Official Report (Hansard)

COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Health Bill [HL]

26 February 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson) 
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson) 
Dr Kieran Deeny 
Mr Alex Easton 
Mr Tommy Gallagher 
Mr Sam Gardiner 
Mrs Carmel Hanna 
Mr John McCallister 
Mrs Claire McGill

Witness:

Mr Glyn Roberts, Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association

The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson):

The next item is the legislative consent motion on the Health Bill [HL]. Members will recall that, at the last Committee meeting, we considered correspondence from the Minister about proposals on tobacco controls to be included in the Health Bill [HL], which is currently going through Westminster. That will require the consent of the Assembly, and a legislative consent motion is due to be debated next Tuesday 3 March.

We have considered a letter from the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association about the impact of the proposals on retailers, and we have also had a letter from Unite trade union members from Gallaher Group plc on the issue. The Committee agreed to allow both parties the opportunity to make a short presentation to the Committee today. Papers relating to the briefing have been distributed to members.

The tobacco employers, Japan Tobacco International, and the union were unable to send someone at short notice, but have sent a written submission. That was circulated to members a few days ago by email. In addition, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has copied her letter to the Health Minister on the issue to the Committee for information.

We will now have a short briefing from the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association. I welcome Glyn Roberts, who is a familiar face and the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association. Unfortunately, your statement will have to be brief, because of time restraints.

Mr Glyn Roberts (Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association):

Thank you for responding to my letter so quickly and for allowing me the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. I will run through our concerns about the proposals, but I want to say from the outset that we in no way oppose the legislative consent motion that will be tabled in the Assembly on Tuesday.

We represent over 1,000 independent retailers in Northern Ireland who have a collective turnover of £2 billion and employ 20,000 staff. Our members are retailers who are, by and large, part and parcel of their communities. I listened intently to the previous person who gave evidence to the Committee, who mentioned the role of retailers in the provision of fresh fruit and vegetables — our members pride themselves on providing fresh fruit and vegetables in deprived communities. I make that point because we are responsible retailers and have a role to play in promoting good health among the population and combating the dangers of smoking, particularly among younger people in Northern Ireland. Our members also support and give generously to local cancer charities.

Our members make a huge contribution to the Northern Ireland economy, and, although we do not oppose the legislation, we have concerns about its implementation. The legislation initially applied to England and Wales — its measures will be contained in a different Bill in the Scottish Parliament — and our colleagues in the Association of Convenience Stores successfully lobbied for an implementation period for its provisions to accommodate small shops. Consequently, retailers were given until 2013 to make the necessary changes. The bottom line is that our members are asking only to be treated the same way as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Health Minister, who we hope to meet in the next few weeks, has indicated that he wants to implement the measures by next year. All Committee members know and speak to the small-business owners in their constituencies and will know that they are suffering greatly from the recession — many have had their cash flow radically reduced. The changes required under the legislation, particularly those to counters, will cost between £3,000 and £5,000. The next 12 months will be critical for cash-strapped businesses, and that is the period in which the Health Minister wants the measures in the legislation to be implemented. We are calling for the same lead-in time as that offered to small businesses in the rest of the UK to ensure that our members can make the changes and will not be penalised in any way — no one wants to see small businesses penalised.

In the past, we have accepted and worked with many of the changes required of us, such as the increase in the age for the purchase of cigarettes to 18 years. That was not well handled by the Health Promotion Agency, because it did not work with us or any of the organisations that represent retailers or small businesses. We would have welcomed the opportunity to help in the implementation of that change. We take seriously our role as responsible community retailers, and all we ask is that we be treated in the same way as small businesses in the rest of the UK. If we get the same lead-in time, small businesses will play their role, make the required changes and not suffer unduly. Our members take seriously their role in the community.

Our members are not like some greedy multinational. They take their role in the community very seriously. We represent convenience stores, butchers, and a number of chemists. We work closely with the Ulster Chemists’ Association on a wide range of issues. Our commitment to public health is part and parcel of our role in the community. We seek the support of the Committee in approaching the Minister, who has the flexibility under law to make regulations in respect of this legislation. I do not think that anyone will say that it is unreasonable for us to ask to be treated in the same way as our colleagues in England and Wales.

