 Y cyfnod y cyfnod y byddai cefnod am ystafod y Pwg 15184 yw eu mobl Rwy'n rhoi'r ddifracto'r fawr, mae ddigonwys i ysgolai'r ddaf. Rydyn ni'n ddigonwys ar y terfodol y cwym顽. Rydyn ni'n digyntbwyll ond eich ddweud yn ddigonwys i ysgolai ysgolai ryfernewid ar gyfer eich ddweud, ac mae'n ddigonwys i'r ddweud. Yr eich ddweud y ddweud gan eich ddweud ar yr Arglog Cymnig Cyswbleth Cymru yn y Llyfr, a ydych i gyf SQLN yllud yma. The bill is amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 58A, the marshaled list, that is SP Bill 58AML and the groupings, that is SP Bill 58AG. The division bell will sound and the proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon and the period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendments should press a request to speak buttons as soon as possible and I would now ask members to please refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, offence of smoking in a motor vehicle with children, review and expiry. I call amendment 1 in the name of Jackson Carlaw, which is grouped with amendment 2. I ask Jackson Carlaw to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group. Please Mr Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Nothing that I'm proposing this afternoon is in any way designed to frustrate, delay or impede the progress of the bill in Jim Hume's name that we are going to debate and hopefully approve later this afternoon. We are a unicameral Parliament with what many in it have expressed a concern with regard to our competence and post legislative scrutiny. We are a Parliament that is increasingly looking to promote social change through legislative action in terms of seeking to alter the public attitude. I believe in the next Parliament that it's conceivable that on the issue of obesity there could be some legislative proposals which come forward before us. Just as we did with alcohol minimum unit pricing, Scottish Conservatives, a matter of principle, believed that there is an argument in a unicameral Parliament, in one where members have expressed concern about the competence of our post legislative scrutiny, to require Parliament, after an interval, to commission both a report to establish what the practical consequence of the legislation that we have passed has been. Did it do what we hoped for? Did it achieve the ends that we set for it? Was it even more successful in fact than we had allowed for when it was originally passed? Is, through our post legislative scrutiny of that particular measure, are we able to stand and issue testament to a much wider world that may be looking to us as an example for some of the social progressive health legislation that we passed? To demonstrate what the success of that legislation has been. If it has been, then it would stand no obstacle on this chamber from subsequently thereafter being reaffirmed, but it would do so on the basis that we had taken the time and the trouble to be certain that the action that we had taken, sometimes in supportive measures that we cannot prove at the point that we passed them in which we may strongly believe, in which we may strongly hope but which we are nonetheless approving and passing into legislation in an expectation but not a certainty of success that within a given period of time, and here it is within five and six years, the Government of the day would then commission a report to establish the success or otherwise of the legislation and also to reaffirm in Parliament its place within the legislative statute. It's as simple as that. I hope that I understand there may not be considerable support for this afternoon. I hope that the principle, at the very least, will register in the minds of people in this Parliament. I don't favour Lord George Fox's alternative of a second parliamentary chamber to undertake scrutiny of legislation in this Parliament. I don't know if there's any public appetite for it, but we have to recognise that many members have expressed concern about this Parliament's ability to look at the legislation that it has passed after it has passed it after a period of time to establish that it has been effective. The amendments that I present this afternoon, as we did within the alcohol minimum unit pricing bill, as we will do in future social legislation and attempts to effect the better health of Scotland through the legislative process, we will do so in the knowledge that we propose an amendment such as this in order that Parliament has the confidence to review what it has done and to reaffirm it if it has been successful or otherwise. I move the amendments to my name. No one would object to the principle of post-legislative scrutiny. We certainly need to have more of that than we have had in the past, but to propose a specific sunset clause, because I think that's what it in practice is on this bill, seems to me to be rather odd. I don't think that we can have a general rule that every piece of legislation has such a clause. I think that we have to be very careful about which pieces of legislation attracts that particular clause. Jackson Carlaw mentioned the minimum pricing, and as is well known, I supported that. I think that it's fairly new territory and people weren't absolutely certain of the consequences of it. There is some argument in favour of a sunset clause for that bill, but I struggle to understand the rationale for a sunset clause on this particular piece of legislation, because it's all going to come up in the open debate, but it's extending what is in fact an existing piece of legislation. The science about smoking and enclosed spaces is not in doubt. It's been tried in other countries successfully and so on. There are a whole series of facts that would make it