11th Report, 2015: (Session 4): Stage 1 Report on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill

SP Paper 792 (Web)

Contents

Report
Introduction
Executive summary

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE BILL
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Application to Private Motor Vehicles
Applicable Persons
Defence
Penalty
Enforcement and detection
Other issues

General principles of the Bill

General views on the Bill
Finance Committee and Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee consideration

Specific provisions

Application to private motor vehicles
Applicable persons
Defence
Penalty
Enforcement and Detection
Other issues

Concluding remarks
Annexe A

Extracts from the minutes of the Health and Sport Committee and associated written and supplementary evidence
List of other written evidence

Annexe B

Report from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance Committee’s call for evidence on Financial Memorandum
Report from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Remit and membership

Remit:

To consider and report on health policy, the NHS in Scotland, sport and other matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport, and measures against child poverty..

Membership:

Duncan McNeil (Convener)
Bob Doris (Deputy Convener)
Malcolm Chisholm
Rhoda Grant
Colin Keir
Richard Lyle
Mike MacKenzie
Nanette Milne
Dennis Robertson

Note: The membership of the Committee changed during the period covered by this report, as follows: Malcolm Chisholm replaced Richard Simpson on 2 September.

Stage 1 Report on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill

Introduction

1. The Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill was introduced by Jim Hume (the member in charge) on 15 December 2014.

2. The Health and Sport Committee (the committee) was designated as the lead committee for the consideration of the Bill.

3. The Finance Committee and Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee also considered the Bill with respect to their particular remits.

Evidence gathering by the Committee

4. On 29 April 2015, we launched a call for written views to inform our consideration of the Bill. In total, 43 written submissions were received. Ten responses were received from NHS Boards; three from local authorities and individuals respectively; and two from pro-smoking organisations. A number of other submissions were received from academia, professional and/or membership organisations and third-sector organisations. Where this report refers to ‘respondents’, this means the responses received to our call for written submissions, unless otherwise stated.

5. On 29 April 2015, members of the public were also invited to comment on the consultation via Facebook. This post received over 1,190 likes and attracted 698 comments and 125 shares.

6. We also held oral evidence sessions on 9, 16 and 23 June 2015. The Committee took evidence from the British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland, ASH Scotland, the British Heart Foundation Scotland, NHS Health Scotland, Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (FOREST), Police Scotland, Stirling Council, the Law Society of Scotland, the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland and Glasgow City Council. The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association declined an invitation to attend an oral evidence session.

7. The Committee thanks those who submitted evidence on the Bill.

Executive summary

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE BILL

8. We support the general principles of the Bill and recommend the Scottish Parliament agrees to them.

9. We consider the Bill is an important step in protecting children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. The Committee considers that education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles and as such these further measures are needed. We therefore support this legislation as a necessary step in tackling this issue.

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

Application to Private Motor Vehicles

10. We support the Bill’s proposal to make it an offence to smoke in a private motor vehicle when a child is present.

11. The Bill’s proposal that motorcycles should be exempt is sensible because such vehicles are not typically designed for carrying child passengers and are not enclosed.

12. It is important to recognise that some vehicles are used as accommodation for vacations and others on a permanent basis. In this regard, the Bill needs to clearly distinguish between when a vehicle is being used as a home or as transportation. We therefore support the proposal that the offence should not apply to private motor vehicles designed or adapted for human habitation that are parked for not less than one night and being used for that purpose.

13. We note the Scottish Government may lodge a Stage 2 amendment to exempt convertibles from the Bill. Before any amendment is brought forward, we would welcome the Scottish Government’s evidence on the impact of second-hand smoking on children in convertibles and further information on how it proposes an exemption for convertibles would be effectively communicated to the public.

Applicable Persons

14. We support the Bill’s proposal that the offence will apply to a person aged 18 years or over smoking in a vehicle when a child aged less than 18 years is present. This is consistent with the Bill’s aim to protect children and the age restriction for purchasing tobacco.

15. We also support the Bill’s proposal to make the person smoking an offending person. This seems sensible insofar as it ascribes responsibility to the person causing harm to the child’s health.

16. The Committee also recommends that the driver be made vicariously liable.i This would offer added child protection and mirror similar legislation on children’s safety, such as seatbelt laws for children aged 14 and under.

Defence

17. We support in principle the Bill’s proposal to include a defenceii or similar provision. The Committee, however, notes there are diverging views on the defence drafted into this Bill and the Scottish Government proposes to work with the member in charge to remove it. The Committee received suggestions in written evidence as to how to address the concerns raised. We therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s consideration of these suggestions and look forward to more information from the Scottish Government on any amendments to be brought forward.

Penalty

18. We support in principle the Bill’s proposal to make the offence subject, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. The Committee notes the estimated number of fixed penalty notices likely to be issued per annum is relatively low (approximately 200). Nonetheless, the Committee seeks the views of the member in charge and the Scottish Government on whether an alternative arrangement, such as an education programme, could be put in place. This may have the advantage of mitigating any disproportionate impact a fixed penalty arrangement may have on people in deprived communities.

Enforcement and detection

19. We support the Bill’s proposal to make Police Scotland responsible for enforcing the legislation using its existing powers to stop vehicles. The Committee also supports the Scottish Government’s proposal to extend the enforcement powers to local authorities pending further negotiation between the Scottish Government and COSLA. This would maximise the advice, education and publicity provided to the public about the legislation through a multi-model approach.

Other issues

20. We note the Scottish Government proposes to bring forward an amendment to the commencement date. We consider this would be a sensible suggestion in order to coordinate the Bill’s commencement with an education campaign.

