LegCo Panel on Health Services

Action

Item for discussion at this meeting

The Chairman remarked that because of time constraints, the Panel would only discuss at this meeting the Administration’s proposed amendments to the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance (Cap. 371). The remaining items on the agenda would be deferred to the next two meetings.

Items for discussion at the next meeting scheduled for 6 May 1996

2. Members noted that the Complaints Division had referred the following two subjects to the Panel:

1. Medical subsidy scheme (LegCo Paper No. PL 1103/95-96)
2. Medical services for the elderly (LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 1000/95-96)

3. The Chairman proposed and Members agreed to discuss the above two subjects and to meet the concerned organizations at the next meeting scheduled for 6 May 1996.

CAS(2)4

4. Members also agreed to discuss the item on "the role and governance of Prince Philip Dental Hospital (PPDH)" at the next meeting. In this connection, Dr LEONG Che-hung would like to have more detailed information about PPDH, such as the number of patients treated. The Chairman proposed and Dr LEONG agreed to list out the information required so that the LegCo Secretariat could follow up with the Administration to ensure that the relevant information would be available for Members’ reference before the next meeting.

(Post-meeting note: With the concurrence of the Chairman, the item on "the role and governance of PPDH" would be discussed at the meeting to be held on 20 May 1996, instead of the next meeting.)

Dr LEONG
Che-hung
CAS(2)4
Adm

An additional meeting for May 1996

5. The Chairman proposed and Members agreed to hold one more Panel meeting in May 1996 to discuss the remaining items on the agenda. It was scheduled to be held on Monday, 20 May 1996 at 8:30 a.m.

Proposed Amendments to the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance

Briefing by the Administration

6. Mr Derek GOULD advised that the Administration had adopted an anti-smoking policy since 1975 and introduced anti-smoking legislation in 1982. The Administration reviewed the legislation every year or two in the light of changing world trends and local views and then considered whether there was a need to introduce additional measures. Prompted by the following two factors, the Administration proposed to introduce further measures to improve the effectiveness of the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance:

1. As a result of legislative measures in the past decade, there had been a drop in the smoking population generally, with the exception of juvenile smoking. Local research conducted in 1994 had indicated a strong correlation between smoking and the perceived attractiveness of tobacco advertisements among young people. It was considered necessary to introduce measures to counter the effect of tobacco advertising on juvenile smoking; and
2. The World Health Organization Western Pacific Region had promulgated its Action Plan on Tobacco or Health for 1995-99, which called for a "Tobacco-advertising-free Region by the year 2000".

7. Mr Derek GOULD highlighted the major proposed legislative amendments as follows:

1. to prohibit tobacco advertising in printed publications and for display in permanent or semi-permanent form, to be brought into effect 24 months after passage of the Bill;
2. to lower the maximum tar content in cigarettes from 20 to 17 milligrams;
3. to empower managers of banks, restaurants, supermarkets and shopping malls to designate premises under their control as no-smoking areas;
4. to prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packets of less than 20 sticks and sale of tobacco products from vending machines;
5. to prohibit the giving of tobacco products to any person for the purpose of promotion or advertisement; and
6. to prohibit the giving of tobacco products in exchange for any token, prize, valuable consideration, gift, or discount on any product etc.

(Post-meeting note: The Administration advised that the proposal at item (c) above covered "department stores".)

8. Mr Derek GOULD also advised that the Administration had consulted the tobacco industry on the proposed legislative amendments. The tobacco industry had objected on the grounds that prohibition of tobacco advertising would contravene provisions in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (BOR) Ordinance. However, legal advice sought by the Administration confirmed that the proposed legislative amendments were unlikely to be regarded by the Hong Kong Courts as having contravened the BOR Ordinance.

Discussion on the proposed legislative amendments

Item (a) - To prohibit tobacco advertising in printed publications and for display in permanent or semi-permanent form, to be brought into effect 24 months after passage of the Bill

9. Dr LEONG Che-hung wondered whether there had been a delay in introducing this proposed legislative amendment, having regard to the fact that the anti-smoking policy and legislation were introduced in 1975 and 1982 respectively. Mr Derek GOULD clarified that there had not been any delay. In fact, the Administration had been progressively tightening up controls over local tobacco advertising in line with controls exercised in other countries. For example, the Administration had been imposing restrictions on tobacco advertising in printed media since 1982 by requiring the display of health warnings. Initially, the display occupied 10% of the advertisement. Later, it was increased to 20%. The Administration was now proposing a total ban on tobacco advertising in printed media.

