Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5560, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill. Before the minister opens the debate, I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to signify Crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
I am delighted to open the debate on the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, which will reform two areas of health legislation. It will update controls on the sale and display of tobacco and smoking-related products and it will amend and clarify the eligibility criteria for providers of primary medical services.
This is important legislation, and I am grateful to all who have helped to shape it—the bill that we have considered today and which I hope that we will pass is better for their involvement. I hope that members will acknowledge that, although differences might remain, we have been willing to listen throughout the process and to give ground, where we thought it appropriate to do so. The changes that have been made to both parts of the bill, particularly at stage 2, are testament to that.
I offer particular thanks for their thorough scrutiny of the bill to the Health and Sport Committee, the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The stage 1 report and the valuable discussions that took place at stage 2 have undoubtedly strengthened the bill. I also thank the committee clerks, who have worked so hard to support the committees' work, our own officials in the bill team and the Government and parliamentary legal teams, whose endeavours on this short but complex bill have been invaluable.
The cigarette as a product has, more than any other thing, blighted the health and shortened the lives of the people of Scotland. Too many young people still take up smoking each year, and smoking prevention must remain a top priority if Scotland's health is to be improved and inequalities are to be reduced.
The health risks that are associated with smoking are clear and irrefutable. It is evident from the contributions that we have heard, today and throughout the passage of the bill, that, although we might differ on the detail, we all agree about the need for the Parliament to show leadership in protecting young Scots from the devastating impact of tobacco.
The discussions that have taken place during the passage of the bill, and the amendments that have been made, have undoubtedly made the process of making Scotland smoke free all the more possible.
In particular, the introduction at stage 2 of new offences of proxy purchase and underage purchase—which are substantive changes that we were happy to support—have served to create a greater balance of responsibility between tobacco retailers and underage purchasers or those who seek to circumvent the law by facilitating the purchase of tobacco for underage young people.
Although I sense that many of the measures that the bill contains, including the tobacco retailer registration scheme and the new regime of fixed-penalty notices and banning orders, are broadly welcomed, I am conscious that differences of opinion remain, particularly in relation to the ban on displays and the sale of cigarettes from vending machines. The arguments for and against legislative action in those respects have already been fully aired, and no doubt will be again during this afternoon's debate. However, we remain convinced of the need for legislative action. I can only reiterate that the decision to legislate on those and other matters in the bill was not taken lightly.
We will continue to work closely with business interests and other stakeholders throughout the implementation process. For example, there will be an opportunity to provide input on the development of the regulations and guidance that will underpin the legislation, and on the evaluation programme to assess the impact of the measures that will be put in place. There is no doubt in my mind that, as part of our wider tobacco control strategy, the proposed reforms of the law relating to the sale and display of tobacco will help to protect future generations from smoking-related harm. Moreover, if the bill is passed it will reinforce the Parliament's position as a world leader in tobacco control and in public health more generally—that is important.
I turn briefly to part 2, which the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will cover more fully in her closing speech. The proposals for primary medical services will mean a significant step forward in achieving a mutual National Health Service in Scotland, and in protecting the health of the people of Scotland.
We have listened carefully to the arguments and comments from stakeholders and members at each stage of the bill. As a result, the Government introduced further flexibility at stage 2, which will allow us to adapt to changes that may lie ahead, and which widens the scope of the provision on who is eligible to hold a primary medical services contract. However, we strongly believe that the core provisions that require contract holders to have a direct involvement in patient care are fundamental to ensuring that GP services in Scotland continue to be very much patient centred.
I commend the bill to Parliament. It is an important step in the direction of a smoke-free Scotland, and I thank everyone who has been involved in it for their participation.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill be passed.
It is almost 60 years since Sir Richard Doll produced his groundbreaking paper on the ill effects of smoking. During that time, the number of smokers has been reduced from 70 per cent to around 22 per cent of the population. However, as members are well aware, smoking-related deaths still account for some 13,000 of the 54,000 annual deaths in Scotland. That is almost one in four deaths—it is four times the number of deaths from alcohol, and 26 times the number of deaths from drugs. The figures for women smoking are particularly alarming: lung cancer rates are rising among women while they are falling among men.
