Health and Sport Committee, 12 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005<br />(PE1037 and PE1042)

We will consider two petitions. PE1037, which was lodged by David Nelson on behalf of Fife Action Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow smoking in pubs and clubs within designated smoking areas. PE1042, which was lodged by Belinda Cunnison on behalf of Freedom to Choose, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the smoking legislation and to introduce a regulated indoor air quality standard. I draw members' attention to the papers on the petitions. Although the Public Petitions Committee linked the petitions, there is no obligation on the Health and Sport Committee to take the same approach to both petitions, so we must decide whether it would be useful to consider them independently or together, before discussing what action to take.

I refer members to the statistics that were presented on Monday by NHS Health Scotland, on the impact of the smoking ban in Scotland. Research shows a 17 per cent reduction in heart attack admissions to nine Scottish hospitals, a 39 per cent reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke among 11-year-olds and adult non-smokers, and an 86 per cent reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke in bars. There is no evidence so far that smoking is shifting from public places into the home and there appears to be high public support for the 2005 act, even among smokers, whose support increased when the legislation was in place.

Do members want to consider the petitions separately or together?

Together.

I invite members' views on what the committee should do with the petitions. I welcome the petitioners, who are in the public gallery to hear the disposal of the petitions, which is an important part of parliamentary procedure.

One approach would be for us to consider the petitions in the context of post-legislative scrutiny of the 2005 act. I do not know when the committee will carry out such scrutiny, but I presume that we will do so in the near future. Much new research is being done and the findings that were presented this week are extremely interesting. Some of the research is available online—I am told that there is more to come on the heart attack figures. A series of research papers will be published, so we should in due course consider the petitioners' points in the light of that research. My instinct is that we should therefore allow some time to pass so that a full evaluation can be done, and thereafter consider in that light what the petitioners are saying.

Many of the points that the petitioners make were made in the context of debates about the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill. In many ways, the points that the petitioners make are not new but were thoroughly considered by the Health Committee and Parliament in the previous session. However, that does not mean that we should reject the issues out of hand; rather, we should consider them as part of post-legislative scrutiny of the 2005 act.

I see members nodding, but I am not taking a nod as an indication that you want to speak.

I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that we could consider the petitions in the context of post-legislative scrutiny. However, given that we have not decided when to undertake such scrutiny or on what we will focus, it is important that the petitioners know that the issues that they have raised will be in the mix with a number of issues that we might choose to explore. A decision to consider a matter as part of post-legislative scrutiny does not guarantee that we will consider an issue that has been raised by a petitioner. The committee must keep an open mind, because other issues might emerge that merit consideration in post-legislative scrutiny.

I agree with Malcolm Chisholm and Michael Matheson. It is important to say that the petitions express a point of view that was expressed when the bill was considered by the Health Committee in the previous session. At first sight, the petitions appear to contain no additional evidence that was not available when the previous committee considered the bill.

I suspect that the proposition that Scotland—having taken the lead over the rest of the United Kingdom on smoking in public places—should go into reverse gear at this early stage in the lifetime of the legislation would meet with little sympathy in the committee. The proposition that the impact of the legislation should be considered in a balanced way when evidence of the overall impact is available would probably attract support. Therefore, I suggest that we consider the points that the petitions make in due course, when we decide that it is time for post-legislative scrutiny.

I was one of the Fife MSPs who were lobbied by the groups. I agree with the members who have just said that it would be wise to consider whether the 2005 act would be a candidate for post-legislative scrutiny. That would enable us to consider the arguments that are being put forward by the petitioners, rather than simply dismiss them out of hand.

I should say that I was on the committee that scrutinised the legislation and, having heard the arguments at the time, I supported the bill. However, as Mary Scanlon said, we should look again at legislation that we pass. Nothing is written on tablets of stone. If evidence is brought to the attention of Parliament, it is up to Parliament, in the future, to decide what to do about it.

I am afraid that there has been an outbreak of consensus in the committee today. Nevertheless, I commend the petitioners, who have carried out a substantial piece of research and have made some interesting and competent points, such as the one about more energy being used because smokers are outdoors.

I support the point that Malcolm Chisholm made and agree that post-legislative scrutiny should be carried out once more research has been done.

Michael Matheson made a pertinent point when he said that—as everyone has agreed—the right forum for further consideration of the matter is in the context of post-legislative scrutiny. The petitioners will be advised of that decision, if that is what we decide to do. However, given that some time is likely to elapse before that post-legislative scrutiny takes place, I am interested in the mechanism by which the petitioners will be kept adequately informed about whether the committee has been able adequately to address the issue. Clearly, there is a risk that, as our work progresses and we do not immediately conduct post-legislative scrutiny, the petitioners might inadvertently get the impression that we have not dealt with their petition.

I agree. The position is that, when we deal with our work programme next week, we could discuss how we can programme in post-legislative scrutiny of provisions including the smoking ban and the raising of the age at which people can purchase tobacco.

If the committee is minded to deal with the petitions as part of the proposed post-legislative scrutiny, I suggest that we advise the petitioners of that, assure them that we will consider the points that they have raised when we commence post-legislative scrutiny, and inform them when we come to do so. We should also inform the Public Petitions Committee of our decision. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have agreed that item 7, which concerns the appointment of a budget adviser to the committee, will be taken in private.

Meeting continued in private until 10:59.