The Chairperson:

Thank you, Glyn. That is fairly succinct. Does anyone wish to ask a question?

Mr Easton:

I was all for a ban on tobacco displays in shops when that was proposed initially, and I still am. However, now that I have read a bit more on the subject, I take your point about the economic downturn, and yet I am still not 100% sure. Your plea to give retailers a bit of time to adjust is not totally unreasonable. The big supermarket chains, such as Tesco, can make the required changes overnight, because £5,000 is not an issue for them. However, for a corner shop, £5,000 is a lot of money. I am not necessarily opposed to that; however, I do not agree that retailers should have until 2013 to make the required changes. It might not be unreasonable to allow retailers two to three years to adjust. However, I am not totally sure.

You also raised the issue of cigarette packaging and the possibility of making it plain. The Chairperson and I have discussed that issue, and we feel that to do so would make it simpler for people to sell counterfeit cigarettes.

The Chairperson:

That is not covered in the legislation.

Mr Easton:

I support the Bill, but I do not necessarily think that your request is unreasonable.

Mr Roberts:

Following on from Mr Easton’s point, we in no way represent, or speak for, the tobacco industry. We speak on behalf of all the small businesses that we represent that have concerns about this legislation. Many of those small businesses do not make much money from tobacco sales. Therefore, they are not even concerned about the effect that a ban on tobacco displays will have on their tobacco sales. Some evidence suggests that the ban on tobacco displays in shops in Canada has not had the desired impact that the Canadian Government had hoped for. However, it is not for us to make a call on that.

Over the next 12 months, small businesses will be forced to make the required changes under the legislation. It is no underestimation that that will be a make-or-break time for them. You all have seen the long list of small and big retailers that have gone under in the past six months. Small retailers play their role in the community by providing a community service. Those shops are the first port of call for local people who want fresh fruit and vegetables. They take that role very seriously.

Before I came here today, I went to a local convenience store. Inside the shop, there was a big sign that read: “Tobacco. No ID, no sale”. We have all heard the stories about retailers who have been caught selling tobacco to underage children. However, tens of thousands of other retailers check ID and do not sell to underage children. Retailers take changes to legislation very seriously. In fact, they play an enforcement role on behalf of the Government. Of course, that causes problems for them, but they get on with it. They do their job, and they accept such changes.

Given that retailers have that enforcement role, we ask that they be given a bit more time to make the required changes. It would be better if you could give those businesses the time to secure complete buy-in. We all have the same goal of wanting to create a healthier society. We want to play our role in helping to achieve that.

Mr McCallister:

Obviously, I support small businesses. They are our bread and butter of in all aspects of society, including employment circles.

I could probably live with some degree of an extension, but I do not know that the 2013 target is desirable; it is too far away.

When we as a Committee discuss issues of health and public safety such as drinking and driving, we might, for instance, hear an argument for closing rural pubs. The Republic of Ireland banned smoking in pubs and clubs before we did; we probably missed an opportunity to do it then, and fell back by four or five years by not banning smoking in public places at that time. How do you we argue that there is a chance for us to take the lead in the UK?

One of the key themes of the previous presentation on obesity was that we have a chance to be the best; we have a chance to be an example to the rest of the country and to lead the way. Not much evidence has ever been presented before that suggests that people improve their diets in a recession, or that they suddenly give up smoking or drinking. In a recession, the dynamics of the situation might change; more people might drink at home, but overall consumption might increase. Neither is there much evidence to suggest that the recession will have a serious impact on the businesses that you represent.

I am not convinced that tobacco sales will be harmed, unfortunately. What are your thoughts on that? How can we drive down the numbers of young people who smoke and drink? Are there any other measures that could help small businesses to implement any new arrangements sooner? I would prefer to see us leading the UK on this issue.

Mr Roberts:

I suppose that had we not been in a recession when the Minister brought his proposals forward, there might have been some grumbling about them, but people would have got on with the job. That said, the next 12 to 24 months will be make or break for many small businesses, and we must be mindful of that.

