four people had previously decided to quit and three more joined them. It really does not tell us an awful lot. Can we seriously argue, as the New South Wales study suggests, that there was a 78% increase in the number of people contacting the quit line because of the introduction of plain packaging? I would love to think that were the case but I am sceptical. It is important that we have strong arguments to convince more and more people that this is a meaningful and worthwhile exercise.

Dr. Sadlier mentioned that when young people look at plain cigarette packs they are considered less stylish and not as attractive. The experience today is that one cannot see cigarettes on sale in a retail outlet because they are shielded from view. An earlier comment was made to the committee – it might have been by the Minister – that in social settings young people can see cigarette packs sitting on a table in a bar, lounge or other social setting. Dr. Sadlier was correct to give credit where it is due. Deputy Micheál Martin, when Minister, championed the end of smoking in the workplace and social settings. That recognition is deserved. Nevertheless, from my personal observation of the situation, on social occasions one finds that men have cigarettes in their pocket. They are no longer on the table in front of them beside their pint. There is no ashtray as there is no smoking. Women invariably keep cigarettes in their handbags. They do not take them out until they are outside the door or in a smoking environment.

Consequently, they now are less a tool of promotion then when they were something on a table before other young people.

As for the idea of it not being as attractive to mimic, I noted that in the introduction to Dr. O'Connell's submission, he spoke of how attractive packaging plays an important role in enticing young people to take up smoking and then advocated plain packaging with graphic health warnings. However, the current packaging has such graphic health warnings, which rightly are absolutely horrendous. Consequently, I am unsure whether there is a cohort of young people who would think the current packaging is any less horrific than if it were plain with the same photographic depictions. As I do not know, I am just teasing this out because the witnesses could go through this exercise, after which they will go away and members will go away until the next session, which might be a wee bit more interesting. This is not to take away from the importance of this engagement but we must tease this out a little and I asked witnesses to accept my contribution in that spirit.

I have just two further points to make. I wish to record my thanks to Dr. O'Connell's colleagues, as I recently have been a guest of his fine hospital.

Dr. Finbarr O'Connell

I am sorry to hear that.

No, I simply wish to record my sincere personal thanks to the coronary care unit in St James's Hospital. However, I note that Dr. O'Connell's sentence, "this Bill represents an important further step on the road" did not complete the sentence with "to a tobacco-free Ireland". I emphasise that is something to which we all are agreed. I have one minor point in respect of Professor Clancy's statement "to realise that longer and healthier and more prosperous lives are possible without tobacco". I would change "possible" to "guaranteed". While that is where I am coming from, I would like to tease out the point that the joint committee is not going through this exercise just for the sake of doing something. Members need to grapple with this and I wish to be a part of creating a tobacco-free Ireland.

I thank all the witnesses. I do not have a specific question because they have provided compelling evidence to the joint committee today. I use the word "evidence" because while members have heard evidence in other submissions, I discount it if it is being funded by the tobacco industry. However, the witnesses have provided members with highly compelling evidence. Dr. Finbarr O'Connell stated that 95% of lung cancer patients in Ireland are directly linked with tobacco and everyone can think of someone he or she knows who had or has lung cancer. Consequently, that was quite a startling figure for me in respect of the realisation that so much is within our grasp to improve people's health. Last week, representatives of some children's groups appeared before the joint committee and gave members compelling evidence about marketing and the attractiveness of the product. I refer to the different sized boxes to which the witnesses referred and the bright sparkly colours that are used and which are attractive in nature. Obviously, the witnesses also have given members the health warnings, particularly for children, and I had not heard of the prenatal factors in such a compelling way. This is very important for the joint committee as it proceeds with these hearings. I think the opening sentence Dr. Matthew Sadlier used was that it is the only product that, if used as intended, kills. That is the basic fact about it. As for the fact that 78% of people will start before the age of 18, either the tobacco industry's marketing campaigns are marketing to the wrong people or they are targeting children and I believe it clearly is the latter, because if that is the rate of take-up, it is well past any margins of error.

I thank the witnesses. Their evidence has been very useful. I hope the evidence that has emerged this morning will be publicised. Unfortunately, it is not what always makes the headlines but I believe the public must be informed of the effects of smoking right across the health spectrum, both directly and indirectly.

I will now call on three members who have indicated their desire to contribute, namely Senator Colm Burke and Deputies Mitchell O'Connor and Fitzpatrick.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for all the work they have done and are doing in this area. It is very valuable and they are making a huge contribution in this regard. One point on which I wish to touch is the high level of smoking within the poorest socioeconomic areas. How do the witnesses think this issue can be tackled? While legislators can make all the changes in legislation that are required, I have spoken to a number of people working in clinics in public hospitals who note the level of smoking is quite high. I even spoke to someone who was running a high-risk pregnancy clinic who advised me of a patient who presented recently and who was smoking 300 cigarettes per week. The person worked out that the cost of those cigarettes was greater than the amount of the social welfare payments she was receiving. Therefore, this indicates there must be a very high level of sales of illicit cigarettes in some of those areas. How should one deal with such areas in respect of the education process, because we do not appear to be making as big an impact in some of these areas as is the case elsewhere? From the witnesses' own experience, how should this problem be approached? One must approach it at the outset from the perspective of younger people but one must also approach parents. The witnesses may have some ideas in this regard, as I believe much work remains to be done in that area and it is important that it be tackled. I again thank all the witnesses for their contributions this morning.

I thank the witnesses, for whom I have great respect. They are doctors who deal with people and who know about those who have suffered from tobacco-related diseases. Dr. O'Connell should again name all those diseases for the benefit of those who may be watching in on proceedings or for those who are present in the room. I ask him to repeat that list for the benefit of the public, in order that people might realise all the different cancers and diseases he mentioned. I should add that I used to smoke in the past and found it really hard to give up cigarettes. One reason for this was that the brand in question, which I will not name, had a purple and white box and if I saw it anywhere in the pub, I would approach strangers and ask them for a cigarette. I am ashamed to say that but advertising does work. This is the reason there is an advertising industry. If one visits any shops on Grafton Street, they live and die by advertising.

I will start my questions with Professor Clancy. It will be an easy question for him because he is an expert in the field. Members have been told that 50 young people must be recruited each day to make up for the number of people who die from cancer. Why do Irish children take up smoking? They appear to take it up much earlier than children in other countries. Can Professor Clancy specifically define the reason for this? As legislators, can members do more in this regard? Perhaps the advertisement Professor Clancy circulated to members could be displayed on the committee room's video cameras, as it shows how awful are the diseases that smoking causes. Had I seen such pictures of rotten teeth and horrible decayed-looking lungs when I was younger, that would have stopped me from smoking.

My next question is directed towards Dr. O'Regan. In the past, I was a school principal and I am aware that some students smoke because they believe it helps them to lose or keep off weight. Perhaps Dr. O'Regan could comment on this. Is that a realistic viewpoint as young girls in particular are smoking for dietary reasons? The representatives from the Institute of Public Health in Ireland might tell me what can be done on the island of Ireland to make sure that smoking rates are brought down to the levels of those in, for example, California, Canada and Australia. Certain groups of doctors who are present this morning have mentioned that people from the lower socioeconomic groups, and girls in particular, are taking up smoking and continue to smoke even in spite of all the medical health messages being sent out.

I thank the witnesses for coming here. Over the past number of weeks I have learned a lot about smoking. There is not a day passes that I do not comment that your health is your wealth, and smoking can seriously damage your health.

As was stated over the past number of weeks, over 5,200 people die in Ireland each year from tobacco-related disease. I did not realise that it was the third most common reason for acute hospital admission. They are keeping the doctors in business. It is the most common reason to visit a GP, which speaks for itself.

Half of all smokers will die from tobacco-related diseases. If that does not put people off, I do not know what would. My father died of lung cancer at the early age of 74. Some 90% of lung cancers and 30% of all cancers are caused by smoking. One quarter of all deaths from coronary heart disease and 11% of all stroke deaths are attributed to smoking and smokers are two to three times more likely to suffer from a heart attack compared with a non-smoker.

According to a survey commissioned by the Office of Tobacco Control which really shocked me, 78% of smokers start before they reach the age of 18, and 53% before the age of 15. As a parent of three - two girls and a boy - it is just the two girls who smoked. I am convinced the reason they started to smoke was peer pressure. There were a couple of girls in here last week who stated that, in a school yard or in a corner, the most popular thing for a girl was to have a cigarette in one hand and a coloured-labelled package in the other. That is alarming. In 2010, 7.9% of children aged ten to 14 reported smoking cigarettes every week. That is most alarming. That is something we will have to push against. The good news was that the percentage of children aged ten to 17 who reported never smoking has increased, from 50.8% in 1998 to 73.5% in 2010.

Professor Clancy stated that, in international studies, price is the most important measure in tobacco control and has been the most successful tool in reducing the prevalence of smoking, from 34% in 1998 to 26% in 2010, representing a 22% relative reduction. With the laundering of illegal tobacco, it all merges together. I wonder can he elaborate. If we keep hiking the price up, will that stop people smoking or will it help the market in smuggled cigarettes? As I stated, your health is your wealth. It is important that we discourage young people from smoking.

I will hand back to the witnesses, starting with Dr. Sadlier.

Dr. Matthew Sadlier

I will address the points raised in order. First, what the IMO would call for in the proposed legislation is that Ireland would not necessarily merely opt for the minimum percentage of the package mentioned in the European directive and that we would increase, to 75% rather than 65%, the percentage of the package containing the health warning. That would be one change to the proposed legislation, to answer Deputy Kelleher's question, that we see as a positive move.

In response to Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions, there is strong evidence. If the packaging was a medication, it would probably be licensed to treat the conditions given the beneficial effect it would have. There is also evidence from the psychological literature to show that human beings will respond more emotively and viscerally to visual images than to words. Human beings seem to be primed towards biologically directed images. It is quite easy to understand how. Images of diseased organs, etc., will cause a stronger visceral response and a reaction of disgust in more people than will clinical words. Where packaging contains warnings that smoking contains all these fancy chemical names, to a large number of the population that could be a vitamin or something toxic. At that level, people do not necessarily know.

This is a fight that will have to be fought on a number of different fronts. The packaging is certainly an important element of it. My organisation has called in the past for a ban on smoking in the vicinity of playgrounds. It would be sensible if there were restrictions or guidelines on the representation of smoking in the media. If a celebrity is seen coming out of a nightclub in a particular dress, the shop that sells it will have a run on its products. The thrust of policies should involve a restriction on displaying celebrities or persons of prominence smoking in newspapers.

Dr. Anthony O'Regan

As a clinician and someone representing the clinicians who look after those with lung disease, I will try to focus on those issues. Deputy Kelleher asked about packaging. I suppose we have concentrated in this discussion on primary prevention but a big impact also is secondary prevention to try to get those who come into our clinics to stop smoking and address those issues.

If one stops smoking at 30, 40, 50 or 60 years of age, one gains years of life and productivity in life. One measure would be to get access to smoking cessation services. If one comes in and is already addicted to smoking, how do we improve that? There has been some suggestion it would be better if we could put a short line on the cigarette package so that the 81% who think they may quit on a daily basis would have better access to smoking cessation services, and an important knock-on effect may be investing more in those smoking cessation services.

We spoke about young people and smoking. As the committee will be aware, in the United States the next step along the line is Tobacco 21. Dr. O'Connell spoke about this. It is illegal to buy cigarettes, if one is under the age of 21, in New York and in certain cities in Massachusetts. Needham, in the middle of Boston, is one. Where other cities less than a mile away do not have this legislation, it still impacted on young people smoking. We could bring in legislation like that.

Following on from the issue with young women who do smoke more than young men now, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor is correct that there may be an issue relating to body image and weight loss. That is a problem. We have difficulty addressing it because of the peer pressures in this group. However, I would look at it a different way. The amount of sport uptake and professionalism in sport among women has expanded. There was a great image, that created a furore last week because the Super Bowl was on, of the quarterback smoking in the 1967 Super Bowl. Everyone thought it was extraordinary that sportspeople smoked in those days. Of course, it does not happen now. With more promotion and investment in the professionalism of sport among women, and all this positive energy that has come from sporting women, hopefully, we can move that idealistic issue of smoking to loose weight, which has impacted on men over the years as well, into the sporting arena.

