Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will begin by congratulating the New Zealand Parliament which, on Tuesday evening, had its first vote on the tobacco plain packaging amendment Bill and voted 118 to 1. Therefore, we are not alone in this discussion and it is not just Australia. At the hearings at these meetings, which no doubt the industry has been following, we have had some really compelling evidence so I find it difficult when I am being told there is no evidence. We have had compelling evidence from medical specialists and children's groups. The evidence from the children's groups, for me as a children's rights activist, is that while the industry hears what is being said, it does not target children. The reality is that in Ireland, we know that 78% of those who will start smoking today will be under 18 years of age. Either the companies' marketing campaigns are seriously misdirected or there is a targeting of children. We heard from children themselves at this committee about how the packaging is attractive to them. In Ireland we need 50 new smokers per day, that means 39 will be under 18 every day, and we know that the industry's business model will collapse if it does not get them. That is the position I am coming from on this issue and the reason I fully support plain packaging.

The witnesses cited the experience in Germany about education and the use of education. I am sure other colleagues will come in on this issue. Germany has the same smoking rate for 12 to 17 year olds as Ireland which is 12%. Germany's evidence on youth smoking rates is clear from increased taxation and its smoking bans. In regard to marketing, the industry is quick to say that marketing is not attracting children. Can the industry give us access to its marketing data for "lipstick packs", for example, if it is so assured of its evidence?

With regard also to the marketing of children, I saw a BBC documentary in 2008 which clearly showed the marketing to children in Africa, selling cigarettes in singles. The witnesses presented some figures today but the figures I trust are those from the HSE national tobacco control office which states that the rate is not 970,000 but 750,000 smokers in Ireland, which is 22%. We have heard this morning that there was no evidence from Australia. The Australian TV channel, ABC News fact check team, actually investigated that claim and refutes the claim put forward by the industry that there is no evidence. Perhaps the witnesses would watch it themselves.

We have been told this morning that plain packaging will create a big opportunity for criminals. I suggest the witnesses read the recently published European Parliament's budgetary committee report which states "The single most important factor that will influence the size of the illicit cigarette market in Europe is the business strategy of the cigarette manufacturers". We have also heard that we will not have any criminal gangs behind the tobacco smuggling before this joint committee and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, was cited. Perhaps the witness can explain why that same Minister for Finance said in the House that he suspected the legal tobacco industry of involvement of production in illicit cigarettes. Every year, the tobacco industry claims to us that high prices will increase smuggling, but it increases it own prices. It is not just taxation that increases prices. The witness speak about illicit white brands on Moore Street. The only reliable research we have is from the HSE national tobacco control office which shows a smuggling rate of 13% in Ireland but of that 13% it states that 1% is counterfeit and virtually all of the rest comes from legal industry. In other words, counterfeit tobacco in an Irish context is virtually irrelevant and I do not think it provides any valid argument. The witnesses cited the KPMG report which I could go through. However, there is one quote I like to take from it on page 25 which states that the KPMG's project star data cannot be used to estimate the illicit cigarette market in the EU because the report was commissioned to meet specific terms of reference which are only known to Philip Morris International and KPMG. Therefore, the witnesses should not use it and cite it as a credible report.

May I ask a question of Forest Éireann because it was originally set up by the industry trade body. I take what Mr. John Mallon has said.