highly improbable, if not impossible, that we would change our mind on that piece of legislation. In terms of a wind-up, I would ask Jackson Carlaw to envisage a situation in which we would change our mind on that legislation, because even if it was established that not a large number of people had been found guilty of an offence, it doesn't mean that legislation didn't work at my act as a deterrent. The reality is that we know the science on that. I just can't imagine circumstances in which we would change our mind about it. While not disagreeing with the general tenor of what he said in terms of legislation that we have passed, I certainly oppose those particular amendments on that particular bill. To Jackson Carlaw, I have a lot of sympathy with the principle of those amendments and have argued in the chamber and in committees in this Parliament before for increased post-legislative scrutiny. I think that it is something that across the board we do not do enough of. I agree with my colleague Malcolm Chisholm's comments that it is perhaps a dangerous precedent to set that we put into legislation the requirement for post-legislative scrutiny rather than making the strong assumption that this is something that Parliament will undertake itself. Regarding the sunset clause, I also agree with my colleague Malcolm Chisholm. Any member of the public looking very closely at today's debate might interpret a sunset clause that we intend to revisit this legislation or may interpret that we are not entirely serious about its implementation, which may then affect compliance. As I will say later on in the debate this afternoon, I think that it is very clear from the smoking ban in public places that there was generally widespread very good compliance with that legislation and I would expect exactly the same in this bill too. Jackson Carlaw has not had the benefit, as I have had, of sitting through the scrutiny of the bill and the health committee. I think that what he has been expressing is a general antipathy towards the notion of government attempting to improve the health of children trying to prevent the detriment to their health. Or, indeed, Jim Hume trying to protect children's health. The point that I would make to him is that it would be impossible after the fact, after this legislation is enacted and comes into force and runs even for several years to examine the benefits in any scientifically meaningful way, it will be impossible to evaluate and to quantify the improvement to children's health that will be affected as a result of this piece of legislation. I do not think that anybody in this chamber would seriously argue that preventing adults from smoking in the enclosed space of a car in the company of small children is not a good thing. What he seems to be arguing against is the ability, the idea that this Parliament should deign to intervene in people's lives at any level in order to improve and protect the health of our children. That strikes me as a very, very curious position to take. I hope that members will not support this amendment when we are voting on it. Many thanks, minister. I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Scottish Government's position on the amendments in Jackson Carlaw's name. I must admit that I too was surprised by Jackson Carlaw lodging this amendment and the reasons he expressed for doing so. At stage 1, he made reference to constructing an artificial debate. It is my view that there is nothing artificial about this debate. The harms of secondhand smoke are well established by evidence. There is widespread public and stakeholder support for this measure. It is therefore not clear to me what is artificial about this debate. Minister Carlaw described the measures as an ambitious but speculative public health measure. A number of countries have adopted similar legislation to protect children. In that respect, there is nothing speculative about it. Furthermore, this is not the first time that we have implemented smoke-free legislation in Scotland aimed at reducing the harms of secondhand smoke. I see no reason for the provisions of the bill to cease to have effect in six years. It is important that protection continues to be afforded to children in the long term. In relation to amendment 2, I can understand the desire to review whether the objectives of the bill have been achieved. However, this is only one measure that is being introduced to achieve these aims. There are a number of other tobacco policies that will impact on those such as the Take It Right Outside campaign. Further legislation aimed at denormalising smoking such as plane packaging and measures included in the health bill. I agree, as others have said, that, of course, there is a need for post-legislative scrutiny and for committees to do that. However, I really do not think that this is a good example on which to pin that. The idea that, after six years, somehow whether this has been a successive failure that we go back and allow smoking in cars is quite abhorrent to me. It is worth noting that smoking prevalence numbers in Scotland dropped from 23 to 20 per cent between 2013 and 2014. It makes sense that, as prevalence falls, the number of young people exposed to smoking and secondhand smoke will also decrease. I thank the minister very much for giving way. This is a figure that we have debated in the chamber before, the drop in smoking from 23 to 20 per cent. Does she have any evidence of where that drop has come from or if it is due to the use of e-cigarettes? As we know, some of it can be put down to the use of e-cigarettes, but we know that e-cigarettes are one way of stopping smoking and stopping smoking using e-cigarettes and the other cessation