Hansard

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 display ban has been one of the most contentious provisions in the bill. On the one hand, the Conservatives believe that there is not enough evidence to justify a tobacco display ban; on the other hand, members of the Labour Party believe that we have not gone far enough. We believe that the provisions in the bill and the draft regulations are proportionate.

The Conservatives believe that it is simply not true to say that removing the final marketing tool of the tobacco industry will reduce the attractiveness of tobacco to children and young people. I believe that they are wrong on that. Very few countries have yet introduced a tobacco display ban, and those that have have done so only recently. As with the ban on smoking in public places, we are pioneers. From the work of Cancer Research UK and others, we know that the display of tobacco in the most prominent place in 11,000 shops in Scotland is having an impact on our most vulnerable. It is making a product that kills half of its long-term users more attractive to children and young people. Therefore, I contend that the evidence for banning displays exists. For me, the most compelling point is the need to remove the last advertising loophole. I reassure the chamber that the Government is committed to evaluating the impact of all the provisions in part 1.

I understand that there are concerns about the impact of the policy on our small shops. I have worked closely with retailers and believe that the regulations that we have drafted will both protect children and young people from the harms of tobacco promotion and minimise the impact on small businesses. Our is a proportionate response.

I agree with Richard Simpson that we should do all that we can to prevent the tobacco industry from attempting to circumvent the display ban that is detailed in the bill and the advertising ban that is set out in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. I understand the concerns about incidents that have occurred in Ireland in response to its display ban, which came into force in July 2009. However, the Scottish display ban will be the most robust in the United Kingdom and will be even more robust than the Irish display ban. Regulations will limit the display of tobacco to 120cm2, based on figures that have been provided by retailers showing that each row of a gantry in a small shop is around 15cm high and that the widest section for a tobacco product is 8cm. The loopholes that have occurred in Ireland will not, therefore, occur under the bill. Retailers were concerned that the display ban would impede their carrying out necessary everyday tasks such as stocktaking and cleaning. We have taken that in good faith and have exempted the display of tobacco for those tasks.

I appreciate the fact that Dr Simpson has tried to craft a future-proof amendment, which he hopes will predict any possible move that the tobacco industry may make to circumvent our wide-reaching tobacco display and advertising bans. However, amendment 29 falls short of achieving that, and there are major concerns about its practical application, as well as drafting concerns. Instead, we will draw up clear guidance on the implementation and enforcement of the bill. I assure the chamber that I will make it clear that the advertising of lighters over gantries and the use of lighting around gantries will not be acceptable.

I am pleased that Richard Simpson has seen sense and, with amendment 29A, is seeking to remove the reference to lighters from amendment 29. If there is evidence of retailers ignoring the guidance, we will revisit the regulations and consider removing exemptions from the display ban. That could be very costly to retailers, as it could lead to tobacco having to be stored under the counter, which I know that retailers do not want. I urge the chamber to allow us to achieve what amendment 29 seeks through regulations and guidance rather than through the bill itself, which could have undesirable and unintended consequences.

The unintended consequence of amendments 31 and 32, which deal with tobacco industry-funded campaigns such as no ID, no sale, would be to limit campaigns that inform customers and retailers of their rights and responsibilities around tobacco sales. On the retailer side, amendment 31 would ban displays that are aimed at staff, such as prompts by tills to remind staff to verify a customer's age; for customers, it would restrict campaigns that are essential to the successful implementation of many of the bill's provisions, including proxy purchase. The amendment would restrict such campaigns by retailers, Young Scot and cancer charities as well as the tobacco industry. In fact, any shop or charity that came up with an idea would have to approach the Government for approval first. Surely the creation of such bureaucracy would not make any sense. I am sure that no one wants that to happen.

I therefore ask Mary Scanlon to withdraw amendment 4 and not to move amendments 5 to 10, 14, 47 and 16. I also ask Richard Simpson not to move amendments 29 to 32.