21. We note written submissions queried whether under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 the named person would be notified of a conviction; what role third-party reporting might play; and whether the Bill should address third-hand smoking and the protection of vulnerable adults. The Committee will consider any amendments that are brought forward in this regard.

General principles of the Bill

Policy intention

22. The policy intention of the Bill is to “protect children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke in a confined space”.1 To achieve this, the Bill creates a new offence where an adult smokes in a private vehicle in the presence of a child while that vehicle is in a public place. An adult is defined as someone over 18 years of age, whilst a child is defined as someone less than 18 years of age.

23. The member in charge intends to build on the success of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005.2 He aims to raise awareness of the health risk of second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces and to decrease the prevalence of smoking in vehicles transporting children. The member in charge considers children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in private vehicles poses a significant health risk to children, who are at an increased risk of developing respiratory diseases due to their immature respiratory systems.3 The member in charge also emphasises that “most affected children have no other transport option or are too young to make other arrangements and are not empowered to change the behaviour of adults around them.”4

24. This Bill would bring Scotland into line with England and Wales generally, where smoking in cars with children on board will be banned from 1 October 2015.5 Its general principles would also complement the Scottish Government’s strategy to make Scotland smoke-free by 2034. Indeed, the Scottish Government led a consultation on e-cigarettes and tobacco control in Scotland prior to introducing the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill. The consultation, which closed on 2 January 2015, included a proposal to ban smoking in cars with children less than 18 years of age. As the member in charge has brought forward this Bill in the interim, the Scottish Government has stated its commitment to support it.6

General views on the Bill

25. Ninety-three per cent of respondents to our call for written evidence supported the Bill’s general principles. A 2015 YouGov survey commissioned by ASH Scotland also found 85% of Scottish adults overall and 72% of smokers support the introduction of legislation to ban smoking in vehicles carrying children.7 Three respondents to our call for written evidence (an individual, the Tobacco Manufacturer’s Association and FOREST) were unsupportive.

26. A common reason cited for supporting the Bill was evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoking and its disproportionate impact on children.8 The Committee heard that children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke because they breathe faster, have less developed immune systems and absorb smoke more quickly due to their smaller airways.9 We were told exposure to second-hand smoke can lead to cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, hospital admissions and death.10

27. The health impact on children includes respiratory illnesses, such as asthma, middle ear disease and bacterial meningitis.11 It has been reported that levels of second-hand smoke increase to over eleven times those of a smoky pub when a cigarette is smoked in a stationary car with the windows closed.12 According to the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, “It is estimated that over 4,000 new cases of respiratory infection, wheeze and asthma in Scottish children could be avoided every year by reducing the exposure of children to passive smoking”.13 Passive smoking is not just a problem for Scotland's children, as it has been linked to approximately 165,000 new cases of disease among children in the UK each year.14 This perhaps explains the move towards legislative responses to this issue in other parts of the UK.

28. A key issue that surfaced during our consideration of this Bill is whether legislation is the right approach to tackling this issue. The Committee, therefore, considered views on what role other measures, such as education, should play. NHS Health Scotland reported that a common misconception prevails amongst parents in deprived communities that there is no danger from second-hand smoke if the atmosphere is ventilated and if smoke cannot be seen.15 It was also noted by the British Heart Foundation Scotland that tackling this misconception was a central aim behind the “take it right outside” campaign.16

29. Indeed, FOREST argued education was the most important tool in tackling the problem, which should be favoured over a legislative approach. This was made clear in an evidence session when FOREST stated –

The big drop in smoking rates in this country happened between the mid-1970s and the early 1990s, and it was all down to education of people about the health risks of smoking. Over the past 15 years, in Scotland and in the UK generally, smoking rates have continued to fall, but not by huge amounts, yet we have a series of pretty draconian legislation… All that legislation has had relatively little impact...17

30. FOREST also disputed the findings of the 2013 Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey (SSALSUS), which reported 22% of 13 and 15 year olds in Scotland stated they are often, or sometimes, exposed to smoke when travelling in a car.18 FOREST argued that sampling the views of children on their exposure to second-hand smoking was not an objective assessment. In contrast, FOREST cited an older Irish study, in which smoking in cars with children was recorded over three time periods in two Dublin locations. This study reported the rate of smoking in cars with children may be extremely low (1 in 2,300).19 In this regard, FOREST considered that whereas seatbelt legislation may have been required due to the relatively low rate of seatbelt use (25%) at the time, the reportedly low rate of smoking in cars with children means a legislative response is not warranted.20

31. Those in support of a legislative response took a different view on the rates of smoking and the impact of legislation. For example, NHS Borders and Cancer Research UK cited the figures reported in the 2013 SSALSUS to argue legislative intervention is warranted to protect the children affected.21 The British Heart Foundation Scotland also emphasised that the nature of smoking in a vehicle places children in a particularly vulnerable situation –

On long – or short – car journeys, someone who lights up a cigarette cannot take it outside. Everyone is trapped in that confined space and has to breathe that second-hand smoke.22

32. The Committee also heard evidence that similar legislation has been well received and implemented in several parts of Canada, Australia and the United States.23 For example, the member in charge noted that after similar legislation was introduced in Canada, there was a 33% reduction in children being exposed to second-hand smoke.24

33. Parallels were also drawn with the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 because it was seen to serve a similar public health purpose in protecting those who work in enclosed public spaces from second-hand smoke.25 FOREST noted that compliance with this legislation has been high, due in part to the liability of licensees.26 This persuaded others that the enclosed public spaces legislation was effective in creating a cultural shift in attitudes against smoking.27 Indeed, ASH Scotland noted it can play an important role in boosting educational initiatives stating “…my experience suggests that there would be significant media interest in legislation and that would give you free education and awareness raising that would cost a lot of public funds if done in another way”.28 The Scottish Government concurred with this argument, noting there is potential to use the Bill to also build on the existing Take It Right Outside campaign.29

