Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Avril Doyle is out of order.
Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new subsection:
"(8) All nicotine replacement therapies shall be available from all commercial outlets selling cigarettes and tobacco.".
We now realise that all cigarettes contain nicotine and are addictive. This amendment, which I am moving on behalf of Senator Avril Doyle, proposes that nicotine replacement therapies, which include forms of treatment other than patches, be sold where cigarettes and tobacco are available. These treatments would be an antidote to the risk to the health of those who buy tobacco and suffer from its consumption. They are sufferers because, as the Minister knows, illnesses associated with tobacco affect the heart and lungs, at great cost to the health care system. It is fair, just and sensible to have nicotine replacement therapies available from all commercial outlets selling cigarettes and tobacco.
It is reasonable that nicotine replacement therapies should be available where nicotine products are available. If we are to be proactive in the fight against tobacco, which is the biggest killer in society in terms of legal drugs, it seems strange that we allow the sale and display of tobacco products in commercial outlets while not putting nicotine replacements by their side. The general medical services scheme, which was the subject of the first amendment, is the ideal way to do this by providing nicotine replacement therapy free of charge. Many of those on medical cards abuse cigarettes and tobacco to a greater extent than people in other parts of society. Nicotine replacement therapies should be promoted and nicotine products should not be displayed without giving people the opportunity to consider an alternative.
This amendment would be a good one if there was any indication that nicotine replacement therapies really worked. In my experience, their success rate is not very high. However, there is a way around this. One must get them on prescription. If they were over the counter products, it would be reasonable. However, putting something on prescription which does not have a track record in dealing with tobacco addiction would not be right, fair or reasonable.
We discussed this issue on Second Stage and I understand the concern and rationale behind the proposed amendment. However, there are reservations concerning public health in respect of the amendment. Nicotine replacement products were reclassified in 1996 from prescription only to over the counter sale in pharmacies. Because of the widespread effects of nicotine, particularly on the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, the gastro-intestinal system and on metabolism generally, I have been advised that the Irish Medicines Board and the Poisons Council may not easily agree to extend the availability of these products outside pharmacies, where the health implications for the patients seeking them would be considered. There is a question mark about making these products generally available because of their safety. We will keep the issue under continual review.
If someone now tried to have a cigarette product licensed for general retail sale, they would find it difficult to get permission – I would argue they would not get permission. Basically, we are talking about a replacement therapy containing nicotine and we need to be careful about putting more nicotine products on the market, besides legalised cigarettes. We want to discontinue cigarette smoking and promote disincentives. The tobacco free policy group recognises the value of nicotine replacement therapy as one weapon in the battle against tobacco consumption. We will proceed on the basis of the recommendations of the Towards a Tobacco Free Society Group, which means developing nicotine replacement therapies in the context of the GMS while creating an intolerance in society towards tobacco smoking. I would need to consult with the IMB and the Poisons Council before we make an overnight decision on something which, in essence, is a medication.
The first amendment, which was considered out of order, stated that nicotine replacement therapy would be available free of charge under the general medical services scheme. The two amendments are related. The Minister said the Irish Medicines Board may have a problem with this. In an article in The Irish Times last week, Dr. Muiris Houston said proof that withdrawal from smoking can be attributed to nicotine is shown by the consistent finding that withdrawal symptoms are relieved by NRT but not by a placebo, that is, a patch that does not contain nicotine. NRT has been shown to double the chance that a smoker will be able to kick the habit. It is now available in a wide variety of formulations, from inhalers to patches.
In relation to the point made by Dr. Houston, have the Minister's advisers looked at whether there is a precedent in other countries for having nicotine replacement therapies on sale in commercial outlets for tobacco? I do not think we are the first at everything in this country, particularly in the area of smoking, which is a horrendously serious issue for us.