Although the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey has shown a welcome reduction in smoking in boys—from 30 per cent to 12 to 14 per cent—it has shown a reduction to only 18 per cent in girls. Smoking has become a major factor in health inequalities. More than 40 per cent of those in the lowest socioeconomic group still smoke, compared with about 12 per cent of the richest. All of that means that we must continue to make efforts of the sort that are included in the bill to try to achieve a smoke-free Scotland.
The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 was an important step. It is regrettable that we did not go as far as I would have liked today proactively to ensure that the tobacco industry does not circumvent the spirit of the law. I know that ministers intend that to be the case, but it is important that we monitor the situation closely and ensure that any attempts to get around the spirit of the law are quickly stamped on. As I said, it would have been better to agree to the amendments that we lodged. Ireland has certainly had considerable problems.
We came to a reasonable conclusion on vending machines. I hope that ministers will indeed continue to pursue discussions with Scottish producers and assist them in diversifying and protecting the jobs that exist in Scotland. It is regrettable that there was initial confusion about the number of jobs, but I have said publicly and I say again now that the Government cannot be entirely blamed for that, because the national response of the industry was, to say the least, tardy and unhelpful.
The process of interaction between the Government and those who submitted evidence to the committee and assisted us strengthened part 1 considerably. The requirement on local authorities to make their test purchasing programmes clear is important, because citizens will be able to see precisely what their local authority is doing. The proxy purchasing provisions, the ability to confiscate tobacco from underage smokers and the new flexibility in the fine levels and the length of any ban all toughen the bill and the Government's support for those measures was welcome.
I hope that the regulations will anticipate the industry's attempts to get round the important measures on display. We need further clarification. My one regret is that we have not had a demonstration. I offered that, as one of my constituents was keen to provide a site for a demonstration. I still urge the minister to consider pursuing that in completing the discussions with the industry on the precise nature of the covers that are to go on the gantries.
Part 1 is one more step towards a tobacco-free world. Unlike alcohol, tobacco has no health benefits, so it is perhaps not surprising that there has been a largely consensual approach. If the measures mean that more smokers give up and, just as important, that fewer young people take up smoking, we will have taken one more step towards better public health. Despite the industry's protestations that it is not trying to encourage new smokers, it manages to recruit almost as many smokers every year as the number who die from smoking-related conditions.
Part 2 is welcome in so far as it takes future-proofed powers to extend general medical services contracts to other health professionals. That allowed Labour to support part 2. However, I am concerned about the way in which general practice is moving and I do not believe that the bill addresses the central problems that the Parliament will face. We are moving—quite rightly, I believe—towards having far more salaried practitioners. I have no objection to that. Indeed, I welcome it. However, what is happening with sessional doctors? We have moved from having a small percentage of sessional doctors—about 5 per cent—to 20 per cent in England and 11 per cent in Scotland.
If the member could wind up, that would be helpful.
We need to monitor that increase carefully.
We welcome the completion of the bill, but we will monitor its effect closely to ensure that we retain our central focus, which must be that every patient in Scotland has an equitable service provided in the primary care sector.
Like others, I thank the clerks, witnesses and all those who contributed to the bill. The Health and Sport Committee, under the able convenership of Christine Grahame, ploughed through the evidence, and I believe that we gave everyone a fair hearing, whether we agreed or disagreed with them. When I lodged my amendments to delete part 2 at stage 2, the committee had an excellent debate, as the cabinet secretary said, with contributions from members from all parties including our two doctors in residence. I thank my fellow committee members for the measured and considered way in which they debated the provision of general practitioner services. I regret that, due to time constraints, this afternoon's debate was not quite as wide ranging.
I think that this Government and indeed future Governments will regret the monopoly provision of GP services in Scotland. The Health and Sport Committee is still in the early stages of its inquiry into out-of-hours health care, but there is no doubt that as we progress more concerns about access to GPs are coming to light. The responsibility for out-of-hours GPs moved to health boards in 2004, but it is already clear that, as Richard Simpson pointed out and as Helen Eadie mentioned with reference to Kinloch Rannoch, individuals simply do not know what to expect from out-of-hours provision.
I say this constructively but I find it unfortunate that the Scottish Government's approach to the bill focused almost entirely on the banning of visual displays. The assumption was that anyone who questioned the evidence base for the policy must be in favour of smoking. Nothing could be further from the truth; I have seen members of my family and my in-laws die as a direct result of smoking. However, I want to vote for measures that are known to be successful and which have an evidence base to prove it. I hope that the approach to the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill does not focus entirely on minimum pricing—
I ask the member to stick to the bill in hand. Time is limited.
