Hansard

I welcome the progress that has been made on smoking by the Scottish Parliament, including members here present.

When it comes to smoking, we need to strike a balance between the health benefits for the public as a whole, including the smokers themselves, and allowing people the freedom to do themselves a bit of harm if they are determined to do so.

We have heard some personal stories here this afternoon, so I will mention the fact that my grandfather started smoking during the first world war and lived until he was 86. That encouraged my father to smoke heavily, which he did to the tune of 40 a day, but unfortunately it had a negative impact on his health and life.

I am slightly more relaxed about smoking. I allow people to smoke in my car if they want to. I was brought up with smoke in the house, the car and everywhere else, so I am reasonably relaxed about it. I tried it myself briefly in my teens and earned the nickname “Smokes” at school, although I think that was a little unfair because I really only tried one or two.

I accept that it is not always easy to strike the balance. On the one hand, we can be accused of being a nanny state and interfering in people’s lives too much. On the other, we can be accused of standing on the sidelines while people destroy their lives and those of their children.

I will concentrate on part 1 of the bill—especially on tobacco and e-cigarettes. As other members have, I assume, I have received a fair amount of material from businesses telling me what a good thing e-cigarettes are. I have a number of friends and colleagues who also take that view. I am happy to accept that for some people who are trying to give up traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes can be helpful. However, my main concern is about the other end of the spectrum, where e-cigarettes are clearly being used by unscrupulous companies as a way of enticing people to start smoking in the hope that they will become hooked and move on to tobacco products.

Members might know the Forge shopping centre at Parkhead, which is right beside my constituency office. I often go in there on my way to get lunch at a well-known sandwich shop. On the way, I pass various shops and stalls, one of which particularly struck me when it was set up. The stall is right in the middle of the thoroughfare and the shoppers have to cram in together to get past it. It has a larger-than-life 3D model of a cigarette; I guess that it is about 20 times the size of a normal cigarette, and it looks exactly like a normal cigarette. That stall is advertising e-cigarettes but that huge model of the cigarette is there to glamorise and encourage smoking. The stall might not technically be advertising tobacco products, but in practice that is exactly what it is doing.

As I said, I am not arguing that e-cigarettes have no benefits, but I do argue that they are also being used as a thin veneer for advertising tobacco and traditional cigarettes. That is especially a concern because children are being targeted. The BMA also highlights that in its briefing for today’s debate, which says:

“Concerns have been expressed by BMA members over the use of marketing methods to promote e-cigarettes which are likely to appeal to children, young people and non smokers ... The BMA is also concerned that e-cigarette marketing may have an adverse impact, reinforcing conventional cigarette smoking habits, as well as indirectly promoting smoking and increasing the likelihood of young people starting to smoke.”

Overall, I find myself in agreement with the committee’s recommendations, particularly with paragraph 90, which has already been quoted by Stewart Maxwell.

On smoking in hospital grounds, we on the Finance Committee spent a fair bit of time looking at the potential costs that are set out in the financial memorandum. In principle, I agree with the proposal in the bill, because if we want to continue to change the culture on smoking, where else would tackling smoking be a higher priority than in the grounds of the national health service? However, I take the point made in paragraph 117 of the stage 1 report that having a two-tier system might lead to less adherence to the rules in grounds beyond the legally enforceable limit, and that it might cause confusion as to where smoking is allowed and where it is not.

The financial memorandum sets out signage costs for all hospitals: time will tell whether they are sufficient.

When the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, I was a councillor at Glasgow City Council and I was concerned that a lot of enforcement activity would be required to stop smoking in pubs, restaurants and similar places. I have to say that I am delighted that I was proved wrong and that that legislation came into effect so smoothly.

I note that paragraph 124 of the stage 1 report states:

“The Scottish Government confirmed that it expected compliance by the public, patients and staff with the enforceable no-smoking areas to be as high as with previous smoke-free legislation”.

I find that to be a little optimistic, because there is a bit of a difference between someone being inside a restaurant or a pub where there is a lot of public opinion right on top of them, and their standing outside, perhaps on their own, in hospital grounds.

The Finance Committee received submissions from local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressing worry about the potential costs of the bill and whether the financial memorandum covers them adequately. In our report on the financial memorandum, we say:

“The lead committee may wish to seek further clarification of whether additional funding would be made available in the event that evidence indicates an increase in the cost of enforcement either in respect of the sale of NVPs or of smoking in hospital grounds.”

I am glad to see that in paragraph 131 of the stage 1 report, the Health and Sport Committee takes that point up by saying:

“We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to consider any breakdown of costs provided by COSLA should there be a short term increase in enforcement costs.”

Overall, this country has clearly made progress on smoking. We want to protect the ground that we have won, and to continue to make such progress despite attempts by the tobacco industry to undermine it. I very much welcome the bill, which I suspect will not be the last on this topic.