34. Another key issue raised in the evidence considered was this Bill’s purported regulation of the private sphere. A minority of respondents argued this would be an unacceptable infringement on the civil liberty to smoke in private places.30 In this regard, FOREST argued –

We must draw a line and say, ‘Enough’s enough.’ There is a public smoking ban, a display ban and there will be plain packaging – where will it end?31

35. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland and the Respiratory Group at the University of Aberdeen argued the Bill’s effectiveness in achieving its aim to protect children from second-hand smoke is limited by the fact that the ban will not extend to the family home (where the majority of children’s exposure may occur).32

36. In response to concerns about the potential for this legislation to be extended to the home, the British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland noted that “I can assure you that, as Sheila Duffy [ASH Scotland] has suggested, no organisation that I have worked with…imagines a ban on smoking in domestic properties to be conceivable or feasible”.33 The member in charge also emphasised –

As I said, the Bill could not be amended to make it cover what people do in their house. It is purely about what happens in a vehicle, which is an enclosed space.34

37. The British Heart Foundation Scotland considered restricting the ban on smoking to private vehicles would at least give a child who is exposed to second-hand smoke in the home some respite.35 It also noted that this legislation presented another important opportunity to educate people on the harm of second-hand smoke in other private spaces, such as the home.36 Indeed, the Committee heard evidence that two recent surveys from New Zealand showed an increase in voluntary restrictions on smoking in the home following smoke-free legislation.37 This suggests the Bill may not need to extend to the home in order to change at-home behaviours.

Finance Committee and Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee consideration

38. The Finance Committee issued a call for evidence on the Bill’s Financial Memorandum and received responses from NHS Ayrshire and Arran, NHS Lothian and the Scottish Government. NHS Lothian noted that health boards may incur a cost in assisting with the public awareness campaign. The Scottish Government supported the member in charge’s estimate of the cost of a public information campaign (£250,000-£300,000). It noted its intention to propose an amendment to give a role to local authorities in the Bill’s implementation and that this would likely result in additional costs to local authorities. It also highlighted that estimating the number of fixed penalty notices likely to arise from the legislation is difficult. It therefore recommended that the Financial Memorandum be amended to include low, mid-range and high values.

39. The Schedule to the Bill sets out the scheme under which a fixed penalty may be applied as an alternative to prosecution. Paragraph 8 confers power on the Scottish Ministers to make regulations about (a) the application of fixed penalties; and (b) the keeping, preparation and publication of statements of account for fixed penalties.

40. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered this scheme. It noted it would be content for paragraph 8(a) to be subject to affirmative procedure. However, it recommends that paragraph 8(b) is subject to negative procedure to provide a better balance of parliamentary resources against scrutiny given the administrative nature of the power.

Specific provisions

41. The remainder of this report considers the main provisions of the Bill. While our role is to report on the Bill as introduced, we also considered the range of proposals identified in written evidence, including in the Scottish Government’s Memorandum and in the evidence sessions we held. This approach will inform the Parliament of possible amendments to the Bill.

Application to private motor vehicles

42. The Bill applies to all private motor vehicles with two exceptions: motor cycles; and motor vehicles designed or adapted for human habitation (i.e. used for habitation for not less than one night). The Bill only applies to motor vehicles in private use, since smoking is already prohibited in vehicles used for public transportation under the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005.

43. The exemption for human habitation was supported by 60% of respondents, many of whom argued that enclosed spaces, which are being used as a home (e.g. motorhomes, real estate etc.), should be treated the same.38 The member in charge explained why the term “human habitation” has been used, rather than “motor home” –

I would not want to see somebody exempted who was driving their motor home day in, day out. They would be exempted only when they used their motor home for living in and sleeping.39

44. When asked whether someone living in a car would be exempt, the member in charge noted: “They would not be exempted. That is quite clear in the Bill”.40

45. The Bill clarifies the meaning of human habitation by stipulating that a vehicle will be deemed to be in use for this purpose when it is being used as such “for not less than one night”. The member in charge explained the drafting for this part of the Bill, noting that a car “that is parked up and has somebody sleeping in it would not be exempt – that is quite tight in the Bill”.41

46. When asked whether the exemption as drafted would be clear and enforceable in practice, Police Scotland suggested its officers would take a common sense approach to assessing individual situations.42 For example, Police Scotland noted that if a vehicle was on a campsite, police officers would be able to determine how long it had been parked there.43

47. The Scottish Government stated in its Memorandum that it would support a further exemption for convertible vehicles with the roof down and stowed away.44 It supports this exemption because it considers the impact of second-hand smoke would be minimised due to the level of air exchange. A minority of respondents (less than 10%) also suggested an exemption for convertible vehicles.45 NHS Ayrshire and Arran and ASH Scotland noted this exemption would be consistent with the approach in England and Wales and the definitions used for Scotland’s smoke-free public places.46

48. The Committee heard evidence against an exemption for convertible vehicles on public health grounds. The British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland explained that long-term studies conducted by the University of Aberdeen found that, even with the windows wound down, passengers in a vehicle encounter levels of second-hand smoke 10 times the World Health Organisation’s stated safe level.47 The University of Aberdeen considered an exemption for convertible vehicles should not be included, noting: “The child passenger may be within the near field of the cigarette (i.e. within one metre) and in these ranges the amount of air exchange or ventilation will have a limited impact on concentration reduction.”48