You are absolutely right: the whole thrust of what we are saying today is not about the sale of tobacco or the reductions in profits that might result from the proposed ban. The bottom line is that many retailers do not make a huge amount of money on tobacco sales anyway. It is about having to pay £5,000 in a short time frame over the next 12 months in what is one of the worst economic situations that anyone has ever experienced. The health Departments in England and Wales did a great deal of work on regulatory impact assessments on the issue. It is not unreasonable that we should ask for the same implementation time that was granted in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what we are about.

Those objectives are achievable; our members take their role in protecting public health and combating underage smoking very seriously. That said, they have made all the changes that have been required under the law. The Health Promotion Agency did not handle the under-18 ban particularly well; it never communicated or worked with retailers. When that law came into being, many retailers were completely unaware of it, and were stung by some of the enforcement action that some local councils took. We are asking for the same conditions that were granted to our counterparts in England and Wales, so that we can make the required changes without businesses having to close their doors or lay off staff.

I am not making a knee-jerk reaction; I am trying to be as honest as possible. I speak personally, as chief executive of NIIRTA, and as a member of the council of Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke. When I worked for the Ulster Cancer Foundation, I helped to establish the first all-party group on cancer, of which the Chairperson of this Committee was the first chairperson. I am personally committed to the role that is played by my organisation and its members in promoting public health — we take that very seriously.

The scheme under which local shops provide fresh fruit and vegetables was not developed by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; it was devised by the retailers, who wanted to play a role in society because they are aware of the implications that obesity has for bad health in society.

Mrs O’Neill:

I take on board what you are saying, and I appreciate the retail sector’s concerns, especially in the present economic climate. However, this is the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which is concerned with public health. Tobacco kills one in two people who smoke on a long-term basis, because it leads to coronary heart disease, and so forth, and those are the considerations that are of interest to the Committee.

I am sure that every member has received information from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which attempts to counter your arguments, so I will be straight with you. ASH suggests, for example, that experiences elsewhere indicate that the £5,000 cost per shop that you quoted is incorrect. Where did you get that figure, and do you have any examples from other jurisdictions in which that was actually the case?

Mr Roberts:

We work closely with our colleagues in the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents convenience stores in England and Wales, and it has carried out much more detailed work on this subject, including consulting with the Department of Health. In addition, we considered experiences in Canada, where the measures have already been introduced. In particular, we considered evidence from the Canadian Convenience Stores Association.

Obviously, costs vary according the size and scale of the shops. Nevertheless, the cost of site visits to enable shopfitters to draw up plans, carrying out modifications, materials and staff time all contribute to the figure of £5,000.

We are not in any way disputing the dangers of smoking. However, there is a danger that cancer charities sometimes depict us all to be a front for the tobacco industry, and I seriously resent that depiction. We speak on behalf of small businesses that play a role in the community and care about their customers. I am not attempting to defend the tobacco industry, which, I gather, will make its own submission — that is up to it. All I am saying is that those are the changes that we have considered.

I have spoken to and visited several retailers — large and small — to see for myself the changes that they would have to make in order to put cigarettes under the counter. It will require a substantial amount of work to change what is the biggest part of a shop. For example, lottery displays and pay points will have to be changed and rewired, and tobacco gantries will have to be removed. The figure of £5,000 is an average minimum cost. We came to a figure closer to £7,000 for changes to an average-sized shop.

Mrs O’Neill:

Do the tobacco companies not pay for display changes?

Mr Roberts:

I understand that they pay for the gantries, which are the displays that one sees behind counters. However, changing the counters is the biggest issue for us, and that will be an expensive process.

I would ask those groups to stop tarring us with the same brush, as though we are somehow fronts for the tobacco industry. That is not what we are about. Those organisations do a terrific job. I have worked for a cancer charity, and I am on the council of the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, so I have some understanding of the changes that are required.

The businesses that we represent will make the changes, and we support the legislation, but we are asking for a bit more time to ensure that those businesses are not unduly penalised. It is not unreasonable for us to argue to be treated in the same way as England and Wales.

