Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 29, after "order" to insert "not less than 14 days, except for offences relating to the sale of tobacco products to minors whereby removal from the register will be for a mandatory period of not less than 3 months".

I thank the Minister of State for her response. It is interesting that the figure for duty free sales to minors is so low.

In 2008 there were 26 convictions for sales to minors under the Public Health (Tobacco) Act. The total amount of fines given in all prosecutions was €6,750, the average fine handed down was €250 and the guide fine under the legislation was €300. In three cases the fine was €100 and in seven cases, almost 27% of prosecutions, there were no fines. The fines are not an effective deterrent. Convictions are difficult to secure and there seems to be a problem of enforcement. I do not know whether that is due to a shortage of people or because it is difficult to get a prosecution. A deterrent is therefore very important. The Oireachtas should send out a clear message about these public health issues.

Senator Feeney is not correct to say that the Irish Cancer Society, the Irish Heart Foundation and ASH are happy with this legislation. They believe it is a watering down. A mistake was made in the negotiations with the former Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Wallace, that led to this Bill when the lobby interests took priority over the public health interests. That is disappointing because this is a major public health issue.

I have already acknowledged the positive aspects of this legislation and the work of the Ministers in this area, for example, the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. The smoking ban was exceptional public health legislation which had an enormous impact. The figures show, however, that the challenge continues. This amendment addresses the challenge by saying that to deal with the challenges from public health point of view we need strong deterrents to stop young people starting to smoke. This concerns protecting minors and we say there should be a minimum mandatory element. That is why the amendment proposes a period of no fewer than 14 days because selling cigarettes to minors has such lifelong implications and is so serious that there can be no compromise. Amendment No. 1 states "not less than 14 days, except for offences relating to the sale of tobacco products to minors whereby removal from the register will be for a mandatory period of not less than 3 months". When the Minister of State commented on this, she spoke about a proportionate response and suggested that, constitutionally or legally, my proposal might be considered a disproportionate response. When one considers the health implications of selling cigarettes, what is a proportionate response or an appropriate deterrent? As for removing a retailer who is guilty of such an offence from the retail register for a three month period, the shop can continue to sell other products, it is not as if the business is being closed. Such a retailer will be removed from the retail register to sell this product.

If the effect of this measure is that some young people get cigarettes more easily, end up with a lifelong addiction, lung cancer, cardiovascular problems or a range of other health problems, what constitutes a proportionate response? A proportionate response would be for the Government to take this issue seriously, to have a strict response to it and to recognise that tobacco is different from other licensed products. There is no safe consumption of tobacco. We must bear to mind that the rate of lung cancer is increasing and I have gone into detail about that. This is an extraordinarily serious public health issue. As Senator Prendergast and others have said, the addiction issues around young people beginning to smoke early in their lives will have an enormous impact on their health. Therefore, we must get this legislation right.

Our view is that if the Minister of State accepted this amendment, it would strengthen the legislation and give a clearer message to retailers and to the 60% of retailers who are compliant in this regard. I understand there is not a problem in regard to the behaviour of 60% of retailers and the Minister of State may indicate the percentage is higher than that but that is the figure I have. The 60% of retailers who abide by the law will not view it as fair if the sanctions against those who breach the law are not strong. That is another reason to be clear in this respect. This proposal is not draconian, of that there is no question, but it is stronger than what is currently proposed. What I propose assumes that a person's removal from the register would be automatic and would not have to be referred for judicial decision. It is a stronger approach.

Clearly, there were different agendas in regard to this legislation. There is a public health agenda, which should be the primary one. That was the agenda when the legislation to ban smoking was introduced. The Government stood up to vested interest groups. What is proposed in this legislation constitutes a giving in to certain groupings. I do not know whether it was the retailers, the tobacco industry or from where the influences came, but public health was not placed centre stage when these amendments were being considered. I am surprised by that because I know the Government is committed to public health issues. Aspects of this legislation are strange. It smacks of lobby group influence, which does not put public health centre stage. For that reason, I propose amendment No. 1 to section 3.