Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 8 October 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14437, in the name of Jim Hume, on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill.

Photo of Jim Hume Jim Hume Liberal Democrat

I am delighted to open this afternoon’s debate on the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill.

I take this opportunity to thank the Health and Sport Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their robust scrutiny of the bill. The bill would not have reached this stage without the invaluable input of all those who advocate for a healthier Scotland and those individuals and organisations who have been working so hard with me to get the bill to this point.

The bill provides a major step in the direction of enabling children and young people to have healthy lives. It enables them to improve their health prospects and encourages healthy habits for the rest of their lives. The bill is also in line with the Scottish Government’s stated goal of having a smoke-free Scotland by 2034, as it set out in its tobacco control strategy. I thank the former and current Ministers for Public Health for their open and constructive dialogue to date and look forward to continuing discussions after today’s debate.

It is estimated that, each week in Scotland, 60,000 children are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. Numerous studies and reports have shown that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. In fact, in cars, the concentration of second-hand smoke toxins can be more than 11 times as high as in a pub.

Second-hand smoke has proven and profound impacts on health, particularly on the health of children because of their immature respiratory systems. Children suffer because of second-hand smoke. As many as 800 children across the United Kingdom visit the doctor each day as a result of ill health linked to second-hand smoke. They can develop coughing, wheezing and asthma, and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia, and they have an increased risk of lung cancer.

The purpose of the bill is straightforward. It is to protect our children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. To do that, the bill targets only motor vehicles, where the concentrations of harmful particles from smoke are some of the most significant. The bill will make it an offence for anyone aged 18 or over to smoke in a private vehicle when anyone under the age of 18 is also present and when the vehicle is in a public place. That approach aims to encourage all adult occupants of a vehicle to think twice before lighting a cigarette and to take responsibility for the potential health impacts of their decision to smoke when there is a child in the car.

To remove doubt and undue penalisation, in the case where the smoking adult is not the driver of the vehicle, the driver does not commit an offence for failing to prevent smoking in the vehicle. That is different from the regulations that came into effect in England and Wales last week. As is set out in the policy memorandum, I believe that making the driver liable for the offence is unhelpful. The goal of the bill is to protect the health of children and any unnecessary element could risk moving the focus away from that goal. We have seen such legislation implemented in some US states as well as in parts of Canada and Australia.

In its report, the Health and Sport Committee suggests that making the driver liable would bring the bill in line with other duties on drivers such as seat-belt legislation. However, that legislation is designed for the safety of vehicle occupants in relation to risks such as accidents that only the driver has control over. My bill is about providing children with protection from adverse health effects that are unrelated to anything that the driver is doing. Additionally, I believe that it is unreasonable to expect the driver to be able to control the behaviour of other adults in the vehicle, given that the driver’s focus must always be on the road. Of course, if the driver is the person smoking, they will be committing an offence.

Smoking in a vehicle can generate high levels of airborne particles due to the small volume of air in the vehicle and the potential for it to be recycled without filtering. Even if someone is smoking in a vehicle with the roof down or the windows open, they are in close proximity to other occupants of the vehicle. For that reason, the bill makes no exception for people in a convertible vehicle who are smoking in the presence of a child. The Health and Sport Committee notes in its report that

“A key factor that will impact on the success of this Bill is the clarity of the legislation”.

Aside from the fact that the law will apply in Scotland where, sadly, there are not many opportunities to drive around in convertibles with the roof down, I believe that the approach that is being taken provides the necessary clarity for enforcement agencies.

As an additional clarification, I confirmed to the committee on 23 June that there is no desire or intention to legislate on what people do in their homes. For that reason, the bill provides an exception for people using a vehicle that is

“designed or adapted for human habitation” and which

“is being used for that purpose”.

In other words, the exception applies only while the vehicle is being used in the same way as a person uses their house, and not while it is being used exclusively for the purpose of transportation. That ensures that people who may habitually reside in motorhomes, and those such as holidaymakers who may reside in vehicles on an occasional basis, are not committing an offence if the vehicle is being used as accommodation at that time.

The penalty for those who are found guilty of an offence is clearly set at level 3 on the standard scale. A fixed-penalty scheme will be available, which I anticipate will be the principal means of enforcement. Provisions for the fixed-penalty scheme are set out in the schedule to the bill. In many respects, the provisions are similar to those set out in schedule 1 to the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, to which I referred during the policy development stage of my bill. However, the bill includes two specific provisions that I believe are clearer than those provided in the 2005 act.

The first is that schedule 1 to the 2005 act does not specify the amount of the penalty for smoking in public places. Instead, it simply provides ministers with the power to prescribe the amount in secondary legislation. That amount, which was set in 2006, is £50. In my view, a penalty of £50 is not strong enough to deter everyone and does not do enough to properly raise the profile of the danger that is caused by second-hand smoke. Those views came through strongly in responses to my consultation. With that in mind, the schedule to my bill sets the amount of the fixed penalty at £100, with a power for Scottish ministers to vary it through regulations.

However, my bill does not provide for an early payment discount, which I believe would be unnecessarily complex in a measure that is designed to protect children’s health. The penalty should act as a deterrent. People with a greater disposable income may not be deterred if they think that they can get away with a reduced payment on more than one occasion.

I believe that those factors, taken together, provide clarity for all parties. Anyone who is issued with a fixed-penalty notice should pay the set penalty of £100 within 29 days. Failure to pay within the time period will leave an individual liable to prosecution. The legislation is not about raising revenue or forcing people to stop smoking. It is designed purely to prevent acute exposure of children to second-hand smoke and put an end to the anxiety to which they are subjected.

The bill currently provides that the measures will be enforced by Police Scotland. Following the committee’s evidence sessions and its report, and after discussions with the Scottish Government, I believe that there is merit in adopting a joint enforcement approach between Police Scotland and local authorities, and I am happy to work with the Scottish Government on strengthening that part of the bill.

Questions about how enforceable the legislation might be were also brought up during the consultation, but Assistant Chief Constable Higgins noted in oral evidence to the Health and Sport committee that

“it is better to have the ability to do something and use it rarely than not to have the ability to do it at all.”

Police officers are entrusted with exercising common sense, pragmatism, professional judgment and discretion in determining what approach to take when enforcing the law, particularly in instances where age is a consideration. Assistant Chief Constable Higgins noted that

“officers make judgment calls constantly—every minute of every day—in deciding what action to take or not to take.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 16 June 2015; c 59, 50.]

The committee noted in its report that police officers have experience in assessing the age of teenagers, such as in circumstances when they are in possession of alcohol. I see no reason why officers could not apply the same discretion, experience, and professionalism in relation to this legislation in instances where there might be doubt about the age of car passengers.

Although enforcement of the law is an operational matter for enforcement agencies, I think that they have an important role to play not just in applying the law but in educating people about it and reminding them of it. However, I note that legislation and education are not mutually exclusive. As the committee said in its report,

“education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles”.

Legislation can complement education where education has not succeeded. It is an effective deterrent that can bring about a positive culture shift. We need only look at the impact of the legislation on smoking in public places to note that attitudes to that have changed enormously since the 2005 act was implemented. The 2005 act was coupled with a high-profile campaign that educated people about the dangers and made them think twice about their actions. In many cases, it is not the fear of being caught that changes people’s behaviour but the concern that their actions are not socially acceptable. That chimes with the Scottish Government’s position in its memorandum, which the committee report noted was that

“legislation accompanied by an education campaign would be self-enforcing.”

I expect that this legislation will be accompanied by a high-profile campaign that will serve to educate people about the new law and encourage them to think about their actions. The legislation that I am proposing aims to introduce a layer of protection against second-hand smoke for the health of children who have no option but to go into smoke-filled cars, whether to go to school or, oddly, to their sports activities.

Again, I thank those involved in the consultation processes. Should the bill be supported today, I look forward to continuing to work and liaise on it with the committee, the minister and her officials, and all members of the Parliament. I firmly believe that the bill offers our children a healthier start in life and I am delighted to move the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill.

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

I call Duncan McNeil to speak to the motion on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee.

Photo of Duncan McNeil Duncan McNeil Labour

First, I thank all the witnesses who worked with the committee, committee members and our clerking staff, who allowed us to provide scrutiny of the bill. It is a pleasant change, when we deal with so much Government legislation, to be reminded that the Scottish Parliament has a place for members to pursue legislation that can make a difference to the people of Scotland.

One in five—that is the number of 13 and 15-year-olds in Scotland who reported that they are often, or sometimes, exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. That figure, which is from a recent survey commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health Scotland, is not one to be complacent about. A wide range of stakeholders from the national health service, academia, local authorities and non-governmental organisations responded to the committee’s call for written views on the issue, and we are grateful to them for those. It might come as no surprise to hear that 93 per cent of the respondents supported the bill’s general principles.

The bill is about protecting children’s health, and it highlights children’s particular vulnerability to the harmful effects of passive smoking in vehicles. Most obviously, that is because children are dependent on others for transport. We all know countless parents and indeed grandparents and carers who could easily list “chauffeur” as their secondary occupation. Seriously, however, it is precisely children’s dependence on others for transport that means that, when someone lights up in a car, they cannot remove themselves from the harm.

In a moving vehicle, unlike a home, it is not possible to take it outside. NHS Health Scotland informed the committee that a misconception prevails that there is no danger from second-hand smoke if the atmosphere is ventilated or smoke cannot be seen. According to research by the University of Aberdeen, even when the windows are down, passengers in a vehicle encounter levels of second-hand smoke that are 10 times higher than the level that is reported to be safe by the World Health Organization.

