Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 27 Jan 2010

27 Jan 2010 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Scanlon, Mary Con Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

We all agree on the link between smoking and poor health, and we all agree on the fact that the younger that people start smoking, the more acute their health problems in later life will be. Our opposition to the ban on tobacco displays is not an opposition to smoking cessation programmes. The fact is that the evidence base does not exist to support a ban. The Health and Sport Committee's stage 1 report states:

"The Committee notes that strong views were advanced on both sides of the debate. The Committee also recognises that the evidence base for this proposal is at an early stage and that the international evidence to date is inconclusive."

The Government proposes to ban visual displays in the hope that doing so will produce an evidence base in support of its argument that such a measure will reduce smoking. There is not yet conclusive evidence that the ban will achieve what it sets out to achieve. The claim in the policy memorandum that banning visual displays of cigarettes will

"protect children and young people from the impact of tobacco smoking"

is, therefore, not true. Although a ban on visual displays will put cigarette packets out of sight, there is no doubt that the Government needs to consider many other measures to make the policy successful. I can think of nothing less attractive than a product that states "Smoking kills".

As the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Grocers Federation and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents said in their briefing note detailing their joint positions:

"We believe that this will be a disproportionate measure for all affected retailers, large and small, and will add an undue burden on retail staff. It has no strong evidence base and there is doubt that it will have a significant impact on the number of young people taking up smoking."

In Iceland, smoking rates have declined, but academics have identified the in-depth work that has been done at community level as the crucial aspect in the successful decline in the number of people who smoke. In Canada, states such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have had tobacco display bans for the longest time have seen increases in youth smoking. In Ontario, the greatest reduction in smoking was achieved before a ban was introduced. In New Zealand, a proposal to introduce a ban was rejected by the Prime Minister, whose Government, like this Parliament's Health and Sport Committee, did not find conclusive evidence that a ban was the most effective strategy for combating youth smoking.

Finally, on the cost of the ban to businesses, there is also much dubiety. The Minister for Public Health and Sport told the Health and Sport Committee that the cost could be as little as £20 per gantry. However, that is just the cost of materials per shelf, not per gantry, and there can be up to seven or eight shelves on a gantry, as well as other fittings. The Scottish Government's regulatory impact assessment estimated that implementing the ban would cost Scotland's 11,000 tobacco outlets an average of £1,200 for small retailers, £6,000 for medium-sized retailers and £17,500 for large retailers.

I ask MSPs whether, in these difficult times, they are content to force on small businesses throughout Scotland additional costs and a measure on which there is a lack of any evidence to show its effectiveness in reducing youth smoking.

I move amendment 4.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 27 Jan 2010

In the same item of business