Reduced Ignition Potential Cigarettes
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4091, in the name of Stewart Maxwell, on reduced ignition potential cigarettes. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges that deaths resulting from fires, of which there were 99 in 2004, are a major concern in Scotland; recognises that they are significantly higher in Scotland than the rest of the United Kingdom and that the majority of fire deaths in Scotland occur in the West of Scotland; notes with concern that smoking materials are one of the leading causes of fires in Scotland and that 50% of all smoking-related fire deaths occur in the West of Scotland; believes that the Scottish Parliament should commit to actively pursuing policies aimed at reducing the number of fire deaths in the West of Scotland and within Scotland as a whole; recognises the role that Reduced Ignition Potential (RIP) cigarettes, commonly referred to as fire-safe cigarettes, could play in reducing damage to property as well as the overall number of fires, fire injuries and fire deaths; supports the implementation of a new fire safety law that would require all cigarettes sold in Scotland to be RIP cigarettes; welcomes the decision of the Chief Fire Officers' Association in Scotland to support the call for the introduction of fire-safe cigarettes; congratulates Canada and New York for introducing such laws and recognises that the introduction of fire-safe cigarettes would have a significant and positive impact on the number of fire fatalities in Scotland, and believes that the Scottish government should bring forward legislation to introduce this fire safety measure as soon as possible in the hope that Scotland can truly say RIP to fires caused by cigarettes.
In 2004, some 7,420 fires occurred in homes in Scotland. Those fires resulted in 1,858 non-fatal casualties and 76 fatalities. Of the 76 deaths, 30 were caused by cigarettes or other tobacco products. Smoking-related fires in the home are the most dangerous type of fire because they are far more likely to kill and injure people than other domestic fires. In 2004, smoking materials were the cause of 44 per cent of fatal fires in dwellings. The next highest cause was cooking appliances, which were responsible for 26 per cent of fatalities, followed by space heaters and candles, which accounted for 6 per cent each. The figures clearly show that, for fatal fires in the home, cigarettes are far and away the biggest single source of fires. We need to confront that fact and tackle the problem at source.
Fortunately, there is a way of doing just that. Reduced ignition potential cigarettes—more commonly known as self-extinguishing or fire-safe cigarettes—are designed to go out after a short time if they are not actively smoked. Small bands of slightly thicker paper along the length of the cigarette prevent the cigarette from burning down completely. In other words, RIP cigarettes do not smoulder. That is vital for fire safety, as research from both the US and the United Kingdom shows that smouldering cigarettes are responsible for nine out of 10 smoking-related fire deaths. Research published in the UK shows that fire-safe cigarettes could cut the number of accidental house fires that are caused by smouldering cigarettes by as much as two thirds.
Fire research report 8 states:
"Fires started by smokers' materials tend to result in more property damage than other fires, on average four times higher than fires caused by other methods."
The savings to the Scottish economy of preventing such fires are self-evident.
The tobacco industry has dismissed such research. However, we no longer have to rely on laboratory experiments alone, because we now have a real example of what happens when fire-safe cigarettes are made compulsory. Canada and the US states of New York, Vermont and California have made fire-safe cigarettes mandatory. New York state is the first to have the new law in place, and the results speak for themselves. In the first year after the law came into effect, the number of people killed by cigarette-related fires fell by almost a third. People are alive today because of the introduction of fire-safe cigarettes in New York. In Scotland, that could mean 10 fewer deaths, 300 fewer non-fatal casualties and a reduction in the number of fires in the home by 1,000 or more. Those are extremely conservative estimates. Compulsory fire-safe cigarettes could result in a reduction of between a third and a half in smoking-related fires and fire deaths. Some research puts the figure as high as a reduction of between two thirds and three quarters.