Children are particularly at risk because they breathe faster and have less developed immune systems and their smaller airways mean that they absorb smoke more quickly than you or I do. The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh informed the committee that we could avoid 4,000 new cases of respiratory infection, wheeze and asthma per year by reducing children’s exposure to passive smoking.

As Jim Hume pointed out, the Parliament is no stranger to legislation on smoking. It has seen the impact that such legislation can have on smoking rates by bringing about a change in culture, and it knows the importance of getting the detail right. Broadly speaking, the bill achieves that, and the committee supports its general principles. However, there are areas, some of which the member in charge noted, that we consider would benefit from further consideration.

The bill applies to private vehicles, with two exceptions—motorcycles and vehicles that are used for human habitation for not less than one night. That seems sensible, as motorcycles are not designed for carrying children and some vehicles are used as homes or accommodation. In its memorandum, the Scottish Government supports a further exemption for convertible vehicles with the roof down and stowed away. I mentioned the University of Aberdeen’s research that shows that, even in ventilated vehicles, dangerous levels of smoke can prevail. I therefore seek the Scottish Government’s views on whether it intends to lodge an amendment on such an exemption at stage 2 and, if so, what evidence it has to support that.

The bill also raises an important issue about liability. If someone smokes in a pub, we have legislated to make both that person and the publican liable. If a child passenger who is under 14 years of age is not wearing a seat belt, the driver is liable and is committing an offence. Under the bill, however, only the adult who is smoking is held responsible. We considered views on whether the driver should also bear responsibility if a passenger is smoking and, on balance, we consider that they should be. In his written response to our report, the member in charge of the bill disagreed, arguing that that would add complexity and detract from the bill’s focus on health.

The committee considers that drivers hold a unique responsibility to ensure the safety of their passengers and that making the driver jointly responsible would offer added protection to children.

Photo of Jim Hume Jim Hume Liberal Democrat

There is another difference regarding the driver’s liability. The driver is liable where someone is not wearing a seat belt only if that person is under 14. If we had vicarious liability in this case, the driver would be liable where someone of any age was not wearing a seat belt. Does the member agree that it might be more difficult for a driver to persuade an adult to stub out, perhaps if they are in the back of the car?

Photo of Duncan McNeil Duncan McNeil Labour

The member has said previously that he is prepared to engage with the committee in the debate. I hope that he does that with an open mind. The committee is clear in its view that making the driver jointly responsible would offer added protection to children and achieve consistency with the law in England and Wales. I invite the member in charge of the bill and the Scottish Government to consider the issue further in light of the committee’s findings.

Another key issue that arose during the committee’s consideration was whether the bill should contain a defence. The bill provides a defence if, at the time of smoking, a person reasonably believed all other occupants of the vehicle to be adults. The evidence that the committee received that supported a defence noted that the offence is enforced by summary conviction. In some cases, a smoker may not know the age of all passengers. That sparked diverging views in the debate. In its evidence, the Scottish Government confirmed that it does not favour the inclusion of a defence in the bill.

The committee also considered whether any alternative proposals could replace the defence. For example, the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill that is currently before the committee requires businesses that sell tobacco products to take steps to determine a customer’s age if they appear to be under 25. We would welcome it if the member in charge of the bill and the Scottish Government were to consider that alternative to the defence that is currently in the bill.

The bill proposes that fixed-penalty notices will be used to enforce the offence. According to the financial memorandum, approximately 200 notices will be issued per annum. The committee supports that arrangement in principle. However, it heard evidence from Cancer Research UK about the increasing socioeconomic dimension to the issue of tackling second-hand smoking. NHS Borders and ASH Scotland suggested that first-time offenders should be offered an education programme, rather than a penalty, to ensure that those experiencing financial hardship would not be disproportionately affected. In a written response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the member in charge argued that that would have a limited impact, due to the low number of notices expected to be issued. However, we would ask the Scottish Government to respond on whether such a provision would be desirable or indeed feasible.

Finally, I note that the bill’s core provisions will come into force six months from the date of royal assent. If passed, an education campaign will raise awareness of the new law. In its memorandum, the Scottish Government favoured an approach whereby the commencement date would be determined by a ministerial power to enable better co-ordination with the education campaign. That seems to be a sensible approach and we will consider any amendments that are lodged in that regard.

In summary, the Health and Sport Committee considers that the bill is an important and necessary step to protect children from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. We therefore support the bill’s general principles and recommend that the Scottish Parliament agrees to them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Members will perhaps realise that we are a bit tight for time, so I ask them to try to keep to their allocated time.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

I am pleased to speak on the Scottish Government’s behalf on this important bill. I thank Jim Hume, whose hard work has brought us here today.

The cost of tobacco use to individuals, families and Scottish society remains too high. Effective tobacco control is central to realising the right to life and the right to the highest standards of health for everyone. As Duncan McNeil suggested, Scotland can be proud that it has proven itself to be a world leader on tobacco control.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Minister, can I stop you for a moment? I ask broadcasting staff to check the sound levels, because we cannot hear you very well. You can continue your speech while they do that.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

Although the Parliament is still young, it has already created a legacy of strong cross-party support for a range of tobacco control laws. In 2005, it passed historic smoke-free legislation, which paved the way for the rest of the UK to follow.

In 2007, the legal age for tobacco sales was raised from 16 to 18. In 2010, the Parliament agreed by an overwhelming majority to pass legislation to create the first tobacco retailer register in the UK and to ban tobacco vending machines and tobacco displays. This year, there was the final instalment of Scotland’s tobacco display regulations, which are among the most robust in the world.

In 2013, the Government was pleased to be the first in the UK to announce support for plain packaging and to play its part in securing legislation that is due to come into force across the UK next year. Our Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill, which includes further measures on tobacco and e-cigarettes, is being considered by the Parliament.

We also continue to build on the investment of successive Governments in awareness-raising campaigns and national health service smoking cessation services, which have helped hundreds of thousands of people to try to quit smoking.

However, we cannot be complacent. In publishing our 2013 tobacco strategy, the Government was among the first in the world to set a national tobacco-free target. Our bold vision is to reduce smoking rates to 5 per cent or less by 2034. There is still a long way to go.

Continuing to protect people—especially children—from second-hand smoke is a key strand of that strategy. That is an important part of ensuring that every child in Scotland has the best start in life. Although existing smoke-free legislation has undoubtedly made a difference, children can still be exposed to second-hand smoke in cars and homes. When children are medically at risk because of conditions such as asthma, the harmful effects can be severe.

Our strategy included our commitment to reduce the number of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke to 6 per cent by 2020. In 2014, that figure was 11 per cent. To achieve the aim, we developed our take it right outside national campaign, which aims to raise awareness of the risks to children that second-hand smoke poses. The campaign evaluation showed that it was well received and had an impact on behaviour, but more needs to be done to drive home the message that it is never safe to smoke in enclosed places with children present. We have worked hard on that, and I expect that all members are aware that I relaunched the campaign yesterday.

Although our 2013 strategy did not commit to banning smoking in cars, it committed to consideration of whether legislation might be required in the future. At the end of last year, we consulted on that. Seventy-nine per cent of those who responded thought that smoking in a car with a child present should be an offence.

The bill proposes to make it an offence for someone who is over 18 to smoke in a vehicle that is carrying a person who is under 18. Mr Hume’s considered work in introducing the bill and the Health and Sport Committee’s stage 1 deliberations have helped us to explore the aims of the bill and how it will work in practice. The Government has made it clear that it supports the bill in principle. There can be no doubt that we all have a responsibility to protect children from tobacco smoke.

I note the Health and Sport Committee’s conclusion that

“education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles” and that legislation is a necessary next step. As such, the committee recommends that the Parliament support the measures that the bill proposes. The committee has also—rightly—flagged up a number of areas for further consideration that relate to how the legislation is implemented. I know that Mr Hume has responded to the committee on some of those issues. I will write to the committee with my views, but I will touch on some of the areas now.

The Scottish Government has made clear its preference for joint enforcement between Police Scotland and environmental health officers, so I am pleased to note that the committee supports that principle. We will engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on that and provide further information on the costs for members to scrutinise.

I share the committee’s view that any exemptions from the bill should not be “unnecessarily complicated”. On convertible vehicles, I, like Duncan McNeil, note the evidence that the University of Aberdeen provided that a child who is within 1m of a cigarette will still be exposed to second-hand smoke. I therefore confirm that I am persuaded not to lodge an amendment to exempt convertible vehicles.

I note the committee’s recommendation to apply the offence to the driver as well as the smoker. Although Jim Hume outlined why he rejects that recommendation, I look forward to hearing wider views during the debate.

The committee raised the possibility of an education programme as an alternative to the proposed penalty of £100. Again, I thank Mr Hume for considering that and outlining his position today. I am minded to agree with him. There is much that we would need to consider in developing and introducing an education programme, including content, equality of access across the country, infrastructure and administration. We would need to consider costs and value for money in light of the small number of expected fines—around 200 a year—that is set out in the bill’s financial memorandum. More important, we would need to consider the timescales for taking forward the work and the impact that that might have on implementation of the legislation. Although I do not think that an education programme would be the right alternative, I am interested in hearing members’ views on the issue and on whether the £100 penalty is at an appropriate level.

The Scottish Government supports the bill and will work with Mr Hume to ensure that it is implemented quickly. We must all work together to protect children from the harm of second-hand smoke. There should be no delays in ensuring that protection—in law—is in place.

