Group 3 is on prohibition of use of vending machines for the sale of tobacco—exemption. Amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 1 seeks to allow radio-controlled cigarette vending machines to be retained in licensed premises. Anyone who wishes to purchase something from such a machine must ask a member of staff to activate it. If the member of staff suspects that the person is under 18, they must challenge them in the same way that they have been trained to challenge young people who try to buy alcohol. After the member of staff activates the machine, the customer has 30 seconds to make the purchase before the machine switches off automatically. The machine also switches off immediately after a single purchase.

Amendment 1 does not allow vending machines in unlicensed premises. Should a licensee or their staff sell tobacco to someone under 18, they will be subject to the penalties outlined in the bill and will also lose their right to have a vending machine. Furthermore, under the amendment, the Government will be able to ban machines through secondary legislation if it turns out that the radio-controlled approach does not work.

I have lodged the amendment because I feel that vending machines are a more secure option than the provisions in the bill. Under the bill, licensed premises are not prohibited from selling tobacco products, which may be sold from behind the bar. I am concerned that that will make them more accessible to children. If a bar is family run and has living premises attached to it, the chances are that children will be behind the bar and have access to cigarettes, which not only puts temptation in their way but leaves them open to bullying and coercion. As a result, amendment 1 is more in keeping with the bill's policy intentions.

I note that the Government has not told Parliament when it will implement the legislation. If it does so within months, the companies involved will not have enough time to diversify, consigning their staff to unemployment; if there is a long lead-in time, young people will have less protection over that period.

I find the Government's decision not to accept my proposal for a pilot of the system unreasonable. After all, if it works, it works; if it does not, the minister will be able to move to ban these machines in the same proposed timeframe. If she does not accept the amendment, many people will be concerned about their jobs. She needs to take that prospect seriously and move quickly to work with the companies involved.

That said, of course, the saving of lives will always outweigh the saving of jobs. However, that is not the reason for amendment 1, which is about providing secure sales to protect young people while tobacco is still legally available. The other amendments in the group are consequential to amendment 1.

I move amendment 1.

I will be able to fit in the four members who wish to speak, if they are very brief.

In speaking against amendments 1 and 2, I note that when a very similar amendment to amendment 1 was lodged at stage 2 the committee did not support it.

It is worth bearing in mind that one in 10 of all Scottish 13 to 15-year-olds who smoke regularly access their cigarettes via vending machines. As a result, banning these machines is one of the best ways of ensuring that such a source is not available to them.

I understand the concerns raised by rural communities, where in the absence of a shop the local pub might sell cigarettes. However, under the legislation, those pubs will still be able to store cigarettes behind the counter and sell them to people face to face. The argument that children who live in a pub will be able to access the cigarettes stored behind the counter is somewhat ridiculous; after all, the same argument could be made with regard to access to alcohol, and no one seems to have a problem with that. In that light, I think that the argument is something of a red herring in dealing with what is an important matter.

Moreover, we have no robust evidence to demonstrate that remote-controlled vending machines are a much more secure way of ensuring that young people cannot access cigarettes. I believe that, given the lack of evidence, we should not take such action.

I also note that we do not allow fireworks, solvents, alcohol or other harmful substances to be sold in vending machines. Why should such a deadly product as cigarettes be exempt from that? I believe that we should ban these vending machines and that the bill's approach to the issue is measured and proportionate.

Rhoda Grant has argued the case for radio-controlled vending machines and I, like other members in the chamber, have had the opportunity to view them in operation. However, we need to balance the impact on businesses of a total ban on vending machines with the wider benefit to public health.

The United Kingdom will implement its ban by October 2011, and it is right that we should keep in step with that. Some have argued that an extension of time would help vending machine operators. I do not believe that because the use of existing vending machines would continue without the safeguards that Rhoda Grant's amendments propose, and that would not be desirable.

That all needs to be weighed against the obvious advantages of a total ban. We know that test purchasing, albeit in a rural area, showed that the operators failed in 23 out 25 cases. We need to be mindful of that, and of the Parliament's clear desire to remove the possibility of young people purchasing tobacco inappropriately.

It would be helpful for the minister to address two specific areas. I know that she and her officials have had preliminary discussions with vending machine operators, which is welcome. Will she commit to continuing to facilitate discussions about, in particular, two issues that have been raised: putting dispensing machines behind the bar, and the opportunities in the industry for diversification? Such practical support would start to help and it would further address the sustainability of those businesses, while acknowledging the importance of the Parliament's move towards a total ban. For those reasons, Labour will support the Government in putting public health interests first.

This has been a vexed issue. As is common with many public health measures, there is a balance. In this case, one has to balance the public health benefit against the legitimate and understandable concerns of those in the vending machine industry who are naturally feeling under threat. Liberal Democrats have considered the industry's representations very carefully, and we are not wholly persuaded that the proposed mechanism is entirely foolproof. We share that view with the British Heart Foundation, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and Cancer Research UK. We believe that public health is the overriding concern in the debate.

Like Jackie Baillie we think that, given the balance of the argument, the Government has issues to address, and it needs to take a sympathetic view of the support and help that might be afforded by the industry department to those who will undoubtedly be affected by the legislation. On balance, we are persuaded that public health has to be paramount. We invite the minister to take our view into consideration.