There is another point that the committee should be aware of. A woman who smokes, per cigarette, is more likely to get lung cancer and other lung diseases than a man who smokes. Women are more susceptible to the effects of cigarette smoke. We are looking down the line at the impact the increased smoking in women over the past 20 years will have on the next 20 years. That is a scary vista because of the age of onset of this disease.

On the basis of this list of diseases that people get, Dr. O'Connell mentioned all the cancers but we have mentioned chronic obstructive lung disease and lung cancer. Asthma affects 7% to 15% of the population and smoking plays a major role in the exacerbation and possible cause of asthma. There is a disease called idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis that, if we were to list it as a cancer, would be the eighth commonest cause of cancer mortality in this country. Some 60% to 70% of it is caused by smoking.

On infections, we know that in tuberculosis, TB, the outcomes are worse in smokers. Whereas people think TB is not that common, it is still common. Other infection outcomes are probably also worse in those who smoke. The list goes on and on in terms of the lung diseases that we see.

My last comment relates to this issue of whether there is evidence that this will make a difference. All I would say is we do not yet have the evidence because this is new. In Australia, they are prospectively evaluating this and, hopefully, more evidence will come forth. It is pretty clear that if people find cigarettes less satisfying, if they perceive that they are of not as high a quality, which is what is coming out of Australia, they are less likely to smoke. Although we are not yet there with the facts and figures, because we are leading the way, hopefully, in two to five years time the evidence will be more compelling for this.

Dr. Helen McAvoy

I welcome the positive remarks and the clear commitment from the committee members on this issue. They were very heartening.

On the comments on the specifics of the Bill, it is worth considering the point on the 75% warning and considering further the issue of pack size and wrappers for roll-your-own cigarettes. This was mentioned by Mr. Gavin Maguire last week.

Deputy Kelleher mentioned the Marlboro Man. Sadly, I understand that the fourth Marlboro Man passed away in recent months from a tobacco-related disease. It is important to mark that as a story about the real legacy of tobacco advertising.

On the impact in Australia and the quit-line raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, I have the details of the relevant study to hand. If members permit me, I will detail how it was conducted. It was a whole-of-population interrupted time-series analysis in New South Wales that examined the number of calls that occurred in the months before the introduction of graphic warnings in 2006 and thereafter. It also examined the increase in calls that occurred on and after the introduction of plain packaging. It reported a 78% increase in the number of calls with the introduction of plain packaging, from 363 per week to 651 per week. That is statistically significant. The peak occurred four weeks after the initial appearance of plain packaging and it has been prolonged. With the introduction of graphic health warnings in 2006, there was the same relative increase but the effect was not as prolonged as that observed with the introduction of plain packaging. Some 40 weeks or so after the introduction of plain packaging, there was still a sustained increase in the number of calls to the quit-line. This is significant. We do not have the data yet to indicate what is happening regarding smoking prevalence but the statistics we have are good enough for me at this stage.

The decline in the number smoking was mentioned in the presentations. We constantly receive messages regarding the German model of education. Why do we need the legislation if the number of smokers is decreasing?

It has nothing to do with education; it has to do with taxes.

I understand that.

Dr. Helen McAvoy

The number of people smoking is decreasing, but not fast enough. It is still at an epidemic level.

Will what is proposed assist?

Dr. Helen McAvoy

This will assist.

The tobacco industry referred to packages as mobile billboards in terms of their utility as a means of instilling brand identity and ideas about their products. New studies from the United Kingdom conducted by Professor John Britten show that product placement and indirect advertising of tobacco products in movies and television programmes watched by young people are on the increase substantially. Product placement is a great way to get one's mobile billboard on the screen. One may not have it on one's table in the café or in schools but we need to be very careful about this. What I describe is the new strategy for advertising. Data are available from the United Kingdom to indicate product placement of tobacco in the films and media young people are watching is on the increase. This is very difficult to handle because we live in a multimedia world. Children have content on their telephones by way of social media and they see movies, but the tobacco industry would not be quite so keen to show standardised packaging in a movie.

Points were made on progress on the island by Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor. Minister Poots indicated very recently that the legislative consent motion is due to be debated through the UK Children and Families Bill but at least the North is in the fray in that the amendments could apply to it. Minister Poots has indicated his commitment to addressing tobacco-related harm in any way he can. We are moving towards having a united view on that across the island.

Reference was made to the programmes in California, Canada and Australia. The point reinforces the fact that the more comprehensive the programme, the better the results. I will be very interested in seeing the outcome regarding the proposal to have a minimum age of 21 and I will keep every close eye on its effectiveness as a measure.

One cannot buy alcohol before a certain time in off-licences. Teenagers and young adults can enter a shop and buy cigarettes at any time of the day or night if they can produce identification. Should this be a factor in our approach?

Dr. Helen McAvoy

We could examine it. I am not sure what the evidence is on restricting the hours of sale, if that is what the Chairman is referring to. We should examine the minimum age first. It is being trialled in other areas. There could be further developments on this as progress is made.

I wish to address inequality and the approaches that need to be taken in this regard. We need a broad social-determinants-of-health approach that seeks to improve the circumstances of those who are most likely to take up smoking. A particular issue arises with regard to the role of women, including mothers, in modelling smoking behaviour for their children. A conclusion we reached in our report was that there is a need to better integrate smoking cessation strategies into child and family services and early-years services that are now being located in certain areas, particularly disadvantaged areas. It is important to promote the welfare of families in which the parents are not modelling appropriate behaviour for their children and to protect children from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke in the womb – second-hand smoke – and reduce the risk of their taking up smoking. We need to improve the integration and referral pathways to smoking cessation, particularly in respect of family and maternity services. This would be a tangible improvement in addressing inequalities.

Dr. Patrick Doorley

With regard to plain packaging, I do not want to repeat what other witnesses have said; suffice it to say that owing to the Clinton settlement with the tobacco industry in the 1990s, many previously secret documents had to be published by the industry. Tobacco executives are on record as saying a package is an advertising medium. They believe this very strongly.

The two systematic reviews I mentioned cover over 50 studies. We cannot get into these now but I find their evidence very compelling. We will just have to evaluate the arrangement when we put it in place.

There is a point in the effort to improve public health at which one must make a decision based on the level of evidence. We are past that point now. The proposal will remove the last vestiges of advertising, apart from Internet advertising, of tobacco in the State. That is good.

Regarding the other steps we need to take, this Bill will be very powerful. One Bill can achieve only so much, however. Where tackling the smoking problem overall is concerned, there is no intervention that will be successful on its own; there is no magic bullet. What we need is a suite of interventions and strong policy measures coupled with other measures. The World Health Organization has listed what it considers to be the five or six most effective measures. Examples include the monitoring of tobacco use, the monitoring of the tobacco companies and prevalence, and offering help to those who want to quit. The latter is extremely important and we need to offer more help. People sometimes need to make six or seven attempts before they quit, and they need to be supported in that. Many people can quit without support but the health service needs to support those who need help.

At a recent meeting we discussed that issue. On the subject of providing assistance to those who wish to stop smoking, do the delegates, as medics, have a view on whether products such as Champix or nicotine patches should be allowed to be sold over the counter in retail stores as opposed to pharmacies?

Dr. Patrick Doorley

Some of the products are sold in retail stores. They double one's chances of quitting. We should encourage the prescription of those drugs, where appropriate. It is obviously a clinical decision. There is a need for much more support to help people to quit.

Let me refer to the denormalisation of tobacco. Smoke-free campuses in hospitals, health centres, administration centres, local authority campuses and playgrounds should be encouraged. We should encourage private employers to have smoke-free campuses.

That sends a message to society, and to children in particular, that smoking is not normal behaviour. The more we can disseminate that message through legislation or encouragement, the better.

Tobacco taxation is the single most effective measure for cutting smoking rates. Smuggling is an important problem but its extent has been exaggerated. To the extent that it is a problem, inter-departmental action should be taken to address it. The tobacco industry is only too happy for what it regards as high prices to be undermined by smuggling. It should be noted that in years when tax rates were not increased the industry imposed its own price increases despite screaming about the impact of high prices.

People can be wary about public campaigns because of questions about their value for money but a strong body of evidence has been amassed on how to target messages at, for example, lower socio-economic groups, how to engage people and how new media such as Facebook and Twitter can be used to reach younger people. New media make it possible for people to support each other online.

There is no single solution, however. We need to intensify everything we are doing at present. If we are to achieve the goal of 5% prevalence by 2025, our rate of progress needs to be much better than is currently the case.

Dr. Finbarr O'Connell

The Chairman asked why we need this legislation. It will help to maintain momentum in reducing smoking further, with the long-term aim of making us tobacco free. God forbid this legislation would not be enacted because that would result in a decrease in the momentum.

In regard to Deputy O'Connor's question, I will not rehearse all of the diseases. Suffice it to say they include all of the diseases from which Irish people suffer and die. Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer, causing one in five deaths from lung cancer. Smoking is the cause of 95% of Irish lung cancers and it contributes to most of the other cancers. One third of all cancers are directly attributable to smoking. The claim in television advertisements that one in two long-term smokers dies from smoking is based on evidence. It is a flip of a coin whether a long-term smoker will live or die. Approximately 16 years are lost on average, which is a considerable number. In my clinic the figure is much worse than that. I regularly sit down with people in their 40s or early 50s - people with young children - to tell them they have incurable lung cancer. That is unfortunately an all too common scenario these days. As several members have said, we all know the evidence about smoking and health.

It is heartening to hear positive feedback from the committee and Deputy Ó Caoláin's comment that there is no issue with the legislation either in this room or the Oireachtas in general.

Professor Luke Clancy

Deputy Kelleher asked what specific actions could be taken. I agree with my colleagues in regard to the size of our ambition. The European Commission directive sets a target of 65% but 75% is not unreasonable and would further deprive the industry of advertising space. The models I described earlier indicate that the two main responses required in Ireland are consistent and persistent mass media campaigns and improvements in smoking cessation services. Dr. McAvoy spoke about inequalities of health due to smoking. The people most in need of our services are those who are still smoking but they are not receiving them. The people who stop smoking are well-off by and large. Poor people are not stopping and they are not getting the services they require. This Bill represents a small intervention and if we are to get the most out of it we will have to increase the other elements to which I referred. It will do no good to clap ourselves on the back once the Bill is passed. We must reinforce everything around it that can make a huge difference.

Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct in regard to the evidence for the Bill. We will be the first country in the northern hemisphere to require plain packaging. The best estimates suggest it will reduce the prevalence of smoking by 1% among adults and 3% among children after two years. Even though the percentage figures are small, they represent substantial reductions in the context of the huge numbers affected. However, more will have to be achieved through reinforcing the other interventions that we know can work if we are to reach the targets set by the Government. The Deputy is also correct that there is less advertising of tobacco products in general but why should there be any advertising of cigarette packs?

Deputy Fitzpatrick raised the big question of illicit trade and its impact on prices. We have studied this issue extensively all over the world and the scientific evidence indicates that while price is an initiating factor in making people think about smuggling, it is fallacious to assert that a price increase from €8 to €9 will change the dynamic. The level of fines imposed and other consequences of being caught are more important than price as factors in illicit trade. The penalty for tobacco transgressions is chicken feed. It is much lighter than is the case for other drugs. The strength of the legislation is also important. However, the primary factor is the existence or otherwise of distribution networks. I do not refer to somebody who buys a few packs of cigarettes in Europe. Illicit tobacco is now being transported in containers. It is not possible to profit from illicit trade unless a distribution network exists. Essentially, it is a law and order issue rather than a health issue. Even with the existence of illicit trade, price is the one factor that is bound to work. When we examine inequalities in health as part of the study to which Dr. McAvoy mentioned, the main factors that reduced inequalities were price and, to a lesser extent, smoking cessation services. If we care about the poor, these are the measures that really matter.