I am just finishing. The fact is that minimum pricing is just one of many measures in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill.
Although we do not support the bill itself, we support the measures on better enforcement, a register of retailers and proxy purchasing. I thank the Scottish Grocers Federation and the Scottish Retail Consortium for suggesting the law on proxy purchasing, which is likely to have the greatest effect on attempts by young smokers to access cigarettes.
Although some of the amendments that the Liberal Democrats were happy to support proved to be unsuccessful this afternoon, we will nevertheless support the bill at decision time at 5 o'clock.
The whole process has, I think, been constructive. The bill that emerged from stage 2 was better and a number of measures were greatly improved as a result of evidence that was taken, suggestions that were made and the constructive dialogue among the committee and with ministers. As a result, the bill is more robust.
I agree with Mary Scanlon that control over tobacco displays is not the only issue in the bill. No one is suggesting that there is a single solution to controlling or reducing the amount of tobacco in use. However, I am deeply concerned that attempts to dissuade younger people from resorting to tobacco are not working as well as they might be. In that respect, the measures affecting the under-18 age group are much to be welcomed. Even more important steps have been the extension of the bill at stage 2 to cover proxy purchasing and the fact that, in enforcing the law, trading standards officers have been put on a pari passu basis with the police.
All members expressed different views about vending machines. The Liberal Democrats came to the view that no matter how they were constructed, they were not foolproof. However, we have made it clear that, notwithstanding the fact that the measures relating to these machines have to be introduced, we need to be helpful in doing so, and I am grateful for the minister's response on the matter. Other enforcement aspects such as the introduction of a register of retailers, fixed-penalty notices and banning orders are all very welcome and will bear down on the illicit tobacco trade.
With regard to part 2, I say very gently to Mary Scanlon that, on the point that there have been no breaches of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2004, I, like the member, am entitled to look at evidence from other parts of Europe. I do that, and I have also looked, for example, at England and have not been impressed by the extension of private practice there. So yes, the Liberal Democrats have reached a different view now from the one that we took in 2004. We accept that that has not happened here in Scotland—thank goodness. The 2004 act could have remained on the statute book unamended, but it will be amended if the vote goes the right way at 5 o'clock.
We welcome the changes. The bill is not perfect, and Richard Simpson was right to say that big changes are taking place in medical practice. The move towards a salaried profession is interesting because it would get rid of the independent contractor, to which Ian McKee is quite opposed.
We have one or two other bits of business to attend to after we finish the debate, so I intend to limit everyone who speaks from now on, including closing speakers, to three minutes.
The bill seeks to protect young people from exposure to pressure from cigarette companies and retailers to take up smoking. From research and common sense, we know that huge point-of-sale displays of tobacco products have an advertising effect. We know that there is pressure on retailers to sell cigarettes to under-18s, and that vending machines, which are often out of sight, offer another outlet for underage purchases. I support the measures that are before us, which will protect the vulnerable while allowing adults the freedom to purchase what is still a legal product.
I turn to part 2, which deals with primary medical services. The measures are needed because the Scottish health service is developing in a different way and with a different philosophy to its English counterpart. Here, we remain true to the original ideals of the national health service as espoused by Aneurin Bevan and others, as a mutual, publicly owned service and not simply as another consumer product. I pay tribute to those early leaders of the Labour Party, and the Liberal Lord Beveridge before them, who had the vision and drive to see their project to fruition. To allow large commercial companies to take over primary care services and run them for shareholder profit runs totally counter to that philosophy, which is, I believe, shared by the majority of the Scottish people; it risks fragmenting the service.
Although it is true that some commercial companies can point to statistics that show that their process measures, such as the number of patients that are seen in a day, demonstrate a measure of efficiency, primary care is more than those dry facts; at its best, it should also demonstrate continuity of care and a stake in the community in which it operates. When practices fall short of those ideals, the problem should be tackled individually within the health service, not by handing over primary care to a faraway commercial company.
I congratulate all concerned on passing the legislation. As we hear in many social settings, I think that we should all give ourselves a clap. I say that particularly to the officials of the Parliament and the Government in recognition of their hard work, knowledge, skill and abilities, all of which serve Scotland well. I thank them.