Whatever the figure may be, the fact is that introducing fire-safe cigarettes would save lives, stop injuries and prevent fires. Unsurprisingly, a number of other US states are actively considering introducing fire-safe cigarette laws. Unfortunately, the tobacco industry has been using its influence, its money and a campaign of disinformation to block the introduction of those laws. In Maryland, the vote on the fire-safe cigarette bill was 124 in favour and 12 against. However, two senators filibustered the final session and blocked the introduction of the law. One of them was Maryland state senator George Della, who admits that he receives campaign funds from tobacco firms, although he claims that the tobacco firms do not own him. Perhaps they do not own him, but they rent him and his vote by the hour. Those tactics are not surprising, but they are disreputable.
In 1994, the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company stated:
"We do not know how to make a cigarette that exhibits reduced ignition propensity that is consumer acceptable … extensive consumer testing showed that they are not marketable".
That was a lie—there is no other word for it. Internal tobacco company documents prove that they have known for more than 20 years how to make such cigarettes. On the issue of market acceptability, documents from RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris show that, when they consumer-tested fire-safe cigarettes, those were equally acceptable to smokers. In blind tests, smokers could not tell the difference. They look and taste the same as normal cigarettes. Unfortunately, they are just as addictive and damaging to the health of smokers, but they cut dramatically the number of fires that are caused by cigarettes.
I hope that when he responds to the debate, the minister will not try to use the excuse that the issue is reserved, because I do not accept that argument. I accept that product design is a reserved matter, but fire safety is devolved. What I propose is clearly a fire safety measure. When I proposed a ban on smoking in enclosed public places, many people said that the matter was reserved, because health and safety is reserved. Instead, we introduced a public health law, because public health is devolved. That was a creative use of our powers. In the same way, we can use our powers over fire safety to make fire-safe cigarettes compulsory in Scotland. We can lead the way in Europe on the issue.
In conclusion, I point out that the measure is supported by many organisations, especially the Fire Brigades Union and the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland. The FBU said:
"Stewart Maxwell's initiative will constitute a huge advance in Fire Safety and will serve to make a significant reduction in Scotland's atrocious fire deaths record."
On behalf of the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland, Assistant Chief Officer McGillivray said:
"Fire-safe cigarettes would dramatically reduce fire deaths in Scotland and the Association calls on the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to that effect."
Dr Jeff Wigand, of whom many members will have heard, is a former tobacco industry scientist turned whistleblower. He found out about this debate through the web and this afternoon he sent me an e-mail. In it he said:
"I applauded the Scottish Parliament for introducing its smoking regulations. Now I urge it to demonstrate the same duty of care by introducing legislation requiring reduced ignition potential cigarettes, which are already saving lives in the US."
Dr Wigand said that he would try to watch the debate on the web, and I hope that he gets the chance to see it. Scotland has led the way on bans on smoking in enclosed places and on public health. We should do the same when it comes to reducing the number of fire deaths.
I thank Stewart Maxwell for securing the debate tonight. I will speak from my experience as a general practitioner and as the daughter of parents who smoked.
As my father became frailer, the number of fires that he nearly started was beyond count. I used to be terrified to leave him alone in his flat in case he set fire to himself and other people, but one cannot always watch an elderly person.
I was delighted to hear that RIP cigarettes look and taste exactly the same as standard ones. Had I known they existed at the time, I would have tried to persuade my father to smoke them and might have been able to sleep in my bed at night. I do not know why we never had to call out the fire brigade. He very nearly set fire to his mattress and almost set fire to a chair in my house when I was not present. Although I found the evidence afterwards, he claimed that he did not do it.
Cigarette smoking is addictive. When my father was younger and fitter, he would become desperate for a cigarette while driving a car. He would roll down the window to let out the smoke, but the dottle, or fiery ash, would blow off and land between his legs. We had so many smoking-related experiences such as that that it was amazing I was not involved in a house fire and that he did not lose his life.
I have visited many establishments and houses. Surrounding the chairs in which frail and elderly people sit, one finds that the carpet or linoleum is patterned with cigarette burns. Their clothes are also damaged here and there by cigarette burns. I cannot believe that the statistics on the number of deaths caused by fires that are started by cigarettes are so low—it is a miracle.