measures that are available in the NHS all contribute to the drop in smoking. I want to emphasise that success cannot be determined by enforcement alone. I believe that the aims of the bill and their success should be considered as part of wider tobacco control measures in Scotland. That was the point that Mike McKenzie was making. There are a number of data sources in place to measure progress towards those aims and I would be happy to keep the Scottish Parliament updated on progress. For those reasons, I do not support those amendments. I also thank Jackson Carlaw for lodging those amendments, number one and two, if at least for allowing me to explain why I do not believe that they are required in this bill. I appreciate that the member is using the bill to make a point about post-legislative scrutiny. No doubt that that will become more of an issue, especially with extra pressure on the Parliament's timetable with new powers on their way. Effectiveness of legislation should not simply be about how enforceable it is or the number of prosecutions or fines handed out. It can be effective by acting as a deterrent and tackling social norms. There is clear evidence of the positive impact of similar legislation in other countries. In South Australia, around 88 per cent of cars are smoke-free. In Canada, there is an almost immediate 33 per cent reduction in smoking in vehicles. In other places, there are suggestions that people thought about the impact of their smoking anywhere in the presence of children, particularly welcome when it would simply not be reasonable to apply the legislation to what people do in their own homes. There is already a degree of public awareness of the bill. I expect that that will increase when it is supported by a high-profile campaign, which the Scottish Government has already committed to doing. That, I think, will work towards tackling social norms and make people think twice. As I have said previously, in many cases it is not the fear of being caught that changes people's behaviour but the concerns that their actions are not socially acceptable. The ban on smoking in public places, mentioned by Jenny Marra, did not contain a sunset clause and I think the vast majority of us would acknowledge that that has been a great success. The bill is widely supported. Almost all the respondents to the health and sport committee's call for evidence supported the bill. More widely, public opinion already appears to be on the side of the bill. 85 per cent of Scottish adults and 72 per cent of smokers support the bill. That does not give any impression of any public scepticism. The bill is straightforward. I want it to stay that way and I do not believe that it requires a sunset clause. I shall not be supportive of Mr Carlaw's amendments today. I now invite Jackson Carlaw to wind up and please indicate, Mr Carlaw, if you intend to press or withdraw. As I have indicated, Scottish Conservatives support the bill and we will be supporting it at decision time tonight. The two provisions, the two clauses, the second one is a requirement for Parliament to undertake a report of the effectiveness of the legislation. A response to Malcolm Chisholm, I suppose I would say that it would allow us to see whether the number of prosecutions for individuals had risen or decreased. Whether, in fact, a report recommended that there should be a broader level of the number of people who were empowered to enforce the legislation. Whether, in fact, e-cigarettes had proved to be a problematic contradiction within the legislation and that they too should be subject to inclusion within the provision. I can think of alcohol legislation that we have passed in this Parliament on the restriction of sale on particular offers. I do not think that we have ever subsequently discussed what the effectiveness of any of that legislation has actually proved to be in public health. That is not an argument against passing the legislation in the first place, but it is an argument that says that any unicameral Parliament that has a lot of legislation going through the committee system, which is largely conducting its business on the progression of government legislation, that there should be a requirement in this Parliament to occasionally, particularly where it has taken public health actions to change public mind, to look at what it did to see how effective it was. In this instance, I agree, and on the smoking and public places bill, I do not think that there would have been any question of this Parliament if it had to reaffirm the legislation not doing so. It would have done so in the back of a report to Parliament that would have detailed considerably how beneficial that legislation had been. In this instance, it would have demonstrated exactly how beneficial it would have been, but we seemed to lack the courage to do that. We simply passed the legislation and move on and hope for the best. That is not the best way to carry public opinion. In some of the public health legislation, I believe that the Government may think that it is worth attempting in the next Parliament. If we do not have the confidence of that level of scrutiny, it will prove divisive rather than unifying when it does not mean to be. I will press the amendments in my name, one that is a sunset clause, one that simply calls for a proper report of the legislation that takes place. The question then is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. It will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage, the Parliament is now suspended for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. This is a 32nd division, and members should please cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1 is yes, 11, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 2, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, already debated with amendment 1. I ask Jackson Carlaw to move or not move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order, please. The result of the vote on amendment 2 is yes, 14, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That ends consideration of amendments. