Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Speech by Ross Finnie on Thu 24th Sep 2009

Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4807, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on stage 1 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill.

Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD): It is extraordinarily difficult to get our heads round this bill. We talk about general principles. We would not suggest, as a general principle, that we are in any sense in favour of maintaining tobacco smoking at its current levels; indeed, we might say that as a general principle, denormalising-a horrible word-tobacco smoking might be a good thing. Likewise, the sense of a massive intrusion of private practice into the health service is something that we-certainly on the Liberal Democrat side-are instinctively unhappy about. The difficulty lies in trying to translate those overarching objectives into the provisions in parts 1 and 2 of the bill.

I begin with part 2. In passing, I note, and slightly deprecate, the habit-which has been enunciated in this debate-of a closing speech by the minister being the only Government speech to address particular material; in this case, the issue surrounding part 2. I do not regard the introduction of new material in the final speech as conducive to the good conduct of a debate, and the Presiding Officer might want to reflect on that. It is not a personal criticism, but it has happened in the past and it makes the conduct of debate more difficult.

The conclusions in paragraphs 138 to 146 of the Health and Sport Committee's stage 1 report are a very serious critique of the bill. The committee was unable collectively to believe that the bill as drafted was articulating and enunciating in a statutory form the intended provisions. In some cases, we were left with the impression that the target had been missed and that the bill was taking a blanket approach to a situation that had not arisen in Scotland. In other cases, the bill seemed to seek to impose a degree of rigidity, which-as Mary Scanlon pointed out-might be wholly inappropriate as circumstances regarding the provision of health services change. Those are very serious criticisms, and, although Liberal Democrats are content in some senses with the proposals, I am bound to say that the scrutiny of part 2 of the bill will be very rigorous indeed. We need to hear the Government's response, not only at the conclusion of this debate, but well in advance of stage 2, so that members can properly consider whether further amendments might be required.

I now turn to part 1. With regard to advertising, it may be asked whether a trading standards officer will be prancing around the shop to check whether my can of soup complies with the provisions of the advertising legislation, but I will not go there. There are difficulties around that issue, and I understand perfectly that some people are not concerned whether there is a body of evidence. The evidence is very mixed, and it is certainly not helpful, at this stage, to start pitting one state of Canada against another, because the nature of the evidence-

David McLetchie: Province, not state.

Ross Finnie: Province-I apologise.

I do not accept that if we enact the bill there will be no difficulties for small retailers. The fact that we do not know what we are expecting them to do makes it all the more difficult, and we need a clear steer on that so that we can separate the process from the principles. That would be helpful for the small stores, of which I have visited many in my area. Indeed, I had the misfortune of standing in a queue to observe behavioural patterns and when I got to the front and was asked what I wanted to purchase my attempted plea in mitigation that I was only observing behavioural patterns was not welcomed by the local storekeeper.

There are fundamental difficulties in that regard-we could give those stores a year, two years, three years or five years, but the configuration of the shop will not work if we require them not to make use of their existing counters. There must be further clarification on that, without muddying the detail of the bill. That is an important issue. I am not persuaded that those shopkeepers get any money at all from tobacco companies. By golly, the age and state of some of the advertising in their shops suggests that it could be condemned on other grounds.

The other provisions on tobacco are important. However, it would be a retrograde step to provide a defence to a charge of selling tobacco to an underage person that no reasonable person could have suspected that they were under 18. If we are trying to ensure that proof of age is the issue, that should be the test. If a person does not attempt to see proof of age, they will not have acted reasonably. The question of responsibility of the under-18s requires further consideration if we are saying that tobacco is to be regarded as a far more dangerous product than alcohol. I will be disappointed if the minister suggests that there are legal reasons for saying that tobacco cannot be treated in the same way as alcohol is under the licensing provisions.

The evidence on vending machines was much more persuasive than that on displays. We heard about the abuse of vending machines and the difficulties of a satisfactory approach across a range of outlets. Notwithstanding the enormous difficulties that the bill will produce for manufacturers of vending machines, a ban on those machines is justified.

In broad terms, the stiffening of the regulation and the provision of a national register are helpful in regulating tobacco sales. However, we must separate out the issues of principle and process. At this late stage, given all the genuine questions that have been raised, it is not helpful that we still await information on how the legislation will be implemented. A very large number of questions will have to be dealt with in detail at stage 2. I appeal to the business managers to ensure that adequate time is allocated for stage 2 to allow us to address properly the considerable number of outstanding issues.