Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We now move to stage 3 of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill. First, we will deal with amendments to the bill and then we will move to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the first part, members should have the bill, as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that I have selected for debate; and the groupings that I have agreed. I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 1—Offence of permitting others to smoke in no-smoking premises
Group 1 deals with exempt places and the exclusion of tobacco retailers, theatre performances and rehearsals. Amendment 33, in the name of Brian Monteith, is grouped with amendments 34 to 37, 40 to 44, 46 to 50, 52, 54, 59, 66 and 62.
I point out that amendment 53 in group 3 will pre-empt amendment 54 in this group.
Amendment 33 seeks to ensure that we separate public health concerns, which are a legitimate aspect of the bill, from the artistic performance that takes place on a theatre stage. We shall debate the principle of the bill at a later stage today. However, it strikes me and many other people as particularly odd that, in pursuit of public health goals, it is necessary to ban the smoking of tobacco or any other product such as herbal tobacco on stage.
There is no doubt that smoking features in the canon of Scottish plays, such as John Byrne's "The Slab Boys", and in plays by writers such as Terence Rattigan that portray the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and even 1960s. In "Private Lives", Noel Coward holds a cigarette and stands conversing with Amanda and Elyot Chase, not necessarily smoking that cigarette but simply holding it.
I point that out to members because it has been suggested that there are alternatives to smoking on stage. However, the proceedings of a play are such that in setting the tone, in describing the characters and in setting the mood, people have to light up. People interact—somebody lights a cigarette for somebody else, perhaps in the dark so that the audience might see the lighter or the smoke. One might see Amanda or Elyot Chase in "Private Lives" standing with their cigarettes, not puffing at all, but the silver plume of smoke rises and signifies the whole scene. To use alternatives means that one cannot light up on stage—that interaction of the characters when one lights a cigarette for another cannot take place in the play. Standing with a cigarette in 1920s or 1930s fashion, not even consuming it but allowing the smoke to rise, cannot happen with alternatives if those alternatives require one to puff on them to generate the plume.
Does Brian Monteith have no imagination at all?
I suggest to Carolyn Leckie that she should get out more and go to Scottish theatre.
Lorne Boswell, a spokesman for Equity, has said that, although Equity supports the general principles of the bill, it is not happy about the measure that we are discussing. Mark Thomson, the artistic director of Edinburgh's Royal Lyceum Theatre Company, who certainly has a livelier and more creative imagination than I have, has stated:
"I don't think smoking is cool, but this ban represents an editing and a censoring and it is completely unnecessary and hysterical."
I agree with that.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have taken an intervention and I must make progress.
The majority of theatre stages are large open spaces. There is no reason to believe that smoke in those cavernous spaces does any harm to the public. Indeed, if we are concerned about smoke and its interaction with the audience, we should be concerned about smoke machines—they do not burn tobacco, but they create fog, which is necessary for some plays.
That is the member's job.
I hear in the comments from a sedentary position a messianic belief that brooks no other view. Members say, "We are right, despite any evidence. We shall censor the theatre and exclude smoking no matter what writers, directors or actors wish to portray." In India, where a similar ban has been introduced, it has been extended to films—smoking has been taken out of all films there.
Superb.
Order.
Presiding Officer, I am being heckled constantly by Mr Stewart Sutherland.
He cannot even get that right.
I will not take the member's interventions. I certainly do not appreciate his heckling—he will have the opportunity to speak.
In India, not only is smoking being taken out of films, but smoking scenes in old movies are being extricated. The messianic belief and the political correctness of those who wish to impose such censorship have nothing to do with public health.
We must accept that a case can be made for some exemptions, for example for specialist cigar retailers. Only 18 specialist cigar retailers operate in Scotland, although probably only 12 would fall under the terms of amendment 37. On behalf of those retailers, I point out that, for the conduct of their business, it is necessary to test products, not just for quality, but to check that they are not counterfeit. There is a difference between cigarette and cigar smoking. A market exists for counterfeit high-quality cigars, so retailers must check whether the goods that they receive are proper. I appeal for an exemption for that small number of retailers in the industry.