The point he was making very cogently is that we cannot just walk away from the facts, particularly in light of the consistent number of new smokers. Today is the first day of the leaving and junior certificate examinations. We are told that over 50% of those sitting the junior certificate examination are smokers. We cannot walk away from those statistics. I know, as a teacher, that children were addicted when they came into my class at 12 and 13 years of age ten years ago. That is why I am so insistent on that point. If I understand the Minister correctly, the Irish Medicines Board is worried about the effects of—
If I could clarify—
I understand what the Minister is saying about the prescription aspect, but would he clarify the other point?
We said last week on Second Stage that we have made the decision in principle, in that we agree, in principle, with the concept of making nicotine replacement therapies available to those on the GMS or the medical card scheme. The issue then is to decide the best way of doing that, what logistics have to be sorted out, the feasibility of doing it and the context in which it should be done – for example, whether it should be done in the context of cessation programmes. To that end, the advisory forum on cardiovascular strategy was asked to make recommendations to me on how best we could introduce nicotine replacement therapy on the medical card scheme. That is one issue. I have no difficulty with the article or the content of Dr. Houston's conclusions.
The second issue relates to this amendment which, I understand, proposes making nicotine replacement therapies available in shops and all retail outlets, irrespective of any advice or whatever. It is in that context that the Irish Medicines Board could potentially have some concerns in terms of general public health issues which would arise from having nicotine replacement therapies available in a widespread fashion. All I am saying is that the issue needs far more careful consideration than simply deciding overnight to do it. The medical card would be by prescription, of course.
There is evidence that better results are achieved if the nicotine replacement therapy is provided in the context of cessation programmes where, rather than just buying the stuff, one is counselled and so on.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
No, but I would like some research done on whether other countries have adopted—
We will do that.
More and more youngsters are becoming addicted. It is an emergency at this stage.
We will look at the policies of some other European countries on this issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related to amendment No. 3 and they may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(b) An approval may be such as to limit the use of a drug to treatment of a particular condition or conditions or to treatment of a particular class or classes of person and in this section ‘approved' and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.”.
I am proposing this amendment because it is of the utmost importance to be in a position to respond in a flexible manner to the potential pharmaceutical needs of patients. While the Bill already goes some way in facilitating this approach, the amendment bolsters the Bill in this regard.
In some cases, it may not be appropriate to make a product universally reimbursable. For example, an over the counter product with a very wide application may be used by the general public in circumstances that do not warrant the use of the product from a clinical point of view. If such a product is universally reimbursable, a consequent waste and lack of targeting can take place. The same product, however, may be of therapeutic necessity for patients with particular conditions. It is important to provide the flexibility to reimburse such products in these circumstances. In other words, a product may be necessary for a person with a particular condition and there should be flexibility in the legislation to allow the authorities to make a reimbursement in such cases.
Amendment No. 4 is a technical amendment in regard to regulations, which is standard. It will strengthen the subsection.
Amendment No. 5 refers to the definition of "supplier". The Bill at present defines "supplier" as a person who supplies drugs to community pharmacies. The amendment is a technical amendment to the definition of "supplier", so that it also encompasses a person who supplies drugs to persons referred to in subsections (4) and (5). Persons referred to in subsection (4)(a) are doctors dispensing to medical card patients where there is no local community pharmacy, while persons referred to in subsection (4)(b) are persons approved by the Minister for the supply of non drug items. Subsection (5) refers to institutions providing a specialist service under the direct supervision of a medical consultant and approved for the supply of drugs for the purposes of section 59 of the Health Act, 1970. It is a tightening up of the definition.
I accept those amendments.
This matter pertains only slightly to the amendment. However, given that doctors are acting in a pharmacist capacity here, I expressed my concern on the Order of Business about the fact that someone who was struck off the medical register in England has approval to be on a pharmacy register here. I hope the Minister will bring forward the new medical practitioners Bill and the pharmacy Bill as soon as possible, so that we can rectify this situation.
We are working on that.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 36, after "section", to insert "and such regulations may contain such incidental supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary for the purposes of the regulations".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 51, after "community pharmacies", to insert "or a person referred to in subsection (4) or (5)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister clarify the application of the regulations in relation to agreements between proprietors of pharmacies and boards, pursuant to which community pharmacies may supply drugs under subsection (10)? What does that mean in practice, in terms of creating cartels and monopolies in the pharmacy area?