I fully back Stewart Maxwell's motion because, as well as damaging health, smoking a cigarette can cause death by fire. Frail, elderly and ill people fall asleep in their chairs with a cigarette in their hand that falls and burns them or sets fire to the house and kills them. According to the statistics, many of those deaths—probably about 50 per cent of them—are associated with alcohol, because alcohol and cigarettes often go together.
I would back all the way any legislation that would make it compulsory to substitute RIP cigarettes for standard ones. Such a move would add to the ban on smoking in public places and would be wonderful.
Stewart Maxwell's motion is interesting and seems well intentioned. Although no one wishes to do anything that would increase the dangers of cigarette smoking causing fires, after hearing the tenor of Stewart Maxwell's speech, I urge the minister to be cautious before he embraces the proposal.
I looked at the same statistics in the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services for Scotland that Stewart Maxwell used to show that 49 per cent of fire-related fatalities were linked to smoking materials, such as lighters, matches and cigarettes. On closer inspection, however, one finds that not all those deaths were associated with cigarettes.
I do not smoke cigarettes; I am not keen on being in areas where there is a great deal of smoke; and I do not encourage people to smoke. However, I think that we have to be accurate and give a proportionate response to the problem of fires being started by people—particularly those who are alone—who fall asleep with a burning cigarette in their hand.
The Scottish figures do not have the detail, but other UK statistics on the incidence of fires caused by all smoking materials suggest that matches and lighters cause a greater proportion of deaths than cigarettes themselves. Although it might well be possible to reduce deaths in Scotland by as many as 10, which is to be welcomed, I feel that we must take a closer look at the matter to find out whether a change in the law would actually save only three lives. In that light, one might expect us to do something that would go with the grain of public behaviour.
Moreover, we should consider encouraging tobacco manufacturers to produce cigarettes that have a reduced ability to ignite. No cigarettes are fire-safe; they have to be lit and they burn. However, if we gave the tobacco industry certain tax incentives to market these safer cigarettes, they would appear immediately.
Will the member give way?
No—I must carry on.
I am not convinced that such cigarettes will be acceptable to the public. As I said, I do not smoke cigarettes; however, I have spoken to people in New York who have smoked reduced ignition potential cigarettes and who told me that they thought that they were not the same as normal cigarettes. If these cigarettes are to be introduced, they have to be acceptable to the public; otherwise people will simply sell normal cigarettes on the black market or bring them in from abroad.
Not least of the hurdles that will need to be overcome if this measure is to be effective is the fact that, because we have passed a law that bans smokers from congregating in pubs and restaurants—the places where they would be most likely to enjoy a cigarette—those people are now more likely smoke at home instead. Indeed, evidence from Ireland, which introduced a smoking ban before we did, suggests that the incidence of deaths from fires that are caused by people falling asleep holding lit cigarettes has increased. Given the similarity of Scottish and Irish culture in this matter, a likely unintended consequence of the ban is that more people will drink at home alone, fall asleep holding lit cigarettes and become victims of the resulting fires. I do not raise these concerns because I opposed the ban in the first place; that evidence was produced by the National Safety Council in Ireland.
We should by all means investigate ways of reducing the number of deaths from such incidents. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the laws that we pass might cause more deaths; it will be no use trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Instead, we need to think about what will go with the grain of public behaviour to ensure that whatever measure is introduced is accepted and becomes commonplace.
It gives me much pleasure to lock horns once again with Brian Monteith on the subject of smoking. I suspect that, as in the past, we will remain implacable opponents of each other's point of view.
Throughout their history, tobacco companies have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to serve the public good, and I am not all that surprised to find that nothing has changed in that regard. As for the suggestion that they should receive tax incentives for introducing reduced ignition potential cigarettes, I note that, in the most recent quarter, British American Tobacco's profits were £688 million—a £42 million increase on the corresponding quarter in the previous year. Companies that trade in public misery can be persuaded by the law, if not by public opinion, to serve the public good and to produce RIP cigarettes.