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15146, in the name of Jim Hume, on the smoking prohibition children in Motor Vehicles Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I invite all other members to take the conversations outside of this chamber, please. I now call on Jim Hume to speak to and move the motion. Ten minutes, please, Mr Hume. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to open this afternoon's debate on the smoking prohibition children in Motor Vehicles Scotland Bill, which I move in my name. The bill was introduced one year ago this week on 15 December 2014. Stage 1 was completed on 8 October, with a very positive debate in this very chamber, when the general principles were unanimously agreed to. The bill was considered at stage 2 by the Health and Sport Committee on 17 November. Now, a month on, we debate the final stage of the amended bill, which I hope and believe will be passed at decision time today. Before outlining the changes to the bill agreed at stage 2, I thank those who have been involved at various points in the process, not least the Health and Sport Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill. A quick look at that committee's work programme shows how busy it is, so I am extremely grateful to them all. I would also like to note my thanks to the non-governmental bills unit, in particular Stephen Fricker, Joe Hardy, Claire O'Neill and the rest of the team. I would also like to thank my own parliamentary team, past and present, Craig Maran, Fiona Mellon and Eliana Kazekiew. Their hard work has made this bill possible. Of course, there have been many organisations and individuals that have made their mark too, such as the British Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation, Marie Curie, Cancer Research UK and the BMA. There was a Dr Nina Rauwa-Dewer and in particular Dr Sean Semple, whose research has been used for much of this bill. Many thanks to them all for their valuable input and support going back about three years in total. Of course, again, I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its continued scrutiny of the subleg powers. I must reiterate my thanks to the minister and her officials. Their positive and very constructive approach has been helpful, especially throughout the past year and recent months. My consultation on the bill generated wide support and the responses produced some clear themes that helped to develop and refine the policy, particularly around the age of those to be protected and the level of the fixed penalty. I am grateful to the many people and organisations that put into the bill some 160 responses to the consultation and the vast amount of those that were in support. I remind the chamber of the aim of this piece of legislation. It is to protect our children and young people from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke within the very close confines of a motor vehicle, where the concentrations of harmful particles are significant, around 11 times denser than the smoke in bars that we have already legislated for. Another statistic that I regularly refer to throughout stage 1 was the 60,000 children that are put in this position each week in Scotland. To put that in context, that is the equivalent of the combined population of Dumfries, Hoik and Gallashill, or more people than can fit into Hamden Park stadium. To ensure the protection of children, it will be an offence for an adult to smoke in a private motor vehicle when a child is present. An adult being defined as a person aged 18 or over, a child under 18. Public vehicles and, of course, work vehicles are already covered by the existing legislation. The committee had suggested that there should be an offence for the driver of a vehicle to fail to prevent smoking by another adult, and Malcolm Chisholm came forward with that amendment at stage 2. I am pleased that the committee accepted my arguments against that at that stage. I believe that the focus must be on the health of the child and the one that is causing the harm, the actual smoker. Turning to the key amendments to the bill that were agreed at stage 2, the fixed penalty regime, the schedule to the bill now provides for joint enforcement of the fixed penalty regime by Police Scotland and also the local authorities. I work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the regime is as similar as possible to that which applies to the ban on smoking in public places. The benefits, in my belief, are threefold. It strengthens the bill without making it unnecessarily complicated or burdensome, and in turn enforcement will be simpler for police and local authorities as they are already familiar with that regime. The result will be to afford better protection to our children and young people. Aspects that remain from the schedule, as introduced, are the fixed penalty itself to be set at £100, although there is a provision for Scottish ministers to amend that by regulations. The period for payment is 29 days without a provision for any early payment discount. Local authorities will have discretion to extend the period for payment if they so wish. I believe that that is proportionate, but it also provides flexibility for changing circumstances. It is likely that there will be some minor one-off additional costs to local