The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP Bill 58A; the marshalled list, which is SP Bill 58AML; and the groupings, which is SP Bill 58AG. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division, and the period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.
After section 3
Group 1 is on the offence of smoking in a motor vehicle with children: review and expiry. Amendment 1, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, is grouped with amendment 2.
Nothing that I am proposing is in any way designed to frustrate, delay or impede the progress of Jim Hume’s bill, which we will debate and, I hope, approve this afternoon.
We are a unicameral Parliament and many in it have expressed concern about the competence of our post-legislative scrutiny. We are a Parliament that increasingly looks to promote social change and alter the public attitude through legislative action. I believe that, in the next parliamentary session, some legislative proposals on obesity could come before us.
Just as we did on the issue of alcohol minimum unit pricing, Scottish Conservatives as a matter of principle believe that in a unicameral Parliament in which members have expressed concern about the competence of our post-legislative scrutiny there is an argument to require Parliament to, after an interval, commission a report to establish the practical consequence of the legislation that we pass. Did it do what we hoped of it? Did it achieve the ends that we set for it? Was it even more successful than we allowed for when it was passed? Can our post-legislative scrutiny demonstrate the success of that legislation, so that we can issue testament to the wider world, which may be looking to us for an example of the social progressive health legislation that we pass?
If the legislation had been successful, it would face no obstacle in this chamber to being reaffirmed. However, that would happen on the basis that we had taken the time and the trouble to be certain about the action that we had taken. Sometimes we support measures whose effectiveness we cannot prove at the point that we pass them. We may strongly believe in those measures and put our hope into them, but nonetheless we approve and pass them in the expectation, but not certainty, of success. My amendments propose that within a period of time—within five and six years—the Government of the day would commission a report to establish the legislation’s success or otherwise and reaffirm in Parliament its place in statute. It is as simple as that.
I understand that there may not be considerable support for my amendments this afternoon, but I hope that at the very least the principle will register in the minds of members of this Parliament.
I do not favour Lord George Foulkes’s alternative of a second parliamentary chamber to undertake the scrutiny of legislation; there is no public appetite for that. We have to recognise that many members have expressed concern about the Parliament’s ability to look at the legislation that it has passed a period of time after passing it to establish whether it has been effective. As we did in relation to the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012, and as we will do with future social legislation and attempts to effect the better health of Scotland through the legislative process, we lodge the amendments this afternoon in the knowledge that we propose an amendment such as this so that Parliament has the confidence to review what it has done and reaffirm whether it has been successful.
I move amendment 1.
No one would object to the principle of post-legislative scrutiny; we certainly need to have more of that than we have had in the past. However, to propose a specific sunset clause—that is what the measure would be in practice—for the bill seems rather odd. We cannot have a general rule that every piece of legislation has such a clause.
We have to be careful about which pieces of legislation attract such a provision. Jackson Carlaw mentioned the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012. As is well known, I supported that, but it was fairly new territory and people were not certain about its consequences, so there was some argument in favour of a sunset clause for that bill.
However, I struggle to understand the rationale behind having a sunset clause in this piece of legislation. All these points will come up during the open debate, but the bill extends an existing piece of legislation, the science of smoking in enclosed spaces is not in doubt, and similar legislation has been tried successfully in other countries. There is a series of facts that make it highly improbable, if not impossible, that we will change our mind about the legislation.
As I wind up, I ask Jackson Carlaw to envisage a situation in which we would change our mind on the legislation. Even if it was established that not a large number of people have been found guilty of an offence, that does not mean that the legislation has not worked. It might act as a deterrent, and I hope that it will. The reality is that we know the science, so I cannot imagine circumstances in which we would change our minds.
I do not disagree with the general tenor of what Jackson Carlaw said about looking again at legislation that we have passed, but I certainly oppose the particular amendments on this particular bill.
I have a lot of sympathy with the principle of Jackson Carlaw’s amendment 1 and I have argued in the chamber and committees for increased post-legislative scrutiny. We do not do enough of it across the board.
However, I agree with my colleague Malcolm Chisholm’s comments. It would be a dangerous precedent to put into legislation a requirement for post-legislative scrutiny rather than making the strong assumption that Parliament will undertake such scrutiny itself. I also agree with Malcolm Chisholm on the sunset clause. Any member of the public who looks closely at today’s debate might interpret a sunset clause as meaning that we intend to revisit the legislation or that we are not entirely serious about its implementation, which might then affect compliance.
As I will say in this afternoon’s debate, it is clear that there has been widespread compliance with the legislation to ban smoking in public places and I expect exactly the same for this bill.
Jackson Carlaw has not had the benefit that I had of sitting through the Health and Sport Committee’s scrutiny of the bill. He has therefore expressed a general antipathy towards the notion of the Government or Jim Hume attempting to improve the health of children or trying to prevent detriment to their health.
It would be impossible to examine the benefits in any scientifically meaningful way even after the legislation had been enacted and in force for several years. It would be impossible to evaluate and to quantify the improvement to children’s health as a result of the legislation. However, I do not think that anyone in the chamber would seriously argue that preventing adults from smoking in the enclosed space of a car in the company of small children is not a good thing. Therefore, Jackson Carlaw seems to be arguing against the idea that this Parliament should deign to intervene in people’s lives at any level in order to improve and to protect the health of our children. That strikes me as a very curious position to take. I hope that members will not support amendment 1 when we vote on it.
I welcome the opportunity to set out the Scottish Government’s position on amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Jackson Carlaw.