I am interested in members' responses, because I believe that the debate is detached from the genuine concerns about public health.
I move amendment 33.
Rarely have I heard such a litany of complete and utter nonsense. If actors are on stage performing a play, perhaps by Irvine Welsh, should they inject heroin or take other illegal drugs because that would be realistic and correct? Just perhaps, they should act and pretend that they are doing that. The audience, using their imagination, would understand and the theatrical impact and artistic integrity of the acting would not be disputed. It is unbelievable that it is beyond the wit and wisdom of the theatrical entertainment industry to produce fake cigarettes that produce smoke.
If one goes to the theatre, as I am sure Brian Monteith does, one can see 17th century France or watch explosions and war portrayed on the stage. Yet, for some reason, Brian Monteith believes that theatres are unable to produce a small puff of smoke from a small white tube. That belief is illogical and irrational. The Tories' arguments on the theatre are nonsensical. All workers have a right to enjoy their evenings and weekends in a place that is smoke free. It is wrong of the Tories to try to restrict that right to some workers. Exemptions in the bill are for humanitarian reasons.
Stewart Maxwell will no doubt realise that workers' rights are the responsibility of Westminster. That apart, does he think that, given the forthcoming ban on smoking, smoking on stage gives the wrong message? If so, is he for censorship of the arts?
That is beyond belief. I am opposed to censorship of the arts, but we should at least allow the arts to use—
Will the member take an intervention?
Allow me to respond to Phil Gallie's points.
We should at least allow the arts to use a small white tube such as the one that I am holding now, which is a theatrical prop that produces smoke. Its effect looks realistic to me and it does not take away from the integrity of the play to use a theatrical prop rather than a real cigarette. I do not know where Phil Gallie is going with that argument.
The main reason for rejecting the amendments is that they are nothing more than subterfuge and an attempt to hide behind an argument about artistic integrity. The cry of artistic freedom from the Tories is a cover for punching holes right through the bill, when it is in fact a bill about protecting public health. To be polite, I think that it is unreasonable of the Tories to try to use artistic freedom in that way. Artistic freedom is not the issue and it is in no way damaged by the bill. There is no censorship of the arts, which can carry on as normal.
On the amendments seeking to exclude more premises than are currently listed in the bill, I point out that the bill excludes certain premises on humanitarian grounds. A tobacco shop is not a place of residence; it is not a care home and it is clear that nobody lives there. In the case of the illicit trade in expensive cigars—I am sure that Brian Monteith knows more about such cigars than I do—if the owner of a cigar shop needs to test a cigar, why would it be beyond their wit and wisdom to step outside to smoke that cigar and test whether it is real? It seems perfectly reasonable to do that.
The Tory party has tried to wreck this bill and the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill right from the start. It has never been interested in artistic integrity and artistic freedom, or the rights of workers and of the vast majority of the population who believe that their health should be protected. This is about wrecking the bill and punching holes in it. The Tories failed to do that with my bill; they failed to do it at stage 2 of this bill because they had no support from any member of the Health Committee; and they will fail to do it today. I urge members to reject the amendments.
I would like some clarity from the minister on the issue that Brian Monteith has raised. Although I am not in favour of punching holes in the bill, I am in favour of sensible dramatic representation. Section 4(1) states:
"In this Part, ‘smoke' means smoke tobacco, any substance or mixture which includes it or any other substance or mixture; and a person is to be taken as smoking if the person is holding or otherwise in possession or control of lit tobacco, of any lit substance or mixture which includes tobacco or of any other lit substance or mixture which is in a form or in a receptacle in which it can be smoked."
My interpretation of that, which may be wrong because I am coming fresh to the bill, is that a person simulating smoking in the way indicated by Stewart Maxwell could be caught by the legislation. I would like the minister to make it absolutely clear that that is not the intention.