Actually, this is not a new invention. The first patent for a self-extinguishing cigarette was taken out in the United States in 1854, and a considerable number of similar patents have been taken out since then.
In 1984, the US Congress enacted a bill that sought to progress the technical, economic and commercial feasibility of such cigarettes. We have talked for long enough. In this legislature, as elsewhere, we must find out what opportunities exist to do something. The Canadians, who often have a lot of good sense, have taken the necessary steps. On 30 March 2004, they introduced legislation that was intended to make fire-safe cigarettes mandatory by the end of 2004.
I accept one thing that Brian Monteith said: the greatest risk is to people who are alone at home. A report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services for Scotland showed that 90.2 per cent of fire injuries—not deaths—took place in dwellings and that 68.9 per cent of people who died in fires lived alone. That illustrates the value that there would be to smokers who cannot kick the pernicious habit of smoking being assisted by the material that they smoke extinguishing itself in a much shorter time than might otherwise be the case. Such assistance would be important because there would be no one else in the house to protect them from the folly of smoking and the difficulties that might arise from their falling asleep with a cigarette in their hand. Furthermore, the statistics show that that value would be skewed towards older people.
I do not often commend what comes from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it has at least carried out research from which it is clear that it is possible to reduce the length of a cigarette's burn quite substantially when the cigarette is unattended or not being sucked. The ODPM's investigation was conclusive: there would be significant benefits.
What can the Scottish Parliament do without passing primary legislation? There are several provisions in the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 that the minister could act on in a short space of time. For example, I refer to section 55 of that act, which is on fire safety measures. Under section 55(3)(d), people must take cognisance of "technical progress", which might lead ministers to require by an order that is approved by the Parliament that prisoners can smoke only safe cigarettes, if such things can be said to exist.
Similarly, section 57 of the 2005 act, which is entitled "Risk assessments: power to make regulations", states:
"Scottish ministers may make regulations about the carrying out of assessments and reviews".
In particular, the regulations may make provision for or in connection with
"specifying matters which persons must take into account when carrying out assessments and reviews in relation to substances specified in the regulations".
There are things that the minister can do in that respect.
I congratulate my colleague Stewart Maxwell on returning to the fray in raising the issue of the concomitant dangers to human beings of using tobacco and commend his motion to the minister, from whom we are about to hear. I suspect that he will broadly agree with the motion, but I am particularly interested—as others will be—in any particular actions that he thinks we can pursue in the short term. I wish every speed to the introduction of reduced ignition potential cigarettes, pending our no longer smoking cigarettes of any kind.
Stewart Maxwell has secured a useful debate on an important and significant issue. It is right to draw attention to the fact that the number of fire-related fatalities in Scotland is far too high. We must do all that we can to minimise risks. It is recognised that smoking is the most preventable cause of death and ill health in Scotland. It causes 13,000 deaths each year—that is, 250 a week or 35 a day, with around 1,000 deaths arguably associated with passive smoking.
I am not sure whether I heard the minister correctly. He seemed to be ascribing all the deaths to passive smoking. I am sure that he meant that they were attributable to direct smoking.
I referred to 1,000 deaths a year arguably being associated with passive smoking.
I acknowledge that there are huge cultural issues to be addressed. Jean Turner mentioned the dangers associated with drinking alcohol and smoking, and Stewart Maxwell described some of the problems. Smoking reduced ignition potential cigarettes could be one way of addressing the problem. If someone is going to fall asleep in their armchair with a cigarette in their hand, such a cigarette is less likely to start a fire. If that is the case, so much the better.
At the same time, we should keep the debate in context. Far more people die from smoking-related disease and we could do much more by discouraging people from smoking in the first place. That is why we introduced our smoke-free legislation, which is regarded as the most comprehensive legislation of its kind anywhere in the world. At one point, when Brian Monteith was talking about not being keen on being in areas where people are smoking, I thought that he was about to endorse that legislation. However, he quickly reverted to type and disabused me of that notion.
