Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Official Report 413KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

International Health Treaty Standards (Guidance) (PE1580)

Our next item is consideration of PE1580, by Sheila Duffy, on behalf of ASH Scotland, on guidance for the Parliament staff on international health treaty standards.

I welcome the petitioner. She was to be accompanied by Professor Jeff Colin, the director of the global public health unit at the University of Edinburgh, but I think that he might be having some travel problems this morning—I experienced some myself. If he manages to get here, he is welcome to join the meeting. In the meantime, I ask Sheila Duffy to introduce the subject of her petition.

Thank you for making the time to hear more about this petition. If Professor Colin has been unavoidably delayed, he will be able to send further information to you later, if you need it.

Scotland has a proud record of tackling tobacco. It is hard for me to believe that next year it will be 10 years since Scotland implemented smoke-free public places.

I would like us to take a moment to remember what tobacco is. It is widely available, with eight tobacco retail outlets for every pharmacy in Scotland, which means that it is easier to buy poison than medicine. It is addictive and dependency forming, and engineered by tobacco companies to be as highly so as possible. Tobacco use is primarily a childhood addiction, not an adult choice. It is lethal to at least one in two—recent research suggests as many as two in three—consumers when used in the long term in accordance with the manufacturer’s intentions. Tobacco is estimated to be responsible for around a quarter of the adult deaths that are recorded in Scotland every year, which represents some 13,000 lives lost early. Behind each death, it is likely that there are more than 20 people living with chronic and disabling disease caused by tobacco.

This is a major and largely hidden epidemic. It is a commercially driven epidemic. It is driven by an industry with a long and well-documented history of denial, delay and deceit with regard to health measures, and one that has demonstrated that its main interests lie with its profits.

Because the tobacco industry is a worldwide predator, the World Health Organization developed the first and only international public health treaty, the framework convention on tobacco control, which has 180 signatories, including the United Kingdom and the European Union and which covers 90 per cent of the world’s population. The treaty requires parties to introduce broad-brush measures to try to reduce the harm that is caused by tobacco. We already have some of them, such as tobacco tax, smoke-free enclosed spaces and curbs on tobacco advertising. However, this petition relates to article 5.3 of the convention, which says:

“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.

That could be quite a wide instruction but, fortunately, the conference of parties developed further detailed guidance about how that article could and should be implemented. One example of the kind of thing that is in that guidance is the recommendation that

“Parties should interact with the tobacco industry only when and to the extent strictly necessary to enable them to effectively regulate the tobacco industry and tobacco products.”

I believe that we need to raise awareness of the treaty in Parliament, because there have been recent actions—unknowingly committed—that have gone against our obligations under the treaty. The point of the petition is to ask Parliament to consider the international treaty and its article 5.3, to think about Scotland’s obligations under it and to develop guidance for parliamentary staff to ensure that we meet those obligations.

I will start by declaring an interest—I do not know whether it is exactly an interest—in that I am not a smoker and am not a fan of the tobacco industry at all. However, my personal view is that tobacco is not an illegal product and I am concerned that, at times, we appear to stray into people’s private decision making around whether they should smoke. I fully supported the ban on smoking in enclosed spaces, because that practice affects those who choose not to smoke. Where do you see the line being drawn between the obligation on the Parliament to take a view on behalf of the public and the potential to step across into the private lives of individuals?

I am talking about an international treaty to which we are signatories, not individual lives and tobacco control measures.

That is clear. From my point of view, that clarifies the situation.

Like the convener, I am a lifelong non-smoker and have no particular interest in the tobacco lobby at all.

Does the WHO define what the tobacco industry is? Are you part of the tobacco industry, given that you depend on its existence for your employment?

I am not and no, I do not depend on its existence—

Is that not why ASH exists?

ASH was set up by the royal medical colleges as, for more than a decade, the scientific evidence about the harms of tobacco had not gone out to the general public because of the tobacco companies’ public relations activities—

Its existence depends on the tobacco industry and if there was no smoking, there would be no need for ASH.

If there was no smoking, there would be no need for ASH—

Should our meetings with you require to be held in public, as you have suggested?

I am entirely happy with transparency as a working principle but—

Do you encourage that? Do you list, for example, on ASH’s website, the politicians that you meet, when you meet and the issues that you discuss with them?

ASH Scotland is not subject to an international treaty.

But you are part of the tobacco industry.

No, we are not part of the—

You said that the tobacco industry was not defined, so I am asking whether you are part of it.