Mr Maxwell indicated disagreement.
If there is a better interpretation, I would like to hear it from the minister. I think that I understand English and that is what the bill says. That gives some substance to Brian Monteith's point on dramatic issues.
Will the member take an intervention?
If Stewart Maxwell knows better than the minister, I will give way.
The section that Donald Gorrie just read out says that there has to be a "lit substance". The prop that I am holding is not lit. It is clear that smoke can be produced from something that accurately resembles a cigarette but which is not lit. The prop would not be caught by the bill, as it poses no health risk, so there is no problem.
The section does not say anything about health risks; it talks about smoking any substance whatsoever. There may be occasions in plays when it is an important part of the drama that the actor puffs away at something. If the minister can make it quite clear that the actor and the manager will not be put in jail because of that, I will accept that. However, we need that clarification. As Brian Monteith has said, there is concern among people in theatrical circles who have nothing to do with Tory plots but who just want to put on plays in an effective and convincing manner. I would like that assurance.
I am disappointed by the start of the debate. This is the most major piece of public health legislation in a generation, but we have heard nothing but trivialisation and a fairly blatant attempt to undermine a bill that is well supported in Scotland. The bill is comprehensive and is based on the principle of protecting people from environmental tobacco smoke in enclosed public places. The Executive has been clear, consistent and fair in its consideration of exemptions from the smoking prohibition. We have made it clear that exemptions will be limited and granted only on humanitarian grounds. These amendments are completely unnecessary, as the bill already makes adequate provision for the definition of no-smoking premises.
I fail to understand why Brian Monteith believes that his approach could be any better. Yet again, he is advocating exemptions from the prohibition for a highly selective group of premises—his personal wish-list. Mr Monteith fails to grasp the fundamental point of the bill, which is to address a very real public health issue and to protect the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. That includes theatre audiences and employees of theatres and retail premises, as well as passengers in airport departure lounges.
During the stage 1 debate, Mr Monteith warned of the development of so-called smokeasies—a subject to which he returned earlier today. It seems that he is now seeking to create those smokeasies to meet his own agenda, under the guise of specialist tobacco retailers. I am sure that he will protest that the exemption is merely to allow customers to test cigars before buying them. However, as Stewart Maxwell has pointed out, it would be simple for a customer to step outside the shop to test the product. I am concerned that, in the future, such retailers might decide to bring in a couple of comfortable chairs and perhaps provide some refreshments for customers who came to test the products, which would result in the type of smokeasy that Mr Monteith warned us about. How could we protect the staff and non-smoking customers who walked in off the street? Where would the protection of public health be in that scenario?
As was said in reply to Mr Monteith's amendments on theatres at stage 2—and as has been ably demonstrated today—it is not beyond the wit and wisdom of those who are involved in the dramatic arts to come up with an alternative to smoking on stage, which addresses the points that Mr Monteith has made about the prohibition somehow shackling and undermining our arts community. It must be remembered that we are seeking to present smoking—including smoking in a dramatic performance—as not being a normal social activity, so I ask our arts community to think again about that. We are trying to denormalise smoking, and—as has been demonstrated—there are alternatives to the smoking of real cigarettes on stage.
The issue has been raised of what we should use on stage instead of whisky. Should we use cold tea? Of course we should, or we could use another similar product. That is what we do; we get round these issues by being creative. That is what the arts industry is about and it will of course get round them. I hope that we proceed with the rest of the amendments in a slightly more mature way that represents to Scotland why the Parliament is so confident that the bill is so important to our communities. I therefore ask Brian Monteith to withdraw amendment 33.
I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing amendment 33. People who are portrayed as smoking dope in a play quite often have to roll it up and then light it. Stewart Maxwell's example of a prop would not apply in that case. People getting together to light a cigarette could not use that prop, because they would create smoke by lighting it, which is the point that Donald Gorrie made. People wishing to portray a cigar or pipe would not be able to use that prop. Stewart Maxwell could not speak in a play while puffing on that prop to create the smoke. On the consumption of heroin, or tea that is meant to be whisky, the point is that holding a cigarette and allowing it to smoke is in itself part of a scene—one does not have to consume it, just as one does not have to consume heroin. The alternative that is being suggested is a nonsense.
