The next item is a debate on motion S4M-15146, in the name of Jim Hume, on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I ask all other members to take their conversations outside the chamber.
14:57
It gives me great pleasure to open this afternoon’s debate on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill. The bill was introduced one year ago this week, on 15 December 2014. Stage 1 was completed on 8 October with a positive debate in the chamber, and the general principles were unanimously agreed to. The bill was considered at stage 2 by the Health and Sport Committee on 17 November and now, a month on, we debate the final stage of the amended bill, which I hope and believe will be passed at decision time today.
Before outlining the changes to the bill that were agreed at stage 2, I want to thank those who have been involved at various points in the process, not least the Health and Sport Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill. A quick look at that committee’s work programme shows how busy it is, so I am grateful to all its members. I also note my thanks to the non-Government bills unit, and particularly to Stephen Fricker, Jo Hardy, Clare O’Neill and the rest of the team, and I thank my own parliamentary team past and present—Craig Moran, Fiona Milne and Eleana Kazakeou—whose hard work has made the bill possible.
Of course, there have been many organisations and individuals who have made their mark too, such as the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation, Marie Curie, Cancer Research UK and the British Medical Association. Research by Dr Neneh Rowa-Dewar and, in particular, Dr Sean Semple has been used for much of the bill. I record my thanks to them all for their valuable input and support going back about three years in total.
I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee again for its continued scrutiny of the subordinate legislation powers. I also reiterate my thanks to the minister and her officials, as their positive and constructive approach has been helpful throughout the past year and in recent months.
My consultation on the bill generated wide support, and the responses produced some clear themes that have helped to develop and refine the policy, particularly in respect of the age of those who are to be protected and the level of the fixed penalty. I am grateful to the many people and organisations who provided input to the bill. There were approximately 160 responses, the vast majority of which were supportive.
I remind members of the aim of this piece of legislation. It is to protect our children and young people from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke within the close confines of a motor vehicle, where the concentrations of harmful particles are significant, at around 11 times denser than the smoke in bars, on which we have already legislated. A statistic that was referred to regularly throughout stage 1 concerns the 60,000 children who are put in that position each week in Scotland. To put that figure in context, it is the equivalent of the combined population of Dumfries, Hawick and Galashiels, or more people than can fit into Hampden park.
To ensure the protection of children, it will be an offence for an adult to smoke in a private motor vehicle when a child is present. An adult is defined as a person aged 18 or over, and a child as being under 18. Public vehicles and work vehicles are already covered by the existing legislation. The committee had suggested that it should be an offence for the driver of a vehicle to fail to prevent smoking by another adult, and Malcolm Chisholm lodged an amendment in that respect at stage 2, but I am pleased that the committee accepted my arguments against such a provision at that stage. The focus must be on the health of the child and the person who is causing the harm: the smoker.
I turn to the key amendments to the bill that were agreed at stage 2. The schedule to the bill now provides for joint enforcement of the fixed-penalty regime by Police Scotland and local authorities. I worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the regime is as similar as possible to that which applies to the ban on smoking in public places. The benefits, in my view, are threefold. It strengthens the bill without making it unnecessarily complicated or burdensome. In turn, enforcement will be simpler for police and local authorities, as they are already familiar with the regime. The result will be to afford better protection to our children and young people. Aspects that remain from the schedule as introduced include the fixed penalty, which is to be set at £100, although there is provision for the Scottish ministers to amend that by regulations. The period for payment is 29 days, without provision for an early payment discount. Local authorities will have discretion to extend the period for payment if they so wish. I believe that that is proportionate and provides flexibility for changing circumstances. It is likely that there will be some minor one-off additional costs to local authorities, and those have been addressed in the revised financial memorandum.
Section 5 allows for commencement of the provisions to be set by the Scottish ministers. That will allow the measures to coincide with a national campaign to raise awareness of the new offence. I am encouraged by the minister’s clear commitment to the legislation and I welcome the high profile that will be given to such an important new law. Members will be aware of the Scottish Government’s take it right outside campaign, which the minister mentioned in speaking to the amendments just now. The campaign has had good effect, and I will explore options to strengthen it in my closing speech.
The minister lodged amendments to change the term “human habitation” to “living accommodation”; to remove the reference to
“not less than one night”;
and to remove the defence that a person smoking
“reasonably believed all other occupants of the vehicle to be adults”.
The minister may expand on those in her contribution, but I was happy to support the amendments as they provide clarity and are consistent with the policy intention.
During the stage 1 debate, a number of members, including Jenny Marra, Cara Hilton and Richard Lyle, quoted Cancer Research UK, which highlighted that, in Scotland, a private vehicle remains one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke. If the bill is passed, it will address the situation and help to ensure that all our children and young people have the healthiest start in life.