Where there is contractual agreement?
Yes.
It was introduced in 1996 and places obligations on community pharmacies which were not placed on them before. The idea was to provide for a review by the pharmacist of the medicine therapy of the patient, including screening and so on. The intention was to get pharmacists into the primary care area in a more proactive way.
As the Senator knows, there is a set of criteria by which health boards consider an application to set up a pharmacy. They make the initial decision, in accordance with criteria that are published, on whether a pharmacy should be located in a particular area, given the size of the catchment area and so on. My understanding is that the decision can be appealed by the applicant if it is refused or by somebody else if it is granted. At the moment the appeals are heard by the Minister of the day. I was going to say later in the debate that I intend to put down an amendment on this issue when the Bill goes back to the other House. I do not think the Minister should be involved in the appeals process. In line with modern practice we should have an independent court of appeal, whether it is the District Court or another court. We are working on this with the draftsman's office at the moment so that, in essence, there will be an independent appeals forum to look at these issues.
At present my officials make representations to me as Minister as to whether a pharmacy should be given sanction and I am not sure that a Minister should be involved with the minutiae of deciding where a pharmacy should go. In the first instance it is the health board which makes a decision based on criteria that have been established regarding catchment area, the public health needs of an area and so on.
I am glad the Minister intends to introduce an amendment relating to the appeals, as obviously the Minister is not the proper person to deal with such appeals. I have received some documentation on this matter which I will pass on to the Minister if he is going to deal with it in the other House.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.–The Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act, 1988, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following sections for section 3:
‘3A.–(1) Any person who sells, offers to sell, or makes available in relation to the sale of any other product, cigarettes or any other tobacco product to a person under the age of 18 years, whether for his or her own use or otherwise, or who sells to any person, acting on behalf of a person under the age of 18 years, any tobacco products, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £2,500.
(2) The owner, or any person in charge, of any machine for the sale of tobacco products who permits the machine to be used for the sale of such products to a person under the age of 18 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2,500.
(3) The owner, or any person in charge, of any machine for the sale of tobacco products who keeps the machine in place in any premises frequented by a person or persons under the age of 18 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2,500.
(4) It shall be a defence for a person prosecuted under this section to establish that the person to whom the tobacco products were sold, offered for sale or made available, had upon request furnished to him or her a document, as specified in regulations made by the Minister for such purpose, verifying he or she to be 18 years of age or older, where it was reasonable to regard the documentation concerned as authentic and as applicable to the person to whom the tobacco products were sold, offered for sale or made available.
(5) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under this section, it is alleged that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed is under the age of 18 years, and such person appears to the court to have been, at the date of the commission of the alleged offence, under the age of 18 years, such person shall for the purposes of this section be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been at that date under that age.
(6) The Minister may, by regulations, specify the document or documents that may be relied upon pursuant to subsection (4) by a person against whom a prosecution is brought for an offence allegedly committed as specified in this section.
3B.–(1) Any person who sells or offers to sell cigarettes or other tobacco products in a retail outlet, shall at the point of sale exhibit in a prominent position notices warning of–
(a) the addictive and health dangers posed by cigarettes, and
(b) the age restriction on sale and the vendor's obligation to ask for age verification.
(2) The Minister shall, by regulations, specify the size of the notices specified in subsection (1) and the detail and print size of the information to be contained in them.
(3) Any person who sells or offers to sell cigarettes or other tobacco products in a retail outlet and who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding £2,500.
3C.–Any person who having been found guilty of an offence pursuant to section 2 or 3 of this Act is subsequently found guilty of a further offence under either of the aforesaid sections shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 and/or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or as an alternative to the aforesaid term of imprisonment may be directed by the court to undertake community service pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983.' ”.
On Second Stage we all made it clear how concerned we are with the high level of tobacco smoking, not just among young people but generally. The statistics on smoking among over half of the children sitting their junior certificate examination attributed to Dr. Des Carney, an oncologist at the Mater Hospital, are quite alarming. The fact that 90% of those who smoke start smoking before the age of 20 is also unbelievable.