Not allowing the exemptions that I am suggesting is draconian and disproportionate. We have heard no argument that shows what effect allowing the exemption for theatres will have on public health, except that we want to denormalise smoking. If that is not censorship, what is? The Parliament wants to denormalise smoking on the stage; it wants to censor it from the stage. That is why amendment 33 should be supported.
The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 93, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 33 disagreed to.
Amendments 34 to 37 not moved.
Amendment 38, in the name of Brian Monteith, is grouped with amendments 39, 45, 51 and 60.
Although one never knows in this type of debate, amendment 38 is possibly a less contentious amendment than the previous one that we discussed. I lodged it in order to reverse the wording of the bill in order to reflect the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. The amendment's purpose is to ensure that clear language is used. The bill says:
"It is a defence for an accused charged with an offence under this section to prove"
that they took reasonable precautions to ensure that the offence was not committed or that they could not reasonably prevent someone from smoking in the premises. However, that suggests that the defendant is already guilty. We seek simply to change the tone of those words so that it is clear that the defendant is innocent. I seek to hear what arguments the Executive has for avoiding such a simple but necessary change.
I move amendment 38.
If only that were the case. The amendment—which, again, met with no support on the Health Committee—is not about clarifying the bill or making it fairer for those who might be prosecuted under this law; it is a wrecking amendment. Its intention is to make it much more difficult to carry out a prosecution. Indeed, it is clear that it is designed to make it almost impossible for enforcement authorities to achieve a successful prosecution, which would completely undermine the purpose of the legislation. I ask the chamber to reject the amendment.
The only commendable thing about amendment 38 is the member's persistence in bringing the matter that it relates to back to us for our consideration despite the fact that, as has been mentioned, he received no support for his position at stage 2.
Is the minister aware that there were no votes on the amendments that dealt with this matter at stage 2, which means that there is no record of whether there was support for them or not? In fact, at least one member of the committee supported my position. To say that there was no support is highly inaccurate.
The point is that nobody pressed the amendments on this subject, which means that there was no support for them other than from the Conservatives, who have been unique in their approach to this legislation.
As we made clear during the stage 2 consideration of the amendments relating to Mr Monteith's position, amendment 38 is a full attack on the enforcement of the bill. It would undermine the provisions by making it more difficult for those enforcing the bill ever to win a case in court. I do not want to waste Parliament's time any further by explaining the defences that there are in part 1 of the bill. Suffice it to say that the amendment seeks to make it even easier to prove the defences and, in so doing, move the balance back towards encouraging evasion, which clearly would undermine the public health benefits that the bill will provide. I appeal to Brian Monteith to withdraw the amendment.
The minister is loose with his words, as I clearly indicated in my intervention, and I must say that loose words make bad law. Amendment 38 seeks to tighten up the bill and ensure that it is clear that people are innocent before being proven guilty. Stewart Maxwell is right to say that the amendment might make it more difficult to obtain a prosecution, but that reasoning could apply to every crime. Why not make everybody guilty until they prove their innocence? That way, there would certainly be many more convictions. However, that is not desirable.
It is quite clear that, unless the burden of proof is reversed in the bill, questions are raised about the bill's compatibility with the right to a fair trial under article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights and the right to a presumption of innocence under article 6.2. For that reason, the minister should be aware that the United Kingdom Government has dealt with similar situations in other pieces of legislation by the use of amendments that are similar to amendment 38. There is a precedent for it. There must be a concern that people will be presumed guilty until they are proved innocent. That is the wrong way round in Scots law. Whether it means that there are more or fewer convictions, a fair trial is required.
The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 91, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 38 disagreed to.
Amendment 39 not moved.