10. Dr LEONG Che-hung queried why this proposal would only be brought into effect 24 months after passage of the Bill. Mr Derek GOULD explained that the 24-month grace period was needed to allow publishers and advertising agencies to find alternative sources of revenue.

11. Dr LAW Chi-kwong asked for the rationale of setting the grace period at 24 months, but not 12 months or some other periods. Mr Derek GOULD pointed out that many advertising contracts were negotiated far in advance. A 12-month grace period might be too short while a 36-month grace period too long.

12. In response to the Chairman’s enquiry, Mr Derek GOULD advised that "permanent or semi-permanent form" basically referred to posters, illuminated panels, neon signs and painting advertisements on the outside of buildings. In response to Dr LEONG Che-hung’s enquiry, Mr GOULD advised that painting advertisements on the outside of buses or trams would be regarded as "display in semi-permanent form". The Chairman asked whether the interpretation of the phrase would be explicitly stated in the Bill. Mr GOULD considered this unnecessary but would consider defining it more precisely if future experience indicated the need to do so.

13. Dr LEONG Che-hung asked whether this proposal would cover sponsorship of sports events by tobacco companies. Dr LAW Chi-kwong quoted an example in which a tobacco company, being the sponsor of a tennis competition, hung up banners with its brand name in the tennis court. Mrs Doris HO confirmed that this proposal would not cover indirect advertising such as sponsorships. Mr Derek GOULD advised that the Administration was adopting a step-by-step approach and would deal with indirect advertising at a later stage. At the moment, it did allow the tobacco company name or the corporate name to be used in connection with sponsorships provided that there was no inducement to smoke and no mention of the words "smoking", "cigarette", "tobacco", etc.

14. Dr LEONG Che-hung pointed out that sometimes, tobacco advertising only involved the brand name with an image, such as a man riding on a horse, without mentioning the cigarettes. He wondered how the Administration would take action against this kind of advertisements. Mr Derek GOULD advised that if that same image had been used previously as a tobacco advertisement, the Administration would still regard it as a tobacco advertisement and take action accordingly.

15. Dr LAW Chi-kwong pointed out that some tobacco companies had different kinds of products under the same brand name, not only cigarettes. Hence, the appearance of this brand name on an advertisement did not necessarily mean that it was a tobacco advertisement. Mrs Doris HO advised that this form of indirect advertising was not covered by the Bill.

Item (b) - To lower the maximum tar content in cigarettes from 20 to 17 milligrams

16. As Hong Kong was a non-cigarette producing country, Dr LEONG Che-hung wondered whether the Administration was proposing to ban the import of cigarettes with tar content over 17 milligrams. Mr Derek GOULD replied in the affirmative, just as cigarettes with tar content over 20 milligrams were currently not allowed to be sold in Hong Kong. This was in line with the existing practice in other countries, such as the United Kingdom where there was a 15 milligram limit.

Item (c) - To empower managers of banks, restaurants, supermarkets, department stores and shopping malls to designate premises under their control as no-smoking areas

17. Dr John TSE asked whether this proposal would cover office premises. Mr Derek GOULD advised that this proposal basically dealt with retail premises, rather than work places and offices. The Administration had just adopted a smoke free Government workplace policy since 1 April 1996 and was encouraging other employers to do likewise. For the time being, the Administration was not going to make it mandatory for employers to set aside no-smoking areas in the work place.

18. Dr John TSE did not think that it would be effective to rely on voluntary efforts of the managers to designate no-smoking areas in the work place and retail premises. He requested the Administration to consider making it a mandatory requirement. Mr Derek GOULD considered this difficult to do so because enforcement rested with the managers. However, Dr TSE considered that there was a need to protect the interests of non-smokers. The Chairman proposed and the Administration agreed to further look into this point.

Adm

Item (d) - To prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packets of less than 20 sticks and sale of tobacco products from vending machines

19. Dr LEONG Che-hung wondered why prohibiting the sale of cigarettes in packets less than 20 sticks would have any particular effect. Mr Derek GOULD explained that if cigarettes were sold in small packets, they were cheaper to buy and therefore more attractive to people with less money and young people. This proposal was to make it financially more difficult for people to buy cigarettes.