I admit that I, too, was surprised by Jackson Carlaw lodging the amendments and the reasons that he expressed for doing so. At stage 1 he made reference to constructing an artificial debate. There is nothing artificial about this debate. The harms of second-hand smoke are well established by evidence and there is widespread public and stakeholder support for the measure, so it is not clear to me what is artificial about the debate.
Mr Carlaw described the legislation as ambitious but speculative public health measures. A number of countries have adopted similar legislation to protect children. In that respect, there is nothing speculative about it. Furthermore, this is not the first time that we have implemented smoke-free legislation in Scotland that is aimed at reducing the harms of second-hand smoke. I see no reason for the bill’s provisions to cease to have effect in six years. It is important that protection continues to be afforded to children in the long term.
On amendment 2, I can understand the desire to review whether the bill’s objectives have been achieved. However, the bill is only one measure that is being introduced to achieve those aims. A number of other tobacco policies will impact in this area, including the take it right outside campaign, the further legislative measures aimed at denormalising smoking, such as plain packaging, and the measures included in the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine and Care) (Scotland) Bill.
As others have said, of course there is a need for post-legislative scrutiny and for committees to be able to do that. However, this bill is not a good example on which to pin that issue. The idea that somehow, after six years, irrespective of whether the bill is a success or a failure, we should go back and allow smoking in cars is quite abhorrent to me.
It is worth noting that smoking prevalence numbers in Scotland dropped from 23 to 20 per cent between 2013 and 2014. It makes sense that, as prevalence falls, the number of young people who are exposed to smoking and to second-hand smoke will also decrease.
We have debated that figure on the drop in smoking prevalence rates from 23 to 20 per cent before. Does the minister have any evidence on where the drop has come from? Is it due to the use of e-cigarettes?
As I think we know, some of it can be put down to the use of e-cigarettes. We know that e-cigarettes are one way of stopping smoking. That, along with the other cessation measures that are available in the national health service, has contributed to the drop in smoking.
I emphasise that success cannot be determined by enforcement alone. The bill’s aims and their success should be considered as part of wider tobacco control measures; I think that that was Mike MacKenzie’s point. A number of data sources are in place to measure progress towards those aims. I would be happy to keep the Scottish Parliament updated on progress.
For those reasons, I do not support the amendments.
14:45
I, too, thank Jackson Carlaw for lodging amendments 1 and 2, if only because they allow me to explain why I do not think that the measures are required in the bill. I appreciate that the member is using the bill to make a point about post-legislative scrutiny. That will no doubt become more of an issue, especially with the extra pressure on the Parliament’s timetable with the new powers that are on their way.
The effectiveness of legislation should not simply be about how enforceable it is or the number of prosecutions or fines that are handed out; it can be effective by acting as a deterrent and tackling social norms. There is clear evidence of the positive impact of similar legislation in other countries. In South Australia, around 88 per cent of cars are smoke free. In Canada, there was an almost immediate 33 per cent reduction in smoking in vehicles. In other places, there are suggestions that people have thought about the impact of their smoking anywhere in the presence of children. That is particularly welcome, as it would simply not be reasonable to apply the legislation to what people do in their own homes.
There is already a degree of public awareness of the bill. I expect that that awareness will increase when it is supported by a high-profile campaign, which the Scottish Government has already committed to. That will work towards tackling social norms and make people think twice. As I have said previously, often it is not the fear of being caught that changes people’s behaviours; it is their concerns that their actions are not socially acceptable.
The ban on smoking in public places legislation, which Jenny Marra mentioned, did not contain a sunset clause, and the vast majority of us would acknowledge that that has been a great success.
The Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill is widely supported. Almost all the respondents to the Health and Sport Committee’s call for evidence supported it. More widely, public opinion already appears to be on its side. Some 85 per cent of Scottish adults and 72 per cent of smokers support it. That does not give any impression of any public scepticism.
The bill is straightforward and I want it to stay that way. I do not believe that it requires a sunset clause. Therefore, I shall not support Mr Carlaw’s amendments.
As I have indicated, the Scottish Conservatives support the bill, and we will support it at decision time.
Amendment 2 would require the Parliament to undertake a report on the effectiveness of the legislation. In response to Malcolm Chisholm, I point out that that would allow us to see whether the number of prosecutions of individuals had risen or decreased; whether the report recommended that more people should be empowered to enforce the legislation; and whether e-cigarettes had proved to be a problematic contradiction in the legislation and whether they, too, should be included in the provision.
I can think of alcohol legislation on the restriction of sales and particular offers that we have passed in the Parliament, but I do not think that we have ever subsequently discussed what the effectiveness of that legislation has proved to be on public health. That is not an argument against passing the legislation in the first place; rather, it is an argument that, in a unicameral Parliament that has a lot of legislation that goes through the committee system and which largely conducts its business on the progression of Government legislation, there should be a requirement, particularly where the Parliament has taken public health actions to change the public mind, to occasionally look at what it did to see how effective that was.
In this instance, I agree about what would happen. I do not think that there would have been any question of the Parliament not reaffirming the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 if it had to do so, but it would have done so on the back of a report to Parliament that would have detailed considerably how beneficial that legislation had been. In this instance, the report would have demonstrated exactly how beneficial the legislation had been.
We seem to lack the courage to take that approach. We simply pass the legislation, move on and hope for the best. That is not the best way to carry public opinion. With some of the public health legislation that the Government may think is worth attempting in the next session, if we do not have the confidence to have that level of scrutiny, that will prove to be divisive rather than unifying when it does not mean to be.
I press my amendments. One is a sunset clause, of course, and the other simply calls for a proper report on the legislation.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
14:49 Meeting suspended.
We move to the division on amendment 1.
For
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Jackson Carlaw].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 95, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quietly.