The debates that were generated inside and outwith the Parliament on some of the more controversial aspects of the bill resulted in robust dialogue and ensured careful consideration of the issues, and the Parliament responded well. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the Minister for Health and Sport for reassuring me that they have the political will to enable the mutual, co-operative and social enterprise movement across Scotland to develop a community co-op model, even if it is not expressed in the bill. Significant progress has been made on that element of the bill, and I am most grateful for everyone's efforts. Richard Simpson, I and other members have constantly tried to promote that movement, even at stages 1 and 2, and I say to Ross Finnie that it was no fault of ours that we did not do more scrutiny. Everyone on the committee is responsible for that.
I will not comment more widely on part 1, because others have said what I would like to say and, in view of the shortage of time, there is no point in my saying much more. However, when I was a child, my two brothers and mum and dad all smoked heavily, so I know about the impact that smoke has on health; I suffered constantly from bronchial problems and that had a consequent serious impact on my health. If we have made life better for our children and grandchildren, we have indeed made a difference for our respective constituents.
Smoking serves no useful purpose. It is an unpleasant habit and it is disliked and cursed by those who are addicted to it as well as by those who have never tried it. Smoking has been inflicted on generations of people throughout the world. Tobacco is more addictive than some class A drugs.
I will outline why I have come to such a strong view. In my family, both my parents smoked for most of their lives and for most of their lives they had health problems and they passed away all too early. Some of my siblings have also smoked for some of their lives, although they seem to be living a longer life than our parents did. Although it was more than 30 years ago, I distinctly remember a lesson that I had as a young man at my school, Queen Anne high school in Dunfermline. I was struck by a series of slides in a health education lecture that showed a healthy and an unhealthy lung. The healthy lung was big, pink and well formed, whereas the unhealthy one was small, shrivelled, black and tar-like. That stark picture remains strong in my memory all these years later. I believe that that image in my mind played a strong part in the fact that I never gave in to peer pressure or any other pressure on smoking.
I was glad when, in the previous session, the Parliament took the bold decision to ban smoking in public places. I hope that we will approve the bill and take the bold step of further restricting smoking, particularly among our young, and sometimes impressionable, constituents. However, we must balance protection with practicality. The provision about which I have been most concerned is that relating to vending machines. Careful consideration should be given to the freedom to access cigarettes and the possible misuse of that freedom. I have been concerned for a long time about the fact that vending machines in pubs and clubs are often in a hallway.
Last week in the Parliament, I received assurances from manufacturers that the remote control machines would be in sight of the bar staff at all times and that the customer would have only a limited time to make their purchase, otherwise the vending machine would be locked off. Those assurances, and the use of a tried and tested technology, seemed suitable on the surface and were, no doubt, at the heart of Rhoda Grant's amendment 1. However, the machines do not meet the practicality test that I mentioned. I concede that, in a relatively quiet pub, the remote operation would mostly work successfully, but licensees do not aim to operate quiet pubs; they aim to operate busy and profitable businesses and it is in busy licensed premises that the machines would most frequently be used and abused.
For personal and political reasons, I welcome the bill. People on both sides of the argument have genuine concerns and genuine attempts have been made to overcome some of those concerns. However, I still think back to the slides of the healthy lungs and the tar-covered ones that I saw in high school and I think that, no matter how my life ends, I do not want it to end like that.
Tobacco remains a product that causes great damage in our society. We all recognise that there is no single action that we can take to make our society tobacco free and that there are no quick answers. I believe that one key measure in tackling the problem of smoking in our society is to change our cultural attitudes and the place that tobacco has in our society. It is fair to say that the legislation to ban smoking in public places was one of the most significant steps that the Parliament has taken in that process; the measures in this bill continue it.
The tobacco industry has long argued that tobacco displays in shops are not a form of advertising but purely a display for its products. However, given the industry's track record, it is difficult to know when we should believe it. The evidence shows clearly that, since a ban on advertising cigarettes was introduced, the number of brand variants in tobacco displays has increased dramatically. That is all about getting more shelf space and advertising the goods a little more in shops.
As we continue to try to change the place that smoking and tobacco have in our society and to change attitudes, it is time that we ended the highly visible promotional displays that exist in such prominent positions in our shops. That would signify our intent to make those changes.