Photo of Jenny Marra Jenny Marra Labour

I warmly commend Jim Hume for the work that he has put into getting the bill to this stage, and I look forward to Scottish Labour supporting it at decision time. Taking a member’s bill through Parliament is a long and difficult process and I acknowledge the determination and hard work that he has put into bringing the issue to the fore; I am sure that many people in his team are responsible for getting the bill this far, too.

The bill should represent the next stage in the Parliament’s efforts to reduce the high levels of smoking that we have in Scotland and to protect people from the harmful effects of nicotine. We can look back on a proud record in tackling smoking. The advertising ban, the increase in the legal age of sales, the changes to the law on vending machines and the tobacco retailer register all complement the historic ban on smoking in public places that was put in place nine years ago. As the minister said, in May next year, plain packaging will come to Scotland and branded advertising will become illegal.

As is the case with any radical, reforming piece of legislation, it is easy to look back at the ban on smoking in public places and somehow think that it was inevitable. We know that other Parliaments have followed suit and that the smoking ban is now accepted in our communities. However, we must not forget that, despite the consensus that was reached in this Parliament, it took a lot of work and effort to win the argument for the smoking ban. It was bold, it was ambitious and it was the right thing to do. The Parliament was able to stand up against the vested interests and opponents who challenged it and to convince Scotland that the ban was in all our interests—our health and wellbeing interests and the interests of our national health service’s budget.

The smoking ban was in what is perhaps the single most memorable piece of legislation that the Parliament has produced. It illustrated that we in Scotland—a clever country, but one with a shameful record on public health—could use devolution to lead the way and to change and save lives.

However, the ban was never intended to be the last word in our battle to reduce the historically high incidence of smoking. Nearly a decade on, the figures show that we still have much to do. I feel particularly grateful to Jim Hume for bringing the bill to Parliament because, in the past nine years, not all that many radical proposals have been made.

It is to Jim Hume’s credit that we are debating the bill today, because smoking is still responsible for the deaths of around 13,500 Scots every year. It accounts for 33,500 hospital admissions and is estimated to cost the NHS around £400 million.

In the most deprived areas, 40 per cent of people smoke, compared with 11 per cent in the least deprived areas. Smoking has a clear role in reinforcing the health inequalities that exist in our communities. It is also estimated that 15,000 young people from the ages of 13 to 24 start smoking every year. Despite our efforts to educate and raise awareness, too many children are giving smoking a try and damaging their health as a result. It is no coincidence that once children are exposed to the smell of tobacco and perhaps the attraction of nicotine—for example, from adults smoking in cars, which Jim Hume’s bill addresses—smoking becomes more part of their culture and daily routine and more acceptable for them to try.

As a country, we do not compare well with our neighbours. Around 23 per cent of people in Scotland smoke, compared with 20 per cent in England. The specific issue that we seek to tackle today—second-hand smoking—is still responsible for taking too many lives.

A private vehicle remains one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke, which poses an obvious health risk in such a confined space. The time is absolutely right to correct that anomaly and bring us into line with other parts of the United Kingdom. All the evidence shows that the measure has the support of the health professionals—they see the consequences of smoking every day in our hospitals and general practitioner surgeries and are determined to try to reduce the amount of smoking in our country—as well as the support of the police, who will be asked to enforce the bill, and, crucially, of the people of this country.

I am sure that we will agree to the motion today but, if the Scottish Government is to achieve its target—a welcome one, which we all support, of creating a tobacco-free generation by 2034—we must continue to be as bold now as the smoking ban was then. I hope that this is not the last time in this session of Parliament that we will debate more radical moves—perhaps we will do so in the next session, too.

Just this week, figures on smoking cessation showed that we are not on track to meet the Government’s target. In the most deprived areas of Scotland, the quit rate after three months fell way short of the target of 12,000—we managed to hit only 58 per cent. NHS Shetland was the only health board to meet the smoking cessation target.

Changing behaviour and lifestyle is not easy, but the bill is an important step towards that. I am proud to say that Scottish Labour will support it at decision time.

Photo of Nanette Milne Nanette Milne Conservative

The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1, because we agree with the policy intention of promoting the health and wellbeing of children—defined as those who are under 18—by protecting them from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

However, we have some reservations—particularly about the bill’s enforceability. If it becomes law, we will want its impact to be monitored. That is in line with a recent study in Wales, which showed that the impact of any legislation that aims to reduce the effects of second-hand smoke on children’s health should be continuously monitored. We agree with the Law Society of Scotland’s suggestion that the effects of the prohibition should be researched and reported on by the Scottish Government at regular intervals.

In his closing speech, my colleague Jackson Carlaw will outline our thoughts on an amendment that we are considering to deal with the eventuality that the bill’s desired impact is not achieved.

The bill seeks to achieve the policy intention by prohibiting smoking by any adult occupant in a motor vehicle where a child is present. The vehicle must be in a public place, and motorhomes are excluded if they are parked for habitation purposes for a period of not less than one night.

With smoking defined as

“to smoke tobacco, any substance or mixture which includes it or any other ... lit substance or mixture”, the bill would not cover the vaping of e-cigarettes. It might be difficult to differentiate between smoking and vaping, particularly in a moving vehicle. I note the Law Society’s suggestion that including a prohibition on e-cigarettes in the bill should be considered, given that further research is required—and, I hope, is going on—on e-cigarettes’ long-term risks and on benefits to public health in general and young people in particular.

There is no doubt that levels of passive smoking in cars can be high, as the restricted area in which smoke is circulated results in much higher levels than are experienced in buildings. Air conditioning and opening windows do not remove the hazard. Young people who are affected cannot remove themselves from exposure to the smoke. According to Asthma UK, around 22 per cent of children in Scotland report exposure to smoke in cars, and it is estimated that 60,000 individuals smoke in cars while children are present.

Medical experts consider passive smoking to be a significant causal factor in respiratory conditions such as asthma, wheeze and glue ear. It has been implicated in sudden infant death syndrome and is increasingly considered to be a risk factor in cardiovascular disease among children. There is little doubt that smoke is particularly harmful to children, who breathe rapidly and whose lungs and respiratory systems are still developing.

It is interesting and perhaps even surprising that recent polling showed that 85 per cent of Scottish adults agree with the bill and that 72 per cent of smokers support it.

On enforcement, Police Scotland suggests that the police will be able to detect breaches of the law without difficulty; it compares the situation with enforcement of seat-belt legislation, of which 36,000 breaches were detected in 2013-14. I can see detection of an offence being relatively straightforward when cars have small children as passengers, but detecting an offence in relation to the 15 to 17-year-old age group will be challenging, given the adult appearance of many of today’s teenagers.

The British Medical Association made a fair point when it suggested that an outright ban on smoking in vehicles would be easier to enforce and would protect vulnerable adults as well as children. Such a ban would have an impact on road safety, in my opinion, although I appreciate that that is not what the bill is about.

I have a degree of scepticism about how the law can be enforced. I expect that my Conservative colleague will express his even greater doubts towards the end of the debate.

None of our witnesses regarded the bill as a panacea, but most felt that it would have a significant effect on the health of Scotland’s children and saw it as a step towards the Government’s stated goal of reducing the proportion of children who are exposed to tobacco smoke from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent by 2020.

It is generally accepted that the introduction of the law will have to be reinforced by an education programme. There is some feeling that such a programme might, without the need for legislation, suffice to change people’s attitudes towards smoking in cars when children are present.

However, most of our witnesses regarded the legislation as necessary and pointed out successes that have been achieved in places that already have such a law, such as Canada, where the number of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars has reduced by 10 per cent, as well as Australia and several states in America. It remains to be seen how effective the new law in England and Wales, which came into force just last week, will be.

There is an overwhelming medical case for protecting children from passive smoking, which is why we support the general principles of the bill. However, there are questions about the need for legislation over and above education, given the public’s growing recognition of the health issues. There are also enforcement issues and, as we heard, there is disagreement about who should be liable for the offence—whether that should be the driver and the smoker, as the Health and Sport Committee suggested, or only the smoker, as proposed by the member in charge of the bill. There needs to be further discussion of Police Scotland’s proposal that the bill should be extended to authorise enforcement by people such as environmental health officers, local authority officers and traffic wardens.

I have not had time to go into detail about a number of aspects of the bill, which I have no doubt other members will address. I look forward to hearing the debate and—if we assume that the bill will receive approval at stage 1—I will consider carefully any proposals that come forward at stages 2 and 3.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

I very much welcome the opportunity to speak about the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill, which I regard as the next logical step in denormalising smoking and protecting the health of the most vulnerable members of our society—children.

It is nine years since the smoking ban came into force in Scotland, and in that time the health of our children has improved. Now, fewer than 20 per cent of pregnant mothers are smoking at their first booking-in visit—that target was met several years early—and smoking among 13 and 15-year-olds is at its lowest since modern surveys began.

The health benefits of the ban started to become evident very early on. Only one year after the introduction of the smoking ban, a study that was conducted in nine Scottish hospitals found a reduction in the rate of child asthma admissions of 18 per cent per year, compared to an increase of 5 per cent per year in the years preceding the ban. That is an enormous boost in our children’s health. The study also found a 39 per cent reduction in second-hand smoke exposure in 11-year-olds, as well as in adult non-smokers.