authorities, and those have all been addressed in the revised financial memorandum. Section 5 allows for commencement of the provisions to be set by Scottish ministers. That will allow the measures to coincide with a national campaign to raise awareness of the new offence. I have been encouraged by the minister's clear commitment to the legislation, and I welcome the high profile that it will be given to such an important new law. Members will be aware of the Scottish Government's Take It Right Outside campaign that the minister mentioned in the amendment stage, which has had good effect, so I will explore options to strengthen the campaign in my closing speech. The minister lodged amendments to change the term human habitation to living accommodation, remove the reference to not less than one night and remove the defence that a person smoking reasonably believed all other occupants of the vehicle to be adults. The minister may expand on these in her contribution, but I was happy to support those amendments as they provide clarity and are consistent with the policy intention. During the stage 1 debate, a number of members, including Jenny Marra, Carhelton and Richard Lyle, quoted Cancer Research UK, highlighted that, in Scotland, a private vehicle remains one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke. Passed the legislation will, of course, address that situation and help to ensure that all our children and young people have the best and healthiest start in life. I believe that the provisions in the bill are clearly understood and enforceable. I also believe that it will be effective in encouraging a culture shift and challenging social norms, which will have a positive impact on future generations for years to come. I thank the member very much indeed for giving way and I will come on to congratulate him on his bill. I wanted to ask him in his opening remarks if, in the course of considering all the evidence on the extension of the smoking ban to cars, did he consider the issue of smoking in tenement buildings in the shared and common areas? There is a problem there that many are privately owned but publicly used. Did he see evidence for that and does he think that that is something worthy of debate in this chamber? That was not part of the consultation at all. It was very clear that we were concentrating absolutely on motor vehicles and that is what was consulted on. We did not consult on that at all, but it may be interesting to explore perhaps in the next Parliament. As the minister and others said at stage 1, almost 10 years on from the ban on smoking in public places, it is difficult to imagine smoking in workplaces or restaurants now. Christian Allard in the last stage 1, he said that, in years to come, people will be shocked to know that it was ever possible to smoke in a vehicle when children were present. I would once again like to thank those many involved for their very collaborative approach. I look forward to listening to contributions from across the chamber. This is a popular bill. Nearly all respondents to the Health and Sports Committee called for evidence to support it and, as many have observed, 85 per cent of Scottish adults, including 72 per cent of smokers, supported it. The bill again shows how this Scottish Parliament has led the way in all of the UK in starting the debate on protecting children from second-hand smoking cars. Today we have the chance to make that a law, a law that will save millions of pounds to the purse of the NHS, but more importantly without doubt will make so many more people lead a better, healthier life, a life without asthma, lung infections, sudden infant death syndrome and the ravages of lung cancer. A healthier future, thanks to all of you who support this bill today. 60,000 children per week are exposed to second-hand smoking cars every week in Scotland alone. About the number of people in one Scottish parliamentary constituency, 60,000 children are being exposed to second-hand smoke with around 50 toxins and carcinogens in that smoke. 60,000 children do not have the option but to go into that smoke-filled car on their trip to their relatives, school or perversely, their sports event. 60,000 children of the future that we can all help today by supporting this bill. A bill that will save millions to the public purse and help many souls and generations to come to have a healthier start to life. Our job as MSPs is to make a difference. I think that today we can make a real difference. As I said, I move the motion in my name that the Parliament agrees that the smoking prohibition, children and motor vehicles, Scotland Bill, be passed and hope for support across the Parliament at decision time today. Many thanks. I now call in Maureen Watt, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I congratulate Jim Hume on proposing the bill. I thank him very much for working closely with the Scottish Government over the past few months so that we could improve its provisions together. The bill, as has been said, has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its parliamentary progress. Central to the debate on the bill is the fact that smoking remains the primary preventable cause of ill health and death in Scotland, ultimately killing one in two long-term users. This costs the NHS as much as up to £500 million each year. The evidence on the harmful effects of secondhand smoke is also well evidenced and understood. That is why continuing to protect people, especially children, from secondhand smoke is a key. While existing smoke-free legislation has undoubtedly made a difference, children can still be exposed to secondhand smoke in cars and homes. Where children are medically at risk due to conditions such as asthma, the harmful effects can be especially severe. We know that there has consistently been strong public and stakeholder support for this legislation. At the end of last year, we consulted on similar measures. 