49. The British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland and the British Heart Foundation Scotland echoed these concerns, emphasising that there is no safe level of second-hand smoke.49

50. These views were shared by a minority of respondents (25%) who considered public health and safety grounds meant the Bill should not contain any exemptions.50 East Dunbartonshire Tobacco Alliance considered it would be difficult to enforce.51 The British Medical Association Scotland noted that removing all exemptions would ensure vulnerable adults, as well as children, were protected from second-hand smoke and it would eliminate any issues as to identifying the age of passengers.52 The Respiratory Group from the University of Aberdeen also noted that from “a scientific or exposure point of view it is difficult to see why any enclosed space within any vehicle would be exempt.”53

51. The British Heart Foundation Scotland also emphasised the importance of dispelling misconceptions about second-hand smoke and the delivery of a clear educational campaign –

...The take it right outside campaign...challenged the conception that you can...smoke in the kitchen with the window open. That does not work in a home, and simply opening the windows in a car does not work either. That is why we support this bill.54

52. The Respiratory Group of the University of Aberdeen concurred that the simplicity of the legislation was a key reason why the exemption for convertibles should not be supported.55

53. In response to the Scottish Government’s preference to make convertible vehicles exempt, the member in charge noted:

In my Bill there is no exemption for convertible motor vehicles. The Scottish Government has talked about such an exemption and I have discussed the matter with it. It seems quite soft on that, but I completely agree with you that putting the windows up and taking the roof down can still cause quite a lot of issues with second-hand smoke. My Bill is clear that there is no exemption for convertible vehicles whatsoever and, to be honest, I will be sticking to that.56

54. Dr Cant of the British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland suggested that the Scottish Government’s proposal to exempt convertibles may have little impact in practice. He observed that “My experience of going through Easterhouse in our recent summer weather has not indicated that there are many 2CVs or cabriolets – certainly not with their roofs down.”57

55. A key factor that will impact on the success of this Bill is the clarity of the legislation and the accompanying public information campaign about the law and the health risk to children of smoking in vehicles. The Committee therefore wants to ensure that the exemptions given to vehicles in this Bill will not be unnecessarily complicated to enforce and that the necessary health protections for children are built in.

56. For this reason, the Committee is content with the current exemptions for motor vehicles as currently drafted in the Bill. We note, however, that the Scottish Government may lodge a Stage 2 amendment to exempt convertibles. Before any amendment is brought forward, we would welcome the Scottish Government’s evidence on the impact of second-hand smoking on children in convertibles and further information on how it proposes an exemption for convertibles would be effectively communicated to the public.

Applicable persons

57. The Bill as introduced makes an adult who smokes in a vehicle in the presence of a child liable for an offence. An adult is defined as someone 18 years or older, whilst a child is defined as someone less than 18 years old. These aspects of the Bill led the Committee to consider the age at which a child should benefit from protection under the Bill and who should be liable for the offence.

58. The Committee heard evidence from ASH Scotland that the internationally recognised age for child protection is 18 years.58 ASH Scotland highlighted why the age of the offender is an important consideration by noting that a child could theoretically be caught smoking in a vehicle in the presence of another child.59 In response to this issue, the member in charge noted –

We had a lot of debate about that very point. My initial proposal was for 16 years of age…However, it came out in the consultation process that it is illegal…for those aged 17 or under to buy cigarettes…The decision was to have the provision in the bill coincide with that…I do not want to criminalise children and a 17 year old is a child.60

59. The Committee also considered to whom liability should apply: the person smoking; the driver; or both. The member in charge stated his view that –

The driver has enough to do in driving his car; it should not be down to him to stop other adults smoking in his car…I know that the situation is different south of the border, where the driver is liable – it is a motoring offence. The offence I am proposing is a health offence.61

60. The MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit supported the member in charge’s stance that liability should only apply to the smoker.62

61. Eleven respondents to the Committee’s call for written views (26%) noted the driver should be held either solely, or jointly, responsible.63 In this regard, the Law Society of Scotland noted –

The driver of a vehicle has a very special responsibility in relation to road safety. We are talking here about the health and wellbeing of the occupants of the vehicle…If a child under the age of 14 is not wearing a seatbelt, the responsibility is the driver’s.64

62. Glasgow City Council concurred with this view, noting:

Making the driver – the keeper of the vehicle – responsible would mirror the original smoking ban legislation, which was effective largely because the licensee of a pub, for example, is held responsible for people smoking on the premises. That led to people managing compliance themselves, and the same principle could apply in this case.65

63. In light of the views expressed on making a driver vicariously liable for the offence, the Committee considered what would happen if a driver was not able to stop a passenger from smoking, or to stop the vehicle and ask the offender to disembark. On this issue, Police Scotland considered its officers would use their professional judgement, noting “Although we might stop someone who is smoking while young children are in the car, it would not necessarily be the case that they would get a ticket.”66 In this regard, it is envisaged that the police would use their discretion in circumstances where a driver was unable to pull-over if a passenger refused to stop smoking.

64. The Committee is content with the age of offenders proposed in the Bill, as this is consistent with existing legal age limits for driving and purchasing tobacco.

65. The Committee notes Police Scotland’s view that its officers would use their professional judgement in deciding whether to issue a fixed penalty notice. In light of this, the Committee is persuaded on balance that making the driver and the smoker liable for the offence is the sensible approach. This would bring this Bill into line with other duties on drivers (e.g. seatbelt legislation), be consistent with the approach south of the border, and provide added incentives to protect children from the harm of second-hand smoking in private vehicles. The Committee seeks the Scottish Government’s and the member in charge’s views on this issue.