ASH Scotland is a health charity working to counter the misinformation and the interference of the tobacco companies in the health—

Should it not do that correctly then? I notice in the evidence in the submission to the petition that, despite receiving more than £1 million of public funding, ASH Scotland has managed to make a number of errors. If you exist, should you not ensure that you accurately represent the dangers that are presented by the tobacco industry, rather than making factual errors in a petition to the Parliament?

One error was made in that a member of my team accessed the wrong link and cited part of someone else’s submission, but—

Ah! It was somebody else’s fault—

No, I take responsibility for that—

Jackson, you are entitled to ask these questions, but if we give Ms Duffy—

It was quite a combative answer—

I understand that, but if you wait until Ms Duffy fully answers the question, you will get the opportunity to come back in with another question.

Thank you. One factual error was made in our submission, which I take responsibility for. As soon as I was made aware of it, I drew it to the attention of the committee and proposed a new form of words. It makes no difference whatsoever to the point of the petition.

Right. The principal point is about how the Scottish Parliament addresses the issue of engagement with the tobacco industry. Is that correct?

The principal point is about Scotland’s obligations under article 5.3 of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control and how those are effectively communicated to parliamentary staff so that we meet our obligations.

To achieve?

To achieve compliance with an international treaty to which we are signatories.

With respect to engagement, what do you want to see us do as parliamentarians?

I would like parliamentarians to implement article 5.3 through codes of conduct and guidance for parliamentary staff to ensure that our activities in Parliament are compliant with an international treaty.

What would we have to do to do that?

How you comply with the guidance on article 5.3 would be your decision, but there are certain things—

In your opinion, then?

In my opinion—if you are asking for my advice—

That is what I was trying to get to earlier. What is it that you would like to see us do in order to comply with the treaty?

I would like to see full transparency not just about the tobacco industry’s involvement through its own companies and its vested interests but about the accuracy of the information that it submits to Parliament; defined parameters on appropriate engagement with the tobacco industry that are in line with article 5.3; codes of conduct to be issued to guide parliamentary staff in their interactions; and submissions by the tobacco industry and its vested interests to be fact checked by an independent authority, such as the Scottish Parliament information centre, before being submitted to committees.

What currently happens that gives you cause for concern?

I have noted three—

To your knowledge, for example?

To my knowledge, I have noted three instances where the treaty obligations are not being well met. One relates to campaign information by Philip Morris in which inaccurate statements were submitted to a committee. The parameters—

On that point, was that picked up and addressed, or did that evidence remain unchallenged?

As a result of the evidence, I wrote and asked for the issue of engagement with tobacco companies to be looked at.

The Health and Sport Committee has taken evidence from Japan Tobacco International, which took the opportunity to comment on issues such as smoking restrictions on hospital grounds. On another piece of legislation—the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill—the Tobacco Manufacturers Association was invited to give evidence on the proposed restrictions on smoking in vehicles with under-18s present.

In both those examples, the sessions were held in public and broadcast for all to see and the evidence that any organisation submitted was available to challenge from within the committee that was hearing the evidence.

Absolutely, and transparency is definitely part of what is required under article 5.3, but there is also the issue of parameters on appropriate engagement—

I am trying to understand what would have happened. Are you saying that those tobacco industry witnesses should not have been called to the public session of a committee where they and their evidence could be examined by the committee members?

The framework convention makes clear that there are appropriate parameters for engagement with the tobacco industry and its vested interests and they relate to proposals to regulate the industry and its products. The engagement that some Scottish Parliament committees have had with tobacco companies goes beyond those parameters. I think that the Scottish Parliament is commendable in its openness to hear from everyone, but there are suggested obligations under the international treaty. The point of the petition is to ask that those obligations be considered and put into guidance for staff.

Am I to conclude from that that, in effect, you believe that the tobacco industry or organisations that represent it should be on a list of proscribed organisations from which parliamentary committees should not be able to hear evidence?

Perhaps you have not clearly understood what I was trying to say. The framework convention makes allowance for tobacco companies and their vested interests to be consulted and to give evidence on issues relating to regulating the industry and its products. However, the convention sets parameters on their involvement in other issues.

So your answer is yes, parliamentary committees should be proscribed from hearing from the tobacco industry on a range of issues, which you say is mandated under the WHO treaty, to which we are a signatory?

I think that you are asking me to get into the detail of the guidance for parliamentary staff, which you would have to decide on.

