Group 1 is prohibition of tobacco displays et cetera. Amendment 4, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is grouped with amendments 29, 29A, 30, 5, 6, 31, 32, 7 to 10, 14, 47 and 16. I draw members' attention to the pre-emption information on the groupings sheet under "Notes on amendments in this group".

We all agree on the link between smoking and poor health, and we all agree on the fact that the younger that people start smoking, the more acute their health problems in later life will be. Our opposition to the ban on tobacco displays is not an opposition to smoking cessation programmes. The fact is that the evidence base does not exist to support a ban. The Health and Sport Committee's stage 1 report states:

"The Committee notes that strong views were advanced on both sides of the debate. The Committee also recognises that the evidence base for this proposal is at an early stage and that the international evidence to date is inconclusive."

The Government proposes to ban visual displays in the hope that doing so will produce an evidence base in support of its argument that such a measure will reduce smoking. There is not yet conclusive evidence that the ban will achieve what it sets out to achieve. The claim in the policy memorandum that banning visual displays of cigarettes will

"protect children and young people from the impact of tobacco smoking" is, therefore, not true. Although a ban on visual displays will put cigarette packets out of sight, there is no doubt that the Government needs to consider many other measures to make the policy successful. I can think of nothing less attractive than a product that states "Smoking kills".

As the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Grocers Federation and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents said in their briefing note detailing their joint positions:

"We believe that this will be a disproportionate measure for all affected retailers, large and small, and will add an undue burden on retail staff. It has no strong evidence base and there is doubt that it will have a significant impact on the number of young people taking up smoking."

In Iceland, smoking rates have declined, but academics have identified the in-depth work that has been done at community level as the crucial aspect in the successful decline in the number of people who smoke. In Canada, states such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have had tobacco display bans for the longest time have seen increases in youth smoking. In Ontario, the greatest reduction in smoking was achieved before a ban was introduced. In New Zealand, a proposal to introduce a ban was rejected by the Prime Minister, whose Government, like this Parliament's Health and Sport Committee, did not find conclusive evidence that a ban was the most effective strategy for combating youth smoking.

Finally, on the cost of the ban to businesses, there is also much dubiety. The Minister for Public Health and Sport told the Health and Sport Committee that the cost could be as little as £20 per gantry. However, that is just the cost of materials per shelf, not per gantry, and there can be up to seven or eight shelves on a gantry, as well as other fittings. The Scottish Government's regulatory impact assessment estimated that implementing the ban would cost Scotland's 11,000 tobacco outlets an average of £1,200 for small retailers, £6,000 for medium-sized retailers and £17,500 for large retailers.

I ask MSPs whether, in these difficult times, they are content to force on small businesses throughout Scotland additional costs and a measure on which there is a lack of any evidence to show its effectiveness in reducing youth smoking.

I move amendment 4.

I draw members' attention to my membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, in case that is relevant.

Amendment 29 seeks to anticipate the reaction of the tobacco industry, which will almost certainly press and push retailers to display items that promote their products, albeit—if we pass the bill today—no longer directly. Frankly, the tobacco industry has never respected the spirit of any tobacco control laws and has often taken every possible step to delay or stop their implementation. When that has proved unsuccessful, they have sought ways round the spirit of the law.

I lodged amendment 29 in the light of the experience in Ireland, where new regulations are having to be developed to rein in the tobacco industry's inventive approach, which involves back lighting, adverts for lighters that clearly relate to a cigarette brand and even the use of the displays that limit sales by age in such a way as to infer that tobacco is available. Make no mistake—the tobacco industry is hugely powerful and has for more than 40 years found its way round successive pieces of legislation. Light tobacco fooled a whole generation into thinking that it was safe to smoke, and in the early part of this decade the industry sold ventilation to the Scottish health minister as an alternative to the ban on smoking in Kenny Gibson's proposed member's bill, which I supported.

The need for amendment 29 hinges on whether the tobacco advertising legislation adequately covers the likely response of the industry.

Is there evidence to show how a campaign to reduce smoking among young people should be presented to achieve a successful result? Should smoking be presented as something that is bad for your health or as something that isn't cool, to use the vernacular?

As far as what we are trying to do in the bill is concerned, the important thing is to denormalise tobacco as a product—to make it something that is not seen as soon as people go into a shop. At the moment, when people go into a shop, the first thing that they see is a massive gantry.

The increase in the size of gantries was a response to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Since that legislation was introduced, gantries have increased in size by 50 per cent. That is a classic illustration of the tobacco industry's response. It has spent a fortune on clever packaging that might display the phrase that Mary Scanlon mentioned, but which also incorporates holograms and uses ultra slim packs. The industry also produces note pads that people can use. A variety of ancillary things have been developed that promote smoking.