Item (e) - To prohibit the giving of tobacco products to any person for the purpose of promotion or advertisement

20. The Chairman wondered whether this proposal was practicable because it would be debatable as to whether the giving of tobacco products was for the purpose of promotion or advertisement. Mr Derek GOULD advised that this proposal referred to the tobacco companies’ marketing strategy to attract people to smoke cigarettes or to smoke a particular brand of cigarettes. He considered it practicable to implement this proposal.

Further Discussion

Disposal of contraband cigarettes

21. In response to Dr LEONG Che-hung’s enquiry on how the Administration would dispose of contraband cigarettes, Mr Derek GOULD advised that the general question of disposal of seized products was not within the policy area of the Health and Welfare Branch (HWB). However, the HWB would address the issue of what should be the policy on disposal of seized cigarettes.

Adm

Consultation

22. Apart from the tobacco industry, Dr LAW Chi-kwong asked whether the Administration had consulted other affected industries such as the newspaper industry and if so, what were their responses. Mr Derek GOULD confirmed that the Administration had consulted the newspaper industry and communicated with the 4As - Association of Accredited Advertising Agents of Hong Kong on the proposed legislative amendments.

Implications of the proposed legislative amendments

23. Dr LAW Chi-kwong considered it important to ascertain the implications of the proposed legislative amendments on the society as a whole. In response to Dr LAW’s enquiry, Mr Derek GOULD advised that less than 10% of the advertising revenue came from tobacco products. Dr LAW requested more detailed information about the effect of prohibition of tobacco advertising in electronic media on the two local television companies. Mr GOULD agreed to provide the relevant information.

Adm

24. Miss CHAN Yuen-han was concerned about the impact of the proposed legislative amendments on the employees of the related industries. In response to Miss CHAN’s request, Mrs Doris HO agreed to provide the information on the number of employees involved in the related industries.

Adm

25. Mrs Selina CHOW expressed concern that the proposed prohibition of tobacco advertising might contravene the BOR Ordinance. In view of a recent relevant court ruling in Canada, Mrs CHOW considered that this proposal, if implemented, might be subject to legal challenge. Mr Derek GOULD clarified that the arguments involved in the Canadian case concerned the wording, rather than the effect, of the legislation. The Canadian Government was seeking to redraft the legislation to make the sale of cigarettes subject to licence, the effect of which would be the same as that of the existing legislation. Nevertheless, legal advice sought by the Administration confirmed that the arguments offered in the Canadian case were not applicable to Hong Kong and that this proposal was justified as a means necessary to protect public health. Mrs CHOW was not convinced by the reply. To her understanding, the Canadian case involved a matter of principle - the restriction on the right of freedom of expression by prohibition of tobacco advertising. She considered that legislation could be used for protection of public health, but not for restricting the right of freedom of expression. In response to the Chairman’s request, Mr GOULD agreed to provide for Members’ reference the legal advice sought by the Administration.

Adm

26. Mrs Selina CHOW was also concerned about the implications of the proposed legislative amendments on the small retailers. Regarding item (e) of the proposed legislative amendments, she requested clarification on under what circumstances the giving of tobacco products to a person would be regarded as "for the purpose of promotion or advertisement". Moreover, she wondered why the Administration proposed to prohibit the display of more than 1 packet of each brand of cigarettes. She considered these two proposals too harsh for the small retailers who would be easily caught by the proposed new legislation. She queried whether it was really necessary to introduce these measures.

27. Mr Derek GOULD explained that at present, it was illegal to sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18. He considered that the additional requirement not to display more than 1 packet of each brand of cigarettes would not pose great difficulties for retailers.

28. Moreover, Mr Derek GOULD did not consider that the proposed legislative amendments were too harsh. As explained at para. 6(a) above, there was a need to introduce further measures to reduce young peoples’ access to cigarettes. The proposed legislative amendments were directed towards that end. Hence, the display of more than 1 packet of each brand of cigarettes was to be prohibited because such display would have the same effect as an advertisement. Mr GOULD added that this measure was adopted in some other countries which had a total ban on tobacco advertising.

29. Mrs Selina CHOW did not consider that there was a difference between the display of 1 packet or 10 packets of each brand of cigarettes and therefore, a need to introduce the proposed measure. The Chairman proposed and Mr Derek GOULD agreed to consider Mrs CHOW’s views.

Adm

Next Step

30. Mrs Doris HO said that the present intention was to introduce the proposed amendments into the Legislative Council in May 1996.

Close of Meeting

31. The meeting ended at 11 : 50 a.m.

LegCo Secretariat
23 April 1996