The reason for this amendment is that fines are not always implemented, such as in the case of litter offences. The figure of £1,500 is too low and the amendment states:
Any person who sells, offers to sell, or makes available in relation to the sale of any other product, cigarettes or any other tobacco product to a person under the age of 18 years, whether for his or her own use or otherwise, or who sells to any person, acting on behalf of a person under the age of 18 years, any tobacco products, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £2,500.
The Minister said on Second Stage that it would not be possible to raise the level of the fine, but I have been told by a legal source that it is. Perhaps we can agree to differ on this, although the Minister should justify his argument that the amount cannot be raised. The offence is so grievous that £2,500 is low, considering the amount of money being made by racketeers and by those abusing young people in this manner – they know the contents of cigarettes and we know that cigarettes are being sold singly. It is easy for young people to have access to cigarettes and the fine I have suggested is the least amount that could be imposed.
The same applies to someone in charge of a machine selling tobacco products. We stated last week that we hoped such machines would be out of reach of young people and that they would not be in areas where young people congregate. All these offences should carry a fine of £2,500. Subsection (4) of the amendment is important. It states:
It shall be a defence for a person prosecuted under this section to establish that the person to whom the tobacco products were sold, offered for sale or made available, had upon request furnished to him or her a document, as specified in regulations made by the Minister for such purpose, verifying he or she to be 18 years of age or older, where it was reasonable to regard the documentation concerned as authentic and as applicable to the person to whom the tobacco products were sold, offered for sale or made available.
This is an important provision in the context of those who may say, "The person said she was 18 and she offered me a forged ID card." Many people are taken in by how sophisticated young people can look – those of 14 or 15 can pass for 21 and they are adept at getting into nightclubs and at gaining access to liquor and cigarettes.
The identity card issue must be dealt with for once and for all. It is virtually impossible to police the matter. I know that in Limerick pupils in one school had quite a business going on forging identity cards for young people. They are full of imagination and creativity and we need a national identity card whereby the person selling tobacco can be protected. Young people are playing Molly bawn with proprietors, picking their times to buy cigarettes and drink, and there must be some protection for the person who is prosecuted.
Another important subsection of the amendment states:
Where, in a prosecution for an offence under this section, it is alleged that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed is under the age of 18 years, and such person appears to the court to have been, at the date of the commission of the alleged offence, under the age of 18 years, such person shall for the purposes of this section be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been at that date under that age.
This is a very important point. The amendment goes on to state:
The Minister may, by regulations, specify the document or documents that may be relied upon pursuant to subsection (4) by a person against whom a prosecution is brought for an offence allegedly committed as specified in this section.
This means that we will need to know what documents will be needed.
The proposed new section also provides:
Any person who sells or offers to sell cigarettes or other tobacco products in a retail outlet, shall at the point of sale exhibit in a prominent position notices warning of–
(a) the addictive and health dangers posed by cigarettes,
I know the Minister said on Second Stage that he intends pursuing this matter, but it is extremely important. When I was in Canada I researched their experiences in this regard, as they have gone through many advertising campaigns, some of which did not work. Some of the health warnings state that cigarettes can cause the arteries in one's brain to clog, causing strokes and some carry pictures of the human brain after a stroke. I know those are shock tactics, but young people – as we all do perhaps – think themselves immortal. The advertisements are not just for young people but are also aimed at those who say they are addicted and cannot get off cigarettes.
There should be a health notice in a prominent position at the point of sale as well as a notice with the age restrictions and the vendor's obligation to ask for age verification. It should be there in black and white. The person is reminded of the onus on him or her, not just on the young people or adults who see cigarettes on sale. These advertisements are not just seen on television and in the newspapers, they are directed specifically at people.