Deputy O'Connor asked what we can do to prevent children from smoking. The measures that work for adults also work for children. Price is a strong deterrent for children because they have less disposable income in general.

Another major issue for them is mass media and the messages they receive. Moreover, there are no smoking cessation services for young adults or children in Ireland. While a person might say he or she has only just started and could stop if he or she so wished, he or she cannot. However, it is not the case that the level of smoking is rising among children; it is declining. Our surveys have shown consistently in the past 15 years that the level of smoking among children is declining, among both sexes. Relatively far fewer girls took up smoking than boys in the past ten years. I think it is because they are probably more clever and watching what is going on. Furthermore, the awareness of smoking has increased so much that sensible children who, by and large, are girls have taken up smoking a lot less and I believe this will not be the ongoing problem.

As for the Chairman's question on whether there should be opening hours for the sale of tobacco, I do not know, but he is quite right to raise it because if we simply do what we are already doing, the practice of smoking will still be strong in 2025 and I can guarantee the joint committee that the rate will be nothing like 5%.

On questioning the need for new measures because the rate is declining, new measures are needed because of the diseases about which members have just heard and the reality that at least 6,000 people per year die from this disease. That is an important word I have not used in this context before the joint committee previously, that smoking and tobacco and nicotine addiction is a disease. I wish members would regard it as a disease and get the smoking cessation treatments. As the joint committee may be aware, I am the only respiratory physician in the country who runs a smoking cessation clinic. I must ask, if this is a disease, why is that so? Why is smoking cessation treatment not supported? Perhaps that might help us also.

I thank the delegates for their strong contributions. While I have one question, I must, first, state that although I have never met Professor Clancy before, I have been around long enough to remember his convincing broadcasts with Pat Kenny during the years. Speaking as a former smoker, I used to switch him off or change the dial when he went on air. He used to broadcast twice a year or something like that and I always got the impression that Pat Kenny was like-minded and had serious questions about nicotine. Professor Clancy eventually got to me; I went cold turkey and, as Martin Luther King would have said, I am free at last. Some people may have alluded to my question, but I have never seen evidence or substantial research on the reason the practice of smoking is so strong in working-class communities, as distinct from middle or upper-class communities, where people hardly smoke at all. Is such evidence available?

I apologise for my lateness, as I was obliged to attend something else.

While I did not hear the delegates' presentations, I have read some of them and, based on Professor Clancy's comments, I have a brief question. A few weeks ago I raised the issue of women smoking during pregnancy with the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly. In England a patch is supplied under medical supervision to women who are pregnant but who still are finding it hard to stop smoking while pregnant. Do the delegates have an opinion on whether a patch could be used in such circumstances and whether it would be safe enough? I have been unable to get a simple, straightforward answer from a wide range of individuals in this regard. I do not mean giving out such patches willy-nilly but doing so under medical supervision, as is done in both England and Scotland. While the Minister has indicated he will look into this possibility, I seek the delegates' opinion in this regard.

Professor Luke Clancy

To turn to the last question first, while I do not speak for the generality, my understanding is the Deputy is correct and that smoking during pregnancy is a serious problem in Ireland. It is much worse than in other countries. For instance, we have compared the position in Ireland with that in Boston, Massachusetts, which is approximately the same size and found that the prevalence of smoking during pregnancy here is three times higher. Moreover, there are no proper services for people who smoke. The Deputy is asking for the provision of patches, which are a crutch, as it were. My point is that it is a disgrace that there is not a smoking cessation service available for every pregnant woman in the country. As for patches, the question is whether they are safe. There is a terrible worry about using anything during pregnancy. My off-the-cuff answer is that if one compares it with smoking, there is no comparison. As to whether it is absolutely safe, possibly not, but it is at least 100 times safer than smoking. The Deputy should remember there are other ways to stop smoking and if these women were given these services, they would benefit.

Deputy Eamonn Maloney also asked a question on the socioeconomic demographic of smoking.

Professor Luke Clancy

Yes, this is very important, which is why I am delighted to return to it. Smoking is the biggest cause of inequality in health. In this context, poor people are now the main smokers. This is an historical thing because that is not how it started. If one considers tobacco as an epidemic, it has changed dramatically. What happened first was that well-off and educated people had tobacco. The trouble now is the information which is put out, as well as the manner in which it is put out, to get to people who are literate, interested and have a big motivation. We have not been reaching poorer people or targeting them deliberately. As I have stated, the only measures in tobacco interventions that really are effective and reduce inequalities are price and smoking cessation services. That is part of it and I believe it is because we are not focusing on them. Historically, that is the way it has gone. For instance, in new states and developing countries it is the rich who smoke, but as time evolves and the epidemic wanes, people with information and access to services, that is, people who have smoking as a disease and are well-off, access services, while poor people and pregnant women do not. The services and our interventions are not targeted and sometimes one must ask whether we really care.

I sincerely thank all of the delegates for making the time to attend and assist the joint committee in its consultation on the heads of the Bill.

Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.50 a.m.

We will resume in public session. We are in session two. In terms of the format for the meeting today, in some sessions there are two persons per delegation and in some there are one, depending on the size of the delegations and the issue being discussed. I hope people understand that we are fair and equitable in this committee and our staff treat all with respect and courtesy, and I hope that everybody will behave similarly with members of the committee and the secretariat who do much good work. The staff of the committee secretariat work diligently on behalf of the members in a non-partisan impartial manner. It is not that we do not want to hear voices. We bring in the umbrella bodies of organisations, as we have done this morning. I hope our discussion will be respectful and tolerant.

I welcome all of the witnesses to the committee and thank them for being here. This is important proposed legislation, the general scheme of the Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2013. As members and witnesses will be aware, the committee has had a series of meetings dealing with the issue, the pre-legislative scrutiny being asked of us by the Department of Health. It is important that we hear all viewpoints. We have asked for written submissions and today is part of the oral presentation.

I remind members, witnesses and those in the Gallery that mobile phones should be put in the "off" or flight mode position as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment.

I welcome the witnesses from the retail and commercial sector. Their views on the proposed legislation are eagerly awaited and, in this regard, I hope that we will have a frank and positive discussion. I thank them most sincerely for being here and for taking time to make a presentation to us. I will go through all of them individually when I call them to speak rather than doing so now. We are appreciative of Mr. Mike Ridgway coming from the United Kingdom. I thank him for being here this morning and for assisting us.

In regard to privilege, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the long-standing ruling and parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We received a number of apologies. Deputy Kelleher is having to take the Order of Business in the Dáil and Deputy Catherine Byrne will be late. We also received apologies from Senators MacSharry, Henry and Crown.

I welcome Ms Tara Buckley, director general of the Retail Grocery Dairy and Allied Trades Association, better known as RGDATA, and ask her to make her opening remarks.

Ms Tara Buckley

RGDATA is the representative body for the independent retail grocery sector in Ireland. We represent the owners of 4,000 family-owned shops, convenience stores, forecourt stores and supermarkets, many of whom are licensed to sell tobacco products to members of the public in the normal course of their business.

RGDATA has no funding initiatives in place with the tobacco sector. However, we publish a magazine once a year for which we accept trade advertising from all suppliers, including tobacco companies.

RGDATA has adopted a clear position on the subject of tobacco control measures introduced by the State in the interests of public health. For as long as tobacco is a lawful product for retail sale in the State, RGDATA members who are licensed to sell such products are committed to operating subject to the controls, regulations or restrictions that may be imposed by the State.

We do not wish to make any substantive challenge to the policy objectives underpinning the proposed Bill. However, we have been requested to present to this committee on the impact of the proposed Bill from a retailer's perspective and there are three points in relation to the heads of the Bill which we wish to bring to the committee's attention.

Our first point is a general observation about the need for enforcement regarding the illegal trade in tobacco in Ireland. RGDATA members are compliant and respect the legal obligations imposed on them for the sale of tobacco products. It remains a matter of concern that, notwithstanding their compliance, there is a substantial level of illegal sales of tobacco products in Ireland through the black market. If new tobacco control measures are to have an impact and have credibility, it is important that they are accompanied by a renewed commitment to stamp out the illegal sale of tobacco products. There is nothing more disheartening and disillusioning for a compliant retailer than to see another party flout the law through the sale of contraband, with apparent impunity. Strong enforcement action against black market and contraband sales remains a key factor in proper levels of tobacco control.

Head 4 of the Bill provides that the new measures will only apply to tobacco products which are put on the market for retail sale in Ireland. Presumably this means that those purchasing tobacco products outside the jurisdiction and bringing them into the State, in particular those buying duty-free cigarettes, will not be subject to this new law. Given the policy objectives which the proposed Bill is seeking to address, why does the legislation not go further and prohibit the importation into the State of cigarettes which do not comply with the packaging restrictions contained in the Bill above a certain volume level per person? If the object of the legislation is to render the sale of tobacco products as less attractive, surely this principle should apply regardless of where the Irish-based smoker acquires the tobacco products for consumption in the State?

Our third point comes under head 5. This is a practical concern which has been raised by retailers in relation to the measures contained in the Bill and concerns the risks associated with staff stocking different brands of cigarettes in the gantries for retail sale. As the committee will be aware, we operate a closed-container system. Many staff, when they open up these containers and fill them up, use the colour to ensure they have got the correct cigarettes in the correct order. At present, a retailer or the staff can clearly distinguish between the different brands of cigarettes when stocking the packages in the gantry. With plain packaging, this will be difficult and there will be a real risk that in a busy shop environment, the wrong brand could be stocked in the wrong holder or container given the absence of clear distinguishing marks. This could mean that a customer is supplied the incorrect brand by accident, given that the packet of cigarettes is usually automatically retrieved from a closed gantry container with the brand sight unseen by the retailer or the customer. To address this concern, RGDATA respectfully suggests that consideration be given to some small distinguishing mark being applied to the bottom surfaces of the pack. This could be a simple and discreet colour code to distinguish one brand from another. We want this to be done in a way that would not be obvious to the consumer, nor make the packaging more attractive or appealing. From a retailers' perspective, it would reduce the risk of consumers being misled to purchase a brand of tobacco that they did not choose. We would ask the committee to consider as part of what can be put on the packaging that perhaps a discreet mark be put on the bottom of the pack so that when they are put into the gantries, one would be able to see this coloured mark and the staff member would know that he or she had put the correct brand into the correct container.

These are RGDATA's observations on the proposed Bill. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present today.

I thank Ms Buckley. I now welcome, Ms Sharon Higgins, head of sectors, IBEC.

Ms Sharon Higgins

On behalf of the membership of IBEC, I thank the committee for the opportunity to present today. Plain packaging of tobacco is a sensitive subject. The committee will hear many views on the topic. I am here today to explain the view of Irish business. As the committee may be aware, IBEC represents Irish business, the indigenous and foreign-owned, multinational, big and small, spanning every sector of the economy, and includes tobacco companies amongst our membership.

At the outset, we wish to make it clear that IBEC supports the objective of the Minister, and this committee, to protect public health. We have consistently stated that measures to improve public health can bring with them economic benefits. To this end, for example, we supported the introduction of the workplace smoking ban in 2004. However, it is incumbent upon Government, especially at times of extreme economic difficulty, to ensure that the measures it takes are balanced and do not bring with them unintended consequences that adversely impact upon business and employment. We believe that the plain packaging proposals would have such consequences.

We believe the Bill as outlined will have substantial negative consequences well beyond the sector directly concerned and affect owners of intellectual property. As such, the proposal could affect the business community in general and not just the tobacco sector.

Of particular concern are proposals for standardised packaging of tobacco products which will remove all forms of branding trademarks, logos, colours and graphics. The brand name would be presented in a uniform typeface for all brands and the packs would all be in one plain neutral colour.

As stated in our submission, we are very concerned with the effect these proposals could have on branding rights by the removal of all forms of branding. Branding is a central part of how business communicates with its customers. It provides consumers with information on everything from product characteristics to heritage, allowing them to make informed purchasing decisions. It also allows product differentiation, which drives competition and innovation. Wide-ranging restraints on the use of branding, including colours, distinctive pack and products sizes and shapes, would set a dangerous precedent.

