Tobacco Sales
We now move on to members' business. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly.
The final item of business is a debate on motion S1M-250, in the name of Ms Irene Oldfather, on the subject of tobacco sales to under-age children. The debate will conclude, without any question being put, after 30 minutes. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request to speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that surveys by trading standards officers in North Ayrshire and the Borders indicate that tobacco continues to be sold to under-aged children; notes that those retailers who are successfully prosecuted are treated leniently; and supports the establishment of a system of negative licensing under the jurisdiction of local licensing boards, whereby retailers who repeatedly sell tobacco to young people will lose their right to sell age restricted products altogether.
I would like to thank members from all parties in the Parliament who have supported this motion, thereby allowing tonight's debate to take place.
I would like to address two issues: why do we have to act and how can we act? There is a clear answer to the first question. Within the next hour, someone, somewhere in Scotland will die from smoking. Tobacco is addictive. It is a drug and it kills, yet tonight children the length and breadth of Scotland can purchase that drug and the people who sell it to them—people who put private profit before children's health—can do so with impunity.
Unfortunately, tobacco is a drug that, for whatever reason, is attractive to young people— 90 per cent of smokers will have started to smoke before the age of 18. Indeed, figures suggest that a high proportion of smokers will have started before the age of 15—at least one year before the age at which they can legally purchase cigarettes. That is why it is crucial that we look carefully at how we can stop children smoking in their early teens.
Education has a part to play. The Scottish Executive is committed to ensuring that young people are a target group in its healthy living agenda, but a significant part of the solution would be to reduce the supply of tobacco to the young.
A recent survey by North Ayrshire trading standards officers discovered that cigarettes were sold to an under-age child in 13 out of 13 shops.
Smoking prevention groups confirm that by estimating that 83 per cent of under-age smokers buy cigarettes from shops.
Very few retailers are prosecuted. In 1996-97, there were no recorded prosecutions, convictions or fines for sales of tobacco to under-age children in Scotland. When action has been taken, offenders are treated very leniently. That says something about how society views tobacco sales to children. We owe it to our young people to make tobacco sales to children socially unacceptable—a taboo in the same way that drinking and driving has become a taboo.
Phil Gallie's motion S1M-219, which was debated last week, offered a way forward for many honest shopkeepers who face real difficulties trying to judge the age of a young person. However, steps are also needed to deal with shopkeepers who are prepared to sell cigarettes to under-age children.
I am aware that one of the major stumbling blocks to better enforcement has been the problem of child witnesses. For entirely valid reasons, the Crown discourages prosecutions based on test purchases involving children. Unfortunately, the result is that children continue to be exploited by cigarette companies, because a culture of non-prosecution exists in Scotland that is at odds with experience in the rest of the United Kingdom.
A possible solution would be to take statements from those involved, similar to the section 9 statements used in England. That would ensure that the accused had a chance to review any statement prior to the hearing and allow questions to be written to overcome any concerns that may arise from the European convention on human rights. I am aware that many of my colleagues favour that form of action.
The motion deals with another possible solution—negative licensing. Negative licensing would lead to a retailer who repeatedly sells tobacco to young people losing the right to sell cigarettes or, depending on the scheme, any other age-restricted product. The system would be established under the jurisdiction of local licensing boards, effectively putting sales of tobacco to under-age children on the same footing as sales of alcohol to that age group. That would act as a deterrent, hitting retailers where it hurts—in their pockets. It would also act as a preventive measure, gradually restricting the supply of cigarettes to young people. Negative licensing is just one of many possible solutions, but it is one that I believe has significant advantages.
We must ask ourselves whether there is a will to act. Forty years ago, young people in Scotland were the product of a generation for which it was
fashionable to smoke. Now that we know the facts, we cannot turn a blind eye. The bottom line is that we have a responsibility and a duty to protect our children. Local authorities are calling for this Parliament to support them by acting now. I hope that this evening's debate will mark the beginning of that process. Let us send a message to all Scotland that the Parliament is listening and is not afraid to act to protect our young people. I look forward to hearing colleagues' and the minister's views on the issue.