The amendment reads, "The Minister shall, by regulations, specify the size of the notices. . . ". There is no point having a notice stating that it is not legal to sell cigarettes to those under the age of 18. People ignore tiny "no smoking" notices. There is a regression in this regard and people do not obey. At one time it was politically incorrect to smoke and some of us still believe this is the case. I was in a restaurant in Clare over the weekend where the menu included the wording, "No tobacco smoking on these premises." This allowed a potential customer the time to decide to go elsewhere. No smoking of any kind was allowed in this restaurant, yet it was full and was not losing customers as a result of the prohibition on smoking.
The amendment provides that the Minister should specify the size of the notices and the detail and print size of the information to be contained in them. There should be policing of the premises to ensure those buying and selling cigarettes are aware of their responsibilities. The amendment proposes that any person who sells or offers to sell cigarettes or other tobacco products in a retail outlet and who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding £2,500. This would drastically cut cigarette sales to young or old people. The amendment proposes that a person who has been found guilty, decides to ignore it and is subsequently found guilty of a further offence under either of the aforementioned sections shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 and/or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or as an alternative to the aforesaid term of imprisonment may be directed by the court to undertake community service pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983.
These amendments are not tabled lightly but on foot of the cavalier attitude of those who insist on breaking the law. This is a matter of life and death. Regardless of the Minister's statement last week that the Attorney General believes one cannot have fines of that nature, I consider them to be extremely lenient. Fortunately, I never smoked but I have friends who are addicted. I have taught children of 12 and 13 years of age, right up to the age of 18, whose lives can be planned out in relation to their health. The incidence of lung cancer in women now exceeds that of men. Nothing seems to entice young girls to give up smoking cigarettes. I am not sure whether this relates to body image or peer pressure. It is more than that – they are actually addicted and cannot fight the addiction.
Given that this is such a serious issue, I believe the fines are too small. A penalty of six months imprisonment for recurring offences or community service is very small in relation to the death penalty being inflicted on young people who become addicted at such an early age and who do not have the common sense to make up their own minds. The parents of these young people probably smoke, they may be surrounded by cigarettes. I hope the Minister will do something about the fines to make them a more effective deterrent.
I second the amendment. If Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Director General of the World Health Organisation, were here today she would be delighted to have a colleague such as Senator Jackman in her determination for a tobacco free world. I am aware the Minister is anxious about the numbers of young people taking up smoking and I am sure he was very alarmed by the report of the Southern Health Board which showed that a certain proportion of children as young as nine and ten years of age are smoking regularly. None of us believes the Minister is not concerned about the issue.
The amendments are sensible because they stress what a serious offence this is. We all know that virtually every adult who smokes has tried to give up the habit. Therefore, it is absolutely essential for the tobacco companies to keep up the numbers of smokers and the recuitment drive for young smokers is essential. We must insist these tough regulations are obeyed. Senator Jackman is justified in seeking an increase in the fine and that a repeat offence should merit a bigger fine. Under the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, if under age drinkers are served, the judge who hears the case can shut down the pub, or part of the pub, off-licence or whatever for up to seven days. If there is a subsequent offence, the judge can shut down the pub for approximately six months. It would be worthwhile showing that repeat offences are even more serious.
It is important that every effort is made to inform young people how seriously smoking affects their health. Senator Jackman's proposal that notices of a certain size should be put up in places where cigarettes are on sale is worthwhile because the notices on cigarette packets are of a certain size only. If there were something to counteract the extraordinarily successful advertis ing by tobacco manufacturers, it would do nothing but good.
The number of young people smoking is extremely depressing. I spoke on Second Stage about attending a meeting in Trinity where approximately 50% of people, not just the national average of 30%, who should have had some notion of the associated health risks were sitting around smoking. I second Senator Jackman's efforts to try to have the health risks and dangers of addiction to smoking advertised in retail outlets. Those who begin smoking and drinking early are far more likely to become involved in illegal drugs. I am sure the Minister is weary from hearing this argument but I believe the Senator is trying to strengthen this section of the Bill.