79 per cent of those who responded thought that it should be an offence. A survey earlier this year suggested that 85 per cent of adults in Scotland supported a ban on smoking in cars when children and young people under age 18 are present, including the majority of smokers. Mr Hume's consultation for the bill demonstrated a similarly high level of support with 84 per cent of respondents supporting the principles of the bill. That level of support has been reflected in the cross-party support for the bill. I was pleased that the health and support committee supported my amendments at stage 2. Amongst other changes, they removed some problematic aspects of the bill, such as the defence and one of the tests for exempting vehicles, which are also people's homes. The removal of those provisions from the bill will make enforcement easier. I was also happy to support the amendment that Mr Hume put forward at stage 2, which will see a joint enforcement role between Police Scotland and local authority environmental health officers. Environmental health officers have played a vital role in the implementation of current smokely legislation. Protecting public health is fundamental to the role of environmental health officers in Scotland, and they bring with them a wealth of experience. However, although enforcement of this offence will be important, the aims of the bill cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. That is about promoting a change in cultures and attitudes. We know that the harms caused by exposure to second-hand smoke are widely understood, and therefore the majority of adults choose not to smoke in their homes and cars when children are present. We developed our national campaign, Take It Right Outside. That aims to raise awareness of the risks posed by second-hand smoke to children. I launched that campaign last year to a positive reception. It is my belief that the introduction of this offence will provide a deterrent and continue to promote this key message. We know that there has been a significant change in behaviours and attitudes since the introduction of smoke-free legislation in 2006. Enforcement in respect of that legislation was measured, and we would anticipate the same approach to the proposals in the bill. When those important provisions are commenced, they will contribute to the commitment to reduce the amount of children exposed to second-hand smoke to 6 per cent by 2020. In 2014, that figure was 11 per cent. We have seen amendments put forward today seeking a statutory view of those measures. However, that is only one measure that will contribute to reducing children's exposure to second-hand smoke and to reducing children's exposure to smoking behaviour. On the same point that I made to Jim Hume about protecting children from smoke, will her Government consider legislating on smoke in tenement buildings and shared stairwells? Many children, and I am sure that she has had representations from constituents on that, are exposed to smoke in their own closies where they live. In relation to that, yes, I have had representations from members and others through my correspondence as a minister. The introduction of such measures are not without its challenges. We are looking at that. However, I think that the message of taking it right outside does mean that you just do not go into the close that you take it right outside the building, and we can certainly see that that is having an effect. The Scottish Government will continue to progress a number of other measures to contribute towards those aims, so this bill should not, cannot be considered in isolation. As I said earlier, I am happy to report the Scottish Government's progress towards those ambitious targets to this Parliament at any time. I would like to see all children in Scotland protected from the harms of second-hand smoking vehicles as quickly as possible. As I have said previously, raising awareness of this offence will be an important part of ensuring compliance with the law. We have therefore committed to delivering an awareness campaign to make the public aware of the change in the law, and we will do that as quickly as we can. Scotland can be proud that it has proven itself to be a world leader on tobacco control. This is an important piece of legislation in ensuring that every child in Scotland has the best start in life, and I am pleased that the bill has received strong cross-party support throughout the Parliament's consideration of it. I thank Jim Hume for his work on the bill, and the Government is very supportive of the bill. The last bill of the year of 2015 is very well scheduled, as we woke up this morning to a new report about cancer and its risk factors. In debates in this chamber, we generally say that 40 per cent of cancers are preventable, but this morning's report from the Stonybrook Cancer Centre in New York says that cancer is overwhelmingly the result of environmental factors, and that only 10 to 30 per cent of cancers are just down to the way that the body naturally functions. There are a variety of reactions to this report this morning, but I think that evidence is gathering pace every year that there is more and more evidence that environmental factors are leading to cancer. I did wonder this morning, as I woke up to the radio, if Jim Hume himself had primed the New York researchers to release their findings just this morning ahead of his bill. I think that there is little doubt that more and more needs to be