These proposals have the potential to affect significantly the value and purpose of a company’s intellectual property. They would cast doubt on Ireland’s continued commitment to the protection of property, in particular intellectual property and member state obligations under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Companies that invest in Ireland do so based on various assumptions, including on the standard of protection afforded to property, in particular intellectual property. These measures, if adopted, would send an immediate signal to foreign countries and investors about the standard of intellectual property protection in Ireland and about Ireland’s continued commitment to the protection of property. The signal that it would send is that intellectual property protections are not nearly as solid as previously thought.

It should be noted that the regulatory impact assessment guidelines published by the Department of the Taoiseach stipulate that regulatory impact assessments should be conducted at an early stage and before a decision to regulate has been taken and that, ideally, a regulatory impact assessment should be used as the basis for consultation. It is very concerning that a regulatory impact assessment has not been published prior to a memorandum on the standardised packaging for tobacco products being brought to the Cabinet and that the preparation of this legislation so far has not been in accordance with the regulatory impact assessment guidelines. Proposals for plain packaging legislation need to be evidence based, proportionate and respectful of intellectual property rights, and they should and take into account the growth and job creation prospects of the wider economy. The absence of a regulatory impact assessment in this regard is stark.

I thank the members for listening and I look forward to questions.

I welcome Mr. Joe Sweeney, district president of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents in Ireland.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it on the Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2013.

I am president of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, NFRN, in Ireland. Founded in 1919, it is one of Europe’s largest retail trade associations, and it has 16,000 members throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Irish branch of the federation is a membership-driven organisation that represents 1,000 retailers across the island of Ireland, including 500 stores in the Republic.

We support any initiative to safeguard the health of the people of the country. In this statement, I will draw attention to some of our members’ views and concerns. I will address briefly remarks made at the committee’s hearing last week by a representative of the Irish Heart Foundation, who casually dismissed the concerns of retailers on the likely impact of this legislation as being of no merit. Retailers are an aid to the Department of Health as they are the people who enforce the Government’s policies. I was heartened to hear Deputy Regina Doherty's remark that retailers provide employment for both themselves and others, and this should be recognised by the committee. Equally important was Deputy Byrne’s comment that it is all about education. This is a sentiment with which I completely agree. I have four adult sons and neither they nor I nor my wife smoke despite our having access every day to our stock of tobacco. When my children were teenagers and at the most likely age to start smoking, it was still legal to smoke in the workplace and the cigarette gantries displayed the tobacco brand. Despite this and my sons’ ease of access, they did not start, simply because they were made aware of and educated on the dangers of smoking. They chose not to smoke as opposed to having the choice made for them and rebelling against it.

NFRN Ireland and I are not in any way in favour of smoking. Our members are at the front line of legal, heavily regulated tobacco retailing. It is offensive to me and other retailers that there is an incorrect and arrogant assumption that our questioning of this Bill is somehow a defence of the tobacco industry. We are trying to protect our own business interests and while the product remains legal we expect to be recognised as responsible retailers who are competing with a criminal underworld. We ask the Government to support and protect our businesses and the jobs they represent and acknowledge that criminals will sell an illegal product to children; the product is often sold by children to children. As supporters of Government policies, we ask for support in return.

NFRN Ireland contests and disputes the sentiment that plain packaging would reduce the appeal of tobacco and tobacco products as they are not on display here in the first instance due to the display ban. It is difficult to understand how the appeal of a brand can attract a smoker when the product is not visible to him or her and the impulse purchase that might have been prompted by the sight of a product does not occur.

There is no hard evidence to suggest that oversized health warnings or plain packaging will reduce the number of people currently smoking or those who start to smoke. The only supposed evidence from Australia, given to this committee during the hearings to date, has been the tenuous argument that increased calls to a quit-line mean people will actually stop smoking. What the people who mentioned this study failed to point out was that it was undertaken during December and January, a time of year when calls to quit-lines would be expected to increase in any case as smokers make their new year’s resolutions.

Some organisations the members have heard from dismiss our contention that plain packaging will lead to increased illicit trade. If that is so, how do they explain the surge in illicit tobacco sales in Australia in the year since plain packaging was introduced there? Furthermore, the tobacco products directive agreement reached at EU level will give the Department of Health all of the powers needed to tackle cigarette packaging. It will bring in measures such as the devotion of 65% of cigarette packets to health warnings and the outlawing of packaging that the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, has said is aimed at attracting young people, such as what he described as lipstick-shaped packs.

I want to summarise the key recommendations that NFRN Ireland would like this committee to consider. The first is that the Government should promote and endorse the use of electronic cigarettes as a weaning tool for those who wish to give up smoking. It is essential that these products remain on general sale and are never restricted to pharmacies. In order to increase the likelihood of a smoker choosing an alternative, an alternative must be readily available. The long opening hours of our members’ stores support this.

Second, education is the key. Through education, young people can make informed choices and avoid taking up a dangerous habit. NFRN Ireland urges the committee to examine the example of California and introduce a programme similar to tobacco use prevention education, TUPE, which resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of teenagers who started to smoke. The emphasis should be on stopping people from starting to smoke.

Third, NFRN Ireland has on many occasions highlighted the serious level of illicit trade in Ireland. We have put forward a number of potential solutions to various Oireachtas committees, Deputies, Senators and councillors. We submitted a proposal to the Minister of State responsible for small business, Deputy John Perry, on developing a smartphone app, based on the Codentify software, that will allow consumers to verify that their tobacco products are legitimate. The Garda representatives who were present here two weeks ago spoke positively about this. Where there is a suspicion that tobacco products are counterfeit or smuggled, such an app would provide law-enforcement officials with a simple and effective tool for determining immediately whether this is the case. NFRN Ireland would be willing to pay for the introduction of this app to the Irish market.

Fourth, the sale of tobacco products at a market or fair should be banned outright. To this end, the penalties available under the Casual Trading Act should be made as strict as those which apply under the Finance Acts. Equally, landlords of properties where illicit products are sold should be held accountable for the activity on their sites in the same way as retailers are held accountable.

Fifth, as Ireland is an island, ports offer an easy means of bringing illicit tobacco into the country. In Ireland there are eight ports but in only two are there mobile scanners, meaning that the majority of ports remain unmanned. In all ports there should be a permanent scanner and such an investment would not only be self-financing but also profitable for the Exchequer.

These are all measures which NFRN Ireland believes the joint committee should consider carefully as part of an integrated approach to tackling the issue of tobacco control across a range of fronts, rather than pursuing one single, unproven, high profile step such as plain packaging.

I welcome Mr. Vincent Jennings, chief executive officer of the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

The Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association welcomes the opportunity accorded to it to present its views to the joint committee on the heads of the Bill. The World Health Organization has published advice to governments that they enlist the support of civil society organisations and, specifically, retail organisations when seeking to enact and enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship activities. We make reference to this advice as it is our opinion that the authors of Tobacco-Free Ireland, the tobacco policy review group, elected not to consult any representative of the 13,000 registered tobacco retailers during their deliberations. There is a reference within the report to consultation with stakeholders and the CSNA would like to state this consultation was incomplete and contrary to the advice of the World Health Organization. As the review group made a number of recommendations for legislative change, we believe that, in line with Cabinet guidelines, a regulatory impact assessment, RIA, should have been conducted by the policy review group and provided alongside the report which was adopted as Government policy one month after its publication. Neither the committee nor any of the interested parties invited to make submissions on the Bill has had the benefit of an RIA to accompany the heads of the Bill. We consider this to be a significant deficiency in the consultative process.

This Bill, in style and purpose, owes much to the Australian Bill. We need to remind the committee that a comprehensive suite of measures was introduced alongside that Bill to provide for the desired outcome: increases in the already significant reduction in smoking initiation and prevalence. These measures included: an annual increase in each of the following four years of 25% in excise; the reduction of duty-free allowances from 250 cigarettes to 50; pictorial warnings, in existence since 2006, which were revised and enlarged; some 85 million Australian dollars for social media messaging, of which 28 million Australian dollars was for high-risk and disadvantaged groups; 100,000 prescriptions for nicotine patches; an exemption from sales tax for NRT in non-pharmacy outlets; additional subsidies for lower strength NRT; new penalties specifically for tobacco smugglers; while legislation was enacted to restrict Internet advertising of tobacco products. We remind the joint committee that the level of smuggling of tobacco products in Australia was 4% in 2011. The Australian Government has committed to review the first 12 months since the introduction of these measures and the head of the preventive health task force, Professor Daube, has been quoted as saying: "I don’t think anybody reputable would make claims about adult prevalence until we have the next national government-run survey."

The CSNA requested sales data from our counterparts in Australia. This data - provided by retailers, not tobacco industry sources - showed that in the first six months of 2013, when compared with the figures for 2012, overall tobacco sales volumes had increased in the stores surveyed by 4.5% in units, from 9.616 million units to 10.047 million units sold and from 124.3 million Australian dollars to 134.6 million Australian dollars, an increase of 8.2% in value. The worrying aspect of these figures, for the Exchequer and retailers, was that there had been a dramatic increase in the value and sub-value categories which had increased by 57% collectively in terms of volume and a significant additional 22% of sales in the roll-your-own, RYO, category. This coincided with decreases in the premium and mainstream ranges which had decreased by 9.1%. Cigars, both wet and dry, had declined by 90% and 32% in quantity. Were these down-trading figures to be replicated in Ireland following the introduction of plain packaging, the effect would be significantly disadvantageous for our members, but it would have little or no measurable financial impact on the multinational tobacco companies from which we source our tobacco products. This is owing to the unique position the State has provided for these companies, courtesy of the Finance Act.

It is an offence for retailers to sell cigarettes above the recommended retail price, RRP, which is determined by the companies. Regardless of whether we purchase from the companies or are supplied by distributors or cash and carry outlets, at higher wholesale prices, we must sell at the RRP. The companies have subsidised and manipulated the RRP within the value sector. They have stimulated demand through a variety of activities, including holding the RRP subsequent to budget increases, and are perfectly positioned to meet the expected additional demand for the value sector range if plain packaging is introduced. Retailers will find that the wholesale prices will increase for this range, yet owing to the unique position the Government has provided for these companies, they will by able to fix the RRP at existing levels.

We ask the joint committee to consider a number of other matters that we have identified as weaknesses in achieving the dual purposes of reducing harm to children and preventing the continuation of the deception of existing smokers. There is an urgent need, not provided for in the Tobacco-Free Ireland report, to outlaw proxy purchasing, that is, the purchase of tobacco by an adult on behalf on minors. This is part of the French criminal code. We believe society can register its disapproval of smoking by minors by mirroring our own laws on the attempted purchase and possession in a public place of alcohol and introduce similar prohibitions for tobacco products.

If the joint committee accepts the proposition that the usage by tobacco companies of various colours on their packaging is a subliminal attempt to deceive consumers into believing one colour is lighter or safer, it is illogical to continue to permit these colours to be continued to be referred to on each occasion the consumer requests such a product using that exact colour as the description for his or her purchase.

We are also most concerned that there is no attempt in the Bill to dilute the effect that duty paid products in another jurisdiction will have on the public health policy of the State. Figures provided by Revenue indicate that 330 million cigarettes and an unrecorded amount of RYO products were imported legitimately last year into the State. The presence of this significant number of branded packs is in sharp contrast to the determination of the Australian Government to give its Bill the maximum level of effectiveness. The CSNA urges the joint committee to recommend to the Government that it take appropriate action to reduce the personal allowance for travellers entering the country, similar to the actions taken by Finland to defend its public health policies.

We remind the joint committee that the new EUTPD, not this Bill, has increased the size of public health warnings to 65%. This is the same figure that is stipulated in the Bill. The TPD also provides for the elimination of the lipstick packet by which the Minister was justifiably outraged.