But that is what your petition is asking us to do.

I am asking you to issue guidance to parliamentary staff and to consider and raise awareness of the international treaty. The content of the guidance is your decision. I am very happy to be involved in offering advice on that.

I see. Thank you.

I fully support the international action. The behaviour of multinational tobacco companies, especially in the developing world, has been disgraceful. Sadly, those companies have also been supported by countries such as the United States, which has threatened to use sanctions.

I am wondering about the practical effect of such guidance. In 16 years as a parliamentarian, although I have seen communications come in from the TMA on everything that has affected, to some extent, the consumption of tobacco, communication has usually been by third parties or by those who work in the tobacco industry. The Scottish Grocers Federation has communicated about display and retailers have communicated about sale. How would you see the guidance cascading down and what would the practical effect be, given that the number of times that parliamentary committees or parliamentarians interact with tobacco manufacturers is low? I do not know whether I have ever had a letter from Philip Morris—I probably have—but I do interact with third parties that would not necessarily be classified as being part of the tobacco industry but which may be more important when it comes to lobbying.

I agree with you that there are third parties, such as the Scottish Grocers Federation, that receive funding from tobacco companies and have gold members that are tobacco companies. To me, they would not be classed as vested interests of the tobacco industry, but the Tobacco Manufacturers Association and the Tobacco Retailers Alliance would be classed as such.

I am sorry if it feels as though you have been facing a barrage of questions, but I think that they are meant in the most sincere way—we are trying to understand your petition in detail. You suggest that we need to stay within certain parameters when engaging with the tobacco industry.

However, those parameters are questionable and there are grey areas. We have heard good examples of retailers and constituents who trade not only in tobacco but in other products. They have a genuine concern and they lobby their councillors, MSPs and MPs on the issues. There will always be a crossover area. Therefore, I am a little reluctant to accept the petition the way it is. You are suggesting that I somehow stop people in their tracks because there may be an overlap. Perhaps you can explain that to me. I am thinking about my constituents who come to me with issues regarding the retail industry. If they also sell tobacco, and that is an issue, too, I cannot tell them to stop because they are going beyond the level at which I am supposed to engage with them. It cannot be done—I cannot clinically remove that from the discussion with them.

No.

So what are you suggesting?

11:15  

I am simply suggesting that you look at article 5.3 of the framework convention on tobacco control and the guidance that has been issued by the conference of the parties. That would not in any way preclude your interacting freely with retailers or retailer organisations, even if they are part of the echo chamber for tobacco industry messages. The petition is really about the big tobacco companies and bodies with vested interests, such as the Tobacco Manufacturers Association and the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, whose main business and purpose is to represent the tobacco industry. Bodies such as the Scottish Grocers Federation and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents or your local retailers do not come into that category. Their main business is something else. It would not include them.

I accept what you say, and I am not confused from that angle. However, I am hesitant. Although you are talking about big tobacco companies and all the rest of it, I have to be honest and say that I normally deal with my constituents at a very low level. They are small retailers and newsagents and tobacconists with mixed businesses. We have no choice but to allow them the space to discuss the issues that they face, and those might include tobacco. There is no getting away from that. Regardless of what article 5.3 says, we need to be practical, in the sense that, when it comes to the shop on the corner of the street, we have no choice but to allow them that space. It would be unreasonable to expect us not to do so.

No one is suggesting that you should not do so. The only issue would come if the chief executive of a tobacco company was one of your constituents. You might then have to consider how you interacted with them. To me, retailers and retailer organisations are not included in the definition of “vested interests” of the tobacco industry. Therefore, I do not see any issue with or limitation on what you currently do, unless the PR executive of a tobacco company is one of your constituents, in which case I suggest that maybe a little care is warranted under the framework convention.

It is unlikely that I have a chief executive living in my constituency, but one lives in hope.

The Scottish Parliament prides itself on being open and transparent when it takes evidence in committees. You suggest that we cannot take evidence from somebody who represents a tobacco company or who is speaking on a tobacco company’s behalf and that we cannot listen to their side of the argument. Is that being open and transparent and listening to both sides?

I am asking the Parliament to take a good hard look at article 5.3 and the guidance on implementing it and decide what it means for committees. I suggest that, at the very least, when tobacco companies give written evidence, there should be a level of independent scrutiny of what they say and the basis for it, given the amount of misinformation for which they have been held responsible.

Would you expect the same scrutiny to apply to ASH if it gave evidence to a committee?