The provisions in the bill are understandable and enforceable, and I think that they will be effective in encouraging a culture shift and challenging social norms, with a positive impact on future generations.
I will congratulate the member on his bill in my speech, but I wanted to ask him whether, in the course of considering the evidence on extending the smoking ban to cars, he considered the issue of smoking in shared and common areas in tenement buildings. Many such areas are privately owned but publicly used. Did he see evidence on the issue, and does he think it worthy of debate?
That issue was not consulted on at all. We concentrated absolutely on smoking in motor vehicles, and that is what we consulted on. It might be interesting to explore the issue that the member raised, in the next parliamentary session.
As the minister and others said at stage 1, almost 10 years after the ban on smoking in public places it is difficult to imagine people smoking in workplaces and restaurants. Christian Allard said in the stage 1 debate that he thought that, in years to come, people would be shocked to know that it had ever been possible to smoke in a vehicle when children were present.
I thank the many people who were involved for their collaborative approach and I look forward to hearing members’ speeches. This is a popular bill, which was supported by nearly all the respondents to the Health and Sport Committee’s call for evidence. As many members said, 85 per cent of Scottish adults, including 72 per cent of smokers, support the bill.
The bill shows how the Scottish Parliament has led the way for the whole United Kingdom in the debate on protecting children from second-hand smoke in cars. Today we have the chance to make a law that will save the national health service purse millions of pounds and, more important, enable many people to lead healthier lives. Thanks to everyone who supports the bill, we look forward to a healthier future—lives without asthma, lung infections, sudden infant death syndrome and the ravages of lung cancer.
Every week in Scotland alone, 60,000 children—about the number of people in a single Scottish Parliament constituency—are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars and to about 50 toxins and carcinogens. That is 60,000 children who have no option but to be driven in a smoke-filled car to visit relatives, to get to school or—this is ironic—to attend a sports event. By supporting the bill, we can help those 60,000 children to have a healthier start in life.
Our job as members of the Scottish Parliament is to make a difference. Today we can make a real difference, and I hope that the bill will receive support from members of all parties at decision time today.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:08
I congratulate Jim Hume on introducing the bill and thank him for working closely with the Scottish Government over the past few months, as we worked together to improve the bill’s provisions. As he said, the bill has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its parliamentary progress.
Central to the debate on the bill is the fact that smoking remains the primary preventable cause of ill health and death in Scotland, killing one in two long-term users. That costs the NHS up to as much as £500 million each year. The harmful effects of second-hand smoke are well evidenced and understood. That is why continuing to protect people, especially children, from second-hand smoke is key. The existing smoke-free legislation has undoubtedly made a difference, but children can still be exposed to second-hand smoke in cars and homes. Where children are medically at risk due to conditions such as asthma, the harmful effects can be especially severe.
We know that there has consistently been strong public and stakeholder support for legislation on this matter. At the end of last year, we consulted on similar measures. Some 79 per cent of those who responded thought that smoking in cars with children should be an offence. A survey earlier this year suggested that 85 per cent of adults in Scotland, including the majority of smokers, supported a ban on smoking in cars when children or young people under the age of 18 are present. Mr Hume’s consultation on the bill demonstrated a similarly high level of support, with 84 per cent of respondents supporting the principles of the bill. That level of support has been reflected in the cross-party support for the bill.
I was pleased that the Health and Sport Committee supported my amendments at stage 2. Among other changes, they removed some problematic aspects of the bill, such as the defence and one of the tests for exempting vehicles that are also people’s homes. The removal of those provisions will make enforcement easier.
I was also happy to support the amendment that was lodged by Mr Hume at stage 2, which will deliver a joint enforcement role between Police Scotland and local authority environmental health officers. Environmental health officers have played a vital role in the implementation of current smoke-free legislation. Protecting public health is fundamental to the role of environmental health officers in Scotland, and they bring with them a wealth of experience.
However, although enforcement of the offence will be important, the aims of the bill cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. This is about promoting a change in cultures and attitudes. We know that the harms that are caused by exposure to second-hand smoke are widely understood, which is why the majority of adults choose not to smoke in their homes and cars when children are present.
We developed a national campaign, take it right outside, which aims to raise awareness of the risks that are posed by second-hand smoke to children. I launched that campaign last year to a positive reception. It is my belief that the introduction of this offence will provide a deterrent and continue to promote that key message.
We know that there has been a significant change in behaviours and attitudes since the introduction of smoke-free legislation in 2006. Enforcement of that legislation was measured, and we anticipate the same approach being taken to the proposals in the bill.
When these important provisions are commenced, they will contribute to the commitment to reduce the amount of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke to 6 per cent by 2020. In 2014, that figure was 11 per cent. Amendments have been lodged today seeking a statutory review of the measures. However, this is only one measure that will contribute to reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke, and to reducing children’s exposure to smoking behaviour.