Amendment 29 would give trading standards officers the power to prevent new, subtle forms of advertising that, under TAPA, might not lead to a procurator fiscal taking action for a criminal offence. Amendment 29 would make such advertising an offence, which is important not just in tightening the legislation but in making it easier to implement as part of the continuing relationship between trading standards officers and retailers. By agreeing to amendment 29, we can tighten the bill, simplify its implementation and, for the first time in a generation, ensure that we are one step ahead of the industry rather than always reacting to it. I hope that members will see fit to support amendment 29.

I lodged a supplementary amendment—amendment 29A—after discussions with the Government, which I know has concerns about the bill being challenged. We should not hold our breath—it may well be challenged, whatever happens. The inclusion of the phrase "cigarette lighters" would leave the bill open to the possibility of challenge. That is why I sought permission to lodge amendment 29A.

On section 1, Mary Scanlon has been entirely consistent in her argumentation at all stages of the bill, especially in committee. The Liberal Democrats' position is that the bill is a progressive legislative move, and we support the Government in that. We must tackle the scourge of tobacco in all its manifestations, although we recognise that there is no single solution to the problem of how to reduce consumption, which is enormously disappointing.

Like Mary Scanlon, I find current cigarette packs quite repulsive. However, that revulsion does not appear to be shared by large numbers of our young people, who are not deterred from buying cigarettes. That is why all measures that can be taken to try to remove the enticement to smoke are justified. We will therefore not support amendment 4 and consequently the other amendments in Mary Scanlon's name.

On anticipating the behaviour of the industry, as Richard Simpson made clear, the industry is remarkable in its resilience and the way in which it seeks to overcome difficulties. Credit to it—it is a commercial business. However, it is right that we should seek to put the issue that Richard Simpson raises on the statute book. I was the only member who supported Kenneth Gibson's endeavours at stage 2 to pass an amendment similar to amendment 29. I know that the Government would prefer to approach the issue by way of regulation. That is fine, but that would mean people simply receiving a stern letter from the minister pointing out the substance of the legislation; regulation itself would not necessarily create a criminal offence. In our view, it is better that the bill creates an offence of tobacco advertising, which was its original purpose. Liberal Democrats will oppose Mary Scanlon's amendments but support Richard Simpson's.

I turn to the second of Richard Simpson's amendments, amendment 29A. E-mails to members have raised the issue of whether we will be getting rid of challenge 25. I rebut that. There is only one place in a shop where cigarettes can be obtained, which is at the point of sale. In alcohol displays, it is good that challenge 25 notices are seen across the range of products, but in the case of tobacco, there is only one point of sale, and one notice that makes clear the age restriction and challenge 25 will be perfectly sufficient and will not be able to be abused.

Labour, too, opposes all of Mary Scanlon's amendments. We do so because we are persuaded that point-of-sale displays are becoming increasingly important to manufacturers as a means of marketing tobacco products to young people. That is backed up by a substantial body of research, which links such displays to smoking behaviour. However, I recognise Mary Scanlon's concerns about cost. Is the £20 for a gantry or a single shelf? I would be grateful if the minister provided clarity on that important point.

Richard Simpson's amendments seek to close loopholes that we know, from the experience of Ireland, can be exploited by some in the tobacco industry. Alternative advertising displays, with the branding and colouring of well-known cigarettes, are used to circumvent the ban on point-of-sale displays. We need to close that loophole. I know that the principle underlying Richard Simpson's amendments is supported by others, such as the cross-party group on tobacco control, the Scottish coalition on tobacco and ASH Scotland. The whole point is to stop advertising tobacco to children at point-of-sale displays in all possible forms. There will be no additional impact on retailers, no extra costs and no extra burden on enforcement officers. The amendments are clear, simple and easily understood.

The Government has suggested that the issue is a matter for guidance, but I am not convinced that that is strong enough. There would be no direct sanctions if the guidance were not followed. We have an opportunity properly to ban displays, and we should take it.

I am encouraged by the fact that all parties agree that firm action is required to prevent children and young people from becoming smokers. The tobacco display ban has been one of the most contentious provisions in the bill. On the one hand, the Conservatives believe that there is not enough evidence to justify a tobacco display ban; on the other hand, members of the Labour Party believe that we have not gone far enough. We believe that the provisions in the bill and the draft regulations are proportionate.

The Conservatives believe that it is simply not true to say that removing the final marketing tool of the tobacco industry will reduce the attractiveness of tobacco to children and young people. I believe that they are wrong on that. Very few countries have yet introduced a tobacco display ban, and those that have have done so only recently. As with the ban on smoking in public places, we are pioneers. From the work of Cancer Research UK and others, we know that the display of tobacco in the most prominent place in 11,000 shops in Scotland is having an impact on our most vulnerable. It is making a product that kills half of its long-term users more attractive to children and young people. Therefore, I contend that the evidence for banning displays exists. For me, the most compelling point is the need to remove the last advertising loophole. I reassure the chamber that the Government is committed to evaluating the impact of all the provisions in part 1.