I congratulate Irene Oldfather on raising this issue in debate. I imagine that it is not one on which there is any party political divide. All members are gravely concerned about the damage that tobacco causes, particularly to young children.
I confess that I began smoking as a teenager. I am aware that teenagers are contrasuggestible. You may believe, Presiding Officer, that some adults, such as me, remain contrasuggestible, but that is another matter. I know that if one tells teenagers not to do something, that is almost a guarantee that they will do that very thing. Warm words, pious statements and good intentions are therefore not the currency of success in what I imagine is a common aim.
It is up to us to take concrete steps; Irene Oldfather's proposal seems to be a small, sensible and practical step. Although there are difficulties, which she set out clearly and factually, she is to be congratulated on raising the issue.
I was very concerned to learn from press reports that the related issue of the ban on tobacco advertising is apparently being thwarted by the threat of action by tobacco companies against the Government south of the border. That is quite disgraceful and I hope that the Government south of the border and the Executive north of the border will stand up to the tobacco barons. Regardless of whether they have links with Margaret Thatcher, they should be taken on and soundly thrashed. It is outrageous that tobacco barons should seek to thwart the legitimate aims of the Government. I am quite convinced that if we were to ban tobacco advertising we would deglamorise smoking, which is what we need to do.
I point out to Fergus Ewing, in response to his comment about Margaret Thatcher, that Irene Oldfather's motion is underpinned by an all-party belief in the need to prevent smoking and the damage it causes. I am grateful to Irene Oldfather for lodging a motion that is so good that I am able to support it fully.
Many of us hold different views on smoking in public places and on how smoking affects adults. We can go some way towards limiting and preventing problems in the future by ensuring that people are prevented from getting hooked on smoking at a young age. Before speaking today, I researched the penalties that tobacconists face if they sell cigarettes to under-age children. They are not high. Someone who is found guilty—which would be a miracle, because the number of prosecutions is limited—faces a maximum fine of £2,500.
Irene Oldfather's suggestion of negative licensing would be a good step. Phil Gallie has left the chamber, but his suggestion of the need for a decent system of identity cards would go some way towards clearing up the confusion for tobacconists and licensees. During last week's debate on Phil Gallie's motion, I popped into a newsagent's shop to buy a bar of chocolate. A young boy was buying a packet of cigarettes. I am sure that it was only my presence and that of the policeman to whom I was chatting that made the newsagent go through the rigmarole of asking for some form of ID.
Smoking has a damaging effect on Scotland's health. The problems will not go away. The adults who smoke have many years left to use up a lot of national health service resources.
I have my own views about smoking in restaurants and so on, but I hope that tobacconists will take responsibility for the drug that they sell. I smoke, having started as a teenager because I was not allowed to and wanted to rebel. I remember the days of those rather lame adverts featuring Nick O'Teen battling against Superman. They did me no good and it was never hard to get cigarettes over the counter.
I support Irene Oldfather's motion. I believe that there is a will to prevent the illegal supply of tobacco to young teenagers.
We are all in reminiscent mood. I remember the first time I smoked. It was in a big rhododendron bush in the grounds of a hotel on the island of Bute. I smoked two cigarettes and was lucky to survive, because about 10 minutes later they caused me to seize up, nearly killing me. I never smoked again.
My wife's experience was quite different. She started smoking when her mum sent her out to buy cigarettes. She used to buy 10 Craven A and a packet of Polo mints, because it was said to be
smooth on the throat. She then moved on to Senior Service, because she liked sailors. Later she moved on to Capstan full strength—another naval connection—because she wanted to be one of the lads.
