I move amendment No. 3:
In page 21, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“Regulations relating to sale and supply of tobacco products
33. The Minister may make regulations—
(a) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold or supplied, tobacco products at a cheaper price on a per-cigarette basis, in cigarette packs above the standard 20 pack, in a manner likely to encourage the consumption of tobacco products in a harmful way through bulk discounting, and
(b) that larger packs of cigarettes exceeding the standard pack of 20 cigarettes may not be sold at a discounted price, relative to the unit price of a standard pack of 20 cigarettes, by a margin of more than 5 cents.”
This proposed amendment would allow the Minister to make regulations to stop tobacco manufacturing companies from bulk discounting cigarettes. As the Minister knows, bulk discounting is a technique used to drive the sales and consumption of cigarettes. Bulk discounting means that when the quantity or size of a pack of cigarettes increases, the cost per individual cigarette decreases. This provides consumers with a more cost-effective option when purchasing cigarettes in large quantities.
I will give the Minister an example. A pack of 20 cigarettes costs €16.75 but a pack of 33 cigarettes costs €25.60. On a strict pro rata basis, this latter product would retail at about €27.63. The consumer, it is suggested, is saving €2.03. The Exchequer, however, is losing both VAT and ad valorem tax revenues on this promotional price, which is determined by the tobacco company. The retailer cannot sell the product at a higher price than that set. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to give the Minister the power to make regulations to stop the discounting of carcinogenic tobacco products. It also allows the standard practice of rounding, that is, if a cigarette product costs €16.43, for example, the retailer can round the price to €16.45. Rounding is standard practice for the retailing of tobacco products. The Minister will be aware of it.
Before I go any further and comment on the rationale of my second proposed amendment, I should say that I had a discussion with traders, small and medium retailers, from all over this country, representing thousands of them. The genesis of this proposal is coming from them. I am a conduit for them and I put that on the record. I support what they are doing. I do not promote, and I do not act as a conduit for, anything I do not fundamentally believe in myself. This concern is shared by a substantial number of these local and national retailers, some of which are multiples. I set out this context during the debate on the previous Stage of the Bill and it is on the record.
I originally had four amendments but I compounded them into two for this debate. Amendment No. 4, my second amendment, is to ban the sale of big boxes of cigarettes, that is, packs of 20. Figures from the Revenue Commissioners show that the sales of large boxes of cigarettes have increased year on year since their introduction in 2012. They currently account for 35% of all cigarette sales in Ireland. New empirical evidence shows that these big boxes are a driver of sales and consumption, which is contrary to the Government's stated policy of eliminating smoking by 2025. This has direct negative consequences for addiction and health outcomes, which are surely a priority for the Minister for Health. Clearly, this is really a motivating factor.
The Minister knows the story. Clearly, he has taken advice and has come here today with his mind made up. I am not suggesting that by standing up here, I am going to cause all this to change. I am not a fool and nor is the Minister, but this is an important amendment. I gave a commitment to the retailers that, despite not being confident the Minister would accept this amendment, I would call a vote on these two amendments. They are important. People know they have engaged with politicians in both Houses in relation to this issue. Sometimes it is about accountability. When we say we are going to do something, then we either do it or we do not. If the Minister does not support this amendment, that is fine. That is democracy and we live in a parliamentary democracy. I would like to think, however, that he would be very favourably disposed to what I consider to be two very reasonable amendments. I do not think he would have any difficulty in principle with them. I await his response.