We support Rhoda Grant's amendments. Tobacco vending machine sales account for less than 1 per cent of tobacco sales in Scotland. The ban will particularly affect remote and rural areas, where many filling stations, village shops and post offices have closed in recent years. In Orkney and Shetland, there has been a 30 per cent reduction in the number of licensed premises. Staff training on the sale of alcohol is the best that it has ever been.

The explanatory notes say that

"The Scottish Government is aware of only one company operating in Scotland", but the truth is that 14 companies will go out of business, with the loss of 60 jobs, not 14.

On average, cigarettes purchased from a vending machine are 36 per cent more expensive than those that are bought from a shop, so it is unlikely that young people will use those machines.

A vote against amendment 1 will mean that, as secure stockholding units, vending machines will be removed, and the landlord will sell tobacco from behind the counter. It is a proven fact that cigarettes that are sold from behind the counter are readily accessible. In truth, banning remote or radio-controlled vending machines from licensed premises such as pubs, social clubs, golf and bowling clubs, where the clientele is generally aged over 18, makes tobacco more readily accessible. I trust that those who are speaking against remote and radio-controlled vending machines are speaking from the experience of having seen them in operation in the Parliament. They are successfully and effectively used in many European countries, including Spain and Portugal. We support the amendments.

I am sorry that I was not able to attend the demonstration of the remote-controlled machine when it came to Parliament, but I have tried to listen to the arguments on both sides.

I have a brief question that I ask Rhoda Grant to respond to in summing up. Half of us, including the Labour group, have just voted for Richard Simpson's amendments to ban various visual cues that promote the acceptability and acceptance of tobacco and smoking in premises. Why does that argument not apply also to vending machines? Why should we not regard them as a visual cue and take the same approach to them that many of us took in relation to Richard Simpson's amendments?

Before I discuss the amendments in detail, I say that our decision to opt for a complete ban on cigarette sales from vending machines was not taken lightly. I met Scottish vending machine operators in early September last year and I have listened to their concerns and the concerns of the 60 staff who are employed in the sector in Scotland. My officials have continued that dialogue since then. We do not take any job losses lightly.

Will the minister confirm that the explanatory notes were wrong in stating that

"The Scottish Government is aware of only one company operating in Scotland that would be affected by the ban", and in claiming that a total of 14 staff would have to be made redundant? Does she accept that that was inaccurate?

We discussed that at length at the Health and Sport Committee and in correspondence, and we have explained the reasons. Despite our extensive attempts to contact the body that represents vending machine operators—the National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators—and to get a clear idea of the number of job losses that would be involved, we were unable to do so. Therefore, our initial figures came from Sinclair Collis, which is one of the bigger companies. Some time after that, when the bill was published, NACMO finally got in touch with us after we had left numerous telephone messages for the individuals concerned. My officials went a long way to try to get information from NACMO. The information that we finally received is that we are talking about 60 jobs. The situation did not arise through a lack of effort on our part, but we now acknowledge, as I did to the Health and Sport Committee, that 60 jobs are involved.

We do not take the decision lightly but, as I have made clear throughout the progress of the bill, I have a fundamental problem with a dangerous and age-restricted product such as tobacco being sold from a self-service machine. We have concluded that a complete ban is the only way in which to be sure that under-18s do not access cigarettes from that source. I am pleased to note from the stage 1 report that the majority of Health and Sport Committee members agreed. The committee states that it is yet to be convinced that the system that Rhoda Grant promotes

"could be made to work in practice across the range of situations in which a vending machine might be installed—for example, in crowded city-centre pubs where there are many distractions for bar staff."

Rhoda Grant clearly believes that her amendment 1 is the best of both worlds, but I do not agree. The ban might have an impact on the companies that currently sell tobacco from vending machines, but the bill does not prevent them from selling other products from their machines; nor does it prevent pubs and hotels from using vending machines as a dispensing machine—a secure means of storing tobacco behind the counter.

I am happy to delay commencement until October 2011, in line with the Department of Health's approach. I am sure that no one in the Parliament would want Scotland to lag behind England on a tobacco control measure. There are concerns about how tobacco will be sold from licensed premises after the ban. We will continue to work with trading standards officers, the licensed trade and vending machine operators to provide detailed guidance on how tobacco should be sold to address the access issues that Rhoda Grant raises.

The Scottish Parliament's leading position in the UK on public health would be under threat if amendment 1 were agreed to. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant to withdraw amendment 1 and not to move amendments 2 and 3.

I welcome the minister's comments about working with licensed premises and the machine manufacturers to consider diversification and secure ways of selling cigarettes from behind the bar, which is an important part of the argument. I do not intend to press amendment 1 and therefore will not move amendments 2 and 3.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Does any member object to amendment 1 being withdrawn?

Members:

Yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

There will be a division.

Division number 5

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, 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, MacDonald, Margo, Macintosh, Ken, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Stewart, McArthur, Liam, 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, 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, Simpson, Dr Richard, 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 Deputy Presiding Officer:

The result of the division is: For 14, Against 105, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 2 not moved.