We believe the joint committee should recommend that the Department consider increasing, over a three year period, the minimum age at which young persons may legally purchase tobacco products from 18 years to 21. This would extend protection against initiation into a cycle of sickness and ill-health for those children currently aged 17 years and under.

We have outlined our objections and request for clarification on a number of aspects of the Bill. We need to have clarification of the meaning of "tobacco products", as the definition provided in the Bill is at odds with the definition in the Public Health Tobacco Act 2002 which includes filter-tips and the like.

We cannot accept that retailers should be penalised on the double in being fined and taken off the register for an unspecified period. Any implementation of this Bill should ensure full consultation with retailer groupings, as well as Revenue, to co-ordinate crediting. The absence of an offence for purchasing branded product by an individual, provided for in this Bill, is tantamount to facilitating receiving stolen goods. Retailers need to be permitted to engage in collective bargaining through their trade associations with suppliers. This would introduce a balance into what is now an uneven and unequal relationship. This is not only permitted but encouraged by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Retailers need to be provided with assistance to prepare the ground for a tobacco-free society. The Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association, CSNA, requests this Bill is deferred until all of the above measures are put in place to protect children, the State, consumers and retailers.

Late last night I uncovered that the National Pensions Reserve Fund holds €21 million worth of equities and bonds in tobacco companies. I have provided to the committee the full listings of these shares. In these straitened times and requiring a stimulus for properly costed and well thought through tobacco control measures, I suggest the committee requests the direction of this €21 million, which is tainted money, to be directed towards tobacco control immediately. What is particularly of note is the fact that one of the shareholdings is in Swedish Match which is the manufacturer of Snus, a banned product across the European Union.

I thank Mr. Jennings. The Bill has not been published yet, so we are just discussing the heads of the Bill. This is the consultative pre-legislative scrutiny session and we are not really discussing the National Pensions Reserve Fund.

I call on Mr. Paul Candon, Retail Excellence Ireland, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Paul Candon

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to participate here today. I am here in my capacity as a Retail Excellence Ireland board member and also as marketing and corporate services director at Topaz Energy.

Retail Excellence Ireland is Ireland’s largest retail industry body. We represent 1,100 retail companies which operate over 11,000 stores in Ireland. A significant cohort of our members responsibly retail tobacco products. Our members employ 110,000 people.

We wish to register our deep concern at the proposal to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. The implementation of the proposed legislation will have a profoundly negative effect on our members’ businesses. There is no credible evidence that plain packaging as a policy proposal will lead to a reduction in youth smoking or prevent youth initiation. More consideration must be given to other means of tackling tobacco consumption without severely impacting the responsible sale of tobacco products.

The Australian Government announced that an impact assessment would be conducted as to the effectiveness of the measure in December 2014. We would recommend that it would be prudent to await the results of such an assessment before proceeding further. Several countries have initiated World Trade Organization dispute settlement proceedings against Australia, claiming the Australian plain packaging legislation breaches international trade obligations. A final ruling is not expected before December 2014. Several other countries considering plain packaging as a policy proposal are awaiting the outcome of such proceedings before deciding whether to proceed with the measure. We would consider it prudent to await the outcome of these challenges.

The Government estimates that approximately 20% of all tobacco consumed in Ireland is non-Irish duty paid. This costs the Exchequer in excess of €250 million annually and Irish retailers considerably more. The Government should ensure sufficient resources are provided to the law enforcement agencies charged with tackling the illicit tobacco trade in Ireland. A significant commercial opportunity will be afforded to criminal operators in the illegal tobacco trade to supply to the market tobacco products that are in demand in their pre-plain packaging formats. The introduction of plain packaging will afford a far greater opportunity to criminals to copy the plain package design. The introduction of plain packaging will have a disproportionately negative effect on legitimate Irish retail operators. Plain packaging will damage competition, leading to the commoditisation of tobacco products. Commoditisation will reduce margins, as well as reducing cash flow. This means that consumers will increasingly focus on price, leading to trading down from premium brands. If 25% of current premium smokers were to down-trade to value tobacco, retailers would lose more than €42.5 million turnover annually. This obviously will put an increased pressure on margins, resulting in further job losses. Lower prices might also lead to increased initiation of smoking.

The introduction of plain packaging will also increase the number of job losses in the legitimate retail industry. In 2012, loss in turnover to retailers as a result of illicit sales was estimated at around €450 million. According to AC Nielsen, the total turnover from the sale of tobacco products in 2012 was €1.35 billion. This demonstrates the importance of these products to a significant cohort of our members. With 80% of this turnover going to the Government in excise and VAT, it is also a major contributor to the Exchequer.

A recent report by KPMG on the impact of the introduction of plain packaging in Australia for the six months following the introduction of plain packaging showed there has been no reduction in consumption rates but illicit trade figures have increased by over 13%. A report recently undertaken by Roland Berger on the potential impact of plain packaging for cigarettes in Ireland estimates that in total 1,900 jobs and €125 million could potentially be lost if the measure is introduced. We have serious concerns about the measure and believe there are more appropriate ways for the Minister to achieve his objectives of reducing smoking in Ireland.

I call on Mr. Mike Ridgway, a spokesperson for several UK packaging manufacturers and a former managing director of Weidenhammer UK Limited.

Mr. Mike Ridgway

I thank the committee for inviting me to address it today. I am a guest in the Oireachtas and appreciate the opportunity afforded to me to represent the views of the packaging industry in the debate about packaging regulation in the tobacco sector. I reside in the UK but I do have some Irish credentials. My grandfather came from County Clare and my grandmother came from Belfast, so I have an affinity for Ireland. I was employed in the UK packaging manufacturing industry for over 40 years and retired as the managing director of my company some three years ago. Since that time, I have been acting as a spokesman for seven major UK packaging companies which are all heavily involved in the design, development, innovation and manufacturing of packaging solutions for a wide range of consumer products, including tobacco products.

I fully appreciate there is not a sizeable packaging manufacturing industry operating in the tobacco sector in Ireland. We feel, however, we can contribute to the important debate taking place here, in the UK and in Brussels with the tobacco products directive. The companies that I represent have a serious concern that policy proposals introduced in this jurisdiction may well have detrimental knock-on effects on their sustainability, endangering the thousands of jobs they provide across other European countries.

As professionals working with packaging materials, we have first-hand experience and expertise of the complex role packaging plays within the fast-moving consumer goods sector, and how it protects the consumer and the legitimate industry from the dangers of counterfeiting.

The companies I represent have commercial interests with the tobacco industry. The industries have traded together for decades, producing and using a wide range of products including metal tins, rigid boxes and composite cans, plastic pouches and laminates, printed labels and folding cartons. With this in mind we have the interests of our employees, investments and innovative workplace skills to consider.

I will expand on the role of packaging. Tobacco packaging is a high-precision manufactured engineering component produced in large volume to exacting standards and subsequently used on high-speed packaging machines. To print and produce these highly complex products, capital equipment costing many millions of euro is needed, together with an experienced, well-trained and largely apprentice-trained workforce.

Essentially packaging acts as a barrier to trade in counterfeit and illicit goods. Sophisticated packaging is a defence against counterfeit products as it makes it extremely difficult and costly for criminals to copy. These fake products are typically sold on the black market. The illicit trade is a problem both in Ireland and the UK. Members will be familiar with the figures in Ireland, but I will explain the UK's problem. We lose some £8 million, €9.5 million, in tax revenue every day. How many hospitals and schools could be built with that money? Nearly £3 billion is lost to the British Treasury annually based on figures supplied by HMRC in London.

Packaging introduces variations, not only in colour, design and graphical content but also in enhanced features including embossing, de-bossing, hot-foil stamping, matt-gloss varnish combinations and vignettes. I could continue talking about the technical side for quite some time. In addition, special materials have been developed using techniques developed over periods of time including special raw materials, formulated low-retained solvent inks, tear tapes and tipping paper produced by world-class manufacturing companies. The construction of the cigarette carton has also gone through many changes which are not just graphical, but also of construction. Appendix 2 to my submission illustrates a product well known in the market and how its design has changed over five or six years from a rectangular standard carton, through to having little embellishments, such as blocking features, logo changes and shape changes. I ask members to compare that with the photographs underneath of what a standard plain pack would be. It would be much simpler to produce involving a different printing method, moving from gravure printing to lithographic printing and even digital printing. Such packs can be knocked out very simply and easily.

Once simplicity is introduced via a standardised design all complexity is eliminated. This will result in the printing process being opened up and the counterfeiter and copier can move with ease to print these standard packs.

We also need to consider the issue of tax stamps. It has been stated that tax stamps and other security systems help police address the problem of the illicit trade. I am not in a position to comment on the stated position of the law enforcement agencies in Ireland on this issue but in other jurisdictions with similar illegal tobacco problems, there is a belief that tax stamps have little impact. Criminals can also copy tax stamps. It is difficult for consumers and retailers to tell the difference between a genuine and fake product. The point is that tax stamps are irrelevant because somebody buying cigarettes in a back street or in a car-boot sale is only interested in the product. By the time the product is in the illicit distribution system a tax stamp, whether good or bad, is totally irrelevant.

Let us consider external experiences. Australia introduced plain packaging just over a year ago. According to the KPMG report, which was mentioned earlier, there has been an increase in the illicit trade. Significantly there has also been an increase in what are called the "illicit whites". I will explain that in greater detail later. Other retail surveys have shown the purchasing of cigarettes becoming a commodity item and a price-driven purchase. However, most significantly of all, the studies, including those by KPMG and the London School of Economics, all indicate that the level of smoking has remained consistent.

Let us also consider how branded packaging in the legitimate and controlled retail environment contributes to the delivery of tobacco-control objectives. It minimises the sale through illegitimate channels such as the black market. It significantly restricts the availability of product to young people. It supports duty-paid pricing levels. It minimises the market share of counterfeit products, such as "illicit whites". Appendix 1 shows what standardised plain packaging looks like. The one in the middle is called the "Spoonbill" a spoof product that appeared on the market in Australia with just a name - it did not mean anything. To the consumer it looks like a legitimate plain-pack product. However, it was made by counterfeiters, we believe in Vietnam and supplied into the Australian market. Sophisticated criminals will soon get their heads around that sort of thing.

We assist in the delivery of health regulation by having a legal product with packaging and ingredients regulations. Counterfeit and illicit brands have no control.

I will summarise the impact of plain packaging. It removes technical barriers. It provides huge economies of scale for counterfeit production. It facilitates deceiving consumers and undermines trust in genuine merchandise. It would lead to a collapse in product value due to commoditisation. There would be higher consumption due to cheaper commodity products and affordability. There would be greater availability to young people through the illicit trade. It would also potentially lead to increased harm from unregulated products.

I thank members for listening to me. I have been employed in the packaging industry for many years. I do not want to see sections of my industry damaged through the introduction of excessive regulation for which there is no evidence that it works. The UK packaging industry fully supports the regulation of tobacco products but believes there are far more effective alternatives to plain packaging such as education, information and cultural awareness.

I thank Mr. Ridgway.

I welcome the witnesses. I am encouraged that there is not outright opposition to the purpose of the legislation. Even though people are coming to the issue from a variety of experiences and responsibilities in life, I believe there is a shared acceptance that we have to work towards the best situation possible, not only for the current generations but also for the future of humankind.

Having listened to the presentations and read the submissions carefully, I note that we share the same opinion. I apologise that I will not have enough time to deal with both presentations. I welcome Ms Buckley's presentation on behalf of RGDATA and thank her for her practical points. This is the health committee and our natural position and disposition is to seek whatever measures will help to improve public health. I know there are other considerations from each of the delegations' perspectives which have to be noted, respected and addressed. The contributions will help us in whatever engagement we will have with the Minister and the Government when dealing with legislation. I concur that there is a need for strong enforcement action against the black market and contraband sales; this position is shared by all members of the committee. Any legislative measure should apply in equal measure in dealing with the importation of tobacco products. This is also reflected in the positions articulated by Mr. Joe Sweeney and Mr. Vincent Jennings who represent the respective bodies, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents Ireland and the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association. There has to be an acceptance that, in tandem with this address, there is a need for a reduction in the travel personal allowance in bringing tobacco products into the country. I note that both Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Jennings have made this point.