On the same point that I raised with Jim Hume, will the Government consider legislating on smoking in shared stairwells in tenement buildings? I am sure that the minister has had many representations from her constituents, as I have, about children being exposed to smoke in the closes of the buildings in which they live.
I have had representations and correspondence about that from members and others. The introduction of such measures is not without its challenges, but we are looking at it. The message of the take it right outside campaign is that people should not just go into the close but should take their cigarette right outside the building, and we can certainly see that that is having an effect.
The Government will continue to progress a number of other measures to contribute to the bill’s aims, so the bill cannot be considered in isolation. As I said earlier, I am happy to report to Parliament on the Government’s progress towards the ambitious targets at any time.
I would like all children to be protected from the harms of second-hand smoke in vehicles as quickly as possible. As I have said previously, raising awareness of the offence will be an important part of ensuring compliance with the law. We have therefore committed to deliver an awareness-raising campaign to make the public aware of the change in the law. We will do that as quickly as we can.
Scotland can be proud that it has proved itself to be a world leader on tobacco control. The bill will play an important part in ensuring that every child in Scotland has the best start in life, and I am pleased that it received strong cross-party support throughout the Parliament’s consideration of it. I thank Jim Hume for his work on it. The Government is very supportive of the bill.
15:14
The last bill of 2015 is very well scheduled, as we woke this morning to a new report about cancer and its risk factors. In debates in the chamber, we generally say that 40 per cent of cancers are preventable, but this morning’s report from the Stony Brook cancer centre in New York says that cancer is overwhelmingly a result of environmental factors, and that only 10 per cent to 30 per cent of cancers are down to the way the body naturally functions. There have been a variety of responses to this morning’s report, but the evidence is gathering pace every year that environmental factors lead to cancer. This morning, as I woke up to the radio, I wondered whether Jim Hume had primed the New York researchers to release their findings just ahead of the debate. There is little doubt that more needs to be done to improve or to prevent environmental factors that can lead to cancer.
ASH Scotland says that a fifth of 13 to 15-year-olds are exposed to smoke in cars. Jim Hume himself cites the compelling figure of 60,000 children being exposed to smoke in the small and enclosed spaces of motor cars. I think back to jobs that I had in bars when I was a student, 20 years ago, when I was exposed for hours on end to a thick fug of smoke. I had the stench of smoke on my hair and clothes when I finished my shift. We simply would not tolerate such conditions now; they are not culturally acceptable, any more.
It was the ban on smoking in public places that created the tipping point at which that behaviour changed. The legislation was bold and brave, but was initially branded as being crazy. However, when it was implemented, people changed their behaviour and complied with it more or less overnight because they knew, deep down, that it was the right thing to do and that it made sense for their own health and for the health of the people around them.
That is exactly what I expect to happen with the bill that we are discussing today. People will look back and think it crazy that we allowed smoke to permeate such a small enclosed space as a motor car, exposing passengers to the danger. I am well aware of the libertarian arguments about personal volition in private spaces, and I have a lot of sympathy with those arguments. However, when there is such a broad consensus in favour of a publicly funded health service that is provided for through taxation, it is incumbent on us, as custodians of that health service, to make sure that it is sustainable in the long term: the cost of smoking of millions of pounds to our health service is simply not sustainable. That is why we need to legislate to improve environmental factors as well as people’s health, and the bill will do exactly that.
I will explain why Labour voted against the Conservative amendments this afternoon. Amendment 1 was, in essence, a sunset clause asking the Government to review the legislation after five years. As I have already outlined, I think that the bill is an addendum to the ban on smoking in public places, that it will create a culture change and that it will generally garner compliance, so I do not think that a sunset clause is necessary.
On amendment 2, as I explained earlier, I think that Parliament should be undertaking post-legislative scrutiny as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I was sympathetic to Jackson Carlaw’s argument that we need to make public health policy on the basis of evidence. I hope that the Government has heard that message loud and clear.
I believe that the public will comply with the bill because they know and understand the arguments on the issue. Smokers themselves know the dangers of their smoke. However, as we know, there are barriers—poverty and environmental barriers—to their quitting. I predict that in 30 years we will have a smoke-free Scotland and that we will look back and wonder how tobacco companies exploited our health and placed on the NHS the massive burden that they place on it now.
In that vein, it is worrying that we have not had debates on the big issues in public health in this country outside the legislative programme. This morning’s news should give the Scottish Government real food for thought. Given the worrying Scottish cancer statistics that came out this week and this morning’s evidence that far more incidences of cancer than we had thought are probably preventable, anyone who is serious about the long-term sustainability of the health service should be taking the preventative agenda very seriously indeed.