Defence

66. The Bill provides a defence if, at the time of smoking, a person reasonably believed all other occupants to be adults. In the Policy Memorandum, the rationale for this defence is that there may be circumstances where the person committing an offence believes the occupants are aged over 18 years.67 The RAC’s written submission argued in favour of the defence as drafted, noting: “There will be occasions where drivers are unaware of the age of passengers travelling with them…It is also unreasonable to expect drivers to interrogate passengers before they enter the car as to their age.”68

67. The Law Society of Scotland, ASH Scotland and the Scottish Coalition on Tobacco agreed the Bill should contain a defence but had alternative suggestions for how it should be drafted. The Law Society of Scotland stated the statutory defence should be changed to the standard criminal threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt”.69 ASH Scotland and the Scottish Coalition on Tobacco considered there should be a defence if the driver was unable to prevent another individual from smoking and the driver “made all reasonable efforts” to prevent the offence.70 They also noted this would bring Scotland into line with similar provisions in Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

68. The Scottish Government’s position is that no defence should be included in the legislation because it is difficult to envisage how it could be used in practice.71 Six respondents agreed that the Bill should not contain a defence.72 The reasons cited include concerns that any defence might undermine the protection of children and that ignorance is not a defence for other similar offences.

69. NHS Health Scotland highlighted a practical solution for protecting both smokers and passengers without the need for a defence.73 It suggested introducing a provision that a person must ask a passenger’s age before smoking if that passenger looks under 25. It also suggested that a presumption could be drafted into the legislation, such that if there are any doubts as to the age of a passenger, a person should not smoke. The Committee notes that an “under 25” presumption has been drafted into the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill as introduced.74

70. The defence as drafted in the Bill raised diverging views on whether a defence was needed and what it should contain. The key issue is how to address the arguably rare circumstance in which a smoker does not know the age of all passengers. Any solution to addressing this issue must not undermine the protection of children and must be drafted in such a way that is practical and enforceable.

71. The Committee considers that alternative measures could be put in place to address these issues, such as replacing the defence with a similar presumption to that in the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill. The Committee notes the Scottish Government proposes to work with the member in charge to remove this defence. We therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s view on how the issues highlighted in this report may be addressed by an “under 25” clause, or any other amendment it intends to bring forward.

Penalty

72. Section 1 of the Bill provides that a person who has committed an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. The Bill sets the fixed penalty at £100. The Schedule to the Bill enables Scottish Ministers to amend the penalty figure through regulations. The maximum fine on level 3 on the standard scale is up to £1,000. The member in charge explained that the fee was originally set at £60 to mirror the fixed penalty for hand-held devices and seatbelts. However, two weeks before the consultation closed, the fixed penalty for those offences was revised to £100. The member in charge revised the nominated penalty figure accordingly.

73. The Financial Memorandum estimates the number of fixed penalty notices likely to be issued annually under this Bill is in the region of 200.75 The Scottish Government considered that the legislation accompanied by an education campaign would be self-enforcing.76 It did, however, note that it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of fixed penalty notices likely to be issued. The Scottish Government therefore suggested that the Financial Memorandum be amended to include a range of estimates at high, mid-range and low values.77

74. The Committee considered views on whether a fixed penalty is an appropriate way to deal with offenders under this Bill. The British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland cited evidence from Queensland, Australia, where 654 $200 fines were issued within 15 months of introducing similar legislation. 78 It argued this evidence demonstrates that penalties are an effective enforcement tool and deterrent to offenders.

75. Other submissions highlighted socio-economic considerations and estimated who is most likely to be affected by the legislation. Cancer Research UK, for example, highlighted that “tobacco is the leading risk factor in terms of the causes of health inequalities”.79 Furthermore, Dr Cant, Head of the British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland, observed:

Exposure to second-hand smoke will increasingly have a social and economic element because we have seen with the smoking rates that Scotland is doing very well in encouraging the reduction of smoking in the more affluent communities.80

76. The member in charge acknowledged “We know that poor health and smoking are much larger issues in some socioeconomic groups,”81 but he considered a penalty should apply because the offence is seeking to protect children. Police Scotland noted that its officers are trained to use their professional judgement and discretion and that, although someone may be pulled over for the offence, this may not result in a penalty being issued.82

77. Some respondents, such as NHS Borders, the Asian Consultancy on Tobacco and ASH Scotland suggested that a compulsory education course, or quit smoking programme, should be offered as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice, so that those with a low socio-economic profile are not disproportionately affected.83

78. We support in principle the Bill’s proposal to make the offence subject, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. The Committee notes the estimated number of fixed penalty notices likely to be issued per annum is relatively low (approximately 200). Nonetheless, the Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s views on whether an alternative arrangement, such as an education programme, could be put in place. This may also have the advantage of mitigating any disproportionate impact on people in deprived communities.

Enforcement and Detection

Enforcement

79. The Bill as introduced makes Police Scotland the sole enforcement agency. Approximately half of the respondents to the Committee’s call for written views favoured this approach. COSLA supported this position because local authorities do not have the power to stop moving vehicles.84 South Lanarkshire Council concurred.85 COSLA, NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Fife also noted that Police Scotland is best equipped to identify the driver of a vehicle and to access the driver ownership database.86

80. The Scottish Government stated in its Memorandum that it is open to a joint enforcement approach between Police Scotland and local authority environmental health officers.87 It also noted that if this amendment were brought forward, it would likely result in additional costs to local authorities.88

81. COSLA’s written submission noted the Scottish Government’s suggestion for a partnership approach to enforcement and considered this would require further negotiation.89 In particular, it considered any additional burden on local authorities arising from this Bill should be fully funded by the Scottish Government.