Ms Buckley has highlighted the risks associated with staff stocking different brands of cigarettes in the gantries for retail sale. Others may blow me out of the water, but I welcome the highlighting of practical issues that will facilitate workers in the retail sector in managing the sale of tobacco. I wish there were fewer consumers of tobacco products, but for the time being, whomever they may be, at least they would be sure of being sold the brand for which they were paying.

I agree with Mr. Sweeney that tobacco products should be confined to legitimate retail outlets and that the sale of tobacco products at illicit or locations of questionable status such as markets and fairs should cease and needs to be addressed in legislation. Landowners or landlords who provide facilities for the sale of illicit products must be held accountable for their hosting of such activities. I expect all this product is imported illegally. I concur with the view that there is inadequate provision of scanners to address the problem at ports and I speak from the perspective of the island of Ireland. We must ensure scanners are permanently located at the ports rather than depend on the use of mobile scanners which catch people one day but not the next.

I agree that the personal travel allowance for tobacco products should be significantly reduced. It is interesting that Mr. Jennings made the point about retailers being able to collectively bargain with suppliers. I am at one on that point. He has said retailers need to be provided with assistance to prepare the ground for a tobacco-free Ireland. I do not know if I will live to see it, but it is an aspiration of mine that I would like to see more people ceasing to smoke. That is the real objective. Retailers in the legitimate retail business should have their position taken into account by the Government when progressing this objective, an objective which I support completely. I thank the delegates very much and I am sorry that the bell has rung as I must conclude.

I welcome the delegates and ask them to be clear on whom their organisations represent.

What is the Senator's specific query?

I ask specifically about links with tobacco companies, whether a parent or subsidiary company, an event or a publication. They are all links and I want to have clarity on the matter. Ms Buckley was very open in that regard.

I ask all delegates to clarify that point when replying to the Senator.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin referred to retailers. Should we consider a change in the locations and times for selling tobacco, as in the case of alcohol?

I refer to a KPMG study commissioned by Philip Morris. The Roland Berger report was commissioned by Philip Morris and I studied that report very carefully and the statistics for job losses. The figures are based on estimates rather than evidence. The Australian data come from the trade and are not official figures. We, therefore, need to be very cautious. The words "smuggling" and "counterfeit" are frequently thrown around at these hearings. The only independent research on smuggling rates in Ireland has been carried out by Revenue and the HSE's National Tobacco Control Office. It shows a smuggling rate of 13% in Ireland, of which just 1% involves counterfeit product. The rest is imported legally by the industry.

I refer to the case of Andorra which will be well known to the delegates. The oversupply of cigarettes to Andorra means that it has so many cigarettes that every man, woman and child in the country would have to smoke 130 cigarettes a day. Last week's committee meeting was attended by the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and the customs service. They told us that there was no evidence that the use of plain packaging would lead to an increase in the rate of smuggling. I ask that these views not be misrepresented because I have read statements that misrepresent what the Garda Síochána and customs officers said to us.

I have serious concerns about the Codentify software which has been developed by Philip Morris and which has serious technical limitations. All four major companies which endorse it - Philip Morris, BAT, JTI and Imperial Tobacco - have been accused of smuggling, yet the delegates are asking me to vest my confidence in that software. I have concerns about it.

The committee has been told that education is the answer.

Mr. Joe Sweeney cited California. I will do my research about California. In preparation for today's meeting we were given evidence about Germany and I looked at it. The reality is that Germany has the same smoking rate for 12 to 17 year-olds as Ireland. The evidence has shown that it is not education that has changed its figures but the effective reduction in youth smoking rates has been brought about by increased taxation and smoking bans.

The earlier session on medical evidence was compelling when it was stated that 95% of lung cancer is due to tobacco. We had medical testimonies one after the other and doctors who have dealt with people directly. We have had the children's groups coming in telling us about the marketing and how children are attracted to the product. One can say that is not the aim of the marketing or what is intended but then I have to question it given that 78% of smokers start before the age of 18. Either the companies are mispitching the marketing or it is very intentional.

Go raibh maith agat.

I will finish on one more point. As was said to us this morning by one of the medical representatives, this is the only product that, if used as intended, kills. I am struggling. I read the submissions and went through them yesterday. When I see some of the representative bodies before the committee who do not just have those interests but a wide range of public health interests, I ask why are they doing the dirty work for the tobacco industry.

I call the members who have indicated in the following order: Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor, Deputy Robert Dowds, Senator Colm Burke and Deputy Ciara Conway.

It is very difficult. We had the medical people appear before us for the morning session and now we have the submissions from the witnesses. Today I feel like Solomon - which is right? Is it jobs, is it death? That was the message that came across at the earlier session. Perhaps I can quote from some of what was stated earlier. It was stated that one in two smokers will die from tobacco related illnesses. The doctors compared it, saying it was like the flip of a coin, one has a 50% chance of dying. Dr. Luke Clancy said that we respond emotionally to packaging. Perhaps Mr. Mike Ridgway would comment on that. The point I made earlier this morning is that there is a whole industry around marketing, sales and packaging which is so important. Yet when we hear the witnesses speak it is as if they are coming from the other end because there will be plain packaging and it will be difficult to recognise counterfeit or illicit cigarettes. I asked the assistant commissioner here about two weeks ago if it would make a difference and if it would increase smuggling and he assured me it would not. I also concur with Senator Jillian van Turnhout that Revenue considered it had a very strong label to recognise if cigarettes were counterfeit. I can acknowledge that those in the retail trade make a profit, I read somewhere that they make a profit of about 3%. Is that correct?

Last week my colleague, Deputy Regina Doherty, stated that she too recognised there are difficulties. For example, would electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement therapies be a viable product to sell rather than cigarettes? I understand the delegates are worried about jobs and so on. As I said at the outset we are worried about deaths. As Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said, this is health committee and that is our main concern.

Ms Sharon Higgins mentioned intellectual property. In regard to the High Court of Australia that ruled on 15 August 2012 by a six to one majority that the Government's plain tobacco packaging legislation was constitutionally valid, Ms Higgins said today that in terms of intellectual property Ireland would suffer because the case is not as solid. Is that disingenuous or can she give me some evidence in comparison to the ruling found in Australia?

Ms Tara Buckley made some very good points on the issues on which we need to strengthen. We heard others from the doctors today who said that we should not sell cigarettes to anyone under the age of 21, also that we should ban smoking from play-yards and open areas and that all of this must be key in to the whole debate. The doctors were emphatic that this is only one part of what needs to be done to improve public health. There are many more areas to be tackled.

I want to hear about the flip-side of it. None of the witnesses has said that packaging promotes smoking. Again, the doctors told us they had evidence to show that it was cool for young people to smoke certain types of cigarettes and that women, in particular, like the packaging. Will the witnesses comment on women using smoking for slimming purposes? That appears to be the cool attitude and that is where we have a worry. I understand how the witnesses are worried but we are worried about health.

I thank the Chair and welcome our guests. I thank Mr. Vincent Jennings for pointing out the blot on the part of the State in terms of tobacco. That is a matter I will pursue. Perhaps he would e-mail me his presentation as there are one or two questions I would like to tease out

We have them.

Sorry, it has not just to do with that but if Mr. Jennings can e-mail me his contribution I would appreciate it. I ask Ms Sharon Higgins from IBEC to outline its relationship with the tobacco industry. May I have that question answered now?

In fairness to all, I will bring Deputy Dowds in again.

I am very concerned as to IBEC's ability to be objective in this whole issue. There are serious concerns here. Mr. Mike Ridgway has been very upfront about his connections with the tobacco industry but IBEC needs to come clean. As Mr. Vincent Jennings is aware, I met him and various other people with the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, on some of the problems about illegal tobacco. I then raised the issue in the House with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. It is an issue I intend to pursue again because I am open to the idea that we should try to have a Finnish style regime where people can import very few cigarettes. We should try to push the boat out on that issue because it would be a useful way of trying to reduce the imports of tobacco on which tax is not paid in this country.

If any of the witnesses have any further ideas as to how to tackle the illicit trade I would be interested to hear them because it is a serious problem and is undermining certain retailers. I have a concern that if tobacco is being sold - I wish it was not - it should be sold in such a way that the State gets the maximum amount of tax from it because, after all, it is needed to pay for the hospitals which are required to tackle the problems caused by tobacco, among other things.

On the issue of plain packaging if, as Mr. Vincent Jennings said, there is not a decline in tobacco sales in Australia why the big deal about opposing it? It is well worth a try.

I thank all the contributors for taking the time and effort in preparing their contributions. Some constructive proposals have been made this morning. As we sit here today, 14 people per day in real terms will die either at home or in hospital as a direct result of smoking and smoking-related illnesses. That is a conservative estimate and that is where we are coming from as a health committee.

I certainly support the idea of banning the sale of cigarettes in markets and fairs and believe the legislation on this should be changed. It would not be a huge problem to do so. I think that is an extremely constructive proposal. Another issue raised concerned smartphone apps and the proposal from the Minister of State with responsibility for small business, Deputy Perry. Where are we with that? Has any progress been made on it? What can this committee do to make sure this is followed through on because it is an important point and something that can be implemented? We should give assistance to anything that can be helpful to people who are running businesses.

Obviously, there is concern about the illicit trade. Based on the submissions this morning, it is running at around 20%. All of the witnesses are involved in the business trade. Where do they see the deficiencies in dealing with the illicit trade? They have already identified the ports issue, which needs to be followed up on. Where else do they see deficiencies relating to the illicit trade? If we want to deal with this issue, we also need to deal with the illicit trade, which is an important issue. Can the witnesses talk about other proactive things that can be done either by the gardaí, customs or Revenue? What things could be implemented overnight? Again, I thank the witnesses for their contributions.

I apologise for not being here for all of the presentations. I had a competing meeting. A lot of my questions have already been asked but I have some particular ones for the three organisations representing the retailers - the National Federation of Retail Newsagents Ireland, the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association and Retail Excellence Ireland. We had a series of hearings with the assistant commissioner, the Criminal Assets Bureau, Revenue and customs who told us they are assured that the tax stamp referred to by Deputy Mitchell O'Connor will be enough to ensure that we will be steadfast and damp down the illicit trade. What do the people represented by Retail Newsagents Ireland, the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association and Retail Excellence Ireland do in terms of informing the gardaí or passing on information? In the run up to these hearings, I and other colleagues were lobbied by members of the aforementioned organisations in respect of their concerns about demand going down. They were able to identify months in a calendar year where their trade was down. That is invaluable information that should be passed on to the gardaí because if there is a month where the sales of cigarettes are down in a particular shop, that information should be shared with the gardaí because, obviously, the supply is coming from somewhere else. Could representatives of the Retail Newsagents Ireland, the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association and Retail Excellence Ireland tell me what engagement they have with the gardaí in respect of the illicit trade, whether they are involved with the joint policing committees and the steps they will take to play their part in combating the illicit trade? We are looking at this from the perspective of a health committee. I understand these organisations' concerns but our number one concern is health and we know that cigarette smoking kills.

Just to clarify, the Criminal Assets Bureau did not appear before the committee. An Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and the National Office of Tobacco Control appeared before the committee.

I just wanted to clarify that in case we got the record wrong.

I know we are talking about consuming but consuming all the information from everybody this morning means I have lost track of where I have been in the past hour or so. I agreed with some of the questions in respect of the import of cigarettes. I think customs officers in airports and ports are doing a very good job trying to curtail the amount of illegal tobacco coming into the country. In the past, this committee was told that there has been a significant improvement in preventing illegal cigarettes entering the country. I missed most of this morning's presentation because, as one would say, I was present in the flesh in my constituency for a different reason. Somebody said there was a €42 million turnover in tobacco products in the retail industry. Do the witnesses have any statistics about the profit made in retail in poorer areas? We heard from people in the medical profession this morning that the level of smoking in poorer areas is higher than in areas where people are better educated and live in a different social environment.