I support Senator Jackman's amendment. Probably the best way to deal with the problem of under age smoking is to increase the cost of cigarettes. The Minister for Finance has a major role to play in this regard. Young people of nine or ten years of age will not have an enormous amount of money at their disposal, therefore if cigarettes are expensive, it will be difficult for them to afford them. It is alarming that a large number of people of that age are smoking. Obviously they are attracted to it as a result of the sexy advertising by the tobacco industry and peer pressure. After a number of years it becomes an addiction and these people are hooked on cigarettes. By the time they can pay for as many cigarettes as they wish to smoke, they find it difficult to give up the habit. This is a worrying development.
The second issue covered by the amendment is the question of availability. The sale of cigarettes should not be permitted on any premises that are not supervised or in adjacent premises that are not supervised. Cigarettes should be kept behind the counter in public houses. Young people should not be in public houses in the first instance. If cigarettes are sold in hotels, they should be kept behind a counter which is supervised. They should not be in the foyer or any other public place. Unless there is adult supervision, those who frequent it, families and young people, will be able to get them. No locations for the sale of cigarettes should be provided which are not clearly supervised by adults.
Cigarettes are far more dangerous than alcohol – they are the real killers in society. The penalties in the Intoxicating Liquor Bill are extremely severe and a public house which breaks the law will be closed for a period. There are certain conditions under which an appeal can be made, but closure for a period is mandatory. Not only that but it is mandatory that a public notice be put on the premises explaining why it was closed. Surely we should be taking as severe an approach to the sale of cigarettes to youngsters, something we are not doing. There are some tough measures in the Bill, but the legislation will easily allow young people to get tobacco and cigarettes. Currently, young people do not have the slightest difficulty in getting cigarettes. Until we become tough we will not make an impact.
I am delighted the amendment includes the penalty of community service. Penalties in legislation should include an option of community service as an alternative to imprisonment and fines. I do not know when we last passed legislation which specified community service as one of the options which judges could consider. All legislation should now include community service as an option. Otherwise judges will go for the two options included in legislation, namely, a fine or imprisonment. We used to look at legislation in terms of gender proofing and we should now examine it in terms of providing the option of community service.
I support Senator Jackman's amendment which is very worthwhile and important. Everybody agrees that more must be done about cigarette smoking. The Government in its last budget took a very important step forward by increasing taxation on the sale of tobacco. We must be more hard line in following this in relation to fines. We must put the boot in if people are breaking the law in a way that results in the health of children being seriously affected. It is very important that the clearest possible signal is sent out and the best way to hit those breaking the law is to fine them, with an increasing scale of fines for repeat offences.
From working with young people I am concerned about recreation facilities. Under age people are drinking and smoking in places of recreation for young people such as discos and so on, and this is a matter of concern for parents. The health of young people is seriously affected and we should take a harder line on tobacco. Our right to clean air is affected when people smoke. We should consider legislation forcing pubs and other places to have clean air through the provision of adequate and proper ventilation.
I completely agree with what Senator Jackman said. The culture in Ireland is improving. Recently I was in Portugal and noticed that every second person, particularly young people, was smoking. At least things are not as bad as they are in Ireland, but we must continue our progress and be really tough on those who break the law, particularly those who sell tobacco to people who are under age. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
The amendment has not been fully thought through. I agree that Senator Jackman's heart is in the right place, but increasing the fines will not solve the problem. Senator Costello said that such things as community service should be considered when penalties are being imposed.
Tobacconists require a licence to sell tobacco which could be taken from them temporarily or permanently, but illegal tobacco sellers have no licence. It is possible to buy illegal tobacco and cigarettes on the streets of Dublin, including Henry Street on a busy day. While the Revenue Commissioners are very active they have not managed to stamp out the illegal trade.
We spoke about the amount of advertising undertaken by the tobacco industry. Some years ago the Department of Health and Children undertook an advertising campaign on the dangers of drugs, and every doctor and pharmacy got horrendous looking posters. However, they did not work. In my area the level of drug addiction increased.
Perhaps the Minister will examine this section when he brings the Bill to the Dáil. There may be room for improvement by providing for a wider approach in the application of penalties for selling tobacco to underage people.
I thank the Senators for their contributions, including Senator Jackman who tabled the amendment. I think there is broad agreement in the House in terms of adopting as tough a position as possible in relation to the sale of tobacco, particularly to those who are under age.