Peer-group pressure can be a most powerful influence. It was terrible when all my pals smoked and I did not. Talking to teenagers about the long- term dangers of smoking is not the answer. We must make smoking uncool, so that teenagers look down on others who smoke. Teenagers must realise that smoking is dirty and unpleasant.
As teenagers we may have thought that smoking was fun, but as adults we know what smoking can do to us. Smoking cannot go unchallenged. It will be difficult to stop teenagers smoking, but what we are talking about will make it easier. It is terribly upsetting when we see that under-age smoking is on the increase—as a teacher, I thought that it was decreasing. It is terrible to find out that more girls are smoking than boys and that 14 per cent of children aged between 12 and 15 are regular smokers. People who start smoking young are three times more likely to get cancer than someone who starts a bit later.
As Irene Oldfather suggests, there would be a major benefit in clamping down on the sale of tobacco products. It is difficult to see how the partnership can achieve targets for a healthier Scotland without doing something to cut off the supply to youngsters.
Ben Wallace mentioned that there is a fine of £2,500 for selling tobacco to under-age children, but people tend to be fined only about £250. That sends out the wrong messages. A recent survey showed that, in the Borders, 100 per cent of traders had sold tobacco to under-age children. I can hardly believe that, as I know some of the shopkeepers there. I assume that they did not monitor the right ones.
We must support trading standards officers who are trying to enforce the regulations and we must have more prosecutions if the evidence justifies them. The direct penalties must be more effective and the threat of negative licensing should be a real possibility. I understand that, when a similar scheme was used in Illinois a decade ago, the number of outlets selling tobacco illegally was cut by 65 per cent to only 5 per cent.
I support the motion wholeheartedly.
Irene Oldfather is to be congratulated on introducing the motion. It identifies a serious problem and makes positive and succinct suggestions about how to tackle the problem. That is often lacking in our debates.
It is appalling to find people who are prepared to sell cigarettes to under-age children simply to make a profit. It would be remiss of us to allow such a practice to continue in what we hope is a civilised and progressive society. We must protect our children from themselves and from people who are more interested in money.
Does Hugh Henry agree that the solutions that Irene Oldfather has proposed apply equally to mobile shops? We have to ensure that the withdrawal of a licence from a van also applies to the operating company.
Absolutely, there is a range of outlets that we have to consider.
We in this Parliament are proud of the fact that we have the opportunity to initiate legislation ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom, but this debate identifies an area in which we are behind other parts of the country.
I hope that, following this debate, we can persuade the relevant committees, or the Scottish Executive, to take seriously the suggestions that Irene Oldfather and Richard Simpson have made and to propose changes. I have been impressed by the range of the Scottish Executive's proposals. It has shown its determination to improve the quality of life for people in Scotland. I am disturbed, however, that tobacco consumption and health is probably the one area of weakness in what has been considered. Irene Oldfather has suggested proposals that the Scottish Executive could take up to remedy that one weakness in the armour.
Like all other members who have spoken, I congratulate Irene Oldfather on introducing this motion. It is important that the Scottish Parliament's views are heard on this issue.
Unlike other members who have spoken today, I have never smoked a cigarette and neither have my parents. Part of the reason for my family's non- consumption of tobacco may be that my paternal grandfather died of lung cancer at the age of 51 and my maternal grandfather died of emphysema at the age of 41.
We should consider the type of people who, increasingly, are smoking. In the constituency where I stood in the election—Glasgow Pollok— lung cancer levels are 85 per cent higher than the Scottish average. That constituency has the second highest level of poverty in Scotland. It is clear to anybody who examines the figures that the socially excluded are suffering most at the
hands of the tobacco barons. For whatever reason, they are consuming cigarettes more and more. Perhaps because of the stress of daily life, they are finding it harder to give up.
Two out of three smokers want to stop smoking. There is concern about the increase in the number of young people who smoke. In the past 10 years, the number of adolescent girls in Scotland who smoke has doubled. I have three children and I have great concerns that, at some point in the future, my daughter will be hiding cigarettes in her bedroom. I hope that that does not come to pass.