Does each witness believe the medical evidence that has been given, not only this morning but across the board, that smoking kills? Do they believe that as individuals because it is very important for me to understand where the retail industry is coming from? I am concerned that many of the presentations this morning argued that the legislation would be the bad guy because people will lose their jobs. Somebody over there made a flippant comment about how the money taken in through Revenue helps build hospitals and schools. I find that very offensive because smoking is the reason people are dying and hospitals are inundated. I spent the last week and a half in St. James's Hospital with a family member with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He knows that the reason he has the condition is because he smoked. Three years ago, I buried my sister-in-law who had lung cancer because she smoked. That is the reality of smoking. It affects everybody in every walk of life. Do the witnesses believe smoking kills?

Ms Tara Buckley

As an individual, I believe absolutely that smoking kills. I came here today to answer the question-----

Could Ms Buckley begin with a declaration with regard to Senator van Turnhout's questions?

Ms Tara Buckley

As I said in my presentation, RGDATA receives no funding from and does not do the dirty work of tobacco companies. Our members who are licensed to sell tobacco sell it under the control and regulations of the State and are happy to follow whatever controls and regulations the State sees fit to apply to them. The only thing we do is produce one publication per year where we take advertisements from any suppliers, including tobacco companies. We would also take advertisements from the Office of Tobacco Control or any other body that would like to give us the opposing view. I am not sure there are any other questions directed at me.

We were asked about deficiencies regarding the illicit trade. RGDATA is involved with many groups that liaise with the gardaí and Revenue to tackle the illicit trade and provide information. Quite often, the information, unfortunately, may be a bit anecdotal. It can be reports of taxi drivers in the town providing cigarettes or white vans delivering cigarettes to housing estates but my member would not have the actual registration number of the car, which would be more useful for the gardaí. However, we try to assist the gardaí and Revenue. We canvass our members before going to meetings about any activity of which they are aware so we can bring it to the meeting. Certainly, we are very happy to supply any of that information.

Ms Sharon Higgins

Again, as I indicated in my presentation, tobacco companies are members of IBEC. Equally, I made clear that we support the Minister's and committee's objective of protecting public health. The key point we wanted to make is that our concerns are around the intellectual property, IP, rights of all companies in Ireland.

This is an important part of how we portray Ireland and how our reputation internationally is seen. We ranked tenth best in the world for IP rights on the IMD 2013 competitiveness scorecard. That is an important part of how we attract industry, business, investment and innovation to Ireland. The purpose of our attendance is to request respectfully that a full regulatory impact assessment, RIA, be performed in order for us to be able to look at the evidence.

With regards to the Australian question, the evidence is mixed. We would like that to be included as part of the RIA. Our members have concerns around activity that relates to the current IP situation in Ireland, which is positive from an industrial growth perspective. We would like to see the evidence and we would be happy to look at it at that point.

What is IBEC's view on plain packaging?

Ms Sharon Higgins

Plain packaging is an activity that will interact with the intellectual property of a company. It is part of the intellectual property-----

IBEC, therefore, opposes it.

Ms Sharon Higgins

We would like to see the evidence. We would like to see an RIA performed.

I would like to reassure IBEC on IP rights that the measures proposed will lead to restrictions, as is happening currently with health warnings. They will not in any way extinguish these rights and that should allay the fears of Ms Higgins's members.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Senator van Turnhout asked about the transparency of tobacco companies. Our organisation receives support from a number of organisations that are jointly interested in supporting independent retailers. This extends beyond tobacco companies and where we have common interest, we are always happy to work with industry stakeholders. We never, however, compromise on our principle of being focused on our members' interests.

Codentify is a wonderful piece of technology. It is a track and trace method. A packet of cigarettes can be traced back to the machine that packed it. This also relates to the question about contraband cigarettes and illicit whites. While the contraband cannot be brought legally into the country under the badge of personal consumption, the proxy sale of the product is illegal. By using Codentify technology alongside the tax stamp, an app can determine immediately whether the product is duty paid or non-duty paid. We liken it to the road safety campaign. We are noted for having reduced road deaths in Ireland from 600 deaths a year to just over 100 deaths a year. This is a tool. We gave the tools to the Garda to implement road safety measures such as speed guns, breathalysers. We did not go the route of making it unattractive to drive. We did not debrand cars or make them all one colour.

We changed the criteria governing the age at which people can drive in the context of provisional licensing and so on. We addressed the number of hours someone can be on the road. Is Mr. Sweeney saying plain packaging will not lead to a change in behaviour and is not a tool or a method that will lead to the cessation of smoking?

Mr. Joe Sweeney

No, I do not think it will. It will contribute to an increase in the illegal trade. Legitimate shopkeepers are not responsible for young people smoking. They are not coming to shops to buy cigarettes; they are buying them on the street.

Senator van Turnhout asked about trading hours similar to those provided for the sale of alcohol. Should that be considered in the regulation of the sale of cigarettes? For example, I could have walked into the shops owned by Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Jennings at 8 o'clock this morning to buy cigarettes but I could not have bought alcohol. I ask the question in the context of the overall approach.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

The fact that smoking is an adult choice-----

So is drinking alcohol. Mr. Sweeney and I do not smoke. Many young people do not smoke but they can buy cigarettes if they have counterfeit ID or pretend they are over 18.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I understand what the Chairman is saying but it is up to the shopkeeper to police that.

There are licensing hours for alcohol sales. I cannot walk into my local shop at 8 a.m. to buy a bottle of wine but I can buy a pack of cigarettes. Should we consider something similar as part of the overall approach to assist people to give up cigarettes?

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I do not know. That is for people in government to decide. If the Government decides to do that, retailers will implement that regulation. Our members do not do the dirty work of the cigarette companies. It is a terrible statement to make but we do the work of government. We implement regulation on behalf of the Government and we do a good job. That is what we have done and will continue to do. We fully support the Government in its initiatives and will continue to do so. Retailers are not responsible for the content of the product but we ensure the regulation governing it is implemented, particularly in the context of under age purchases.

Reference was made to packaging colours and so on. It is just cool to smoke for young people. They are not that influenced by the colour of packets and so on.

I was asked whether I believe smoking kills. I do and the evidence is there. A question was also asked about the profits made in poorer areas. I would say massive profits are made in these areas by illegal sellers. There is no question that they target the poorer areas and they make enormous profits. They are criminal, subversive elements and they are the evil element in the sale of cigarettes, not independent shopkeepers.

Has the CSNA a good relationship with the Garda and Revenue? Deputy Conway referred to this earlier.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Absolutely, we have a continuous relationship with the Garda, Revenue, Customs and Excise and we report instances to them but the answer we get from them is they are under-resourced. They are not coping with everything that needs to be implemented.

Is that Revenue or the Garda?

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I was in the office of the revenue enforcement agency and that was stated clearly to me.

They stated on the record last week before the committee that that was not the case and they had sufficient resources.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

That is what I was told.

We were told the opposite. We might make further inquiries on that.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Mr. Jennings might have something to say about that.

I believe that if the laws that are in place were fully implemented, it would be a help but there is not enough enforcement at the moment. I refer to ridiculous fines and the sentencing of people who are caught trading in illegal tobacco, which are laughable sometimes.

Mr. Sweeney made a very good point to the effect that the sale of tobacco products at markets and fairs should be banned.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Yes.

How prevalent is the sale of these products at markets and fairs?

Mr. Joe Sweeney

They are being sold at markets and fairs throughout the country. There are a number of obvious locations in this regard and they are raided regularly. Those who sell the products are usually tipped off when gardaí are on their way and put them away. When the officers leave, they take them back out again. Some of the lands on which these markets and fairs are held are owned by local councils. The councils and the owners of the other lands or properties where these events take place should be held responsible. If I become involved in any illegal activity in my shop, I will be called upon to pay the price.

That is a fair point and I would not disagree with Mr. Sweeney on it.

It would be easy to amend the proposed legislation in order that we deal with that issue. We should take a proactive approach to it.

The committee might consider that matter later.

I inquired earlier as to whether any progress had been made on the issue relating to smartphone apps.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I have discussed this matter with a number of politicians, including the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy John Perry. They like the idea and are supportive of it. However, we need someone in government to take ownership of and progress it.

I also raised that matter and I am enthusiastic about it. Unfortunately, I must leave because I am due to attend another meeting. I apologise for this.

That is fine. I was aware that the Deputy would be obliged to leave.

I do not believe it would be appropriate, honest or helpful if what emerged from these proceedings was a "them and us" view. I reiterate what I said, namely, that we have a great deal in common. There will be those who will report on these proceedings and it would be completely dishonest if it were to suggest people in the retail sector and members, as the elected representatives of their communities, were in some way at loggerheads on this issue. That is not the case. The clock has beaten me and I must withdraw.

I was just going to make the same point.

I have no doubt that Mr. Sweeney will be in agreement with me on it.

When making my summation, I am going to state there is much more that binds us together than separates us. I am conscious that the Deputy is obliged to leave in order to attend the meeting of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Perhaps Mr. Sweeney might conclude his comments on this matter.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

I wholeheartedly agree with what Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said. I have made presentations to a number of Oireachtas committees and met many politicians on my travels throughout the country. I must state I have never received anything other than co-operation from politicians. They are always interested in, take on board and, on occasion, respond to the matters we bring forward.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

In response to Deputy Catherine Byrne, we do not even need the harrowing evidence of the past number of weeks for any reasonable person - be he or she a representative of retailers or Members of this House - to realise that smoking kills and that tobacco helps people to die prematurely. It is as simple as that. Smoking has no value of a societal nature whatsoever. That said, we must all be realists. We represent retailers who, unfortunately, are as welded to the product at this point in time as are the poor people who are either buying legitimately from them or being taken to the cleaners by paramilitaries and major criminals. The scourge needs to stop and we need to begin our efforts in that regard now. I honestly believe the work which has been done by the National Tobacco Control Office and its staff is having an effect. However, there is a need for haste. The figure relating to prevalence has variously been estimated to be 22%, 24% or - as the Department of Health informed the committee this time last year - 29%. Whatever the figure is, it is too high and must be reduced. We wholeheartedly support the aspiration of the Minister - there is a need for more than aspirations - to work towards a figure for prevalence of 5%. If we could reduce the figure to match that which obtains in Australia - between 14% and 15% - we would state it was a job well done. We must prevent young people from initiating the habit.

Is that not what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill?

Mr. Vincent Jennings

It is not enough. I remind the committee that it is not an offence for an adult to purchase tobacco for a youngster or start him or her on the road to developing a smoking habit. Retailers and legislators must show that they do not, under any circumstances, approve of young people smoking. That is the key. There are two things which the proposed legislation is designed to achieve, the first of which is to shut off the possibility of children having access to tobacco products. That is brilliant. How will this be done? The answer is by not providing with them with packets of a certain type. However, that is not enough and more must be done. This is the time to do it.

Is the Minister not saying that?

Mr. Vincent Jennings

The Minister is saying nothing of the sort.

I disagree profoundly with Mr. Jennings. As Chairman, I am impartial and respect his right to have an opinion. However, the Minister and his Ministers of State have introduced a suite of measures to ensure Ireland will be a tobacco-free society by a certain date. I do not think it is fair to say the Minister has not been working towards that goal.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

Working towards it is one thing; what we are concerned about is the pace at which we are working towards it. I am stating the pace must be increased. I am not being mealy-mouthed. The CSNA has no links whatsoever, nor should politicians or the State have such links.

To what links is Mr. Jennings referring?

Mr. Vincent Jennings

I am saying it is extraordinary that €21 million from the National Pensions Reserve Fund has been invested in tobacco companies. Norway has stipulated 60 different companies, a number of which are tobacco firms, in which it will not invest money from its oil industry. It is about time the Department of Finance was contacted and informed that we do not want our money invested in tobacco companies. There is a need for ethical investment. All of this is part of the denormalisation process. The difficulty with denormalisation is that we are correctly and, it might be stated, slavishly using the template provided under the framework convention. We are ticking all of the boxes but not seeking to do anything outside of this. The framework suggests there must be a minimum age. We have, correctly, taken steps in that regard and introduced an age limit of 18 years. As a result of the fact that the framework does not state we should prevent people from providing tobacco for youngsters, we have done nothing in this regard. Nobody thinks, in the context of the policy review, that banning this type of behaviour would be a good idea. The policy review group's report provides a very good and well considered model. However, the group did nothing outside of this and did not consider ethical investment, proxy purchasing or the fact that the market for this product in Ireland is so unique. The latter is the case because the Finance Acts introduced by those in government have made people in the retail trade slaves to the tobacco industry.