We cannot ignore the danger to some people from fires that are caused by smoking materials: I accept that. I also accept that for those who persist with the smoking habit—especially those who mix the habit with drinking alcohol—we may need to consider different ways of addressing that danger. That is why the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, to which Stewart Stevenson referred, shifted the emphasis in our fire and rescue services from response to education. We need to educate people about their lifestyle choices, not only to improve their long-term health, but to make them more aware of the immediate risks that are associated with the way in which they choose to live.
Alcohol is clearly an issue. Up to 60 per cent of fire-related deaths can be attributed to a person smoking while intoxicated. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we have spent nearly £250,000 on a series of adverts that highlight the fire risks associated with drunkenness. Those include chip pans being overfilled or left on, grill pans being left unattended and lit cigarettes being allowed to fall out of someone's hand or being put in a bin.
I accept that any move that would help to reduce the number of fire fatalities in Scotland deserves serious consideration. I have no doubt that, purely from a fire safety perspective, such a move might have an impact; however, there are other things that we need to be aware of. I am not using this as an excuse to do nothing, but Brian Monteith highlighted the problem of illegally sourced cigarettes and, although it is no reason not to take action, given the number that come into the country already—not counting the number that might come in in future—that is an issue that we would need to reflect on.
If we want an informed debate and to make an informed decision, we must consider all the relevant facts. Again, this is no reason for not acting, but we must also consider whether reduced ignition potential cigarettes require a deeper draw from the smoker. If they do, the concerns that have been expressed about people inhaling more deeply and that leading to a greater incidence of lung cancer and heart-related disease would have to be factored into the debate. We cannot blithely ignore that aspect.
I accept that all factors must be taken into account and that we must be careful to ensure that the laws that we introduce do not interfere, but from all the US and UK research I have read, there is no evidence of reduced ignition potential cigarettes causing the smoker to take a deeper draw and increasing lung cancer or other fatal smoking-related diseases. Smoking an RIP cigarette is just the same as smoking any other cigarette.
That would have to be factored into any debate. I raised the point and although I am not sure that the arguments are as conclusive as that, I am not saying that I have a closed mind on the matter. However, if in trying to reduce the number of fatalities among people who fall asleep with a cigarette in their hand, we increase the potential for disease and death by other means, that must be considered.
I welcome the minister's balanced approach to the subject, although I recognise that we come from entirely different points of view. His point is well made. Although Stewart Maxwell might not be wrong to say that the process of smoking a cigarette is no different and no more of a draw is required—as a non-smoker, I cannot comment—if the cigarette continually goes out and the smoker has to relight it all the time, that relighting might well need a greater draw and so the minister's concern might be valid. That is the sort of issue that must be considered.
I understand that the matter is also being considered in Europe. Is the minister aware of what work is being done in Europe and whether legislation might come through a different route altogether?
Any move in such a direction needs to be carefully considered. We must reflect on all the relevant factors and, where possible, avoid the unintended consequences that might flow from any decision.
Stewart Maxwell, Jean Turner and others would agree that by far the best way for people to avoid ill health and death is for them not to smoke in the first place. That must remain our default position, but we recognise the seriousness of the debate, which is not simply about politics. Stewart Maxwell said that we could just go ahead with legislation, but I cannot avoid saying to him that, notwithstanding Stewart Stevenson's comments about taking cognisance of technical progress, product safety is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is reserved to Westminster, along with product liability and labelling, to ensure a level playing field for business in the United Kingdom within the framework of European law and international trade agreements. On European law, I refer to the European directive 2001/37/EC on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, which was adopted by the United Kingdom Government through the Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002.
Lives are at stake and that means that the issue deserves a serious, considered and proper debate which, I hope, will result in proportionate action that is in everyone's interests. That is one of the reasons why I am so delighted that action on the issue that I first raised as a back bencher six or seven years ago came to fruition and that, at 6 o'clock on 26 March 2006, Scotland's public places became smoke-free zones.
Meeting closed at 17:34.