Every year in Scotland, 14,000 people die because of tobacco use and many lives are ruined. This is not just about people who die of lung cancer, heart disease or stroke—it is about people who lose legs through gangrene. We must take cognisance of that and of the other effects of smoking, which are not so widely publicised.
I welcome Irene Oldfather's initiative. As Hugh Henry said so eloquently, she has not just reiterated what the problems are; she has given us solutions. I hope that the Executive takes this on board and addresses the topic positively.
I thank Irene Oldfather for introducing this motion. It is a serious and sincere contribution to the debate about tobacco.
The motion suggests what might be done to limit young people's access to tobacco. I think that "repeatedly", as in "repeatedly sell tobacco", may be the one flaw in the argument. As Irene explained, prosecution is often difficult.
I must declare that I used to work as a consultant for an organisation called the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, which represents the rights of smokers. One of the policies it proselytised, which I did not agree with, was the idea that young people who purchase tobacco should be prosecuted. I can see some logic behind the argument that prosecution of those who are breaking the law by selling a product should be extended to those who seek to conspire to break the law by buying the product illegally, but I do not feel that that would help.
We have to ask what makes young people smoke. I do not accept that advertising is the cause: I do not agree that the glamour of Reg advertising Regal cigarettes or the surrealism of Silk Cut adverts is responsible. Indeed, the most prominent feature of many adverts is the health warning.
In my view, the biggest influence is undoubtedly peer-group pressure—the icons and fashion cycles that matter to young people. I was a member of a family that smoked, but I chose not to smoke—possibly for the reasons that Fergus Ewing suggested. That may also be why I turned out to be a Tory, as everybody else in my family was a Labour voter. After taking up smoking at a young age in order to be accepted by their peers and to fit in with fashion, it is no wonder that by their mid-20s people decide to stop smoking. They become more concerned about their health and the financial pressures of smoking, and they no longer place so much value on being part of a peer group. Fifty per cent of people aged 16 have tried drugs, but I do not see many adverts for drugs. That is why we have to focus our attacks on peer-group pressure.
I would support moves to introduce identity cards, as they would provide newsagents with a more accurate guide to people's age. Newsagents can identify very young children and should definitely be prosecuted for selling to them. The difficulty lies with those at the margins, the 14 and 15-year-olds; newsagents find it hard to tell whether such children are 16. That is why some pubs are not open to people under 21 years of age—it is not because the publicans cannot tell whether their customers are 21, but because they cannot tell whether they are 18. We need to work with newsagents to find ways of making the age of young people clear to them, so that they can continue to go about what is, after all, a legal business.
I will start by being unoriginal and congratulating Irene Oldfather on raising this issue. On a lighter note, the image of Ian Jenkins in a rhododendron bush will remain with me for a long time.
The discussion has shown that we are agreed on the importance of the issue. In her opening remarks, Irene demonstrated very effectively that we must address two questions: why we need to tackle this issue and how we should tackle it. In the few minutes that are available to me, I will try to provide answers to both.
In answer to the first question, it is worth reiterating the cost of smoking-related illness—first and foremost in terms of human suffering and human life and, secondly, in terms of health service resources. We estimate that around one in five deaths in Scotland is the result of smoking- related illness. That is 13,000 deaths every year. On top of that, we estimate that there are some 33,500 hospital admissions as a consequence of smoking-related illness. The cost to the health service is estimated at £140 million per annum. This Executive is determined to take action to deal with that.
The second reason we need to address the issue concerns the Executive's particular commitment to the health of children and young people, which I support. Establishing how and why young people start smoking and taking action to ensure that they do not are crucial. That does not mean that we should not take action further down the line to help adults to stop smoking, but it is particularly important to find ways of stopping young people from starting in the first place. The issues that have been raised in this debate touch on that important point.
