Chamber
Plenary, 28 Apr 2005
28 Apr 2005 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
What a long way we have come since June 2003, when I first proposed a ban. At that time, I was ridiculed by members in this chamber and, unfortunately, by members of the illustrious press corps. However, less than two years later, we have almost unanimous support for such a ban. I am glad that we have reached this point so soon. This is a great day for Scotland, as we take the first tangible step towards a smoke-free future and towards protecting the health not only of the current generation but of future generations.
I express my gratitude to all the people and organisations outside the chamber who have fought for smoke-free laws for a long time. I also express my gratitude to the Health Committee for its work not only on this bill, but on my bill.
However, I disagree fundamentally with the committee's comments in paragraph 38 of its report. As Irene Oldfather suggested, the idea that day care centres should be exempted from the ban makes no sense whatsoever. At the committee, the Minister for Health and Community Care argued correctly that allowing the exemption would lead to complex problems. It would also be a slippery slope. If day care centres are exempted on the ground that some people may spend some time during the day there, the way will be clear for all sorts of other places to be exempted on the same ground. A day care centre is not a temporary home; it cannot reasonably be argued that it is.
Turning to the debate over what has been called the level-playing-field approach and to the debate over enforcement, I believe that the two are inextricably bound together. Throughout the debates, one of the big arguments in favour of a complete ban has been that it would create a level playing field. The committee took much evidence on that point and the Executive has used the level-playing-field argument to support its bill. The committee makes it clear that it agrees with that line of argument and it states expressly that any partial ban would not be as effective as a full ban. I agree with that absolutely. We need a comprehensive, clear and—most important of all—easily enforceable ban in order to protect people from the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Unfortunately, the Executive's bill does not achieve a level playing field because it contains a loophole that will allow smoking to continue in enclosed public places. Everyone is well aware of my unswerving support for a ban on smoking in enclosed public places. The minister is aware of my concerns on the definition that is contained in section 4(1); I wrote to him to point out the problem as I see it on the matter. The minister is also aware of my intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to close the loophole.
The bill, as it is drafted, fails to ban all smoking in enclosed public places. Although the bill bans the smoking of tobacco cigarettes, it continues to allow the smoking of non-tobacco cigarettes. The definition in my bill was not limited to the smoking of tobacco but covered all smoking. I urge the Executive to support the amendment that I will loge at stage 2.
I intervened on the minister to ask him whether he could tell me which of the two cigarettes that I held up for his inspection was covered by the bill and which was exempt. He could not give me an answer. I will hold them up again for members' inspection. It is clear to see that they look identical; it is impossible to tell which one will be exempt. If the minister could not differentiate between them—certainly, I cannot—how will enforcement officers, the police and other licence holders be able to tell the difference?
The point is important because, as the bill stands, the ban will not be as easily enforceable as it could be. The cigarette that I am holding up is a herbal cigarette—it contains a plant other than tobacco. A herbal cigarette produces tar and carbon monoxide just like a tobacco cigarette, yet it will remain perfectly legal to smoke this cigarette in an enclosed public place after the ban has been introduced.
The smoke from herbal cigarettes will affect non-smokers, particularly those with asthma and other chest problems or breathing difficulties, in exactly the same way that tobacco smoke does. The lack of voluminous research on non-tobacco cigarettes is sometimes used as an argument that those cigarettes may be less dangerous to health than tobacco cigarettes are. The argument is flawed, however. Given that herbal cigarettes contain similar and sometimes higher levels of tar and carbon monoxide than tobacco cigarettes do, we can easily deduce that herbal cigarettes are at least as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes are and perhaps even more so.
The Lancet published a study into the effects of smoking non-tobacco cigarettes, in which it said:
"Our data showed that smoking these vegetable-based cigarettes led to a similar degree of exposure to carbon monoxide as smoking tobacco cigarettes, and may exceed the latter. Thus this product is a potential hazard to health."
Others agree. The British Lung Foundation stated:
"A lot of people try herbal cigarettes because they think that since they don't contain nicotine they are safer. Nicotine is addictive, but it's the other stuff that gives you lung cancer and emphysema."
I express my gratitude to all the people and organisations outside the chamber who have fought for smoke-free laws for a long time. I also express my gratitude to the Health Committee for its work not only on this bill, but on my bill.
However, I disagree fundamentally with the committee's comments in paragraph 38 of its report. As Irene Oldfather suggested, the idea that day care centres should be exempted from the ban makes no sense whatsoever. At the committee, the Minister for Health and Community Care argued correctly that allowing the exemption would lead to complex problems. It would also be a slippery slope. If day care centres are exempted on the ground that some people may spend some time during the day there, the way will be clear for all sorts of other places to be exempted on the same ground. A day care centre is not a temporary home; it cannot reasonably be argued that it is.
Turning to the debate over what has been called the level-playing-field approach and to the debate over enforcement, I believe that the two are inextricably bound together. Throughout the debates, one of the big arguments in favour of a complete ban has been that it would create a level playing field. The committee took much evidence on that point and the Executive has used the level-playing-field argument to support its bill. The committee makes it clear that it agrees with that line of argument and it states expressly that any partial ban would not be as effective as a full ban. I agree with that absolutely. We need a comprehensive, clear and—most important of all—easily enforceable ban in order to protect people from the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Unfortunately, the Executive's bill does not achieve a level playing field because it contains a loophole that will allow smoking to continue in enclosed public places. Everyone is well aware of my unswerving support for a ban on smoking in enclosed public places. The minister is aware of my concerns on the definition that is contained in section 4(1); I wrote to him to point out the problem as I see it on the matter. The minister is also aware of my intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to close the loophole.