Why not make next year the year of prevention? We expect a new tobacco strategy in 2017, but I think that the Scottish Government should bring a debate to Parliament much earlier than that. On diet, I cannot think of any initiative from the Scottish Government in the past few years to improve our relationship with fat and sugar. The minister is shaking her head—she might explain later whether there has been such an initiative. Further, the Scottish Government has been content to leave its efforts on alcohol to minimum pricing, which is currently tied up in the courts.
I thank and congratulate Jim Hume on taking some very powerful vested interests to task by getting the bill passed today. I know the work that goes into bringing a member’s bill to fruition and Jim has guided the whole process with his own hands. It is a worthy legacy for a health spokesperson, so we will be delighted to support the bill at decision time tonight.
15:20
I begin where Jenny Marra finished, by congratulating Jim Hume on the progress of his member’s bill through to what I think will be unanimous support at decision time tonight. I welcome that.
Beyond that, much of the debate has been had and everything has been said. I will therefore make only two points. The first is that we have to hope that the legislation is exemplary and that it has the influence on public opinion that we all wish it to have, because I do not think that any of us would like to see great resource having to be deployed in its enforcement. There could also be issues around the practicality of enforcement. What we want is for public attitudes to change.
Secondly, I would very much have liked the legislation to have been in place when I was a child. I think that I said in the stage 1 debate that I have horrendous memories of my father puffing away on a cigar—the cigar that was, for those of you who remember, branded “Happiness is ... ”. My father was in the motor retail industry, so he had a new car every six months—it was subsequently sold as a second-hand vehicle. By the end of the six months, the white felt lining of the vehicle was invariably a ghastly treacly yellow. Some of the journeys that my sister and I endured were five and a half hours long—a ghastly experience. I have no idea what it did to us. I was almost resolved then that smoking is a filthy and noxious habit that I would be very happy to see curtailed in any way whatsoever. I find it quite unconscionable that any child today should be subjected to that.
I have also mentioned going home from school in the days when there were still bench seats on the buses and having to use a knife and fork in the smoke in order to identify a vacant seat. That was the culture of the time, but it has gone. The residual aspect of it is smoking in vehicles, which must damage everyone’s health, irrespective of whether they are a child. Although the legislative aim today relates to children, the bill will make a difference to everyone and will be worth while.
I would like to think that social attitudes have changed to the extent that the legislation would not be necessary. Interestingly, I was coming into Parliament in a taxi last week and the taxi driver said to me that he had heard about the issue on the radio and thought that he would conduct a wee experiment. He spent the morning driving around Edinburgh in his taxi, counting the number of vehicles containing children in which adults were smoking. In a four-hour shift in the inner city of Edinburgh there were 16 examples. Whatever the common-sense understanding of how smoking in cars must affect children, the reality is that it continues. We need to send a strong legislative message—a message that I hope will prove exemplary and will change the attitude of the public. As I say, I congratulate Jim Hume on the bill that will be passed later this afternoon.
15:24
As others have done, I congratulate Jim Hume on getting his Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill to stage 3.
I lodged my proposal to introduce a bill to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces in the middle of 2003. Looking back over the past 12 years, it is rather astonishing to see the distance that we have travelled in the fight against the scourge of tobacco and its impacts on our society. I think that it was Jenny Marra who said that when it was first proposed that we introduce legislation it was considered a ridiculous and crazy idea; many people ridiculed the prospect of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in Scotland and several said to me that they would not see it in their lifetimes. However, only a couple of years later, the ban was in place and was respected.
I have no doubt that the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill puts another brick into the road that we are building towards a smoke-free Scotland. It is an important public health bill that will undoubtedly improve the health of children in Scotland. It is a clear and focused bill that is aimed at tackling one problem: the exposure of children to tobacco smoke in cars.
The Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance abuse survey for 2013 reported that 22 per cent of Scottish children aged 13 to 15 were sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. That is nearly a quarter of our adolescents who are exposed to pollution levels that are often higher than those in Beijing or Delhi. Members should not forget that, last weekend, the smog in Beijing was so bad that children and old people were told to stay at home and not venture outside. However, some people seem to think that it is all right to expose their and other people’s children to that level of pollution.
Smoking among 13 to 15-year-olds has now reached the lowest levels since we started doing modern surveys of smoking among that demographic group. Young people are choosing to turn away from the dangers of tobacco, and it is only right that we should support them by passing legislation that protects them from other people’s unhealthy choices when they are too young to be able to make the choice for themselves.