Children are being exposed to less smoke, which is very good news. Many parents take great care to protect their children from smoke in their own homes. However, in cars, the only way to protect a child from smoke is not to smoke. I am sorry to say that the Health and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report found that education campaigns that highlight the dangers for children of smoke-filled cars have simply not worked.

Smoking in a car quickly creates dangerous levels of air pollution—the levels are often higher than in heavily polluted cities such as Beijing or Delhi—and turning on the air conditioning or rolling down the windows has been shown not to bring the concentration of smoke in the car down to levels below those at which they are known to present a health risk. As everyone knows, children are much more vulnerable than adults to the hazards of smoke because of their smaller lungs and faster rates of breathing. Indeed, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh estimates that more than 5,000 new cases of respiratory infection, wheeze and asthma in children could be avoided annually by reducing children’s exposure to passive smoking.

The Scottish Government has introduced a national target to reduce the proportion of children who are exposed to tobacco smoke from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent in 2020. The bill could provide great support towards meeting that target. Some provinces in Canada have already introduced a ban on smoking in vehicles, and there is research that shows that the proportion of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke has reduced by about 10 per cent, relative to the period before the ban was implemented and when comparing provinces that have a ban with those that have not introduced one.

Make no mistake: the bill would be popular. The Health and Sport Committee found that 93 per cent of the respondents to its call for written evidence support 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 support the introduction of a ban on smoking in vehicles that are carrying children.

I am aware that some pro-smoking groups oppose the bill on civil liberties grounds. Some things never change. Those groups say that smoking is legal and that what people do in the privacy of their own cars is entirely their own business. In general terms, I have some sympathy with that argument; I agree that, for the most part, we should not tell adults what to do when they are in their own homes and cars. However, we have to weigh the right of an adult to smoke against the right of a child to good health. We all know that smoking damages the health not only of smokers but of people who breathe in their second-hand smoke. Therefore, the balance has to come down on the side of the child. A child in a smoke-filled car has no power to protect himself or herself, so we have to act to protect children from the dangers of second-hand smoke.

More and more countries are moving to ban smoking in vehicles that have children in them: Australia, Cyprus and some provinces of Canada, to name just a few, already have bans in place. France introduced one in July and, on 1 October, a ban on smoking in cars in which there are children came into effect in England and Wales. Therefore, by introducing a ban, Scotland would be moving very much into the main stream of tobacco regulation.

I am sure that the Health and Sport Committee will consider a number of possible amendments at stage 2. One change should, perhaps, concern enforcement. The bill states that enforcement should be the sole responsibility of Police Scotland, but it has been proposed that it should be shared between local authorities and the police. The Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland all support that multimodel approach to enforcement in the belief that the bill would have more impact if such an amendment were made to it. I think that that is correct.

It is estimated that 60,000 people in Scotland smoke in their cars while children are present. We know that the Scottish public are pretty law abiding: seat-belt legislation and drink-drive legislation are successful because the public accept the need for the laws and, by and large, obey them. Given the strength of good will towards the bill that was indicated by the YouGov poll that ASH Scotland commissioned, it is clear that the Scottish public would, on the whole, obey the bill, that it would be successful and enforceable and that that would be another boost to the health of our children.

I very much welcome the bill, which keeps Scotland moving forward on the path to its ultimate goal of a tobacco-free generation by 2034, and I commend Jim Hume for introducing this very important health measure.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

We are very tight for time today, so I must ask for speeches of up to six minutes, please.

Photo of Cara Hilton Cara Hilton Labour

I, too, pay tribute to Jim Hume’s dedication in getting his bill to this stage. I know that it has involved many months—possibly years—of work and research as well as a very effective consultation on the draft proposals. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed to support the bill.

In Scotland, private vehicles are one of the few places where children can be legally exposed to second-hand smoke, and this bill builds on other important legislative safeguards against passive smoking—in particular, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, with which the previous Scottish Labour-led Executive led the UK in banning smoking in enclosed public spaces. The minister and Jenny Marra have outlined the progress that has been made since then, but it is a shame that, although Scotland led the way in the past, this important public health bill that Jim Hume has introduced comes only after such protection has been introduced in England and Wales. That said, I hope that we will soon see change.

The bill itself is undoubtedly another important step forward in protecting the health and wellbeing of Scotland’s children from harmful exposure to second-hand smoke. It has the potential not only to improve children's health and wellbeing, but to save lives. Research by Cancer Research UK estimates that second-hand smoke kills at least 12,000 people in the UK every year, with exposure to passive smoking increasing the risk of stroke by 25 per cent and heart disease by 30 per cent.

Members have already pointed out that, every single day in Scotland, 60,000 car journeys are made in which a child is exposed to second-hand smoke, and ASH Scotland has reported that more than one in four Scottish children aged 13 and 15 are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in cars. Moreover, in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, Children in Scotland pointed out that children in the most disadvantaged areas are more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke, with 33 per cent being subjected to high levels of exposure compared to just 3 per cent of children in more affluent areas. That highlights the need for us to link the bill with our wider aspirations to get it right for every child and to tackle health inequalities.

As Jenny Marra has pointed out, there is real and growing evidence that exposure to smoke in enclosed spaces such as cars is particularly dangerous, given the higher concentration levels of toxic substances. In its briefing for today’s debate, ASH Scotland says that the toxin levels in cars in which someone is smoking are higher than the pollution levels in cities such as Beijing and Delhi, and are certainly in breach of Scotland’s own air-pollution standards. The BMA has argued that smoking in cars exposes passengers to toxins at a level that is 11 times greater than what is experienced in a smoke-filled pub. It makes little difference whether the car windows are open; as Duncan McNeil explained, second-hand smoke still affects passengers. It is a lethal cocktail that contains more than 4,000 chemicals.

That is especially the case for children, who, thanks to their smaller airways, faster rates of breathing and less-developed immune systems, are much more vulnerable than adults are to the effects of second-hand smoke. Exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of a number of health problems including cancer, meningitis, asthma and glue ear, and more than doubles the risk of sudden infant death. Research shows that 300,000 children in the UK visit a GP each year because of the effects of second-hand smoke, with 9,500 being admitted to hospital.

Of course, danger comes from not just the health impact of second-hand smoke but from normalisation of smoking in a young person’s life. The Royal College of Physicians has noted that a child who spends a lot of time in a smoking environment is much more likely to take up the habit.

As members have made clear, cynics have argued that the bill is unenforceable; I heard people on the radio say as much when I was journeying in this morning. However, evidence from comparable schemes shows that the outcomes are positive. The Canadian ban has reduced by 10 per cent the proportion of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke, and it was reported that four years after the measure was implemented in Queensland, 88 per cent of cars were smoke free. I have every confidence that Police Scotland will be able to enforce the measures in the bill without significant difficulty.

Politicians always like to support popular policies and, as members have highlighted, there is absolutely no doubt that a ban on smoking in vehicles is extremely popular and is supported by the vast majority of the Scottish population, including the majority of smokers.

However, the bill is not perfect, so I welcome the minister’s comment that she is open to further discussions. The bill will make only the smoker criminally liable. We must look at that key issue. If we are truly to take on the problem of second-hand smoke and, more important, the culture of smoking more generally, it is imperative that we hold the driver liable, too. That change has been proposed by the Health and Sport Committee and is backed by the Law Society of Scotland; it is also the system that has been adopted in England and Wales. I understand that, so far, Jim Hume has rejected the approach in favour of simplicity, but I do not agree that adding the duty would make the bill too difficult to enforce. Surely, the driver of any vehicle has a duty of care to the passengers that they are carrying. I hope that we can see progress on that.

In 2014, Scotland became the first country to set a national target to reduce the percentage of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by 2020. The Government also set a goal for Scotland to become tobacco free by 2034. The bill offers the opportunity to realise that ambition.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Draw to a close, please.

Photo of Cara Hilton Cara Hilton Labour

We know beyond doubt that passive smoking in an enclosed space does serious harm to people’s health, yet thousands of children are being exposed to smoking in cars every single day, with serious consequences for their health. To inflict smoking on children is simply unacceptable. It is time to act, and protecting children from second-hand smoke in cars is the right thing to do. The bill will make a tremendous contribution to the health of Scotland’s children. I commend Jim Hume’s work on the bill, and I hope that it will receive members’ unanimous support.

Photo of Jim Eadie Jim Eadie Scottish National Party

I, too, support the bill’s general principles, because it is an important step in protecting children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke in confined spaces. I also congratulate Jim Hume for his leadership on the issue. I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the bill and the scrutiny that has been done by the Health and Sport Committee in its evidence sessions and its stage 1 report.

Of course the bill is, as the minister said, just one measure in a package of measures that are focused on reducing the impact of smoking on public health in general. Those include the age restriction on sale of tobacco products, which was increased from 16 to 18 in 2007; the overhaul of tobacco sale and display law, including legislation to ban tobacco vending machines; and a ban on the display of tobacco and smoking-related products in shops, which was carried out through legislation in 2010. In 2011, we saw the establishment of the first tobacco retail register in the UK. We have also seen a range of comprehensive awareness-raising campaigns, as well as record investment in NHS smoking cessation services, which have helped hundreds of thousands of people to give up smoking—not least in my health board area, which is NHS Lothian.

Jim Hume was right to highlight that children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in private vehicles poses, because they have immature respiratory systems, the significant health risk of their developing respiratory disease. That point has been made by several members this afternoon and by many organisations that gave evidence to the Health and Sport Committee.

At this point, it is probably worth reminding ourselves that the Scottish Government announced a new target to reduce the proportion of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by 2020. It is envisaged that that will protect an additional 50,000 children from exposure. Scotland is the first country in the UK to set such a target.

