Agenda item

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

 

“Relevant Background Information

 

      On 14th December, 2009, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety launched a public consultation to seek views on proposals for strengthening sanctions against retailers who sell tobacco products to children and young people under 18 years of age.  The public consultation paper and completed response questionnaire are attached. The consultation closes on 12th March 2010.

 

      Children and Smoking

 

      Smoking is the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death in Northern Ireland, killing around 2,300 people each year.  Recent research in Northern Ireland indicates that 77% of adult smokers started to smoke in their teens and that almost 9% of children aged 11-16 are now regular smokers.   More work needs to be done to prevent children and young people from starting to smoke and reducing the availability of tobacco products to under 18s is key to this.

 

      Studies done with children who smoke in England and Scotland show that their primary source for purchasing tobacco is shops (England – 57% of children; Scotland – 82% of 15 year olds & 47% of 13 year olds).

 

      Current Controls

 

      On 30th April 2007, the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 came into effect to protect people from second hand smoke by preventing smoking in most workplaces and public places. 

 

      On 1st September, 2009 the minimum age to purchase tobacco products was increased from 16 to 18 years old by the introduction of the Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008.  Following this, BelfastCity Council has provided advice to all retailers to inform them of this and have been monitoring compliance by carrying out test purchases with children.   Since April 2009, Council officers have carried out 30 test purchasing exercises in Belfast and 16 premises have sold cigarettes to the 13 and 14 year old volunteers.  To date, 14 of these have been successfully prosecuted.

 

      England introduced a negative licensing scheme for retailers on 1st April 2009.  A negative licensing scheme is where a shop does not need an official licence to sell tobacco but when they are found to be selling tobacco to persons under 18 years of age, their right to sell tobacco could be suspended or withdrawn for a period of time.  The Scottish Government is also proposing a registration scheme that would create a national database administered by the Scottish Government along with negative licensing.

 

Key Issues

 

      There are six options put forward for consideration in the consultation by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.  These are:-

 

Option 1   –   Do nothing;

Option 2   –   Require registration of retailers;

Option 3   –   Introduce accreditation for retailers

                      (a non mandatory licence);

Option 4   –   Introduce a negative licensing system;

Option 5   –   Introduce a positive licensing system administered by either the Northern Ireland Courts Service or District Councils; and

Option 6   –   Combining a registration scheme with a negative licensing system. 

 

      The Department is recommending option 6 as the preferred option. 

 

      The attached draft Council response is largely supportive of the Department’s recommendation.  This option is similar to what is being proposed in Scotland. The draft also suggests that the Council is in favour of the introduction of a Fixed Penalty Notice for selling tobacco to persons under the age of 18.

 

Resource Implications

 

      There are no significant resource implications as Council officers currently enforce legislation relating to underage sales.

 

Recommendation

 

      It is recommended that the Committee approve the attached response to the consultation document.

 

COUNCIL RESPONSE

 

Q1.   Do you agree with the summary and recommendation reached by the Department (paragraphs 135 & 136 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that a registration system combined with a negative licensing scheme (option 6) should be introduced in conjunction with a fixed penalty notice scheme?  Have you any comments?

 

Yes

X

No

 

      Belfast City Council agrees that a registration system combined with a negative licensing scheme should be introduced along with a fixed penalty for retailers who sell tobacco to anyone less than 18 years.

 

      Registration would provide councils with a comprehensive list of retailers who sell tobacco without the excessive cost or administrative burden for both businesses and councils that a licensing scheme would likely introduce.

 

      The Council believes that the negative licensing system would allow a graduated enforcement response to retailers who sell tobacco to children.  It would send a strong message to those who repeatedly do not comply with the law, demonstrating that breaches will be dealt with appropriately.  The Council also strongly supports the introduction of fixed penalty notices in conjunction with the recommended option.  This would provide an efficient and effective way of dealing with retailers who sell tobacco to children for the first time.  The fixed penalty amount should also be carefully considered to reflect the seriousness of the offence. 

 

      It is crucial that, to make the introduction of the new regime effective, an offence for a retailer breaching an order that has suspended them from selling tobacco must be explicit within the new legislation.

