HEALTH AND SPORT COMMITTEE Wednesday 11 November 2009 Session 3 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2009. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Information Policy Team, Office of the Queen‟s Printer for Scotland, Admail ADM4058, Edinburgh, EH1 1NG, or by email to: [email protected]. OQPS administers the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Printed and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by RR Donnelley. CONTENTS Wednesday 11 November 2009 Col. DECISION ON TAKING BUSINESS IN PRIVATE ............................................................................................ 2365 TOBACCO AND PRIMARY MEDICAL SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL: STAGE 2 ................................................... 2366 HEALTH AND SPORT COMMITTEE 29th Meeting 2009, Session 3 CONVENER *Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP) DEPU TY CONVENER *Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab) *Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) *Michael Matheson (Falkirk West) (SNP) *Ian Mc Kee (Lothians) (SNP) *Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con) *Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Joe Fitz Patrick (Dundee West) (SNP) Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Shona Robison (Minister for Public Health and Sport) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Callum Thomson SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Douglas Thornton ASSISTANT CLERK Seán Wixted LOC ATION Committee Room 3 2365 11 NOVEMBER 2009 2366 Scottish Parliament Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2 Health and Sport Committee Wednesday 11 November 2009 10:17 The Convener: This is day 1 of stage 2 [THE CONVENER opened the meeting in private at consideration of amendments to the Tobacco and 09:31] Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill. I remind members and people in the public gallery to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment. 10:08 No apologies have been received. I welcome the Meeting suspended until 10:17 and continued in Minister for Public Health and Sport and her team. public thereafter. Section 1—Prohibition of tobacco displays etc The Convener: Amendment 11, in the name of Decision on Taking Business in Ian McKee, is grouped with amendments 18 and Private 19. I draw members‟ attention to the pre-emption note on the groupings. If amendment 40, in the The Convener (Christine Grahame): Welcome next group, is agreed to, amendment 19 cannot be to the 29th meeting of the Health and Sport called. Those amendments will be disposed of at Committee in 2009. next week‟s meeting. Does the committee agree to consider in private Ian McKee (Lothians) (SNP): Amendment 11 is at this and future meetings its approach to to leave out from section 1 forthcoming legislation on alcohol? “or fixed to the outs ide of the premises of” Members indicated agreement. in line 15 on page 1 of the bill. The reason for the amendment is that advertising fixed to the outside of premises of a specialist tobacconist can be seen by young people who do not go inside the building and can, therefore, constitute a form of advertising that is visible by them. In the spirit of the bill, the provision should be removed. I move amendment 11. The Convener: Do you want to speak to any of the other amendments in the group? Ian McKee: Amendment 18 follows the same philosophy, so I do not want to add to what I have said. Amendment 19 is a technical amendment. The Minister for Public Health and Sport (Shona Robison): The display ban exemption for specialist tobacconists is lifted directly from the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. The bill as drafted exempts specialist tobacconists from the display ban if a display “(a) is in or fixed to the outside of the premises of a specialist tobacconist, (b) does not inc lude cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco,” and complies with any other requirements. Although I do not think that anyone believes that specialist tobacconists are places frequented by children, concerns were expressed that allowing such shops to display and advertise tobacco in their shop window would undermine what we are trying to do through the display ban. I understand that specialists have concerns about the impact of 2367 11 NOVEMBER 2009 2368 amendment 11, but we will work with them while Michael Matheson (Falkirk West) (SNP): drafting regulations to ensure that the impact on Given that Mary Scanlon quoted directly from the their business is minimised. On that basis, I do not committee‟s stage 1 report in relation to this issue, oppose amendments 11, 18 and 19. it is important to state for the record that, in the end, the report came down in favour of what is Amendment 11 agreed to. intended in the bill. We are at an early stage of The Convener: Amendment 12, in the name of gathering international evidence on the link Mary Scanlon, is grouped with amendments 13, between the types of displays in shops and young 14, 34 to 36, 40 and 41. I remind members that, if people taking up smoking, but it is clear that the amendment 40 is agreed to, amendment 19 in the committee is taking a precautionary approach on previous group cannot be called. the issue and has supported what the Government intends to do. It is important that we recognise that Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): the committee has supported the proposals to ban Amendment 12 is a critical amendment, because it advertising smoking in places where tobacco is relates to the main point of the bill. We can all sold. agree on the link between smoking and poor health and on the fact that the younger people Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab): The start smoking, the more acute their health general principles of the bill, which include a ban problems in later life are likely to be. on tobacco displays, have been supported not just by the committee but by the Parliament. Today we are faced with a decision about whether to ban the visual display of cigarettes to The arguments in the written and oral evidence address the problem. The truth appears in that was submitted to the committee were paragraph 47 of the committee‟s stage 1 report, especially compelling, particularly the convincing which states: evidence from international sources and the World Health Organization on the display bans that have “The Committee notes that strong view s w ere advanced on both sides of the debate. The Committee also been introduced elsewhere in the world. Some of recognises that the evidence base for this proposal is at an the issues that Mary Scanlon has raised can be early stage and that the international evidence to date is tackled in other ways, and I strongly reject her inconclusive. The Committee notes the Minister‟s amendments. comments that action such as the proposed ban w ould itself lead to … more conc lusive evidence over time.” Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): I, too, want to speak against these The Government is banning visual displays in amendments for a number of reasons. First, the the hope that that will produce an evidence base evidence from Professor Hastings in particular on in support of the argument that the measure will the effects on young people clearly demonstrates reduce smoking. There is not yet conclusive that the removal of such displays from shops is, evidence that the measure will achieve what it sets over time, likely to lead to a reduction in the out to achieve. The claim in the policy number of children who take up smoking. memorandum that banning visual displays of cigarettes will Secondly, the Scottish Youth Parliament and the various youth groups that have been consulted “protect children and young people from the impact of tobacco s moking” also support the ban. is, therefore, not true. Thirdly, the fact is that, since the 2002 act came in, the number of these displays has increased The policy memorandum also states that the bill hugely. If the displays are not advertising, why do will we have a proliferation of brands that are only tiny “reduce the attractiveness and availability of tobacco variations of existing brands? There is no variation products to children and young people”. in the cigarette itself, only in its packaging and form. The displays have become a powerful form I cannot think of anything less attractive than what of advertising and apart from a couple of is stated on the packet that I am holding up. dissenters the committee and the Parliament are Although a ban on visual displays will put cigarette unanimous in the view that they need to be packets out of sight, there is no doubt that the significantly curtailed, if not eliminated. Government needs to consider many other measures to make the policy successful. I can Shona Robison: Amendments 12 to 14, 34 to think of nothing less attractive than a product that 36, 40 and 41 seek to delete the provisions states “Smoking kills”. I see no benefit in repeating banning the display of tobacco products that are at the arguments on both sides that we have heard the heart of the bill. and read about. Although I understand the concern about the I move amendment 12. ban on displays, I feel that a great deal of it is being driven by those who naturally seek to protect their own business interests, namely the 2369 11 NOVEMBER 2009 2370 tobacco industry. However, as the Minister for support other ways of trying to reduce the Public Health and Sport, it is my business to incidence of smoking not just in young people but protect future generations from the harmful effects in people of all ages.