I do not think Mr. Jennings can say that.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

I can say it because it is true.

I do not think Mr. Jennings can say it with accuracy. What we are involved in is pre-legislative scrutiny. It is important to highlight the fact that this is a discussion on the proposed legislation. If we could stick to this, I would welcome it. We invite people to come before us in order that we might hear their views. We will be reporting back to the Department on the matter. I would like our guests to answer some of the questions asked.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

The difficulty is that we are discussing something which is now Government policy.

No, it is not Government policy.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Vincent Jennings

The establishment of a tobacco-free Ireland is Government policy.

It has always been Government policy.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

I am sorry, but the report was only adopted as Government policy in November.

It is a pity we were not invited to feed into the tobacco policy review group and allow tobacco policy be as full as we would like because it is easier to adopt-----

All I can do as Chairman of the committee-----

Mr. Vincent Jennings

Going back to the questions I was asked-----

We invited Mr. Jennings before the committee as part of our scrutiny and he has been facilitated and made feel part of it.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

I thank the committee for it.

The tax stamps are brilliant and nobody could criticise the customs service for the tax stamp. It is incredible, impeccable and, at this point in time, it is the leader in its class. We have no difficulty with it. With regard to co-operation with the customs service and the Garda, the Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association is in a unique position as our offices overlook a market in Kildare. I know I am stating this publicly-----

I ask Mr. Jennings to be careful for his own sake.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

We give much assistance to the customs service and the Garda from our offices in more sense than one. In our weekly newsletter and monthly reminders to people we provide the free phone numbers for the customs service. We meet the customs service regularly. We are served incredibly well by the brave people in the customs service. They do work we could not do and which many of us would prefer not to do. Somebody has to do it and they are brave souls.

Our biggest difficulty as a society is the fact we are unable to do what is most obvious, which is raise the price of the product. This would be the easiest way to move towards tobacco cessation for many people. The difficulty which the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, correctly pointed out in November is ordinary decent citizens buy illicit products. I represent ordinary decent citizens who are retailers and we have a difficulty with this.

Mr. Paul Candon

Retail Excellence Ireland is not involved in the tobacco industry other than representing our members who are licensed to sell the product. We do not receive any funding from the tobacco industry in any way. Members buy tobacco from major wholesalers and retailers under licence in a difficult market.

We absolutely agree tobacco and smoking are major health issues and a huge problem for Ireland. We do not believe the introduction of plain packaging will stop the problem. If this is introduced and passed two years from now legitimate retailers who sell the product will see a significant decrease in premium brands. This will move consumers to lower-priced value packs, making them more affordable and perhaps more accessible to younger people. There will be an increase in the illicit trade from the estimated 20% at present. What if this increases to 30%? Young people would have far more access to the product because of plain packaging and we could end up with this decision resulting in an increase in tobacco consumption in Ireland. I ask the committee to ponder this.

From where are the statistics for the jump from 20% to 30% coming?

Mr. Paul Candon

These are Government statistics. The Government estimates approximately 20% of all tobacco consumed in Ireland is non-Irish duty paid.

Is that from Revenue or the Department of Finance?

Mr. Paul Candon

It is Revenue.

It states 13% in this documentation.

This includes people who have brought home tobacco from holidays so using the term illicit is-----

Mr. Paul Candon

I could leave here now and within ten minutes I could bring back tobacco which has been imported illegally and sold to minors with no control. Retail Excellence Ireland members absolutely adhere to the legislation. Garda stings are put in place and significant training is given. I work with Topaz Energy which has 321 forecourt outlets in Ireland and all of them sell tobacco. Tobacco makes up 30% of the shops' total turnover. The impact of a reduction of this to the stores will bring about closures and job losses and there is no doubt about this.

There has been a consistent message from various groups regarding this. To mitigate this, if it is as likely an outcome as Mr. Candon states and it may not be, could the stores not take up trade in smoking cessation services?

Mr. Paul Candon

They are in different channels such as pharmaceuticals. We could examine taking up products which help tobacco cessation but it will not bridge the gap to the income lost for the retailers. This is the reality.

In the forecourt sector 80% of the retail is independent and we will see a big impact. Our retailers are absolutely terrified of this initiative. They know the impact. Coupled with this I have spoken to some of the significant research and development companies, such as RED C which has conducted focus groups in many parts of Ireland on the purchasing of illicit tobacco. It is a ginormous problem which the general public does not see as a significant criminal act. They see it as getting good value.

We are on camera. Should we be flashing around packets of cigarettes?

Mr. Paul Candon

I will put them away. With plain packaging there will be a greater opportunity to replicate the product, introduce it to the market and increase its sale which will not be controlled. It is happening throughout Ireland now, in towns, pubs, shops and back streets. It is widely available and not controlled. Those involved do not care whether they sell it to 13 year old children or adults, it is not a problem for them. We do care. We are responsible retailers.

On Monday last across the road from here in Buswells Hotel I was part of the launch of Retailers Against Smuggling, which has a website aimed at getting information to the general public on this problem and allowing them feed into the website where they have issues with people selling illicit product so we can inform the appropriate authorities. The retailers have come together to fund this and work with the Garda and the customs service, and will continue to fund and support the initiative as well as taking time to explain the problem we have in Ireland. We certainly do not want to come here and beat a drum that it is all about profit. We recognise the problems with tobacco but we want to act responsibly. We do not believe this initiative is the right one. We absolutely believe there are other initiatives which will give better bang for their buck to reduce smoking in Ireland.

We all join with Mr. Candon in wanting to combat smuggling. We recognise and accept the members of his organisation are responsible traders.

Mr. Mike Ridgway

I agree 100% with Deputy Byrne that smoking is a killer, which is why I am a non-smoker and have not smoked a cigarette for 50 years.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor made a point on the appeal of branding and packaging to the consumer. I was deeply involved in a long discussion on the tobacco products directive in Brussels. We supported the elimination of the lipstick pack because the Deputy is right that that product was sending the wrong message to the wrong section of the market.

An issue that did arise - I hope the Deputy will take this as a positive point - was how we defined appeal and attractiveness. That issue has been debated long and hard, yet it is inconclusive because it is so subjective. It is an aspect that has led to the tobacco products directive which Ireland has followed and which will be finalised in the coming weeks to take the steps of increasing the size of health warnings, deal with the other regulatory aspects of lipstick-type packs and so on.

Let me give a United Kingdom perspective on profitability from the illicit trade. It is calculated that one container coming into the United Kingdom from eastern Europe will generate a profit of £1 million. It is that level of profit generation that leads to the spin-off criminal activities in the form of people smuggling, fuelling the drugs trade, prostitution and so on. It is the loss of this revenue and the profits that can be gained by others that result in the law enforcement agencies having bigger problems than they already have. I cannot comment on the Irish view, but from the UK police perspective, it has been very vocal in its concerns about what the introduction of plain packaging would do to assist the criminal fraternity and it has written letters to The Times newspaper and issued other publications on this point.

Regarding Senator Jillian van Turnhout's point - I ask her to take this as a positive contribution - when I was in full-time employment, my company was a German firm. I spent a good deal of time in Germany and was very impressed by the methods of communicating the problems of tobacco to young people there. There were extensive programmes which involved taking schoolchildren into hospitals for two or three days and showing them graphic illustrations of what smoking did to the body. I believe, in addition to what the Senator said, that having an improved education system for children of that age group would be a very beneficial policy to follow, rather than what we are talking about today, namely, the introduction of excessive regulation when there is no evidence that it will work.

I thank Mr. Ridgway most sincerely for making the effort to be here today at his own expense.

I will make two very brief points as I understand there are time constraints.

On the education aspect, I take on board what Mr. Ridgway said. We heard from the children's groups we met last week about the importance of peer education, but in anything we are talking about - many delegates have made this point - it is not a case of one measure; we see this as a package of measures. I co-sponsored two Bills in the Seanad on this issue and other areas we need to tackle.

Regarding the illicit trade, I gave the figures for Andorra. Last October the chairman of the UK Parliament's public affairs committee, the Right Honourable Margaret Hodge, stated:

The Department has also failed to challenge properly those UK tobacco manufacturers who turn a blind eye to the avoidance of UK tax by supplying more of their products to European countries than a legitimate market in those countries could possibly require. The tobacco then finds its way back into the UK market without tax being paid. The supply of some brands of hand-rolling tobacco to some countries in 2011 exceeded legitimate demand by 240%.

In the Dáil last November the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, stated: "I have a suspicion that the legitimate trade is involved in the production of illicit cigarettes..." We throw around the word "illicit", but I strongly believe the tobacco companies are fuelling the market.

I want to repeat what Senator Jillian van Turnhout has just said and, in particular, what the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, stated. The Senator quoted some of the Minister's comments, but the important point he wanted to make was that the legitimate trade was involved in the production of illicit cigarettes. Unfortunately, Senator John Crown is not here today, but two or three weeks ago he made a passionate plea on this issue. He has held that the legitimate tobacco companies are flooding the market with illicit, not counterfeit, cigarettes. That was something I learned of which I had not been aware.

I will make one other point.

The Deputy and Senator Jillian van Turnhout will be able to make these points to the representatives of the tobacco companies next week.

The last point I want to make - I am delighted to hear that retailers are responsible for stopping under-age children from smoking and that they try to uphold the law - concerns an article in The Sunday Times on 4 August 2013 on a study of 100 Irish shops which found that almost half of those shops had sold cigarettes to a 15-year old during a two week period in August. The study was carried out in Dublin and Wicklow. We must make sure people are responsible. I realise there will always be the weaker person who may not be the owner selling cigarettes in the shop, but they have a responsibility in this regard.

Mr. Vincent Jennings

On that point, we took the article so seriously that we visited The Sunday Times. We obtained permission from the editor to ask the journalist to provide us with the names of the people involved. We looked through the list of shops and saw the three shops which were members of ours. We visited them and demanded that they stop. Our members have received 5,000 visits, paid for by themselves, by a young test purchaser. We are very committed to doing this. It was appalling that it had happened; it should not happen and we are doing our bit to stop it.

Mr. Joe Sweeney

Similar to what Mr. Jennings said, we identified some of our members who were involved and spoke to them also. From 2009 to September 2012, 56,600 inspections took place and the compliance rate was 98%. The conviction rate was less than 1%. Regarding sales to minors, in the same period, 2009 to September 2012, there were 1,452 inspections and 14 convictions, giving an 84% compliance rate. It should be 100%, but 98% compliance is super. A compliance rate of 84% is very good and an indication that retailers are being responsible.

Let me give one other statistic for the same period on the display ban. There were 22,400 inspections and an 85% compliance rate.

The claim that the tobacco companies are flooding the market-----

Mr. Joe Sweeney

On that point, the tobacco companies will be before the committee next week and that will be a question for them, but that is neither here nor there to us. We are fighting criminal-----

Mr. Vincent Jennings

As Senator John Crown said, if it starts initiation, it is one very good reason to stop it.

I thank Ms Buckley, Ms Higgins, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Candon and Mr. Ridgway for attending, giving of their time and, more importantly, their considered and informed views. I recognise the roles they play and the responsible way in which they do their business. As Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin stated - I intended to make this point at the end of my contribution - there is much more that binds us together than separates us.

It is important that the witnesses recognise it as part of our report. Indeed, some of the recommendations suggested by them today may be contained in a report to go to Government regarding issues about which we have spoken. For that, I thank them most sincerely. I also thank the committee members. It has been a long morning as we have been sitting since 9.30 a.m.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.51 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 February 2014.
Top
Share