 

Q2.   If in agreement with the summary and recommendation reached in the RIA, do you have any views on the proposed maximum length of time for the prohibition order (1 year), the conditions under which a prohibition order may be served (3 offences within a 2 year period) or the application of the prohibition order (may apply to an individual, the premises or both)?  [see paragraph 8 of introduction to this questionnaire for details]

 

      Belfast City Council agrees that a graduated enforcement response should be introduced.  This could be done by issuing a fixed penalty notice on retailers for the first two offences and then applying to the Courts for a Prohibition Order for the third offence.  However the Council recommends that the length of time in which the three offences can occur prior to a prohibition order being sought should be extended to 3 years.  This recommendation is based on the experience of the Council in understanding the level of planning and resources that are needed for test purchasing exercises using children who volunteer.

 

      The Council agrees that a prohibition order should be for a maximum of one year and that they should be applicable to an individual and/or a premises.

 

Q3.   If not in agreement with the summary and recommendation reached in the RIA which of the other options do you feel should be introduced?  Have you any other suggestions or views?

 

      The Council agrees with option 6.  It would however recommend that the time period over which the 3 offences can occur prior to application for a prohibition order should be carefully considered to take into account the resources required to carry out test purchasing exercises, which would be required to detect offences.  The Council recommends that the time period should be extended to 3 years. 

 

Q4.   Do you agree with the decision (paragraph 128 of RIA) that the measures outlined do not require a full equality impact assessment?  If you disagree, please explain why?

 

Yes

X

No

 

      The Council agrees that the measures outlined would not require a full equality impact assessment.

 

Q5.   Is there any other qualitative or quantitative information which you consider should have been taken into account in compiling the RIA?

 

Yes

No

X

 

      If yes, please provide details.

 

      None

 

Q6.   Are you aware of any other equality implications likely to arise from the proposals in the RIA?

 

      No.

 

Q7.   Do you have any views on the assessment of health impacts/benefits?

      If so, please provide details.

 

      Yes, the Council considers that if the proposals are implemented effectively this will reduce the availability of tobacco to under 18s.  In doing this it is hoped that fewer children will start smoking as they will be unable to easily obtain cigarettes from a shop.  This will have a positive impact upon their health.

 

Q8.   Are there any other health impacts that you consider should have been addressed?  If yes, please provide details.

 

Yes

No

X

 

Q9.   Do you consider that there are any other issues which need to be taken into account in the assessment of the impact on business?  If yes, please provide details.

 

Yes

No

X

 

      No – The Council believes that for those businesses complying with the legislation, the extra burden will be negligible.

 

Q10.Do you agree with the summary tables outlining the ongoing costs and benefits (paragraphs 109 to 117 of RIA)?  If not, please provide details.

 

Yes

X

No

 

      Yes, the Council agrees with the outlined costs and benefits in the RIA.

 

Q11.Do you agree that the measures will not have a disproportionate impact on retailers/businesses?  If you disagree, please provide details of disproportionate impact.

 

Yes

X

No

 

      The Council agrees that the measures proposed will not have a disproportionate impact on retailers/businesses.  The Council already enforces legislation in relation to selling tobacco to persons under the age of 18 and these proposals will not hinder retailers that comply with their legal duties.

 

Q12.Is there any other material evidence which you consider should have been taken into account in assessing the impact on retailers/business?  If yes, please provide details.

 

Yes

No

X

 

Q13.Do you agree that the proposals will not have a disproportionate adverse impact on rural business?  If you disagree, please give your reasons.

 

Yes

X

No

 

      The Council agrees that there will be no disproportionate adverse impact on rural businesses.

 

14.Do you have any general comments on the overall approach that was taken in completing the RIA?

 

Yes

No

X

 

      None

 

Q15.Are the options which are set out in the RIA likely to have an adverse impact on any group of people in terms of the nine equality dimensions?

 

Yes

No

X

 

      If you answered yes, please state which group(s) and the reasons why:

 

      The Council does not believe that any of the options proposed in the RIA would be likely to have an adverse impact on any group of people in terms of the nine equality dimensions.

 

Q16.Are you aware of any indication or evidence – qualitative or quantitative – that the recommendation in the RIA may have an adverse impact on equality of opportunity or good relations? 

 

Yes

No

X

 

      If you answered ‘yes’, please state the reasons why and suggest how this might be mitigated:

 

17.Do proposals afford an opportunity to promote equality of opportunity and/or good relations?

 

Yes

No

X

 

      If you answered ‘yes’, please outline:

 

Q18.Are there any aspects of the proposals in the RIA where potential human rights violations may occur?

 

Yes

No

X

 

      If you answered ‘yes’, please outline:

 

      Further Comments

 

Q19.Do you have any further comments on the RIA?

 

Yes

No

X

”

 

            The Committee adopted the recommendation.