82. Glasgow City Council was also not in favour of the Scottish Government’s proposal, arguing environmental health offices were likely to have a low impact in issuing fixed-penalty notices –

…In reality, we do not have the people on the ground…It is conceivable and feasible that we could intervene in a case that involved a stationary vehicle, but I cannot imagine that being done to any meaningful extent.90

83. Police Scotland and Stirling Council favoured the approach of giving environmental health officers an enforcement role in relation to stationary vehicles.91 In this regard, Police Scotland noted that, while it “absolutely supports the Bill”, it would have a greater impact if Police Scotland were not the sole enforcement agency.92 Police Scotland also highlighted the role community wardens have played in issuing fixed-penalty notices for littering.93 Stirling Council favoured a partnership approach because it considered local authorities could have a role in wider prevention, intervention, education and enforcement.94

84. The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland also favoured this proposed amendment, noting it would create a “multi-model approach” to enforcement.95 In its view, “enforcement should be seen as the last resort for any form of compliance, and that also supports the principles of best regulatory practice”.96 In this regard, it noted that relatively few fixed-penalty enforcement notices have been issued in Scotland due in part to enforcement agencies’ approach to compliance “through advice, education, publicity, guidance and a fair and reasonable approach to enforcement”.97

85. The member in charge appeared to be agreeable to this proposed amendment, noting –

My bill initially called for the police alone to enforce it. The Government has said that it would consider lodging an amendment on the role of local authorities and community wardens and so on. Therefore, it would be up to the Government to justify that. I would be quite happy for more people to be involved in enforcing the legislation.98

Detection

86. Another issue the Committee considered was whether enforcement agencies would be able to detect the offence in practice. For example, FOREST questioned whether the police would be able to detect small children in vehicles.99 The Law Society of Scotland also questioned whether police would be able to assess the age of older children and distinguish between an e-cigarette and a regular cigarette in a moving vehicle.100

87. Police Scotland noted –

Our officers are well versed in assessing a situation as they see it from a pragmatic point of view. If they passed a car and saw someone smoking in it, and if they also saw child seats in the back, that would give them a fair indication that the child is under 18. It would be about overlaying a common sense, pragmatic approach...101

88. Similarly, Police Scotland noted that police officers already have experience in assessing the age of teenage children, such as in circumstances when they are in possession of alcohol.102

89. The member in charge echoed Police Scotland’s view that detection of the offence should not be a major concern: “In 2013-2014, 36,000 breaches of the seat belt law were detected, and those seatbelts would equally have been in the back and in the front. It will be more difficult to see inside a car if it has dark, smoked glass but that does not mean that it will be impossible.”103

90. The Committee considers Police Scotland will play an important role in enforcing the legislation. As the Bill’s enforcement and an accompanying educational campaign will be crucial to the success of this legislation, the Committee also sees merit in giving a role to local authorities in its implementation.

91. We note the Scottish Government proposes to amend this aspect of the Bill. We therefore seek further information from the Scottish Government on what role they envisage local authorities will play. We expect the full cost implications associated with any new role given to local authorities to be available for scrutiny in advance of the amendments.

Other issues

92. The Committee also considered what would be the most appropriate commencement date for the Bill. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Bill’s Schedule will come into force on the day after Royal Assent, while the remaining provisions will come into force at the end of the period of 6 months from the date of Royal Assent.

93. In order to allow the Bill’s introduction to be coordinated with a public information campaign, the Scottish Government proposes the commencement date should be determined under a Ministerial power.104

94. Given the educational campaign will play an important role in creating a cultural change, we consider that the Scottish Government’s proposal seems to be a sensible suggestion so long as it does not unnecessarily delay commencement of the legislation.

95. Police Scotland also highlighted that a potential consequence of the Bill is that details of a conviction may, under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, be shared by the police with a named person using a child concern form.iii105 Child concern forms are used by Police Scotland to store information about children on its Vulnerable Persons Database. Information on this database is shared with other agencies where it is deemed appropriate to do so.

96. The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland noted in its supplementary written evidence that, if required, local authority environmental health professionals would be competent to raise a similar type of child concern form with a named person after a period of appropriate training.106 The Law Society of Scotland noted a conviction under this Bill might well trigger the issue being raised with the named person if it was felt in the circumstances that the child was at risk of significant harm.107

97. The Committee also gave consideration as to how third-party reports of an offence being committed under the Bill would be dealt with. Glasgow City Council noted third-party reporting already occurs in pubs under the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005. It considered individuals may be approached in response to a third-party report but it was unlikely that formal enforcement action would be taken.108 Police Scotland said it would be duty bound to respond to a third-party report but noted its response would be proportionate to the circumstances of each individual case.109

98. The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland suggested a means for third-parties to play an active role in educating the public about the Bill and the dangers of second- and third-hand smoking in vehicles. For example, it suggested someone conducting a Ministry of Transport (MOT) inspection who observed evidence of smoking in a family vehicle could issue an advisory notice about the Bill and the relevant health risks.110

99. We also heard concerns raised by East Dunbartonshire Tobacco Alliance that the Bill does not address third-hand smoking.111 In this regard, it was noted a parent would be allowed to smoke a cigarette on the way to collecting a child and that the levels of particulate matter or fine particle pollution in a vehicle can take a long time to return to normal after a cigarette is extinguished.112 When asked about this issue, the member in charge noted that it would be difficult to enforce.113 The Committee sought wider views on this in its evidence sessions but did not receive any evidence.