Absolutely. I would welcome that because we try to give evidence based on what we know from published peer-reviewed research and the experience of other countries. I am very happy for our evidence to be open to scrutiny. It is always scrutinised in detail by tobacco companies, which is why I thanked JTI for picking up on the unwitting error in part of our petition.

I want to go back to the type of evidence that is submitted. It is not really possible for the clerks or the staff who assist in the running of the Parliament to know the veracity of every piece of information that is sent to us. We have to make judgments and decisions based on the information that is presented to us. People will come at that subjectively and sometimes pejoratively—they will have their own opinions. It is not really the role of Parliament staff to sift through evidence and say that they will not allow something to go to a committee because they do not believe it to be true. Would what you are asking for require the staff to get into that level of judgment about the information that is being presented?

I am asking you to issue guidance that will make it easier for staff to make well-informed judgments about what is appropriate in terms of our obligations under an international treaty. I am asking you to consider asking an independent authority that you trust, such as SPICe, to check the facts in tobacco industry submissions.

So the petition is specifically saying that the tobacco industry should be treated differently from every other organisation that wants to give evidence or information to the Parliament. I am trying to think of an example off the top of my head but I cannot think of one at the moment—as usually happens, I will probably think of one as soon as the meeting is finished—but I have received information from organisations about legislation or inquiries that the Parliament is looking at that makes me stop and think about why they are contacting me because I cannot see the relevance of that information. However, that does not stop them from making their contribution.

Are you saying that we should look at the information that is sent to us by the tobacco industry, if it wants to comment on a health or education issue or some other aspect of our work, and rule it out purely because it comes from the tobacco industry?

I am asking for Parliament to consider Scotland’s obligations in Parliament as signatories to an international treaty. However dubious their methods or however harmful their products may be, no other industry is subject to an international treaty in such a way.

Is the treaty a form of censorship?

To be honest, I think that it would save you time. You are busy parliamentarians and if you have to sift through the misinformation, the arguments for and against and the misleading submissions that tobacco companies will slip in with their evidence—

My point is that we get misleading information sent to us all the time. It is part of the role of staff and politicians to take on board the information that is sent to us, decide what we agree or do not agree with and to check its veracity. That happens daily and is our job from morning to night, but you are specifically asking the committee to support a petition that says that one sector of society has to be stripped of its ability to contact us in a way that everyone else takes for granted.

To be very clear, I am not suggesting that you should not hear from tobacco companies and their vested interests. I am asking you to consider Scotland’s obligations under an international treaty to which we are signatories and in that respect, the tobacco industry is unique.

Okay, so we are being asked to treat tobacco companies specifically as a different type of organisation. Are you saying that we can hear from the arms industry, the sex industry and all sorts of sectors that some people might find controversial—and in some cases are illegal—but we cannot hear from a legal entity such as the tobacco industry?

You can hear from anyone you choose. I am asking that you consider what the treaty means for the Scottish Parliament and issue guidance to staff accordingly.

My question might be helpful. I presume that there are other signatories to the treaty.

Yes.

Are you able to advance to us information about best practice in the way in which the Parliament of any country that is a signatory to the treaty has sought to implement article 5.3?

I understand that the WHO is gathering examples and looking at them. Professor Collin was invited to attend an advisory meeting with WHO on that, so he would have been able to give you a fuller answer. However, as part of informing your decision, the committee should write to the WHO and ask it for current best practice examples.

From other Parliaments?

Yes.

How many signatories are there to the treaty?

There are 180, if we count the EU, so that is 179 countries.

Fine. Information about best practice might advance things slightly for us, if we could see it.

One thing that has crossed my mind is the issue of public scrutiny. You indicated that the tobacco industry in particular might provide misleading or misinformed information to the Parliament. However, most of the work of the Parliament, and particularly that of this committee, is subject to public scrutiny. Submissions to the Parliament are subject to more than just parliamentary scrutiny. This committee in particular receives submissions from a number of individuals and organisations, who will read online the submissions that have been made by other organisations, then forward comments to us, including corrections of what they regard as misleading information.

I am not excusing the tobacco industry for what it trades in, but surely if this Parliament is doing its duty in taking views from all sides and allowing the public and organisations such as yours to comment on submissions that have been made, that is greater scrutiny that highlights any misleading information that might have been provided to the Parliament’s politicians.