Mrs O’Neill:

Has your organisation talked to, for example, cancer charities about how to agree a way forward?

Mr Roberts:

That is certainly a point. All the cancer charities welcome this legislation. The problem is that they think that many retailers believe that it will result in the loss of tobacco sales. That is not where we are coming from. Our concern is purely about the structural changes that must be made to shops in order to comply with the legislation. More time should be granted, as is envisaged under the proposals in England and Wales, where a regulatory impact assessment was conducted, which led to the Department of Health concluding that 2013 was reasonable. We did not arrive at that date.

The Committee will recall that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and its counterpart in London carried out the same consultation, during which we and various other bodies submitted views. Hence, it was a parallel consultation. We are not asking for anything different, we are not asking for an opt-out, and we are not saying to vote against the legislative consent motion next week. All that we are asking for is to have the same as England and Wales — more time. We can make the necessary changes. Perhaps, then, as an organisation, we could help by offering advice and finding the best deal in respect of shopfitters.

At present, we estimate that, for 3,000 shops — convenience stores, newsagents, and so on — at an average of £5,000, the costs involved run to between £10 million and £15 million. That is a critical amount, particularly over the next 12 months. The changes can be made. All that we are asking for is the same lead-in time as England and Wales. We will make the changes, but the timescale envisaged by the Minister cannot be met without causing serious damage to many shop businesses. Given that we are in a recession, our request is not unreasonable. We are not stalling. We are not saying that we do not want to do it. However, we need more time.

Mrs O’Neill:

Your association must talk to the Minister and to the cancer charities. I understand your position, but the Committee must be most concerned about people’s health. That is where I am coming from.

Mr Roberts:

We will meet the Minister next month. We wrote to him on 5 January 2009 requesting a meeting, but we did not receive a reply.

The first time that we were aware that the legislative consent motion was imminent was when I read it on the front page of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. We were very disappointed that that was the way that it happened. When I write to Ministers, they usually reply that the request is being considered and will be responded to. In this case, we did not receive anything. The first that I knew was when I picked up a copy of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. Other organisations knew far in advance. I must say that that was the wrong approach. I was personally very disappointed at the Minister’s handling of the issue.

However, we are where we are. We must try to make the best of the situation. We take our responsibilities about public health and the dangers of underage smoking very, very seriously. We do not dispute any of those difficulties or their impact on the health of our community.

The Chairperson:

I thank you for your comments, Glyn, but the matter is not cut and dry. The Committee understands the major concerns of small businesses that already have their backs to the wall because of the stringent directives to which they must adhere, as well as the economic downturn that is hurting us all.

However, as Michelle said, the Committee’s first and foremost consideration is health. Notwithstanding that, the Committee has no wish to see small businesses go to the wall. It must be impressed on the Minister that the association is asking for the same rights as England and Wales. I can understand that, and I think that you should be given an extension to get the agreed new guidelines, displays, and so forth, right.

Members, we have to decide whether the Committee is content to support the legislative consent motion. If we cannot get consent, I assume that members will want to respond to the motion individually. The Deputy Chairperson and I and will be absent on Tuesday 3 March because we are visiting Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. If a position be agreed, we will nominate a spokesperson to speak on behalf of the Committee in the debate.

The Committee has received a letter that is signed by various members of Unite who are affiliated with the tobacco company, the Gallaher Group. They make some very strong points on their outlook on the matter. I am no flag-waver for tobacco; I have seen what it does to people and how they become hooked because of its being a drug-based commodity. Once someone is hooked, they are hooked; it is very hard to get away from it. My office has undertaken some research and, as far as the ban on smoking in public places is concerned, that did not prevent a rise in the sale of tobacco in the Irish Republic. It has moved people out of the pubs and into their homes, where they are smoking and drinking. Smoking is not going to go away because there are too many people in this world who are hooked on nicotine.

Having said that, I think that the Minister should closely examine the issue in relation to the economic climate, job losses and the loss of skills. The Minister should also consider other aspects, such as counterfeiting and contraband. Although I will not be present at the debate, I believe that we should consider all the arguments holistically. That is not to say that I support the tobacco industry, but there are many key factors to consider, such as the impact on job losses.