Children are more in need of protection than other groups in society for two reasons: one is that they are dependent upon adults and have little or no autonomy, and the other is that children are much more vulnerable to second-hand smoke than adults because of their smaller lung capacity and faster breathing rate. We tend to think only of asthma and other respiratory diseases when we consider second-hand smoke, but the Royal College of Physicians produced a report in 2010 entitled “Passive Smoking and Children: A report of the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians” in which it estimated that one sudden infant death in five could be attributed to passive smoking. That is a terrifying and shocking statement. For that reason alone, even if for no other, we should pass the bill.
I am pleased to note that the bill has been amended so that responsibility for enforcement will be shared between Police Scotland and local authorities. That was a smart move.
Stewart Maxwell mentioned enforcement. Is he as convinced as Mr Hume is that it will work? I see many drivers still using their mobile phones in their cars. The legislation on that is not enforced widely, although some people are caught. Does he really think that the bill will be enforced?
Strangely enough, that intervention has echoes of the arguments that were made in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in advance of the smoking ban coming in. There is a difference. Many people do not recognise the dangers of the distraction that using a mobile phone in a car causes. I do not think that there is anybody in our society who does not recognise the dangers of second-hand smoke.
It is a misconception that there is no enforcement of the legislation on using mobile phones in cars or wearing seat belts. According to the last figures that I saw, about 13,000 people in Scotland in one year were fined for using their mobile phones in cars.
I thank Mr Hume for that statistic. I think—he probably does, too—that the general public will accept the bill similarly to how they accepted the original ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. The level of support for it is clear from survey evidence, and people understand the dangers not only to themselves but, in particular, to children.
I am aware that the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland all supported the multimodel approach to enforcement in the belief that the bill would have more impact if that amendment were included. I am glad that that advice was listened to and the change was made.
We know that more than a fifth of our adolescents are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars and that similar legislation is already in place in Australia and Canada and is working well. France introduced a ban in the summer, and England and Wales enforced one at the beginning of October.
It is also clear that the bill is likely to be popular with the Scottish public. The Health and Sport Committee found that 93 per cent of the respondents to their call for written evidence supported the bill’s general principles, and a YouGov survey that was commissioned by ASH Scotland found that 85 per cent of adults and 72 per cent of adult smokers supported the introduction of a ban on smoking in vehicles carrying children.
Mr Maxwell, could you conclude, please.
The public is in favour of the bill, health professionals are in favour of the bill, and the time is ripe for us to protect our children and move Scotland towards a smoke-free future.
Once again, I congratulate Jim Hume, and I will vote for the bill at decision time with a great deal of pleasure.
I call Malcolm Chisholm. Speeches should be of four minutes, please.
15:30
I congratulate Jim Hume on introducing the bill, which I am sure that everyone will vote for at decision time.
We went over some of the arguments when we debated the amendments. As I said then, the science in the area is not in doubt. Legislation already works well in countries such as Australia and Canada, and has been introduced recently in England. Most important of all, the bill is an extension of existing provision and, through the course of the debates that took place 10 and more years ago, everyone now accepts the arguments about the consequences of second-hand smoke for those inhaling it but not actually smoking. It would be appropriate once again, in this year in which he tragically died, to pay tribute to Tom McCabe’s work on that legislation. Although I was the Minister for Health and Community Care when the consultation was launched, I know better than anyone that it was he who drove the legislation forward and did the work.
We are told that, as bad as second-hand smoke is everywhere, it is particularly bad in small enclosed spaces such as cars. There is a fairly staggering statistic that levels increase in spaces such as cars to more than 11 times those in a smoky pub. There is therefore a particular need for legislation that relates to enclosed public spaces.
On top of that is the particular problem that children are vulnerable, and the briefing that we had from Cancer Research UK was very useful in that regard. It talks about a cotinine indicator used to measure second-hand smoke exposure. The indicator showed that levels were 70 per cent higher in children than in adults.
Cancer Research UK also referred to statistics showing 165,000 cases of disease among children across the UK caused by second-hand smoke. Richard Simpson may go further into the details, but, as Stewart Maxwell said, a lot of them, although not all of them, are respiratory diseases.
I was on the Health and Sport Committee for stage 2, although not for stage 1. I will briefly talk about the amendments. The amendment on joint enforcement has already been referred to and, to pick up the point about the earlier legislation, the bill now mirrors the provisions of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005.
I moved an amendment, as Jim Hume said, but I was persuaded by his arguments that it was better to keep the bill simple and the arguments focused on children’s health and the offending smoker, and to keep drivers out of it.
There is an important opportunity now to educate people about the harm caused by second-hand smoke. Clearly, there will have to be a campaign in relation to the specific offence, but, as part of that, the wider messages about the dangers of second-hand smoke can be emphasised. That will be useful in all sorts of ways.