The bill, as it is drafted, fails to ban all smoking in enclosed public places. Although the bill bans the smoking of tobacco cigarettes, it continues to allow the smoking of non-tobacco cigarettes. The definition in my bill was not limited to the smoking of tobacco but covered all smoking. I urge the Executive to support the amendment that I will loge at stage 2.
I intervened on the minister to ask him whether he could tell me which of the two cigarettes that I held up for his inspection was covered by the bill and which was exempt. He could not give me an answer. I will hold them up again for members' inspection. It is clear to see that they look identical; it is impossible to tell which one will be exempt. If the minister could not differentiate between them—certainly, I cannot—how will enforcement officers, the police and other licence holders be able to tell the difference?
The point is important because, as the bill stands, the ban will not be as easily enforceable as it could be. The cigarette that I am holding up is a herbal cigarette—it contains a plant other than tobacco. A herbal cigarette produces tar and carbon monoxide just like a tobacco cigarette, yet it will remain perfectly legal to smoke this cigarette in an enclosed public place after the ban has been introduced.
The smoke from herbal cigarettes will affect non-smokers, particularly those with asthma and other chest problems or breathing difficulties, in exactly the same way that tobacco smoke does. The lack of voluminous research on non-tobacco cigarettes is sometimes used as an argument that those cigarettes may be less dangerous to health than tobacco cigarettes are. The argument is flawed, however. Given that herbal cigarettes contain similar and sometimes higher levels of tar and carbon monoxide than tobacco cigarettes do, we can easily deduce that herbal cigarettes are at least as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes are and perhaps even more so.
The Lancet published a study into the effects of smoking non-tobacco cigarettes, in which it said:
"Our data showed that smoking these vegetable-based cigarettes led to a similar degree of exposure to carbon monoxide as smoking tobacco cigarettes, and may exceed the latter. Thus this product is a potential hazard to health."
Others agree. The British Lung Foundation stated:
"A lot of people try herbal cigarettes because they think that since they don't contain nicotine they are safer. Nicotine is addictive, but it's the other stuff that gives you lung cancer and emphysema."
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2667, in the name of Andy Kerr, that the general principles of the Smoking, Health and Soc...
The Minister for Health and Community Care (Mr Andy Kerr):
Lab
Lives have been destroyed, families have been devastated and careers have been shattered—those are the tragic consequences of illness and disease caused by t...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):
Lab
As someone who has recently, finally, stopped smoking, I wish that I had never started.
Members:
Well done.
Elaine Smith:
Lab
Thank you. Is there any evidence that a smoking ban will help to prevent young people from starting to smoke, which is crucial?
Mr Kerr:
Lab
There is strong evidence of that worldwide and in the work that we are doing in the Executive. We seek through the bill to denormalise smoking—to make it abn...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The minister talked about smokers. Does he differentiate between cigarette smokers and those who choose to smoke pipes or cigars, given that 90 per cent of t...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I do not make a distinction, because we are talking about the protection of public health—the health of everyone in Scotland, including the 70 per cent of pe...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister join me in welcoming the coverage of all tobacco that is smoked? Will he highlight the oral health problems, such as cancers, that are asso...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
We are seeking to address those matters in the strategy that Rhona Brankin announced recently in relation to oral health checks, particularly for the over-60...
Mrs Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the minister give way?
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I will give way in a minute. I need to make progress.As Professor Sir Richard Doll has observed, an hour a day in a room with a smoker is nearly 100 times mo...
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The minister is aware of my unswerving support for the banning of smoking in public places, but is he also aware of my concern about the definition of smokin...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
First, I place on record again an acknowledgement of the work that Mr Maxwell has done in relation to the bill and our efforts to create a smoke-free Scotlan...
Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
As a non-smoker, I have sympathy with many of the aspirations behind the bill. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that smoking per se is not illegal. I ...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
The bill rests on the Executive's aim of improving public health. The public health of those in a private club, a social club, a pub and a workplace is equal...
Mr Monteith:
Con
The minister talks about the success of the ban in New York. Why, then, will he not consider some of the exemptions that are allowed in New York, such as cig...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I refer the member to my previous answer. I am pleased, however, that he has brought up the subject of the ban in New York. Back in 2002, few people were mor...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister give way?
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The minister is getting tight for time.
Mr Kerr:
Lab
I am sorry. Perhaps Mr Swinney can address the matter later, in his speech.On the other aspects of the bill, I am sure that the Executive will reflect on the...
Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
I congratulate the Health Committee, the clerks and everyone in the Parliament who has worked hard on this extensive bill and produced excellent reports. The...
Mr Kerr:
Lab
Will the member accept on record the fact that 50 per cent of general practitioner premises are privately owned and that capital support in the public sector...
Carolyn Leckie:
SSP
That case has indeed been made for PFI; however, it has been blown out of the water by Allyson Pollock and others. I do not need to repeat their points again...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Carolyn Leckie:
SSP
I am sorry—I am in my last minute.As a result, it is not necessary to tie up this highly controversial measure in a generally positive piece of legislation. ...
Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome this stage 1 debate. I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee; I also thank the clerks for all their hard work in helping us with what ...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am well aware that the Health Committee has recently expressed concerns about obesity. Has the member seen any research that links cessation of smoking wit...
Shona Robison:
SNP
To be perfectly honest, that is a silly analogy. The member and his colleagues must assess whether, on the balance of probabilities, the measure will improve...
Mr Monteith:
Con
Will the member give way?