Mr Easton:

Will someone enlighten me as to whether, if we agree to the motion, the legislation is passed or does the Bill go through the same stages as other Bills?

The Committee Clerk:

My understanding is that the debate on Tuesday 3 March is on the legislative consent motion, and the consent of the Assembly is required for the provisions in the Westminster Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland. If that consent is given, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has the power to decide when and how the provisions should be implemented in Northern Ireland through regulations.

Mr McCallister:

The Committee could support the motion. I think that we all agree that we support its concept, but the timing might be up for debate.

The Chairperson:

It is the timing and the impact on the jobs of 800 people.

Mrs O’Neill:

Even Glyn Roberts is not suggesting that we do not support the motion, because it is enabling legislation, which means that regulations will come later. Therefore, the detail will come later. By supporting the motion, we will send out the message that the provisions of the Bill will have a positive impact on public health; it is just the process of how that comes about that is being disputed.

As a Committee, we should not have a problem with supporting the motion. I understand all Glyn’s points, but, moving towards that without asking the Minister what his intention is and whether he had taken those considerations on board would lead to every cancer charity coming to the Committee. The cancer organisations and the all-party group on cancer sent an email to everyone asking us to dispute what the Independent Retail Trade Association is saying. My view is that the Committee can support the motion.

Mr Easton:

I propose that we support the motion but that we indicate strongly to the Minister that he should examine all the issues that have been raised today to ensure that small retailers are not damaged. If the likes of Tesco were to go tomorrow, it would be happy days, but we should ask him to ensure that he listens to the case of small retailers and that he seriously takes on board what they are saying. We should say that we support the motion, but we should urge the Minister to be cautious and careful and to take their concerns seriously.

The Chairperson:

You are right to say that we can only flag up the concerns of those with opposite views. As the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, our main objective is to ensure the health of the people of Northern Ireland. We have been proactive — and we were successful — in securing the ban on smoking in public places.

If we agree that the Committee spokesperson for Tuesday’s debate will emphasise the point of view of independent retailers to the Minister, it is a pity that all those people have not made a presentation to the Committee. We have letters that we can read and take the views on board. It would be better to have a united front, particularly because we have flagged up the health issues in relation to coronary heart disease and cancer. Are members agreed that we have the same attitude towards the motion on Tuesday?

Mrs O’Neill:

We should say that we support the motion and that we have been made aware of the concerns of independent retailers.

The Chairperson:

We can include that.

Mr Gardiner:

We are the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and that is paramount to our operation. I will support the Health Bill.

The Chairperson:

That is what I have said.

Dr Deeny:

I agree. As a doctor, I am concerned with health. However, to be realistic and practical, doctors are now seeing more people at their surgeries who have lost their jobs. The economic downturn is having a major negative and detrimental impact on people’s mental health. A balance is needed.

The Chairperson:

There are always two sides. We have to flag up the issues, because shopkeepers are our constituents as well as people who are suffering from coronary illnesses and cancer. The Committee member who leads the debate on Tuesday while Michelle and I are away should emphasise that the Minister should consider carefully the views of those who disagree with him. I am in total agreement that it is right to support the Bill. Can I have a name of someone to speak on behalf of the Committee?

Mr McCallister:

I propose that the Committee support the Bill and that Kieran speaks to it.

Dr Deeny:

I do not know whether I will be here on Tuesday.

Mr Easton:

Is the Committee Clerk writing the speech?

The Committee Clerk:

If required.

The Chairperson:

If the Committee has agreed our response, we will need someone to represent the Committee’s views.

Mrs O’Neill:

I propose Claire McGill.

Mr McCallister:

I second that proposal. I do not know how you will be able to mention Strabane in the contribution, Claire. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson:

Claire, you will represent the Committee when the legislative consent motion is debated on Tuesday.

Mrs O’Neill:

Will the Committee Clerk talk to Claire before the debate?

The Chairperson:

Claire will liaise with the Committee Clerk. Do members agree that that is how we will proceed?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairperson:

It is then up to the various people to make their own arguments to the Minister.