Hansard

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."