Jim Hume was also right when he said that the children who are most affected by exposure to second-hand smoke have no other transport options or are too young to make other arrangements. They are quite simply not empowered to change the behaviour of the adults around them. As Duncan McNeil said, the children cannot remove themselves from harm. That is just one reason why the bill is so necessary.

A common reason that is cited for supporting the bill is the evidence of the harmful effects of second-hand smoking and its disproportionate impact on children. It is estimated that each year second-hand smoke exposes children in the UK to a number of diseases. There are more than 20,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infection, 100,000 cases of middle-ear disease, at least 22,000 new cases of wheeze and asthma and 200 cases of bacterial meningitis.

James Cant, the director of the British Heart Foundation Scotland, has said:

“Second-hand smoke leads to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and other health problems such as asthma. The effects on children are particularly harmful, putting them more at risk of respiratory infections, asthma and sudden infant death.”

We would all do well to reflect on the importance of that observation.

ASH Scotland refers to data that shows that 22 per cent of Scottish 13 and 15-year-olds are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car, and the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which Jim Hume referred to, states that it is currently estimated that 60,000 individuals in Scotland smoke in cars while children are present. That is a significant problem for children’s health and one that calls for action to be taken, as Cara Hilton said.

As a number of members, including Nanette Milne, have said, public opinion is on the side of the bill. The fact that 85 per cent of Scottish adults overall and 72 per cent of smokers support what the bill proposes shows that public opinion is ahead of Parliament on the issue.

ASH Scotland and Cancer Research UK have pointed to the fact that enforcement of the new law will be simple and straightforward. In its briefing, ASH Scotland says that

“Enforcement of this new law will be simple and straightforward, similar to enforcing the law on seatbelt use. Police Scotland has suggested that officers will be able to detect breaches of the law without significant difficulty, pointing to the 36,000 breaches of the seatbelt law identified in 2013-14.”

It went on to say:

“In Queensland, more than 600 fines were given in the 15 months following the introduction of a similar law, suggesting that enforcement is both possible and practical.”

Therefore, the proposed measures are both proportionate and enforceable.

The bill is not a panacea, but it is an important step in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke. It is for that reason that all of us should support the bill at decision time this evening.

Photo of Anne McTaggart Anne McTaggart Labour

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, because smoking continues to be of great concern to many of us, and I applaud Jim Hume MSP for getting the bill to this stage.

As others have said, studies show that around 23 per cent of adults in Scotland smoke, which means that in Scotland as many as 60,000 car journeys are made each day on which children are exposed to smoke. As many as 22 per cent of Scottish 13 and 15-year-olds are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. Those figures are a cause for real concern, because tobacco-related ill health remains one of the biggest public health challenges, and second-hand smoke is especially harmful to children.

As Cara Hilton and others have said, the negative effects associated with exposure to second-hand smoke are well documented. Children are at particular risk, given that their lungs and respiratory system are still developing. Private vehicles are an important source of second-hand smoke exposure in children and the proposed ban will protect children’s health. However, an outright ban on smoking in vehicles would also ensure that vulnerable adults were protected and would be easier to enforce.

Second-hand smoke can increase the risk of a number of health problems in children, including lower respiratory infections, middle-ear disease and bacterial meningitis, and it more than doubles the risk of sudden infant death. In addition, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that passive smoking is associated with medical risk factors for cardiovascular disease among children.

International examples show that such legislation can be effective, and the public seem overwhelmingly supportive of the introduction of the proposed new law. On 1 October 2015, new laws came into force in England and Wales that prohibit smoking in cars where children are present. In addition, similar laws are already in place in four US states, 10 of the 13 Canadian provinces and six countries, including Australia.

Scotland has a proud history of tobacco control, having led the way on legislation on smoking in enclosed public spaces and being the first country in the UK to commit to bringing in standardised packaging. It is essential that Scotland passes legislation to ensure that it does not lag behind in protecting the public’s health from the harm of tobacco. The Scottish Government’s national target is to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent in 2020, and I strongly believe that the bill could help with that effort.

The bill also seeks to contribute to the wider issues around smoking and the work towards a smoke-free Scotland by engendering a culture shift and an awareness of the harm that is caused by smoking in the presence of children. We should strive for a smoke-free future where our children and adults are protected from such a harmful habit.

Private vehicles remain one of the few places in Scotland where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke and second-hand tobacco smoke. Making it an offence to smoke in a vehicle with anyone who is under the age of 18 present is a proportionate measure to protect children from the health risks that are associated with second-hand smoking. Therefore, I am happy to support the bill.

Photo of Richard Lyle Richard Lyle Scottish National Party

I am delighted to speak in the debate as a member of the Health and Sport Committee.

I realised how important the bill is when I read a key line in Cancer Research UK’s briefing, which said:

“In Scotland, private vehicles remain one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke or second hand smoke. Making it an offence to smoke in a vehicle with anyone under 18 present would be a proportionate measure to protect children from the health risks associated with Second Hand Smoke.”

That eloquently puts firmly to the floor the argument that the approach is well considered, well thought through and proportionate.

I want to take that final sentence from the Cancer Research UK briefing and share a bit more detail about the startling impact that second-hand smoke has on those under 18 and, in particular, the risks to children, given the fact that their lungs and respiratory system are still developing. According to Cancer Research UK, it is estimated that every year, second-hand smoke kills more the 12,000 people in the UK through lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The SNP Scottish Government has been committed to tackling the wider issues around smoking and, through the introduction of its smoking strategy, has taken significant steps in working towards a smoke-free generation by 2034. The action that is being taken and the introduction of the bill will contribute to work to reach not only that target but the national target to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent in 2020.

In conjunction with the announcement of new targets to reduce the number of children who are affected by second-hand smoke, the Scottish Government launched the take it right outside campaign, which urges smokers not to smoke around children. The campaign stresses that it is never safe to smoke indoors when children are present. That is just one of the many initiatives that the Government has driven forward to make a difference in tobacco control.

We know the damage that second-hand smoke causes. We have already had pioneering success with the implementation of the smoking ban and its impact not only on health but, crucially, on tackling social norms. After all, part of this is about seeing what the norm is and challenging it constructively.

We know the damage that smoking causes and we know also that it is a problem that very much exists. According to ASH Scotland, it is estimated that 60,000 people smoke in cars while children are present and that 22 per cent of Scottish children aged 13 and 15 are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. We have a problem; we have the damaging impact; we now have a bill.

The question is, rightly, how the ban can be implemented and enforced. The proposed measures are both proportionate and enforceable. The bill sets out a way for Police Scotland to be responsible for enforcing its provisions, just as they are tasked with enforcing the seat-belt legislation, of which there were some 36,000 breaches in 2013-14. All children should be protected as much as possible, and it is our responsibility, as members of Parliament, to be the voice of the children and young people of Scotland when they need to be heard. The penalty for breaching the ban will be proportionate, with a £100 fixed-penalty notice being issued to those who are found culpable of the offence, and it will apply to any vehicle. I am confident that the people of Scotland will take a responsible approach to the ban and that, therefore, there will be a benefit to both children and adults who may be exposed to second-hand smoke.

To summarise, we have a problem—the damaging impact of second-hand smoke—but we now have the bill, and we all know how to take it forward. Therefore, I believe that we have a responsibility to take action.

I am a smoker, but I am also a supporter of the bill. I used to smoke in my car when my children were young, but I abhor the thought of doing so now. I see the damaging impact that it can have on our children, and I now know why my children do not smoke. As a grandfather, my habits have definitely changed and I never think of smoking when my grandson or granddaughter is in the car. My grandson, who is aged three, now says to me, “Stop smoking. Stop smoking.” For me it comes down to their rights and my rights. I have the right to smoke, but my grandchildren—indeed all children throughout this country—have the right to fresh air, and I do not have the right to impinge on that.

I offer my support for the principles of Jim Hume’s bill and welcome the SNP Government taking it forward. Let us work together to make the bill work and to make a positive difference to the lives of not only the children of Scotland but the people of Scotland.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

I congratulate Jim Hume on introducing the bill and commend the Health and Sport Committee for its scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I am pleased to speak in support of both the bill and the Health and Sport Committee’s suggestions in its report. I know many other people who will be pleased that the bill has reached this stage and hope that there will be time for it to be passed before the end of the session.

I am thinking particularly of a group of children whom I met almost a year ago. At that time, they were in primary 7 at Heathhall primary school, in my constituency. Aware of the discussions around the legislation in England and Wales, which resulted in the ban that came into force there at the beginning of the month, the pupils undertook a research project on the arguments for and against the ban. That made them aware that, although action had been taken by the UK Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, no legislation had been discussed here yet. The pupils considered the evidence, and the proposition that smoking in cars carrying children should be banned was put to the class, receiving 100 per cent support.

The pupils then wrote to me individually, expressing what each of them thought was the strongest argument in favour of a ban; they also mentioned the effects on children of passive smoking. Some mentioned the number of chemicals in cigarette smoke; some wrote about the health conditions that can develop, such as asthma; and some wrote about the bad example that it sets for children when their parents and other adults smoke. I am afraid that they all wanted to know the reasons why the Scottish Parliament was not legislating like England and Wales.

