Ms Laura Garvey:

In regard to the size of cigarette packages, as we know the tobacco industry has invested hugely in package design and in trying to encourage new and young smokers to take up the habit. They have invested heavily in pack innovation. We talk about perfume or cosmetic type packages which are very small and contain the slim cigarettes. When these packages came out on the market originally, they resembled a tobacco product but were thinner. On the face of it, they looked the same as a tobacco product, but then innovation changed them and they are now a very small packet which can be quickly put into a handbag and are obviously geared at the female market. In our research, we looked at the situation in other countries. Australian legislation has restricted the size of a cigarette packet and there is a minimum and maximum length, depth and height. When considering regulations, we should look at the physical features of a cigarette packet so we can introduce similar restrictions.

The tobacco industry has moved forward significantly with the roll-your-own products. This product is now in a large box, which includes the pouch, tobacco, the cigarette papers and the cigarette rolling machine or the filters and the tubes. These large boxes currently have significant branding, colour and advertising and the product name is in large print. This legislation should help move away from this final form of advertising. Now that we have moved away from point of sale advertising and from gantry advertising, this final form remains, but hopefully it will be abolished by this Bill and we can move away from branding of tobacco products. Normalising the size of the tobacco package is also very important.

The other recommendation we made concerns the powers within the Bill. The heads of the Bill describe the powers in section 48 of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act and suggest that the new Bill will permit us to seize products for examination. The new legislation should ensure we can seize, remove, detain and, if necessary, destroy tobacco products. Currently there is a two-pronged approach. If products come into a port and are seized by Revenue, and the duty is paid on them, but they are seen as illegal imports from the point of view of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, such as niche products or snuff or illegal products such as oral tobacco products, this would be under the remit of the HSE and we would work closely with the Revenue on this. However, stronger powers are needed in this regard. We also need stronger powers to deal with retail shops selling tobacco products that are illegal under the Act, for example, where warnings are not sufficient.