100. The Committee also considered whether protection should be extended to vulnerable adults under the Bill. NHS Tayside noted in its submission that consideration should be given to this issue.114 The member in charge stated –

It is something that we considered in great depth before we started this journey, and our concern was about how the police would identify someone as a vulnerable adult…If someone wants to lodge an amendment on the issue that would strengthen the Bill, I will be happy to look at that.115

101. The Committee seeks the member in charge’s views on the Scottish Government’s proposed amendment to the Bill’s commencement date.

102. The Committee also requests the Scottish Government’s view on whether, under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, it envisages a child concern form should be raised with the named person in the event of an offence being committed under the Bill. In light of the Scottish Government’s proposal to extend enforcement powers to local authorities, the Committee also seeks clarification from the Scottish Government as to what similar arrangements local authorities would employ.

103. The Committee seeks the Scottish Government’s view on whether it would work with the UK Government to extend the educational campaign in Scotland to include other types of existing regulation of the motoring industry, such as Ministry of Transport vehicle inspections.

104. The Committee also recognises the difficulty highlighted by the member in charge in affording protection to vulnerable adults under the Bill. The Committee will consider any amendments that are proposed in this regard.

Concluding remarks

105. We consider the Bill is an important step in protecting children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. The Committee considers that education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles and, as such, these further measures are needed. We therefore support this legislation as a necessary step in tackling this issue.

106. This report has, however, identified several issues that have arisen in evidence where the Bill could potentially be strengthened by amendment or would at least benefit from further consideration by the member in charge and the Scottish Government. These predominately relate to the exemptions in the Bill, liability for the offence, and its enforcement. We recognise that the member in charge and the Scottish Government have shown willingness to work together throughout the process to develop improvements to the Bill and we look forward to this continuing during the consideration of any amendments.

107. Overall, the Committee supports the general principles of the Bill and recommends the Parliament agrees to them.

Annexe A

Extracts from the minutes of the Health and Sport Committee and associated written and supplementary evidence

13th Meeting, Tuesday 28 April 2015

Work programme (in private): The Committee considered and agreed its work programme.

19th Meeting, Tuesday 9 June 2015

Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the Bill at Stage 1 from—

Dr James Cant, Head of British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland, Sheila Duffy, Chief Executive, ASH Scotland, and David McColgan, Policy & Public Affairs Manager – Scotland, British Heart Foundation Scotland, Scottish Coalition on Tobacco (SCOT);
Celia Gardiner, Health Improvement Programme Manager – Tobacco, NHS Health Scotland.

Written Evidence

British Lung Foundation
ASH Scotland
British Heart Foundation Scotland
Scottish Coalition on Tobacco (SCOT)
NHS Health Scotland

20th Meeting, Tuesday 16 June 2015

Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the Bill at Stage 1 from—

Simon Clark, Director, Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (FOREST);
Brian Auld, Director of Professional Development, The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland;
William Hamilton, Environmental Health Manager, Glasgow City Council;
Professor Alison Britton, Convenor of the Health and Medical Law Committee, The Law Society of Scotland;
Margaret Wallace, Communities Service Manager, Stirling Council;
Bernard Higgins, Assistant Chief Constable - Operational Support, and Chief Superintendent Iain Murray, Police Scotland.

Written Evidence

Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland
Glasgow City Council
Stirling Council
Police Scotland
The Law Society of Scotland

Late Submission

FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco)

Supplementary Written Evidence

Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland

21st Meeting, Tuesday 23 June 2015

Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill: The Committee took evidence on the Bill at Stage 1 from—

Jim Hume MSP, member in charge of the Bill;
Louise Miller, senior solicitor, Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament;
Stephen Fricker, Assistant Clerk, Non-Government Bills Unit.

24th Meeting, Tuesday 15 September 2015

Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill (in private): The Committee considered its draft Stage 1 report. The Committee agreed the report, subject to revisions to be agreed by e-mail, and the arrangements for its publication.

List of other written evidence

Scot Van den Akker
Michael Gowan
Alan Lee
The RAC
NHS Ayrshire and Arran
NHS Forth Valley
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow
YouthLink Scotland
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
East Dunbartonshire Tobacco Alliance
Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control
BMA Scotland
Respiratory Group, University of Aberdeen
Heather Bath
NHS Highland and Highland Council
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
NHS Fife
The Law Society of Scotland
South Lanarkshire Council
NHS Grampian
Scottish Smoking Cessation Co-ordinators’ Group
NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde
Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland
Cancer Research UK
NHS Lanarkshire
Children in Scotland
NHS Tayside
NHS Borders

Late Submissions

COSLA
Tobacco Manufacturers' Association

Memorandum by the Scottish Government

Memorandum by the Scottish Government to the Health and Sport Committee

Annexe B

Report from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance Committee’s call for evidence on Financial Memorandum

Report from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee (DPLRC) report on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill can be found on the Scottish Parliament‘s website at the following webpage:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/89471.aspx

Finance Committee’s call for evidence on Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/88859.aspx


Any links to external websites in this report were working correctly at the time of publication.  However, the Scottish Parliament cannot accept responsibility for content on external websites.

Footnotes:

i Vicarious liability is where a party other than the perpetrator of the offence is held criminally liable for it.

ii The Bill provides a defence if, at the time of smoking, a person reasonably believed all other occupants to be adults.

iii Child concern must be recorded by the police on every occasion when the care of a child by their parent(s), guardian, carer or in some instances another person, is called in to question or where there is a suggestion that a child requires some level of care or protection. A child concern form is completed by the officer involved and submitted via a supervisor to the Social Work Department via the appropriate police Public Protection Unit. The child concern form is therefore the initial means by which Police Scotland record and share information regarding child protection issues, as part of the ‘Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) process. Other agencies such as Education, NHS, Local Authorities use similar forms to record child concerns.