I think Irene Oldfather made this point earlier, but I will reiterate it: we estimate that between 80 and 90 per cent of adults who smoke start smoking in their teens. We know that the first puff, be it behind the bike shed or in the rhododendron bush, can lead to a lifetime of addiction, then premature death. We will make a difference if we can stop that first puff.
The third reason we have to do something is the Executive's commitment to taking particular action to help people in our most deprived communities, which Kenny Gibson touched on. Social justice— tackling social exclusion—is a central priority for the Executive. We know that the incidence of smoking is higher and that health is poorer in our deprived communities. We are determined to take steps that will improve the health of the poorest in society, as was outlined in the public health debate in September.
I have said why we have to take action. How—I know that I am rushing—do we take that action? I say to Hugh Henry that we take this issue very seriously. I do not accept that our position is weak in any sense. I will outline briefly some of the steps that we are taking and intend to take.
First, we need to address the issues that Brian Monteith raised: why people smoke, why they remain smokers and how they can be helped to stop smoking. That requires a sound analysis and policy basis. In the main, we have that.
Many members will be familiar with the white paper, "Smoking Kills". It is inherited work, but I am happy to have it to hand in progressing this agenda. We have a strategy group in Scotland to oversee the measures outlined in the white paper. The group is actively addressing this issue and it is relevant for the group to address the suggestions and ideas that have been raised in this debate.
The second step that we must take—this is all encompassed in the white paper—is to consider education and awareness, which is why the Executive's emphasis on working across departmental boundaries is so important. I cannot tackle education and awareness in isolation—I must work with education colleagues, for example, in considering how to get health messages across in our schools and in the other environments where young people are found. Health promotion messages are part of that awareness-raising exercise; conversely, they are also about reducing the promotion of tobacco.
Tobacco advertising has been mentioned—and rightly. I reiterate the Executive's absolute commitment to a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in Scotland. As members are aware, a legal challenge by the tobacco companies against the UK Government is taking place south of the border. Our considered opinion, as set out in my answer to a parliamentary question today, is that any move by us to lay regulations in Scotland would inevitably lead to similar litigation here.
We will not move one step further down the road to achieving a ban unless and until those legal issues have been resolved. I assure members— on this occasion, I speak on behalf of the UK Government—that the UK Government is vigorously fighting that challenge in the courts. We are monitoring the situation carefully. Our commitment to introducing the EC directive on a ban of tobacco advertising and sponsorship is absolute and we will take that action as soon as we are able to.
Enforcement has been covered fully. It is important to ensure that we reduce sales of tobacco to young people. There are many ways of doing that and I have placed no constraints on the strategy group that is progressing the white paper—I am more than happy for it to look at all the options. I am not convinced that a negative licensing scheme is the best way forward, nor am I convinced that another tier of regulation and bureaucracy is the most effective way of delivering that reduction. I find it odd saying that when Ben Wallace, of all people, is saying that, in this instance, regulation may be a good thing. I stress that I am happy for the strategy group to consider all suggestions.
We are working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and trading standards officers to consider all available avenues. I suspect that my time is up; I have not been speaking for 33 minutes, but I may have been speaking for five.
I shall draw together the strands of the issues on which I have touched. I welcome this discussion. There is no simple way to reduce smoking in Scotland, but we are committed to ensuring that we do and in our health targets—reiterated in our social justice targets, which were published today—we set ourselves the firm and demanding target of doing just that. We can do that only if we work together, both within the Parliament and with organisations outside it. We are determined to do
that. Also, we can do it only if we work across our policy areas.
On the day our social justice paper has been produced, I return to the issue of improving the health of the poorest in our society. If our poorest are to be healthier and happier, and are to lead more fulfilled lives, we have to tackle their health at every level. We have to give them hope, opportunities and self-esteem. That is what we are attempting to do across all our work. In doing that, we will improve their health and quality of life. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to address some of those points very briefly here tonight.
That brings this evening's business to a close. I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 18:16.