There is little doubt that the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 was a vital piece of legislation that our Scottish Parliament passed and played a vital part in changing behaviour in Scotland for the better.
We all now benefit from a safer, cleaner environment whether at work or enjoying a restaurant. That law has led to Scotland being a safer place to work in and enjoy, but I want to see a fairer Scotland, where every child has the best start in life. Recent research has shown that 17% of 11-16 year olds in the UK are exposed to second-hand smoke more than once a week while in a car with a further 30% indicating exposure once a week or less. These are shocking figures. I believe we can improve on the ban on smoking in public places and places of work, further protecting our children.
Research has found that second-hand tobacco smoke in cars has serious negative health impacts for children, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, coughing, wheezing, asthma and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Not to mention the known risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke and the fact those exposed to second hand smoke as children are more likely to take up smoking themselves in later life.
Some children have no option but to go into a smoke filled car en route to the school, shops or their sport. I believe we have a moral duty to protect those children from second hand smoke, which will allow children to have the freedom to get the best start in life and go on to lead healthy lives themselves. I believe we need to remove the danger of smoke filled cars and ban smoking in cars when children are present. That is why I am consulting on the intention to bring in a Member’s Bill which will prohibit tobacco smoking in cars when children are present.
Comments on Proposed Smoking (Children in Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill - Consultation by Jim Hume MSP
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (the College) is pleased to respond to the Proposed Smoking (Children in Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill consultation by Jim Hume MSP.
1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? (as outlined in Part 1 above.) Please indicate “yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response.
Yes, the College supports the general aim of the proposed Bill.
Passive smoking exposure significantly increases the risk of a range of diseases in children. It is estimated that over 4000 new cases of respiratory infection, wheeze and asthma in Scottish children could be avoided every year by reducing the exposure of children to passive smoking .
The College also commends the detailed ASH response to this consultation, which puts forward powerful and evidenced arguments supporting the proposed Bill.
2. Do you agree that legislation is a necessary and appropriate means of addressing the issues identified?
Yes. The introduction of legislation can send a clear message that second-hand smoke is hazardous, and that children should not have to be exposed to it before they are competent to consent.
Evidence from provinces in Canada that have introduced this measure shows that it has been effective in reducing child second-hand smoke exposure. However, legislation should also be accompanied by other measures to inform, educate and persuade people in Scotland to take action to reduce others’ exposure (both children and adults) to second-hand smoke.
3. What (if any) would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What (if any) would be the disadvantages?
Advantages include health improvement for the under 16's, and increased public awareness about the harms of second-hand smoke.
Possible difficulties in enforcing the legislation have been raised as a disadvantage. In terms of enforcement, similar offences for lack of seatbelt use and use of hand-held devices exist, and compliance with these laws is monitored through routine traffic offence observation. It should not be necessary to divert more resources to enforcing a new smoking in vehicles law: infringements would be captured as part of the process of ensuring compliance with existing laws.
4. Do you agree that a ban should apply to smokers while in a car with children under 16 years of age?
Yes. We agree with the consultation document that the age of 16 is reasonable, on the grounds that this is the age when a person is normally considered to have the capacity make informed, competent choices of this nature.
5. Do you agree that the age of an offender shall be anyone aged 16 or over?
Yes. The justification in the consultation document for this decision is reasonable.
6. Do you agree with making the fine for an offence (£60) in line with offences for failing to wear a seat belt and the use of a hand-held device while driving?
Yes. This is proportionate with other traffic offences, and we agree it would be inappropriate to apply motoring penalty points for offences under this proposed law.
7. What types of vehicles should the ban apply to? Do you believe that these proposals should include convertible cars irrespective of whether the top is down?
Yes: the ban should apply to all types of vehicle.
8. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications (if any) of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
There should be long term financial benefits from health improvement as a result of the legislation.
As described in our response to question 3, we do not believe there are likely to be significant negative financial implications resulting from requiring enforcement of the proposed Bill.
9. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
As evidence shows it is children and young people from more disadvantaged areas who are more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles, the proposed legislation has the potential to have a positive equality impact.
10. What lead-in time should be allowed prior to implementation of the ban and how should the public be informed?
The College feels there should be a one year period of public education through various forms of media to demonstrate the impact of second-hand smoke on children prior to implementation of the legislation.
A substantial public education initiative would be helpful in getting good compliance with the Bill, and in educating the smoking public about the dangers of second-hand smoke in general. A measure such as this Bill has the best chance of support and good compliance if the public are fully aware of the benefits, as they were with the public smoking ban.
11. Do you have any other comments on or suggestions relevant to the proposal?
No other comments.