I understand that there are concerns about the impact of the policy on our small shops. I have worked closely with retailers and believe that the regulations that we have drafted will both protect children and young people from the harms of tobacco promotion and minimise the impact on small businesses. Our is a proportionate response.

I agree with Richard Simpson that we should do all that we can to prevent the tobacco industry from attempting to circumvent the display ban that is detailed in the bill and the advertising ban that is set out in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. I understand the concerns about incidents that have occurred in Ireland in response to its display ban, which came into force in July 2009. However, the Scottish display ban will be the most robust in the United Kingdom and will be even more robust than the Irish display ban. Regulations will limit the display of tobacco to 120cm², based on figures that have been provided by retailers showing that each row of a gantry in a small shop is around 15cm high and that the widest section for a tobacco product is 8cm. The loopholes that have occurred in Ireland will not, therefore, occur under the bill. Retailers were concerned that the display ban would impede their carrying out necessary everyday tasks such as stocktaking and cleaning. We have taken that in good faith and have exempted the display of tobacco for those tasks.

I appreciate the fact that Dr Simpson has tried to craft a future-proof amendment, which he hopes will predict any possible move that the tobacco industry may make to circumvent our wide-reaching tobacco display and advertising bans. However, amendment 29 falls short of achieving that, and there are major concerns about its practical application, as well as drafting concerns. Instead, we will draw up clear guidance on the implementation and enforcement of the bill. I assure the chamber that I will make it clear that the advertising of lighters over gantries and the use of lighting around gantries will not be acceptable.

I am pleased that Richard Simpson has seen sense and, with amendment 29A, is seeking to remove the reference to lighters from amendment 29. If there is evidence of retailers ignoring the guidance, we will revisit the regulations and consider removing exemptions from the display ban. That could be very costly to retailers, as it could lead to tobacco having to be stored under the counter, which I know that retailers do not want. I urge the chamber to allow us to achieve what amendment 29 seeks through regulations and guidance rather than through the bill itself, which could have undesirable and unintended consequences.

The unintended consequence of amendments 31 and 32, which deal with tobacco industry-funded campaigns such as no ID, no sale, would be to limit campaigns that inform customers and retailers of their rights and responsibilities around tobacco sales. On the retailer side, amendment 31 would ban displays that are aimed at staff, such as prompts by tills to remind staff to verify a customer's age; for customers, it would restrict campaigns that are essential to the successful implementation of many of the bill's provisions, including proxy purchase. The amendment would restrict such campaigns by retailers, Young Scot and cancer charities as well as the tobacco industry. In fact, any shop or charity that came up with an idea would have to approach the Government for approval first. Surely the creation of such bureaucracy would not make any sense. I am sure that no one wants that to happen.

I therefore ask Mary Scanlon to withdraw amendment 4 and not to move amendments 5 to 10, 14, 47 and 16. I also ask Richard Simpson not to move amendments 29 to 32.

I call Mary Scanlon to wind up and either press or withdraw amendment 4.

I was sympathetic to Richard Simpson's amendments but, when I read what the briefings said about overly complicating the bill, I decided that it would be a more commonsense approach to get the Government to work with retailers. Having spoken with a Government adviser, I think that it is for the Government and the retailers to come to an accommodation about what is right for them, and it should be done through regulation and guidance.

Ross Finnie summed up the situation when he said that there is no single solution to smoking. However, unfortunately, the focus of the bill has been the display ban. As parliamentarians, we should be seeking solutions that work and have been proven to work, which is not the case in relation to the banning of visual displays.

I wish to press amendment 4.

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We will proceed with the division.

Division number 1

For: Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Ted, Brown, Gavin, Brownlee, Derek, Carlaw, Jackson, Fraser, Murdo, Johnstone, Alex, Lamont, John, McLetchie, David, Milne, Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Smith, Elizabeth
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Allan, Alasdair, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Claire, Baker, Richard, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Keith, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Campbell, Aileen, Chisholm, Malcolm, Coffey, Willie, Constance, Angela, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Margaret, Don, Nigel, Doris, Bob, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, FitzPatrick, Joe, Gibson, Kenneth, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Charlie, Grahame, Christine, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Christopher, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Hepburn, Jamie, Hume, Jim, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Adam, Jamieson, Cathy, Kelly, James, Kerr, Andy, Kidd, Bill, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Stewart, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Tom, McConnell, Jack, McInnes, Alison, McKee, Ian, McKelvie, Christina, McLaughlin, Anne, McMahon, Michael, McMillan, Stuart, McNeil, Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Mulligan, Mary, Murray, Elaine, Neil, Alex, O'Donnell, Hugh, Oldfather, Irene, Park, John, Paterson, Gil, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Robison, Shona, Rumbles, Mike, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Alex, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Somerville, Shirley-Anne, Stevenson, Stewart, Stewart, David, Stone, Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, John, Thompson, Dave, Tolson, Jim, Watt, Maureen, Welsh, Andrew, White, Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Whitton, David, Wilson, Bill, Wilson, John

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 103, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.