In the face of such well-informed criticism on our lack of action in Scotland, I offered to go to Heathhall primary school and meet the class, armed with a copy of Jim Hume’s proposed bill. I was pleased to be able to advise the pupils that I was one of the signatories to the bill. We discussed the process of scrutiny of a member’s bill, and I explained that I did not know how long it would take for the bill to progress. All those pupils, who were in primary 7 last year, will be in secondary 1 now, dispersed to schools throughout the Dumfries area. However, I hope that, because the pupils were so interested in the topic, they are aware that the bill will pass an important milestone today. I was most impressed by that whole exercise in democracy in a primary school.

The pupils also prepared posters on the dangers to children of second-hand smoke in vehicles, and the Scottish Government has proposed an amendment to the bill’s commencement date, to co-ordinate it with an education campaign. Indeed, the Law Society highlights, in its briefing, the need for a prominent and rigorous public education programme that addresses smoking cessation in addition to the dangers to children of passive smoking.

My experience of the awareness of the Heathhall primary 7 pupils leads me to suggest that some of the public education efforts could be focused on children because children are receptive to messages about the harm that second-hand smoke can do to them. They probably do not want their parents—or their grandparents, as in Richard Lyle’s case—to smoke at all and they will encourage smoking cessation. As all parents know, it is much easier to break a promise to yourself to cease to do something than to break a promise to one of your children.

Of course, an education campaign that is aimed at drivers and their passengers who smoke will also be necessary but it is my view that it would be helpful to engage the children of smokers or children who travel with smokers in getting the message across.

I was also interested to note from its briefing that the Law Society wished to see the scope of the bill expressly extended to include the use of e-cigarettes, as it is not clear that they would fall into the definition of “lit” substances that include tobacco. I am in favour of that suggestion. Although e-cigarettes are less harmful to smokers than conventional cigarettes and can be a helpful substitute, the proliferation of vaping shops that sell electronic tobacco products on high streets throughout Scotland and the promotion of a range of flavours that can be added to e-cigarettes concern me.

There is a danger of e-cigarettes rehabilitating and normalising smoking, and some of the flavours that are offered are clearly designed to attract young people who do not already smoke. Too little is known yet about the long-term effects of nicotine vapour and we should not be taking risks with the health of children in particular by permitting those products to be used in confined public spaces or in vehicles carrying children.

The Health and Sport Committee recommended that

“the driver be made vicariously liable” if someone else smokes in their vehicle when under-18s are present. The driver is already responsible for ensuring that children use the correct child restraint or seat belt if they are under the age of 14 or less than 1.35m in height, even if the driver is not the parent of the child concerned. It seems sensible to take a similar approach to smoking. Indeed, that approach is taken in the UK regulations that have just come into force.

Issues around enforcement have been raised and, as with other motoring offences such as using a mobile phone or eating while driving, enforcement could be problematic in some cases—although, unlike eating or using a mobile phone, the smell of smoke in a vehicle containing children would be rather a giveaway. I note that there are discussions between COSLA and the Scottish Government regarding making the legislation jointly enforceable by Police Scotland and councils’ environmental health officers, who already enforce the ban on smoking in public places. That seems a sensible development.

I congratulate Jim Hume on introducing the legislation and the Health and Sport Committee on its constructive comments in the stage 1 report. With—I hope—the support of the Scottish Government, we will soon address the gap in our legislation that my young constituents in Heathhall’s primary 7 were so anxious that we should close.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

Like all the speakers before me, I understand that the bill will play an important role in ensuring that we continue on the path to creating a healthier Scotland. It will not only protect the health of children but it can have a positive influence on decreasing the number of smokers in Scotland.

I thank the Health and Sport Committee for its work and I thank Jim Hume for introducing the bill. I am not a member of the committee. I welcome the committee’s consideration of the effect that the bill could have had on the Travelling communities and the worries around that. I am glad that the matter was brought to light and I am delighted that the issue of the privacy of the Travelling communities’ mobile homes has been addressed.

I thank the Scottish Government for its support for the bill and its continued work on encouraging the decrease in the level of smoking in Scotland. As part of the Scottish Government’s tobacco control strategy for creating a tobacco-free generation, the bill stands shoulder to shoulder with campaigns and legislation such as the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, which are all contributing to reducing the level of smoking in Scotland.

I congratulate Scotland’s public health minister, Maureen Watt, on her work in regard to the take it right outside campaign, which promotes a common awareness that it is never safe to smoke in the home or in a car if children are there. Her commitment to the campaign is important and the bill enhances the strategies outlined by the Scottish Government. It all combines with the committee’s work to create a very promising future for the health of Scotland.

I should say at this point that I am an ex-smoker. Like many members, I used to smoke far too much, and I used to smoke in the car. Thinking about it years later, I want to say, “What on earth were we thinking?” Being in a confined space and travelling far away—travelling to France—with three children in the back, and thinking it was somehow all right just to put the window down a little bit and indulge in one or two cigarettes from time to time, was not only disgraceful but actually dangerous. I remember the number of times that I thought my cigarette had fallen on the floor and I had to try to stop the car quickly. That happened not only when I was on my own, but when I was with my children. I thought, “What could ever happen?” but the worst must happen in a number of cases.

My point is that it is never safe to smoke in the car. Everyone’s situation is different, but there are small changes that parents can make to their smoking behaviour that will pay great dividends in protecting their children from second-hand smoke. That is what I did: I smoked a lot outside in the rain before I decided, more than 20 years ago, that I would stop. I never looked back, and I would encourage anybody to follow suit.

Stewart Maxwell noted that similar legislation has been introduced in other countries; France implemented a law in July, not so long ago. I agree with the minister’s position: the fine seems to be adequate. Given that some city councils impose penalties of around £50 for littering with cigarette ends, a fine of £100 for intoxicating children with second-hand smoke seems to be appropriate.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that this nation stops hurting itself with tobacco products. I am speaking not only about smokers, or ex-smokers like me, but all of society from children to adults. We need to change our attitude to smoking.

Jim Hume’s bill will help to protect the health of children and young people, although I personally would have gone further and stopped everyone smoking in cars, regardless of who is in the car. Jenny Marra called for the legislation not to be the last word on the matter, and I agree with her on that, as there is still a lot more to be done.

I have no doubt that, in the future, children will be shocked to know that it was ever possible to smoke in a vehicle: that it was possible to be in an enclosed metal tank packed with highly flammable fuel and machinery, which moves at high speed on wheels, while igniting a naked flame inches away from such a dangerous situation. It is shocking that someone in control of a car would not think of their passengers’ safety.

We could perhaps have gone further, but I will support the bill at stage 1. It is a stepping stone towards the future and a healthier and smoke-free Scotland. I thank Jim Hume once again for introducing his member’s bill. It is important that the Parliament considers bills from members as well as bills from the Government, as that ensures that there is variety and diversity in the legislation that is brought to Parliament.

Photo of Jackson Carlaw Jackson Carlaw Conservative

At one point this afternoon, during an exchange between the minister and Duncan McNeil on the subject of cabriolets, I thought that I saw a gaping hole in the legislation. Where would that leave horse-drawn carriages, or a horse and cart? If a child can be affected by smoke within 1m, the smoke from someone who is smoking 1m away while walking down the street is presumably equally damaging.

I say that only to highlight where the debate on the legislative process can take us. I am a lifelong non-smoker, contrary to what Jenny Marra might think, and it was exposure to passive smoking that made me that way. I will give three examples. First, I remember going home from school in Kelvinbridge on the Glasgow underground, as we used to call it in those far-off days; there was a little ashtray on the floor of the carriage, which was thick with tobacco smoke. I would then get on the bus, which upstairs had a corridor along the side and bench seats, and I needed a knife and fork to carve through the smoke to find the seat that I would eventually sit in.

Then there was my father, who smoked a cigar called Hamlet, but happiness it was not. He got a new car with oyster grey, velour roof lining, but in very little time at all it was bile yellow. I thought, “Well, if it’s sticking to the roof, what else is it sticking to?” That was a perfect example of its kind.

Similarly, going to the cinema was an ordeal, as we could hardly see the film because of the smoke. Only once, when I saw “The Towering Inferno”, did tobacco smoke add to the atmosphere, but in general it was a hideous experience.

In many respects, I have no sympathy for tobacco. For that reason and because, as Nanette Milne made clear in her opening speech, the Scottish Conservatives support the bill’s underlying principle, I will support the bill at stage 1 at decision time tonight and, in all probability, at stage 3.

However, there is the matter of enforcement and policing priorities. Is the issue that the bill addresses so prevalent that only a legislative solution is appropriate? After all, it is not a road traffic matter. Unlike using a mobile phone while driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or not wearing a seat belt, this is a legislative measure that is aimed at motorists and which is, uniquely, not driven by road traffic concerns. In that sense, it is new.

It will be impossible to establish on a drive by whether older children are under or over 18 years of age and, as the bill does not apply to e-cigarettes, the confusion arising could be such that motorists are stopped for no good or appropriate reason by police officers.

Photo of Jim Hume Jim Hume Liberal Democrat

Assistant Chief Constable Higgins said in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee:

“Our officers are well versed in assessing a situation as they see it from a pragmatic point of view. If they passed a car and saw someone smoking in it, and if they also saw child seats in the back, that would give them a fair indication that the child is under 18. It would be about overlaying a common sense, pragmatic approach”.—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 16 June 2015; c 50.]

ACC Higgins said that the police would be very happy to enforce the legislation.

Photo of Jackson Carlaw Jackson Carlaw Conservative

The roads are littered not just with cars with smoking drivers but with good intentions, and joint enforcement with local authorities will presumably be restricted to stationary vehicles.