I accept that there is limited evidence about the potential benefits from a ban on such displays. That is largely because such bans have been in place for only a short time in other jurisdictions. However, I prefer to take the precautionary approach and ban displays now to prevent more people from taking up smoking and damaging their health in the future.
It is important, too, that we ensure in the bill that tobacco is treated in the same way as other high-risk products such as solvents, alcohol and fireworks, and that we end the purchase of cigarettes from vending machines, whether operated remotely or not. Tobacco should not be exempt from the way in which we deal with other high-risk products, and it is welcome that we are bringing our treatment of tobacco into line.
Given that tobacco causes significant damage to individuals and families, and to our society as a whole, we must do everything possible to tackle the issue. I believe that the bill is a further important step forward in ensuring that we do exactly that.
We now move to wind-up speeches of three minutes each.
As the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I have had an opportunity to see, as have my committee colleagues, the sincere work that has been done on the bill by the Scottish Government and many others, to whom I will refer later.
I will touch on two issues. First, I welcome the bill's tackling of the proxy purchase problem. We all know that that practice has gone on for far too long, and I hope that the bill will nip it in the bud. Without straying into the territory that Mary Scanlon was warned off, I hope that legislation will stop that practice for alcohol and other substances that are misused. That is crucial, and we will learn much from seeing how the bill's proxy purchase provisions are applied.
Secondly, on the vending machine issue, I pay tribute to Michael Matheson's earlier contribution, because one in 10 young people get tobacco via a vending machine by one method or another. As Ross Finnie said, our party associates itself very much with what Richard Simpson said about the jobs affected by the ban on vending machines. We do not know the numbers involved, but we are sensitive to the issue and to the need to find alternative employment for people.
The whole debate today has been underpinned by genuineness of intent. Helen Eadie's contribution was representative in that regard. Like her, I pay tribute to the work that has been done on the bill by the Scottish Government and the Health and Sport Committee, of which I am not a member. Like others, I pay tribute to all the people and organisations who have taken the time and trouble to contribute to the debate.
Unlike my colleague Jim Tolson, I have never in my life been able to say no. Unfortunately, I did not say no to a cigarette at a young age. It will be six years next June since I packed in smoking. Goodness knows what damage I did to my health over the years, but I am glad that I gave it up. It was one hell of a struggle to do so.
My father was a heavy smoker all his days and he died of lung cancer at an early age—I miss him yet. For that reason, if for no other, I support the bill to the hilt. It is a commendable piece of legislation, which I most sincerely commend to Parliament.
As a great leader once remarked in a Parliament elsewhere, an argument that an unconvinced minority should vote with the majority is an argument for a flock of sheep. Nevertheless, in respect of part 1, we agree with the minister's analysis in her speech that opened the debate. We agree, too, with everything that Richard Simpson said in his speech. Our problem is not with being part of the consensus in the chamber that youth smoking is a serious social problem and that smoking is a serious public health issue in Scotland that causes far too many people to die prematurely; our problem is with the remedy in the bill.
The enforcement measures are welcome, but I will say something that has not been said much in the debate so far: there is now a responsibility to ensure that the new, rigorous enforcement measures that will be in place will be enforced. One criticism that has been made by those who have made representations to us on smoking and other public health issues is that existing policies and legislation are often not enforced or not enforced rigorously enough. There is no point in our passing new enforcement actions only to find out in 12 or 24 months' time, when we start to ask the questions of ministers, that prosecutions under those measures are not taking place.
Our problem is that we believe that the display ban is potentially prejudicial and ineffectual and that it will affect many small businesses. I foresee queues of people in small retail businesses who are no longer able to see the display but who have to stand by and listen to the discussion about tobacco between the retailer and the person at the front of the queue—to whom Ross Finnie referred in an earlier debate when he said that he watched the queue presenting itself to the display at the front. I do not see how in practical terms that would discourage young people from understanding about the product and the potential to purchase it.
On part 2 of the bill, our problem lies with the fact that we cannot foresee future demographics. We have been astonished by Labour's retreat on this piece of legislation, and one can only speculate on what future retreats that portends after 6 May. At this stage, we cannot anticipate the future needs of a developing health service. For those reasons, we cannot see the wisdom in closing the door on solutions that might deal with future situations that we cannot foresee.