As Jenny Marra emphasised, action on smoking has to be right at the top of the public health agenda, and I hope that the Government is still looking at a range of measures. We have come a long way on smoking, but this does not necessarily have to be the end of the road. We are not going fast enough towards the target of only 5 per cent of people smoking by the mid-2030s—and some people might want to amend that to nobody smoking by that time.
Jenny Marra mentioned smoking in tenements—in what we in Edinburgh would call the stair rather than the close. That has been brought up with me, as it has been with many others, and it is an area that the Government could look at.
Clearly, we talked about other measures as part of the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill, but I will not go into those controversies today in case I get into another argument with Stewart Maxwell.
Finally, there is the health inequalities dimension of smoking. Four times as many people in the most disadvantaged areas smoke compared with people in the most affluent areas. Action on smoking is also action against health inequalities, as well as supporting public health more generally.
15:34
As we round off our work on the bill, I add my thanks to the witnesses who gave both written and oral evidence to the Health and Sport Committee as we scrutinised the bill. I particularly thank the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre team for their help in bringing together that evidence for our committee report. As we near the end of the parliamentary session, the Health and Sport Committee is—as Jim Hume indicated—dealing with a particularly heavy legislative agenda, and we simply could not get through it without the hard work of the people I have mentioned.
I congratulate Jim Hume on the work that he has put into formulating the bill and on securing the Government support without which it would not have come to fruition.
There is no doubt that, in the decade since the legislation to ban smoking in public places was enacted, we have seen a transformational change in attitudes to smoking and an increasing public realisation of the harmful effects not only of the active smoking of tobacco but of the passive inhalation of tobacco products. That, I am sure, accounts for the widespread support that the bill has received from the public, with 85 per cent of Scottish adults agreeing with it, including 72 per cent of smokers themselves.
There is also no doubt that levels of passive smoking in cars can be very high—as we heard from Jackson Carlaw in relation to his childhood experiences—because of the restricted area in which smoke can circulate. It has been shown that air conditioning or opening the windows does not remove the associated risks to the people who are shut into that confined space.
As children are particularly vulnerable because of their developing respiratory systems and rapid breathing, it is right to protect them from smoke inhalation when they are in vehicles with adults who may be smoking tobacco products. Our concern has not been with the principle of protecting people under 18 from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke; rather, our concern has been with the possible problems that we foresee in enforcing the legislation, as John Mason suggested. That is why we sought to have the impact of the bill assessed by Parliament a few years after it is enacted—the Law Society of Scotland shares that view—to ensure that young people are in fact being protected by it.
In a Parliament without a revising chamber, and with the pressure of work on its health committee being such that post-legislative scrutiny of the laws that we pass is well-nigh impossible, it will become increasingly important to include provisions in public health legislation that will enforce the examination of that legislation’s impact on modifying public opinion. However, it is clear that Parliament is not yet prepared to accept that reasoning. In the case of the bill, that will certainly not preclude us from supporting efforts to protect young and vulnerable people from secondary smoke inhalation. I hope that the bill will have the success that it deserves.
Once again, I congratulate Jim Hume on his successful efforts to bring Scotland into line with other parts of the United Kingdom and those countries that have similar legislation in place, such as Canada and Australia.
There is a general acceptance that the legislation that we are passing today will not be a panacea but that it has the potential—if reinforced by appropriate and on-going education, together with the other anti-smoking initiatives that the minister mentioned—to be of significant benefit to the health of Scotland’s children by changing people’s attitudes towards smoking in cars while children are present. We will therefore join the rest of the chamber in voting for the bill at decision time.
15:38
I join other members in congratulating Jim Hume on introducing the bill and seeing it through all its processes. I hope to do something similar in the spring, although I am not getting support from the Government in the way that he has done, and of course Government support is critical.
Smoking and, indeed, alcohol, are two of the three big problems in our society, and we are on a journey to a smoke-free society. I was delighted to be associated with Kenny Gibson’s early efforts in that regard in 1999. At that time, the evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke was much less clear, although, as Jackson Carlaw graphically described in his usual excellent narrative style, the effects were part of common experience, as 70 per cent of people smoked. It took another six years after 1999 for attitudes to change and for the evidence to emerge—with, eventually, the legislation banning smoking in public places being passed.
The bill has widespread public support, as Stewart Maxwell spelled out, even among smokers. Even the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco—FOREST—which is a tobacco industry-sponsored organisation, has said that smoking in cars while children are present should not happen, although it still opposes the bill.
Many other jurisdictions have acted, with good results, and there is likely to be reasonable compliance with the bill—I hope—as there was with the legislation banning smoking in public places. When the attitudes are right, people will follow the legislation fairly readily.
We know that there are about 60,000 individuals who smoke in cars while children are present, so there are a significant number of people who need to change their behaviour. As Malcolm Chisholm reminded us, there is a strong health inequalities element in smoking, and that is also true of smoking in cars.
