Chamber
Plenary, 27 Jan 2010
27 Jan 2010 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
On section 1, Mary Scanlon has been entirely consistent in her argumentation at all stages of the bill, especially in committee. The Liberal Democrats' position is that the bill is a progressive legislative move, and we support the Government in that. We must tackle the scourge of tobacco in all its manifestations, although we recognise that there is no single solution to the problem of how to reduce consumption, which is enormously disappointing.
Like Mary Scanlon, I find current cigarette packs quite repulsive. However, that revulsion does not appear to be shared by large numbers of our young people, who are not deterred from buying cigarettes. That is why all measures that can be taken to try to remove the enticement to smoke are justified. We will therefore not support amendment 4 and consequently the other amendments in Mary Scanlon's name.
On anticipating the behaviour of the industry, as Richard Simpson made clear, the industry is remarkable in its resilience and the way in which it seeks to overcome difficulties. Credit to it—it is a commercial business. However, it is right that we should seek to put the issue that Richard Simpson raises on the statute book. I was the only member who supported Kenneth Gibson's endeavours at stage 2 to pass an amendment similar to amendment 29. I know that the Government would prefer to approach the issue by way of regulation. That is fine, but that would mean people simply receiving a stern letter from the minister pointing out the substance of the legislation; regulation itself would not necessarily create a criminal offence. In our view, it is better that the bill creates an offence of tobacco advertising, which was its original purpose. Liberal Democrats will oppose Mary Scanlon's amendments but support Richard Simpson's.
I turn to the second of Richard Simpson's amendments, amendment 29A. E-mails to members have raised the issue of whether we will be getting rid of challenge 25. I rebut that. There is only one place in a shop where cigarettes can be obtained, which is at the point of sale. In alcohol displays, it is good that challenge 25 notices are seen across the range of products, but in the case of tobacco, there is only one point of sale, and one notice that makes clear the age restriction and challenge 25 will be perfectly sufficient and will not be able to be abused.
Like Mary Scanlon, I find current cigarette packs quite repulsive. However, that revulsion does not appear to be shared by large numbers of our young people, who are not deterred from buying cigarettes. That is why all measures that can be taken to try to remove the enticement to smoke are justified. We will therefore not support amendment 4 and consequently the other amendments in Mary Scanlon's name.
On anticipating the behaviour of the industry, as Richard Simpson made clear, the industry is remarkable in its resilience and the way in which it seeks to overcome difficulties. Credit to it—it is a commercial business. However, it is right that we should seek to put the issue that Richard Simpson raises on the statute book. I was the only member who supported Kenneth Gibson's endeavours at stage 2 to pass an amendment similar to amendment 29. I know that the Government would prefer to approach the issue by way of regulation. That is fine, but that would mean people simply receiving a stern letter from the minister pointing out the substance of the legislation; regulation itself would not necessarily create a criminal offence. In our view, it is better that the bill creates an offence of tobacco advertising, which was its original purpose. Liberal Democrats will oppose Mary Scanlon's amendments but support Richard Simpson's.
I turn to the second of Richard Simpson's amendments, amendment 29A. E-mails to members have raised the issue of whether we will be getting rid of challenge 25. I rebut that. There is only one place in a shop where cigarettes can be obtained, which is at the point of sale. In alcohol displays, it is good that challenge 25 notices are seen across the range of products, but in the case of tobacco, there is only one point of sale, and one notice that makes clear the age restriction and challenge 25 will be perfectly sufficient and will not be able to be abused.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill. For dealing with the amendments, members should...
Section 1—Prohibition of tobacco displays etc
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 1 is prohibition of tobacco displays et cetera. Amendment 4, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is grouped with amendments 29, 29A, 30, 5, 6, 31, 32, 7 to 10...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
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 healt...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
I draw members' attention to my membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, in case that is relevant.Amendm...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
Is there evidence to show how a campaign to reduce smoking among young people should be presented to achieve a successful result? Should smoking be presented...
Dr Simpson:
Lab
As far as what we are trying to do in the bill is concerned, the important thing is to denormalise tobacco as a product—to make it something that is not seen...
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD):
LD
On section 1, Mary Scanlon has been entirely consistent in her argumentation at all stages of the bill, especially in committee. The Liberal Democrats' posit...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
Labour, too, opposes all of Mary Scanlon's amendments. We do so because we are persuaded that point-of-sale displays are becoming increasingly important to m...
The Minister for Public Health and Sport (Shona Robison):
SNP
I am encouraged by the fact that all parties agree that firm action is required to prevent children and young people from becoming smokers. The tobacco displ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I call Mary Scanlon to wind up and either press or withdraw amendment 4.
Mary Scanlon:
Con
I was sympathetic to Richard Simpson's amendments but, when I read what the briefings said about overly complicating the bill, I decided that it would be a m...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We will proceed with the division.
ForAitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con) Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con) Carlaw...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 103, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
After section 1
Amendment 29 moved—Dr Richard Simpson.
Amendment 29A moved—Dr Richard Simpson—and agreed to.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The question is, that amendment 29, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
There will be a division.
ForAlexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Baker, Richard (North East Scotlan...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The result of the division is: For 60, Against 60, Abstentions 0. I will therefore use my casting vote. In this case, the status quo is the bill, and the ame...
Amendment 29, as amended, disagreed to.