Section 2—Offence of smoking in no-smoking premises
Amendment 40 moved—[Mr Brian Monteith].
The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 92, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 40 disagreed to.
Amendments 41 to 43 not moved.
Amendment 44 moved—[Mr Brian Monteith].
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 93, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 44 disagreed to.
Amendments 45 not moved.
Section 3—Display of warning notices in and on no-smoking premises
Amendments 46 to 51 not moved.
Section 4—Meaning of "smoke" and "no-smoking premises"
Amendment 52 not moved.
Group 3 is on the restriction of smoking in exempt places. Amendment 53, in the name of Irene Oldfather, is in a group on its own. If amendment 53 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 54 because it will have been pre-empted.
Amendment 53 was lodged on Friday with the intention of protecting staff and residents of adult care homes and psychiatric hospitals from the implications of a blanket exemption, albeit one on humanitarian grounds.
In discussions between the minister and the cross-party group on tobacco control, concern was expressed that it should be clear that exemption is not a presumption for smoking. Consequently, establishments should have designated smoking rooms and decisions should not be left to the discretion of exempt establishments.
I am delighted that in publishing draft regulations last night, the minister has made it clear that, following discussion, he has decided that the exemption will apply only to designated rooms and not to whole premises. The minister will appreciate that, although he agreed in discussions with the cross-party group to consider the matter, the position was unclear in the absence of the regulations.
I would welcome clarification from the minister on a couple of points about implementation. I ask him to be vigilant about smoke drift from smoking rooms to non-smoking environments. Does he see scope to work with establishments on implementation guidance to minimise the health hazards from smoke drift for employees and others? Will he give an assurance that he will put in place a review process for exempt premises or designated rooms to consider the implications further down the line? Will he also give an assurance that he will back the exemptions with strong cessation measures, to encourage best practice in developing tobacco control policy?
I move amendment 53.
As Irene Oldfather knows, I sympathise with amendment 53. I support the presumption of no smoking throughout premises and I responded to the consultation along those lines. I had concerns about some premises having a blanket exemption. Nevertheless, I understand some of the complications that would arise if we agreed to the amendment, which might be complicated to implement. It might be better to cover the issue in tightly drawn regulations that make absolutely clear the necessity of having strong smoking policies in exempt premises.
The proposal would be complicated to implement and it has been suggested rather late in the day, at stage 3. It might have been better to lodge such an amendment at stage 2, when we could have discussed it more. I am not sure about the amendment's wording.
I would like the minister to confirm that the regulations on the matter will be tightly drawn and that the Executive will push for strong smoking policies in exempt premises, so that, as Irene Oldfather said, even such premises will make a presumption in favour of no smoking and protecting the health and well-being of residents of such premises who do not smoke.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, to my membership of Unison and to the fact that my husband is a psychiatric nurse.
I have some sympathy with Irene Oldfather's points. As the minister knows, I represent the area that includes the state hospital at Carstairs. Particular issues relate to people with psychiatric illness and the management of that illness. Will the minister assure us that any room will not be designated at the expense of a common room that is generally available to people and that a separate smoking room will be available? In general hospitals, such as Wishaw general hospital, where problems exist at the moment, will it be possible to do that in a ward setting? Will he assure us that any designation to allow smoking in such settings will not be at the expense of facilities that are available to all residents who do not smoke?
As Irene Oldfather said, amendment 53 addresses an issue that the cross-party group on tobacco control raised with me. The bill provides ministers with powers to exempt premises, parts of premises and classes of premises from its provisions. That flexibility is important in dealing with circumstances that pose practical or humanitarian issues, and the draft regulations that I have sent to the Health Committee reflect that point.