The details of the background research are probably well known and were rehearsed in the stage 1 discussions and in the evidence that was presented. Canadian research showed that the exposure to smoke from a single cigarette in a stationary car with the windows closed is 11 times higher than in the average bar, as Malcolm Chisholm said. In a moving car, that exposure is still seven times as high as in a bar; opening the window and having the air conditioning on does not make a sufficient difference. The particle levels are still more than 100 times greater than the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s 24-hour standard, and 15 times the hazardous rating. There is no doubt that that is significant.
The consequences for children are undoubtedly bad. As many speakers have said, it is worse for children because of their immature lungs and faster respiratory rates. The levels of cotinine have been found to be much higher in children who experience second-hand smoke in the same situation as adults. Asthma, for example, can easily be exacerbated. The number of asthma admissions dropped significantly after the ban on smoking in public places, and I hope that we will see something similar, if not as great, as a result of this ban.
Only last week, I came across an interesting piece of research from Japan that found that second-hand smoke is strongly associated with dental caries in children. That was not something that I had previously thought of. There is a lot of research on smoke exposure. A review of 18 studies found that it doubles the risk of meningitis and causes problems with DNA; it has been shown to be associated with increased risk of stillbirth, birth defects and cot death; it increases teenage hearing loss and glue ear; and it is associated with worse mental health in relation to hyperactivity and conduct disorders.
Members have referred to the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey report. I think that it was Stewart Maxwell who said that the numbers are the lowest ever. However, there is a gender reversal that is really worrying and which is also reflected in the adult situation, with rising levels of lung cancer in women.
As I have only four minutes, I will move to the end of my speech. It is an excellent bill, but we need to think now about the next steps. We are using a salami tactic to gradually choke off the tobacco industry—the faster that we do that, the better. Jenny Marra made the welcome suggestion that we need to look at common spaces, such as stairwells and closes, as a method of extending the ban in public places. There is all sorts of legislation abroad that we should consider.
You said that you were just about to finish, Dr Simpson.
I am. I support the bill and the call for a debate—in Government time—on major public health issues.
15:42
I thank all members for their constructive and almost entirely consensual speeches on what is a very important piece of legislation for the health of Scotland’s children. That is Parliament at its best.
I also take the opportunity again to thank Jim Hume and the non-Government bills unit for their work, the members of the Health and Sport Committee for their helpful consideration of the bill, and the committee clerks who assisted that work over the past year. I also thank my busy Scottish Government officials in the tobacco control team for all their work on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill and on the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill, which they are dealing with at the same time. I wish them a good festive season.
I thank those who gave their time to provide evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, almost all of whom advocated that the bill is both proportionate and necessary. There has been much consensus and it is great to hear such support for the bill.
As I highlighted in my opening speech, the Scottish Government has made our commitment to protect children from exposure to second-hand smoke clear for some time. I know that many others are committed to the same goal. During the passage of the bill, Cancer Research UK lent its support, saying:
“Making it illegal to smoke in cars with children will help protect them from the hundreds of lethal chemicals—around 70 of which cause cancer—found in cigarette smoke”.
The bill is an important milestone. It will play its part alongside the vast range of measures that will continue to be progressed by the Scottish Government to reduce tobacco-related harm.
It has been 10 years since the introduction of smoke-free legislation. That important step has seen attitudes shift significantly. The bill is another measure that will build on and continue to drive culture change.
James Cant, who was head of the British Lung Foundation when he gave evidence to the committee, said:
“I envisage that, in a couple of years’ time—or even sooner—people will look at the issue in the same way that we look at putting a child in their car seat. You have to put the seat belt on because that is what you do to keep the child or young person safe on that journey.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 9 June 2015; c 44.]
That is exactly what I hope will be achieved.
Putting in place robust tobacco control measures is not about stigmatising those who wish to smoke. Ultimately, we would all agree that it is necessary that we do all that we can to encourage children and young people to choose not to smoke and protect them from the harm that is caused by second-hand smoke. The bill is another important step in creating a tobacco-free generation in Scotland by 2034. It continues to promote the shift in social attitudes so that choosing not to smoke becomes the norm.
I have had helpful dialogue with Jim Hume throughout the Parliament’s consideration of the bill and we have worked together to improve the bill’s provisions.
I have always made clear that the Scottish Government supports the underpinning principles. It is my belief that the bill’s provisions are strong and the approach taken to implementing the offence is the right one. We will be happy to support the bill at decision time.
15:46
It gives me great pleasure that the bill crosses party lines. We have a mutual goal of protecting children’s health in Scotland, which does the Parliament proud.