The Bill is an interim measure. On Second Stage I indicated we would bring in a very comprehensive Bill on tobacco in terms of its sale, fines and penalties, advertising, the manner in which it should be sold, the degree of prominence accorded tobacco products and disclosure of ingredients, etc. Therefore, we are looking at a much more comprehensive package for the autumn and issues such as vending machines will be addressed in that Bill.
We may not be here in the autumn.
We will be here. Most general elections take four weeks.
If we allow the Bill through, at least we will have increased the age limit. The original fine prior to this legislation was £500 and we have increased it to £1,500 in line with legal advice I received from the Attorney General, as I previously advised the House. A maximum fine of £1,500 is constitutionally accepted as the maximum amount for conviction for a summary offence in a District Court, where these offences are tried by a judge only. A larger fine would require a change to the nature of the offence and necessitate a jury trial in a Circuit Court with senior counsel and full legal teams. The level of successful prosecutions is much lower in trials by jury in the Circuit Court. We need to tease out this issue between now and the autumn. I undertake to look seriously at the nature of the offence in the context of the new tobacco Bill to be introduced in the autumn. The penalties can also be looked at. I have no aversion, therefore, to introducing a higher fine. To do so we may have to change the way we do things. I will have no difficulty in looking at the areas of community service – a very good idea – and the removal of licences. I am not in disagreement, therefore, with the sentiments and views expressed.
The issue of vending machines needs to be looked at. We need time during the summer to decide on what specifically needs to be done. Work is well advanced on the new tobacco Bill which clearly will be undermined if there is easy access to vending machines in terms of the sale of cigarettes to under age persons. We have to ensure complete supervision by the owner or else come up with an alternative to prevent the Bill, which will forbid the sale of cigarettes to those under the age of 18, being undermined. We must ensure we get it right. It will give us an opportunity to deal with many issues which cannot be dealt with in this interim measure.
Since the formation of the Government in 1997 99% of the time of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, of which I am a member, was taken up with the production of the national anti-smoking strategy which was adopted in November 1999. While I do not question the Minister's bona fides in relation to the new tobacco Bill, the issue of fines is pressing and one about which I feel strongly. The Minister said that the courts system may have to be addressed to change the level of the fine. A fine of £2,500—
That is the advice of the Attorney General.
I understand that but Senator O'Dowd said to me today that as a person might opt to spend six months in prison we should make the fine hurt. We are talking about those who blatantly ignore the seriousness of what they are doing. That is the reason I and the members of the joint committee feel so strongly about the matter. The necessary legislative changes recommended in its report collectively adopted by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Independents could have been brought into being since November to increase the level of the fine.
The legal advice is that constitutionally one could not do it even if one wanted to.
I understand that.
It is a very valid point. Even with the best will in the world one could not do it. There is also the issue of what is the objective of the exercise in moving to a higher court. Do we want more or fewer convictions? We need to tease out these matters. We are talking about a difference of £1,000. Although I take the point which is being sincerely pressed, I am not sure how fundamental it is in the context of an interim Bill in the overall battle against tobacco. In the context of the wide range of penalties that could be applied, it makes sense to await the substantive Bill.
There is a practical problem which may not be obvious even to the Minister. Many of those who work for the Department of Health and Children in hospitals hand out cigarettes to long-stay patients who have an unofficial tobacco allowance. Whether we like it, this is a fact of life in long-stay hospitals.
I strongly support the comments of my colleague, Senator Fitzpatrick. This is a long-established practice, especially in psychiatric institutions. It has been done ad nauseam for many years.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
Tá
|
Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Joe. |
Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.McDonagh, Jarlath.O'Dowd, Fergus.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine. |
Níl
|
Callanan, Peter.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Keogh, Helen. |
Kett, Tony.Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Connor and Coogan; Níl, Senators Farrell and Keogh.
Question declared lost.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
I call the acting Leader of the House.
I propose that the House suspend for 15 minutes until 6.15 p.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.15 p.m.