However, I have always made it clear that the protection of staff, visitors and non-smoking residents of exempt premises from other peoples' smoke is equally important. Following my discussions with the cross-party group on the matter, I have decided that it is not appropriate to exempt adult care homes and psychiatric hospitals in their totality from the bill's provisions. Therefore, the draft regulations have been amended so that care homes and places of residential psychiatric care will now be defined as no-smoking premises. However, the exemptions will allow for specific smoking rooms to be designated within those places for the use of those smokers for whom it is their permanent or temporary home. I hope that Ms Oldfather and the cross-party group agree that that approach strikes a better balance between the rights of smokers and of non-smokers in those places.
I reiterate that an exemption in no way constitutes a right to smoke and I strongly urge the management of premises that are currently smoke free to maintain that status. We will continue to discuss with Parliament issues such as smoke drift, guidance and smoking policies as we develop the regulations. I want all those institutions to have strong no-smoking policies to ensure that non-smokers' rights are protected.
Although we will advocate making the regulations as comprehensive as possible, I am not able to talk about particular locations or premises. I share the view that the cessation measures in which we have invested considerable additional resources will assist the situation in the different environments that members have highlighted.
We want to add to the collective knowledge of the influence of no-smoking policies, which I hope will be adopted today, because we want to be part of the worldwide effort to ensure that other nations develop no-smoking policies. As a result, we must ensure not only that we take very positive steps today but that we continue to review particular exemptions as the matter progresses.
I respect and accept the minister's aims. However, does he agree that some people in care homes have reached a considerable age, have lost mobility and are more or less confined to their own rooms, which have effectively become their homes? Is the minister able to ensure that the regulations will allow such individuals to have the opportunity to smoke, even if it imposes on the care home a requirement to provide adequate ventilation?
As we discussed earlier, we will have to rely on the regulations. In the process of agreeing those regulations and consulting those who run care homes, we will try to achieve the best possible result. Although I sympathise with Phil Gallie's point, we want the legislation and the supporting regulations to be as comprehensive and as clear as possible in order to protect non-smokers' rights. Unravelling such matters might simply open the legislation to abuse.
As the minister is aware, during discussions with the cross-party group on tobacco control, I raised concerns that some care homes will not be smoke free and that a number of adults in those homes will want to have a smoke-free environment. Is he able to assure us that the regulations will address the concerns and protect the rights of adults and others who do not smoke? Will he encourage care home providers to ensure that people who might be exposed to secondary tobacco smoke, no matter how good the ventilation is, have genuine choices?
I reassure the member that, through the process of agreeing the regulations and carrying out consultation in many parts of Scotland, that will indeed be the case. I look forward to discussing with the cross-party group and others how the regulations will work effectively for non-smokers.
I call Irene Oldfather to wind up and to indicate whether she will press or withdraw amendment 53.
The minister's positive comments clearly show that the regulations will do exactly what amendment 53 calls for. The move from a blanket exemption to having designated rooms represents significant progress.
I also welcome the minister's commitment to ensuring that the legislation will have the widest possible coverage while still being workable.
I am content with the minister's comments on tobacco control and his commitment to continued dialogue on smoke drift. I welcome the opportunity for the minister and the cross-party group to discuss that further.
Amendment 53, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 54 not moved.
Group 4 is on no-smoking areas in outside premises. Amendment 55 is grouped with amendment 56.
Amendment 56 seeks to extend the definition of "premises" to outdoor areas, to bring pavement cafes and beer gardens within the scope of the legislation. Amendment 55 calls for designated no-smoking areas in such premises. My fear is that, without the amendments, the legislation, when it comes into force, will force smokers outside, so that pavement cafes and beer gardens become visible smoking areas. There are a number of problems with that. First, it means that families with children and non-smokers—some of whom may be asthmatic—who want to enjoy a meal, snack or drink outside in good weather will have to do so surrounded by smokers. That is unpleasant for the seven people in every 10 who do not smoke.
Another point concerns normalisation and the prevailing culture. The legislation is absolutely groundbreaking in what it does. In my opinion, the further we push the boundaries on no-smoking environments—along the lines of having designated areas even outside—the more we encourage young people to see non-smoking as the norm. It sends out the wrong signal to children and young people if they walk past pavement cafes that are full of smokers, so there is an argument about the visibility of smoking and normalisation.