As I have said repeatedly, the bill’s goal is to protect children and young people under the age of 18 from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. I am happy that the hard work that has been put in by everyone involved has resulted in a good, strong, cohesive and effective bill, which I hope and believe will be passed at decision time.
During its passage through Parliament, the bill was strengthened at stage 2 and given unanimous support. We are now faced with the decision of whether to take the last step of passing the bill, which will see at least 60,000 children a week in Scotland benefiting from better health. Detailed scrutiny of the bill and input from the 160 responses to my consultation, from the many organisations and individuals mentioned and from parliamentary committees have, at this final stage, brought to fruition a bill that will do what it was intended to do: protect the vulnerable from the toxic fumes of second-hand smoke in a very enclosed space.
I again thank all members on the committees involved for their constructive work, and I thank the ministerial team, fellow members and the numerous charities, organisations and academics who were involved. I also thank my own office—team Hume—past and present. It is good to see someone from the past—Craig Moran—in the public gallery.
There is one other person whom I would like to thank: a woman who was selfless throughout her life, gave rather than took, inspired me and drove me on to make a difference in my community. She was a non-smoker who died 5 years and one week ago from lung cancer, which doubtless was brought on by inhaling second-hand smoke: my mother, Joyce Hume. I dedicate this bill to her.
The consultation gathered wide and positive support. Its responses shaped the bill and it is a credit to the Parliament that we have the system that we do. Despite differing views on aspects of the legislation, we have a bill that is the next logical step in protecting the health of children. I believe that it will do that.
By developing policies on smoking, we are closing loopholes in legislation that are hazardous to children. As members pointed out, cutting down people’s exposure to smoking from an early age results in significant benefits. Research shows that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves. The Minister for Public Health emphasised that point in the Government’s take it right outside campaign, which she mentioned.
Campaigns have not been enough to protect the 60,000 children who every week are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. In its report, the Health and Sport Committee says:
“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.”
Change in behaviour is vital. Reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles can not only have immediate benefits in protecting children’s respiratory systems but reduce the likelihood that they will develop conditions in future. We have the chance to shape a number of preventative measures that will free up NHS resources in the future, give children a better chance to get a healthier start in life and save millions of pounds and lives for generations to come. The bill is as much about the short-term benefits as it is about ensuring long-term benefits and the prevention of serious diseases such as lung cancer.
It was a famous inventor, Thomas Edison, who recognised that about a hundred years ago. He stated:
“The doctor of the future will give no medication, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, diet and in the cause and prevention of disease.”
The bill is in the interest of patients, cares for the human frame and goes a long way towards disease prevention. The future that Edison talked about is now. To truly protect children and their health, we must start preventing diseases and removing their catalysts.
I have had close and constructive contact with the Scottish Government and I hope that continues into the future as the bill is enacted and its provisions are put in place. It is appropriate that legislation that is designed to protect children must not be burdensome, confusing or hard to explain to anyone. That is why I am glad that, at this final stage, the bill stands as a clear and simple message to all. It also provides clarity for the police officers and environmental officers who will enforce the bill’s provisions.
To that end, I am encouraged that Scottish ministers will undertake a campaign on commencement of the bill’s provisions under section 5. I welcome the fact that a high-profile information and awareness campaign will accompany this important new law. We want people to realise and understand the detriments to children’s health from second-hand smoke and to recognise that opening the window makes little difference and can, in fact, worsen the intensity of smoke in the rear seats.
The campaign could add to the bill’s benefits, because it could provide positive spillovers and more opportunities for a wider part of the population who might not have children at the moment but might alter their behaviour when they give their friends a lift to work.
The provisions in the bill can be clearly understood and enforced. They will be effective in encouraging a cultural shift towards healthier habits and a better understanding of the dangers of second-hand smoke, even when it cannot be seen. The bill will also have a positive impact on improving the health of future generations to come.
That is why voting for the bill is in the interests of parents, children and their future children, in that it will remove one more harmful factor from our lifestyles. The bill has had the backing of the British Medical Association, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation and many more; a long list of supporters and health professionals, who are the people who know.
It sets the Parliament in good standing to be one of the pioneering Parliaments in Europe to adopt such legislation. The British Heart Foundation recognises the bill as
“the first … to introduce the debate about regulating smoking in vehicles in any UK Parliament”.
The BHF goes on to say that the bill has sparked “great media debate” and that its progress
“has led to a ban in England and Wales”.
We can be proud that the Scottish Parliament has again led the way in protecting the vulnerable. It will give children in Scotland a better start in life, knowing that this aspect of their health is legally protected in such an enclosed space.
I conclude by again thanking those who were involved for their co-operative approach. We have a bill that can help to ensure that 60,000 children every week in Scotland get the healthy start to life that they deserve. I look forward to support from across the chamber today at decision time.