I fear that what the petition seeks would mean asking the parliamentary clerks and officers to become gatekeepers for information that is actually provided for the politicians and the public, because the information that comes into the Parliament is publicly available. In effect, the clerks would become gatekeepers for not only the information that comes to parliamentarians but that which is made publicly available to the electorate in Scotland to enable it to engage in the debates and discussions that take place in this Parliament.

The petition is not focused on the tobacco industry, with its history of deceit, denial and delay; it is focused on the only international public health treaty in existence. My presumption in bringing the petition was that the
Parliament would wish to consider what its obligations are under that treaty. I think that your question is a relevant one and would need to be part of those considerations on guidance.

One of the things that we need to do is to ask the Parliament what its view is on the treaty, because the Parliament might believe that it is currently working within the treaty guidelines. Have you any evidence to suggest that the situation is otherwise?

Part of what is set out in the guidance on article 5.3 is appropriate parameters for tobacco industry involvement in influencing health policy. I believe that the several examples that I have cited show that there is not good awareness of those obligations.

But that does not mean that the Parliament does not believe that it is acting within the treaty.

I would be very interested if you would consider that.

So we have to establish whether the Parliament actually believes that it is currently acting within the terms of the treaty. Again, that comes down to a subjective judgment, does it not?

My impression was that there perhaps was not a high level of awareness of the treaty and its obligations, which was the reason why the petition was brought forward.

11:30  

Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion to Sheila Duffy was a good one, because he said that perhaps it is a difficulty that we have not seen what other signatories to the treaty have done. Sheila Duffy is right about awareness of the treaty, which I myself had not heard of until her petition came forward. Therefore, the petition has created awareness and has made at least one person more aware than others, so I think that it is useful.

The convener is quite right to suggest that we should ask the Scottish Parliament for its view on how it is upholding the new treaty. To suggest that we are not doing that is almost an accusation that the Parliament is not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Therefore, that needs to be done.

In the first instance, we can write to both organisations that are responsible for the treaty to see what good practice is available internationally and to the Scottish Government. Once we have the responses, we can maybe see how the committee can take the matter forward.

The point has been made that 179 countries and 180 organisations, if we include the EU, have signed up to the treaty. For clarification, is that Governments that have signed up to the treaty—

Yes.

—or Parliaments? I think that Hanzala Malik made the point that, as well as writing to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, we need to write to the Scottish Government to seek its opinion on whether it is acting in line with the treaty that it has signed up to. The reality is that the Parliament and the Government are two separate entities, and it would be unfair in taking the matter forward to say to Scottish parliamentarians—back benchers and those in committees—that we could not consider evidence from the tobacco industry if, in dealing with its legislative framework and taking opinions on Government legislation, the Government can consult or take evidence from the tobacco industry. I want to try to get the definition right in terms of whether the Parliament and the Scottish Government are acting under the same obligations that apply in the treaty.

The Scottish Government has undertaken to do a review of the implementation of article 5.3 within the lifetime of the current five-year national tobacco strategy, which will be by the end of March 2018. However, the guidance on article 5.3 makes it clear that the treaty obligations extend to all levels of government and to those who are involved in forming and informing health policy and scrutinising it. Therefore, the committees certainly would be part of the definition.

Okay. We have had suggestions on how we can take forward the petition. It has certainly raised awareness—there is no question about that—but we have to identify where everyone thinks they currently are with the situation. We will look at the information when we get responses from the organisations that we have agreed to contact. Obviously, we will keep the petitioners aware of the responses that we have received, and we will welcome their comments in due course. We will continue the petition.

I am not asking for the World Health Organization, on being contacted, to repeat its guidelines to us; I am looking for specific examples of best practice from other parliamentary signatories to the treaty.

That clarifies the matter. Obviously, we will take the petition forward and see what the responses direct us towards.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much for coming to the meeting.

I again suspend the meeting for a minute or two.

11:33 Meeting suspended.  

11:35 On resuming—  

---

Blue Badge Scheme (Eligibility Criteria) (PE1576)

Our second new petition is PE1576, by Owain Martin, on blue badges for children with autism and Down’s syndrome. Members will have seen the paperwork that has been sent to us, the SPICe briefing and the supporting evidence. Does someone want to kick off the discussion?

It seems to me that the Minister for Transport and Islands is carrying out a review, which is due to report or comment imminently. On that basis, it seems to me that we should simply try to focus on where the Government is at, given that we do not seem to have information from anybody else. A letter to Derek Mackay might be timely.

Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We can keep the petition open, wait to see the response from the minister and consider it at a future meeting.