For those reasons, we have regrettably come to the view that we cannot support the bill.
It gives me great pleasure to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Labour Party. I join others in paying tribute to the clerks, the bill team, the Health and Sport Committee, which scrutinised every aspect of the bill, and the Minister for Public Health and Sport and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for introducing the bill, which clearly and rightly commands substantial support in the chamber—albeit with the exception of the Tories.
Labour has a proud record in government of tackling the problem of tobacco. In 2005, the Parliament passed the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, which introduced the historic ban on smoking in public places. There is no doubt that that has brought benefits to smokers who have succeeded in giving up and to customers and employees in restaurants, bars and elsewhere who are no longer subjected to other people's smoke.
The year 2005 also saw the passing of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 with, for the first time in legislation, a clear public health objective. We have supported raising the legal age for smoking from 16 to 18, which has since been implemented.
I have no doubt that the United Kingdom Government's ban on tobacco advertising, which has existed for a number of years, is helpful, but we are persuaded that further restrictions on point-of-sale displays of tobacco products are much needed.
The decision about whether to ban vending machines was always going to be finely balanced. Although we have come down on the side of public health, we recognise the concerns of the vending machine operators, and I am grateful for the minister's commitment to consider what practical support can continue to be provided.
Although I am deeply disappointed that Richard Simpson's amendments were not agreed to, I believe that the bill will move things forward. I urge the Government to be vigilant, given the experience in Ireland of the creative ways in which the industry has tried to circumvent display bans.
On part 2, I do not share the British Medical Association's disappointment that the GMS contract is now extended to other health professionals, such as nurses. The Royal College of Nursing argued for it in detail at the committee, and we believe that it is right that, as nurses become increasingly skilled and responsible in areas of primary care, we should enable them to hold contracts in the future. We are grateful to the Government for taking that point on board.
I return to part 1 in closing. The scale of the problem that is caused by smoking has been well documented, and I do not believe that it is contested by anybody in this chamber. We therefore have a responsibility to try to ensure that not just this generation but future generations do not become addicted to tobacco. The bill will help in that process, and I commend it to the chamber.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate until 2 minutes to 5 please.
Okay. I will perhaps slow down a bit.
I thank all members who have contributed to the bill both for making the process constructive and for contributing to a good debate on a range of issues this afternoon.
I will deal with part 1 first. There is no doubt whatsoever that, if the bill is passed in just a few minutes' time, it will represent a milestone for tobacco control in Scotland. Great progress has been made in recent years, but we should never forget that 15,000 young people still start to smoke every year. A young person who starts to smoke at 15 is three times more likely to die of cancer than someone who starts to smoke at a later age.
The Parliament—bravely and rightly—showed leadership when we passed the ban on smoking in public places. The measures that I hope that we will pass today will build on the good work that the Parliament has done on tobacco control. The Government believes that, when weighed against the huge health and economic costs that are associated with smoking, the bill is a proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of the problem that we face.
Today, we took a different view from Richard Simpson on his amendments about displays, but I hope that members who supported his amendments appreciate that we disagreed about method and process and not about the objective, to which we are all signed up. I hope that supporters of those amendments took heart from the minister's assurances about our determination to put in place comprehensive and robust provisions and to ensure that the tobacco industry cannot circumvent them.
As members have said, there is no doubt that the bill will take us further—in my view, a long way further—towards the vision that we all share of a non-smoking Scotland. That can only be good for our country's public health.
As for part 2, the Government has set out its vision of a mutual NHS. Primary medical services are an integral and strategically important part of the NHS. Patients look to their GPs to meet the vast majority—and often all—of their medical needs. The measures in part 2 will sustain and strengthen the effective model of primary medical services that already operates throughout the NHS. That model makes me proud. However, we listened to the view that flexibility was required precisely because of the uncertainties about future demographics to which Jackson Carlaw referred, which is why we agreed to some stage 2 amendments. We are right to be proud of the NHS in Scotland. The provisions that I hope that we will pass today will strengthen that model.
I add my thanks to the Finance Committee, the Subordinate Legislation Committee and especially the Health and Sport Committee, which did a tremendous job. I also place on record my sincere thanks to Government officials and the bill team, who have worked incredibly hard. Shona Robison and I are very grateful to them.
I hope that members will vote to pass the bill.