We will support the bill tonight, setting any concerns to one side, but I have a general rather than a specific reservation, to which I now turn. In order to change public attitudes, we are increasingly resorting to legislative solutions. The case for such measures is invariably subjective, often untried and does not have the necessary evidence base in support. That is not to say that the bill’s proposed measure is misguided; it is to argue that we cannot always be sure, based on what is known. It leads to some adopting an absolutist argument that brooks no alternative view, in order, it seems, to reinforce the case for a particular measure when common sense dictates that the case cannot be proven.

In my view, the Scottish Conservatives were wrong to oppose the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill, which Stewart Maxwell introduced a decade or so ago to ban smoking in public places. I was not a member of the Parliament then, so it might be regarded as easy for me to say that now. However, I tried to express that opinion in the previous session of Parliament. Conscious of the sensibilities around the issue, I included my opinion in a draft speech that, out of courtesy, I forwarded to our late colleague David McLetchie. It might be said that I lit a fuse and waited for the explosion. I did not wait long. The thunderous footfall down the corridor and the earnest remonstration were real and instant enough.

When the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill was progressed earlier in this session of Parliament, I worked hard to overcome the sceptics in my party to ensure that Scottish Conservatives supported the bill. One key to achieving that was the inclusion of a sunset clause. It seemed to me that the advantage of that was that we could adopt a legislative measure, give it every chance to succeed and then, in a sensible post-legislative debate after a number of years, review its effectiveness. On that basis, a wider consensus was achieved to support the measure.

Let us be in no doubt that had such a provision been attached to Mr Maxwell’s bill, any sunset debate would have unanimously validated the policy. However, that might not always be the case. I accept that when all else has failed, there is a temptation to consider legislative alternatives. It might be that such initiatives emerge in future on matters such as obesity or in respect of other addictions. A good case, but not a proven case, might be made for any measure.

Rather than constructing an artificial debate, it might be more consensual and credible to argue that there is a proposal and a case for giving it a shot at succeeding, but that consensus might well be more readily achieved—or scepticism among the public overcome—if all concerned know in advance that, after a sensible period of time, the measure will be tested in a post-legislative vote and then either found wanting and allowed to fall or, more hopefully, vindicated by practical evidence and then reaffirmed.

The routine inclusion of a sunset clause in ambitious but speculative public health legislative initiatives is not onerous. It simply establishes that Parliament will review the success of the measure after, say, three or five years. Why would we not do that? If a measure has proved to be effective, it will be reaffirmed. If not, it will fall, but the process will allow for more general support as we seek to at least try to improve Scotland’s public health over a much broader range of issues.

For those reasons, Scottish Conservatives will propose a sunset clause for the bill. We believe that what the bill proposes is exactly the kind of measure that could be effective and it speaks to an attack on the public health of young people that we should tackle fearlessly and directly. However, a sunset clause will at least test the effectiveness of the measure in, say, three years’ time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Will you draw to a close, please?

Photo of Jackson Carlaw Jackson Carlaw Conservative

That will enable us to achieve wider support, both political and public. We suggest a sunset clause not to delay, hinder or frustrate the bill—our support for it is not conditional on such a clause—but to require the Parliament to review it, building on the precedent that was set in the MUP legislation and establishing a sensible precedent for the future.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

The Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill continues the progress on tackling smoking in Scotland that was begun in 1999 by Kenny Gibson, at a time when the evidence on second-hand smoke was still weak, and continued by Stewart Maxwell, whose efforts led to the UK-leading ban on smoking in public places. The evidence on second-hand smoke is no longer weak, and this member’s bill is justified on many grounds. I congratulate Jim Hume on its progress.

The bill is justified given the research evidence on the effects of second-hand smoke, and the fact that children are not autonomous and are therefore unable to protect themselves justifies the measure ethically. The reports from the BMA board of science in 2007 and the Royal College of Physicians in 2010 also supported the measure, and experience from elsewhere has demonstrated the improved outcomes that can be achieved. I therefore question whether a sunset clause is necessary. Such a clause is useful for a new measure that has not been tested elsewhere, but it might be an unnecessary addition to the bill given that the measure that we are discussing has been tested elsewhere.

Research has shown that there are direct links between a child’s exposure to second-hand smoke and a range of illnesses including, as Nanette Milne said, sudden infant death, asthma, respiratory infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, meningitis and middle ear disease. Stewart Maxwell reminded us of the proven benefits, particularly in relation to asthma admissions, that have derived from the ban on smoking in public places. FOREST—the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco—and others were quite sceptical about that, but there is absolute proof that the public smoking ban has worked.

Canadian research has shown that a single cigarette in a stationary car with its windows closed can produce 11 times the level of second-hand smoke that is found in an average—Canadian, I presume—bar. The levels of fine breathable particles were more than 100 times greater than the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 24-hour standard for exposure and 15 times the EPA hazardous rating. Research has also shown that the levels of pollution are not reduced to a reasonable level when the windows are open. That is critical, because one of the main defences has been, “Open the windows and it’ll be fine.” That is just not the case.

We already have bans in a number of situations. Smoking is banned in company cars, and in Germany, Chile and other places there is a ban on smoking in any car that is used for work purposes.

It is a widely held belief—and there is some evidence to support it—that children who are exposed to smoking behaviours are more likely to take up smoking. The fact that that does not reflect Jackson Carlaw’s experience probably demonstrates the extreme common sense and intelligence that he had at a young age. Some 2 per cent of 13-year-olds and 9 per cent of 15-year-olds in Scotland are regular smokers. It is good to see from the Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey report that the numbers are reducing. That is welcome, but it is estimated that about 15,000 young people still take up smoking each year in Scotland. The smoking industry needs that in order to continue making profits. It is vital that we bear down on that as far as we can.

Nanette Milne and Stewart Maxwell reminded us that 85 per cent of adults agree with the proposed legislation. The same poll also showed that the proposals are welcomed by 70 to 72 per cent of smokers, including, as we learned, Richard Lyle.

Evidence from Australian states that have introduced bans suggests that compliance is high. That is the fascinating thing about the ban on smoking in public places. It was said that we would have terrible trouble enforcing it. There would be riots in the streets, publicans would go on strike and people would stop going to pubs. However, the number of prosecutions has been tiny. Scots are a law-abiding race and therefore a law like this will probably be obeyed. The estimate is 200 fixed-penalty notices a year; it may well be considerably less.

In Canada, nine out of 10 provinces, for example Nova Scotia and Ontario, have similar legislation. Self-reported exposure to passive smoking reduced by more than a quarter after the legislation was introduced. We heard from many members about other areas, including Australia and Cyprus.

According to ASH Scotland, the best available evidence shows that 22 per cent of Scottish 13 and 15-year-olds are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. That is a large number—maybe 60,000 individuals. Reducing that will be important.

As Cara Hilton, Elaine Murray and others reminded us, the issue has already been legislated on in Westminster. Since 1 October, it has been illegal in England and Wales to smoke in a car or other vehicle with anyone under 18 years of age. I slightly fail to understand why a Sewel motion—or, as it is now called, a legislative consent motion, since Lord Sewel got into a bit of difficulty—was not applied in this case, thus making the law apply across the whole of the UK. Nevertheless, the bill is welcome.

Some people have questioned whether the act of smoking in cars is in itself a problem. Jackson Carlaw suggested that it was not, but there is good evidence that smokers are more prone to accidents. Smoking is a distraction and some countries, such as Kuwait, have introduced a total ban on smoking in cars. I am not suggesting that we do that immediately, but it would have the effect of protecting other vulnerable groups, such as non-smokers, smokers who are trying to give up and, in particular, adults with incapacity, who are an important group. There is a high level of smoking among adults with mental health and learning disabilities, and they may need protection, too.

I am glad that the specific issue of convertible cars has been dealt with. The issue of drivers being responsible is a matter for stage 2. Further consideration will need to be given to the issue of the penalties, who should enforce them and whether that should be extended to other groups. There will need to be effective publicity before the bill’s provisions are implemented. Jim Hume referred to the issue of discretion when determining the age of passengers. Although I agree with that, the committee did not agree that the defence of not knowing whether the passengers were all adults should apply. Again, that will need further work.

As Jenny Marra said, we need to keep up the pressure with new measures. It is good that the Government supports plain packaging, which needs to be introduced. I suggest that local authorities should have powers to ban smoking in play parks and play areas. We should have a ban on smoking outside stadia and not just inside them because of the necessity of going through big crowds and lots of passive smoke. Jim Eadie referred to support for parents to stop smoking in homes. That is very important and we should continue with that.

For all those reasons, Labour will support the bill at decision time. It is a very welcome measure.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

I thank all members for a good and constructive debate on this important legislation for the health of Scotland’s children. This is Parliament at its best. I thank again Jim Hume and the non-Government bills unit for their work, the Health and Sport Committee members for their helpful consideration and the committee clerks for their assistance with that work. The stage 1 report is very good. Some issues need further consideration, but it is great to hear such support for the principles of the bill.

As I highlighted in my opening speech, the Scottish Government has made clear for some time its commitment to protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke.

Jenny Marra and Cara Hilton said that not much has been done since the 2005 act was passed. Incidentally, that was, of course, first proposed by my colleague Stewart Maxwell in a member’s bill, which was taken over by the Government at the time. Much has happened since then. I refer to the 2010 tobacco retail register, the prohibition of vending machines and tobacco displays, and the on-going campaigns. I launched the latest take it right outside campaign just yesterday. Plain packaging would, of course, have been in our Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill if we had not managed, along with others, to persuade the UK Government to proceed on a UK-wide basis. Smoking in hospital grounds is, of course, covered in that bill, which is going through the Parliament.