Having considered the evidence that has been provided in the past couple of days, I recognise that my proposed extension might create some uncertainties about enforcement. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that, and I seek a reassurance from him on how some of the difficulties might be addressed. I look forward to his comments and clarification.
I move amendment 55.
This part of the debate has to end by 11.40, so I will give the next three members two minutes each.
I will be brief. I oppose amendments 55 and 56 for two reasons. First, the bill's whole purpose is to take public health measures based on concerns about the health impact of environmental tobacco smoke in enclosed public spaces. To try to extend that to outside areas undermines the argument.
The second issue is almost as important. As far as possible, we must try to take the public with us. We know that the move is controversial and that views on it are mixed, but I believe that a majority of people in Scotland support the bill and that we would lose public support by trying to extend the ban into outside areas. That would be a step too far. It would be overly zealous, it is not required and the SNP will certainly not support the amendments.
I welcome Shona Robison's words in opposition to the amendments. I feel that the bill is already disproportionate in its efforts to—as the minister put it—denormalise smoking. It is quite clear from the evidence that the committee took that the ban worked in Ireland partly because smokers could go outside to smoke, with heaters, awnings and suchlike to protect them from the elements. My fear about Irene Oldfather's amendments is that even that opportunity would be denied, making a disproportionate measure even more disproportionate. For that reason, the amendments should be opposed.
Throughout the progress of the bill, we have been told that it is a public health measure. Although we all now accept the facts about the effect of tobacco smoke in enclosed public spaces, there is, to my mind, no evidence at all to support the view that tobacco smoke is harmful in outside public spaces.
There has been much discussion of the Irish experience of which I have had great experience over the past three or four months. In response to Brian Monteith's point, I can say that it is true that publicans in Ireland have been extremely creative in creating outside spaces with awnings and the like for smokers. However, by moving the argument, at stage 3, from one of public health to an attack on people who smoke serves only to undermine the bill. Frankly, that argument will lose public support for the bill.
I share many of the views that members have expressed on the amendments in the group.
I am sympathetic to what Ms Oldfather is trying to achieve and her desire to reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. However, I believe that to agree to her amendments would be a step too far. The provisions in the bill are evidence based and there is not enough evidence to support the argument that environmental tobacco smoke in an unenclosed setting is harmful. Clearly, as with all our legislation, the Executive will continue to monitor the situation. However, without evidence, I cannot support the amendments.
The bill reflects the Executive's intention to protect members of the public in wholly or substantially enclosed premises in relation to which the evidence of harm from second-hand smoke is overwhelming. I hope that at some stage in the future evidence may become available to justify taking other steps, but I cannot support such measures at this time.
It is extremely important that the legislation is consistent, fair and easily enforceable by proprietors of establishments and environmental health officers. Any legislation for outdoor areas would need to be carefully defined to provide the same clarity. The bill does not provide for that.
As they stand, the amendments in the group risk compromising the enforcement measures that are contained in the bill. Although I understand where the member is coming from with the amendments, I echo the comments that were made about their complexity and about the fact that the member did not signal early enough her intention to lodge them.
Amendments 55 and 56 would undermine the enforcement measures in the bill. I hope that Irene Oldfather will consider withdrawing amendment 55.
Some of the arguments that we have heard this morning would have been used five years ago in a debate on banning smoking entirely.
I welcome the minister's comments on the intention behind amendments 55 and 56 and I hear what he and other members said about enforcement. We have made much progress and I do not want to compromise the bill or to bring any lack of clarity to its enforcement. I hope that the Parliament will revisit the issue. I think that I heard in what the minister said a commitment to consider the issue at some point in the future, as and when evidence develops. If so, that is welcome.
I seek leave to withdraw amendment 55.
Amendment 55, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 56 not moved.
That ends the debate on group 4, which brings us to the end of this part of the debate on the bill.