1 Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill, Policy Memorandum, (SP Bill 58 Session 4 (2015)), paragraph 3.

2 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 54; Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13).

3 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 54.

4 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Cols 55.

5 The Smoke-Free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015 No. 286.

6 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 20.

7 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 39.

8 See for example: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Written submission, page 2; Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, Written submission, page 1.

9 NHS Health Scotland, Written submission, page 1; YouthLink Scotland, Written submission, page 1.

10 Scottish Coalition on Tobacco, Written submission, pages 1-2.

11 British Heart Foundation Scotland, Written submission, page 1, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Written submission, page 1.

12 Cancer Research UK, Written submission, paragraph 16. The evidence on passive smoking was disputed by pro-smoking organisations: Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 40; Tobacco Manufacturers Association, Written submission, page 4.

13 Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Written submission, page 1.

14 Cancer Research UK, Written submission, paragraph 17.

15 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 46.

16 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 43.

17 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 38.

18 ISD Scotland. (2014) Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey National Report: Smoking, drinking and drug use among 13 and 15 year olds in Scotland in 2013.; Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 36.

19 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 36.

20 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 35-36.

21 NHS Borders, Written submission, page 1; Cancer Research UK, Written submission, paragraph 14.

22 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 42.

23 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Written Submission, page 1; British Heart Foundation Scotland, Written submission, page 2.

24 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 56.

25 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 43.

26 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 41.

27 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 56.

28 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 50.

29 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 13.

30 Scot van den Akker, Written submission, page 1; Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, page 3; FOREST, Written submission, pages 1-2.

31 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 39.

32 Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland, Written submission, page 1; Respiratory Group University of Aberdeen, Written submission, page 1.

33 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 40.

34 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 58.

35 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 43.

36 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 43.

37 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 43.

38 For example: NHS Forth Valley, Written submission, pages 1-2; MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Written submission, page 2; YouthLink Scotland, Written submission, page 2; Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Written submission, page 2; Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland, Written submission, page 2.

39 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 64.

40 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 64.

41 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 64.

42 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 61.

43 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 61.

44 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 9.

45 NHS Ayrshire and Arran; Glasgow City Council; ASH Scotland.

46 NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Written submission, page 1; ASH Scotland, Written submission, pages 1-2.

47 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 38.

48 Respiratory Group University of Aberdeen, Written submission, page 2.

49 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 38-39.

50 For example: British Medical Association Scotland, Written submission, page 1; Children in Scotland, Written submission, page 2; NHS Borders, Written submission, page 2.

51 East Dunbartonshire Tobacco Alliance, Written submission, page 2.

52 British Medical Association Scotland, Written submission, page 1.

53 Respiratory Group University of Aberdeen, Written submission, page 2.

54 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 42.

55 Respiratory Group University of Aberdeen, Written submission, page 2.

56 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 64.

57 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 45.

58 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 51.

59 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 51.

60 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 62.

61 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 62.

62 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Written submission, page 2.

63 Alan Lee, East Dunbartonshire Tobacco Alliance, Law Society of Scotland, ASH Scotland, Scottish Coalition on Tobacco, NHS Grampian, Scottish Smoking Cessation Co-Ordinators’ Group; Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, Children in Scotland, Stirling Concil, COSLA.

64 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 52.

65 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 49-50.

66 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 53.

67 Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill, Policy Memorandum, (SP Bill 58 Session 4 (2015)), paragraph 20.

68 The RAC, Written submission, page 2.

69 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 52-53.

70 ASH Scotland, Written submission, page 3; Scottish Coalition on Tobacco, Written submission, page 2.

71 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 10.

72 Michael Gowan, Written submission, page 2; Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control, Written submission, page 3; Glasgow City Council, Written submission, page 1; Respiratory Group, Written submission, page 2; Children in Scotland, Written submission, page 3; NHS Tayside, Written submission, page 2.

73 NHS Health Scotland, Written submission, page 3.

74 Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill, as introduced (SP Bill 73, Session 4 (2015)), section 3.

75 Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill, Explanatory Memorandum, (SP Bill 58 Session 4 (2015)), paragraph 14.

76 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 14.

77 Scottish Government, Written submission, paragraph 7.

78 British Lung Foundation Scotland and Northern Ireland, Written submission, page 2.

79 Cancer Research UK, Written submission, paragraph 11.

80 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 9 June 2015, Col 45. See also endnote 15.

81 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 61.

82 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 53.

83 NHS Borders, Written submission, pages 1-2; Asian Consultancy on Tobacco, Written submission, page 2.

84 COSLA, Written submission, page 1.

85 South Lanarkshire Council, Written submission, page 1.

86 COSLA, Written submission, page 1; NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Written submission, page 1; NHS Fife, Written submission, page 2.

87 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraphs 7-8.

88 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 15.

89 COSLA, Written submission, pages 1-2.

90 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 48-49.

91 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 46-47.

92 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 46.

93 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 51.

94 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 47.

95 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 48.

96 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 57.

97 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 56-57.

98 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 58.

99 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 37.

100 Law Society of Scotland, Supplementary written submission, page 5.

101 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 50.

102 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 50.

103 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 66.

104 Scottish Government, Memorandum, paragraph 11.

105 Police Scotland, Written submission, page 2.

106 Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, Supplementary written submission, page 1.

107 Law Society of Scotland, Supplementary written submission, pages 1-2.

108 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 60.

109 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 60.

110 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Col 60.

111 East Dunbartonshire Tobacco Alliance, Written submission, page 1.

112 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 16 June 2015, Cols 57-58.

113 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 56.

114 NHS Tayside, Written submission, pages 1, 2.

115 Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee. Official Report, 23 June 2015, Col 67.

Back to top