We should make no mistake. Jim Hume knows very well that, if he had not proposed this bill, the issue would have been in the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill. That shows that the Government has different ways of working. It has collegiate and cross-party ways of working. Perhaps the Health and Sport Committee might have liked the issue to be in the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Bill, but this is how we decided to do things.

Photo of Jenny Marra Jenny Marra Labour

The minister has pre-empted my question. All credit to Stewart Maxwell—everyone knows that the genesis of the smoking ban was his bill. Why did the Scottish Government not decide to adopt Jim Hume’s bill, as we adopted Stewart Maxwell’s bill when we were in government?

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

I have just answered Jenny Marra’s question. The new First Minister said in her very first speech that she wanted to work in a more collegiate way. This is precisely an example of that happening.

I point out to Jenny Marra that she got her figures wrong. The number of people who smoke has dropped to 20 per cent. The figure is not 23 per cent, as she said. There was a 3 per cent drop in 2013-14. People now choose different ways of stopping smoking, of course.

The bill is a very 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. I am confident that the rationale behind the measures will earn widespread support in line with public attitudes. It has been estimated that 85 per cent of Scots want children to be protected from passive smoking while they travel in the confined space of a car. As a Parliament, we must respond to that.

I say to Mr Carlaw that there was no sunset clause in the England and Wales legislation and there has been good evidence. The bill is based on the public wanting it and there has been good evidence in the consultations on the bill and the consultations that the Government undertook.

Nearly 10 years on from the introduction of smoke-free legislation, it is difficult, as Dr Simpson mentioned, to imagine smoking in workplaces, cafes or pubs. Attitudes have changed, and the bill’s purpose is to build on and continue to drive a change in culture. As Nanette Milne said, there is a perception that the seat-belt legislation and the mobile phone legislation are not enforced, yet in 2013-14 Police Scotland detected more than 36,000 seat-belt offences and 34,000 mobile phone offences. It is perhaps good to get those figures out there. Obviously, the police are taking action where necessary.

As with any bill, amendments and improvements may be suggested as the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill progresses through Parliament. Again, I state the importance of working together to ensure that the legislation is effective, enforceable and implemented quickly. We need to be very careful in considering some amendments that might be lodged—for example, on making the driver liable. There may be equality issues. Imagine, for example, a female driver with a very overbearing and forceful male passenger who might refuse a request from her. We need to be very clear if we want to make the driver liable.

Elaine Murray made a very good point about public education focusing on children. We know, for example, that more children are interested in recycling than their parents. That is why we are funding the ASSIST—a stop smoking in schools trial—pilot, which involves peer mentoring on the harms of smoking.

Ultimately, the Scottish Government believes that the underpinning principles of the bill are strong. That is why we are happy to support the bill at stage 1. I have had a helpful dialogue with Jim Hume since coming into post, as did Michael Matheson before me. I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with Mr Hume in considering the range of issues that were raised today and possible amendments that might come up at stage 2.

Photo of Jim Hume Jim Hume Liberal Democrat

I thank the minister for those remarks and all members for their support and contributions. I am greatly encouraged by the wide support from across the chamber.

I will address a few concerns and issues that have been raised. I do not want to be churlish, but I note that Cara Hilton said that the legislation in England and Wales preceded our bill, but the bill was proposed in this Parliament prior to any discussions south of the border. The British Heart Foundation has noted that this Parliament’s proposal led to England and Wales legislating. Indeed, a couple of years ago, I went down there to give evidence on my consultation results. We in Scotland are, therefore, still leading the way.

I wrote to the Health and Sport Committee after the publication of its stage 1 report, which I was grateful for, and provided clarification on a number of issues that have been raised this afternoon. I would like to share some of those points with members, to ensure that there is a clear understanding about the principles and aims of my bill.

I will deal first with whether the measures in the bill are necessary. The Health and Sport Committee came to the conclusion that

“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”.

It is clear that existing campaigns such as the take it right outside campaign—which was mentioned by Duncan McNeil and Richard Lyle—have proved to be inadequate in raising awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke to children’s health. In fact, the campaign continues its efforts to educate people, with the Minister for Public Health, Maureen Watt, having visited a nursery in Glasgow yesterday to raise awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Such work is appreciated, but it is clear that more orchestrated efforts are needed in order that we reach that goal.

The take it right outside campaign has correctly identified the fact that no amount of second-hand smoke is safe. However, as was said by Anne McTaggart and others, there are still 60,000 children per week who sit in smoke-filled cars during journeys. My bill is a necessary step in ensuring that education and enforcement will be uniform across Scotland, and that adults are educated about, and encouraged not to engage in, smoking in the presence of a child.

I previously mentioned—as did Nanette Milne and Jim Eadie—that conditions and diseases including asthma and respiratory tract infections, as well as an increased risk of lung cancer, are avoidable, but they continue to affect children because of second-hand smoke.

I want to reiterate that there is a strong case for Parliament to adopt the legislation and to protect our children today. That will enable at least 60,000 children to have a healthier start in life.

I want to be clear about another topic that has been brought up, relating to penalisation of the person who smokes. The bill is clear that any vehicle passenger who is over 18 and is smoking when children are in the vehicle will be liable for a penalty. I am happy to work with members, the Government and the committee regarding vicarious liability provisions, but at this stage I think that that might make the bill overly complex and also risks penalising people unduly. Instead, the focus should remain on protecting children and, through this measure, on helping to educate people—including children themselves, as they will be future drivers—about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

However, as I said, I am happy to work with members and the committee on that. That is why I also believe that setting a single-rate penalty of £100 will serve the purposes of clarity, uniformity in enforcement and fairness for all who are found to be liable to pay a penalty. I believe that the arguments against that—for example, claims that it will negatively impact on people from less well-off backgrounds—do not stand. The deterrent will be as strong and can, in fact, be more fair to those who cannot afford to pay a reduced fine immediately, because they will be given 29 days to do so.

The flat-rate penalty will ensure that those who are able to pay immediately do not get a better deal by having an early-payment discount. I want to see the fine being used as a means not to criminalise people but to deter them from subjecting children to second-hand smoke. Just as I will not accept a discount on children’s health, I am opposed to a discount in that deterrent measure.

I will provide additional clarification on the exemption of types of vehicle. People who are using a motor vehicle that is

“designed or adapted for human habitation … and is being used for that purpose” will not be liable for a penalty. I was very glad to hear Christian Allard’s strong support for that.

As I have stated before, enforcement will be the responsibility of Police Scotland. However, through constructive dialogue that I have had with the Scottish Government, it has emerged that the principles would be able to go even further through a joint enforcement mechanism whereby local authorities share enforcement responsibilities with Police Scotland. Of course, we know that we can trust Police Scotland to utilise its professional expertise in individual cases, as it stated during the committee’s scrutiny of the bill.

I note the results of the 2014 Scottish household survey, which was published a few weeks ago and which Jenny Marra mentioned. The survey shows a drop of 3 per cent over the past three years in the percentage of adults who smoke: it is now down to 20 per cent. Just this week, we saw that the numbers of quit attempts through NHS smoking cessation services are at upwards of 66,000 for 2014-15, which is a rate of 19 per cent.

That is to be welcomed, but it also demonstrates the opportunity that we have right now to capture the potential benefit of the bill in that it may encourage more adults to consider whether it is responsible or acceptable to smoke in the presence of children more generally. In fact, the Scottish Government’s tobacco control strategy seeks to reduce the proportion of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by 2020. I welcome that and I note that the bill will contribute to achieving that aim.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

Does Jim Hume agree that one of the reasons for taking smoke outside is that the effect of the chemicals from the smoke can linger for up to five hours? That effect might be similar, although possibly less, in cars.

Photo of Jim Hume Jim Hume Liberal Democrat

It is well known that the 50 or so toxins in second-hand smoke linger for some time in cars. Although we cannot see them when the smoke dissipates, the dangerous toxins are still there.

Studies from countries that have banned smoking in vehicles show that legislating in this area can encourage people voluntarily to introduce smoke-free homes. From Canada and the United States to Australia, the positive impact of such legislation has been demonstrated.

If the bill leads to cultural and behavioural change in cars—as I hope and believe it will—it is possible that people in Scotland will voluntarily reduce smoking in other areas where children are present.

Other studies show that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves—apart from the case of Jackson Carlaw, of course. Reducing exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles can not only have immediate benefits in protecting children’s respiratory systems, but can reduce the likelihood of children taking up smoking in later life—which, of course, can only be a good thing.

In taking the bill forward, I have been encouraged by the positive views that I have received from individuals, including parents, grandparents and people under 18, as well as from health organisations and charities. I hope that by agreeing to the bill at stage 1, Parliament will make a significant contribution to enabling every child in Scotland to develop healthy habits and have a healthy life. No child should have to go through the physical and psychological anxiety of being trapped in a car with adults who smoke. The education and deterrence that we need can come through the bill, to enable people to look after their health and wellbeing.

I again thank members for their positive and thoughtful speeches, and I thank the Scottish Government, whose expertise has strengthened the bill. I look forward to the bill process continuing. Like Elaine Murray, I hope that we will get the bill through stage 3 in this parliamentary session. I look forward to Scotland being a country where children are protected when they are at their most vulnerable, and are given the healthy start to life that they deserve.