done to improve environmental factors and prevent environmental factors that can lead to cancer. Ash Scotland says that one-fifth of 13 to 15-year-olds are exposed to smoke in cars, and Jim Hume himself cites very compelling figures of 60,000 children today exposed to smoke in that small enclosed space of a motor car. When I think back to jobs that I have had personally in bars exposed for hours on end to a thick fug of smoke when I was a student 20 years ago and the stench of smoke on my hair and clothes when I finished my shift, these are conditions that we simply would not tolerate now, it is not culturally acceptable. It was the smoking ban in public places that created the tipping point for this behaviour. It was bold and brave legislation that was initially branded, of course, as crazy, but when it was enacted people changed and complied with it more or less overnight because they knew deep down that it was the right thing to do and it made sense for themselves, their own health and the health of the people around them. That is exactly what I expect to happen with this bill today. People, I think, will look back and think that it is crazy that we allowed smoke to permeate such a small enclosed space, exposing other passengers to that danger as in a motor car. I am well aware of the Libertarian arguments about personal volition in private spaces, which is a motor car. I have a lot of sympathy with those Libertarian arguments. However, when we have such a broad consensus for a publicly funded health service provided for through taxation, then it is incumbent on us as custodians of that health service to make sure that it is sustainable. The millions of pounds that smoking costs our health service is simply not sustainable. That is why we need to legislate to improve environmental factors as well as people's health, and that bill does exactly that. Labour voted against the amendments lodged by the Conservatives this afternoon because the First Amendment was effectively a sunset clause asking the Government to review the legislation after five years. As I have already outlined, I think that this bill is an addendum to the smoking ban in public places. It will create a culture change. It will generally garner compliance and therefore I do not think that sunset clause is necessary. The second, as I explained earlier, for post-legislative scrutiny, I think that the Parliament should be doing as a matter of course, but I was sympathetic to Jackson Carlaw's arguments that we need to be making public health policy on the basis of evidence. I hope that the Government will have heard that message loud and clear. I believe that the public will comply because they know and understand the arguments on this. Smokers themselves know the dangers of their smoke, but as we know, there are barriers, poverty and environmental to them quitting. I predict that in 30 years' time we will have a smoke-free Scotland and we will look back and wonder how tobacco companies ever exploited our health and put the massive burden on the NHS that they do now. I think that it is worrying that we have not had debates on the big issues in public health in this country outside the legislative programme. This morning's news should give the Scottish Government real food for thought, with the worrying cancer statistics that came out in Scotland just this week coupled with this morning's evidence that far more incidences of cancer than we thought are probably preventable, than anyone serious about long-term sustainability of the health service should be taking a preventative agenda very seriously indeed. Why not make next year the year of prevention? We expect a new tobacco strategy in 2017, but I think that the Scottish Government should bring a debate much earlier than that. On diet, we have not seen any initiative that I can think of from the Scottish Government over the last few years to improve our relationship with fat and sugar. The minister is shaking her head. She might come back to this and explain what it has been. On alcohol, the Scottish Government has been content to leave their efforts on alcohol to minimum pricing, which is currently tied up in the courts. The member is going to have to close on a few times. In conclusion, I thank and congratulate Jim Hume on taking some very powerful vested interests to task by getting this bill passed today. I know the work that goes into bringing a member's bill to fruition, and he has guided the whole process with his own hands. A worthy legacy for a health spokesperson, and we are delighted to support it at a decision time tonight. I begin where Jenny Marra finished and congratulate Jim Hume on the progress of his private member's bills through to a decision tonight that I think will be supported unanimously by the Parliament. Beyond that, much of the debate has already been had and everything has been said, so there are only two points I would make. The first is that we have to hope that this legislation is exemplary and that it has the influence on public opinion that we would all wish it to have. None of us would like to see any great resource having to be deployed in its enforcement, and there could be issues around the practicality of that. So what we want to happen is for public attitude to be changed. Secondly, I very much would have liked this legislation to have been in place when I was myself a child. I think I said in the stage 1 debate that I have horrendous memories of my father puffing away on the cigar that was branded happiness is for those of you who remember back to these things. We were in the retail motor industry, so my father had a new car every six months. By the end, because it was sold as a second hand vehicle, the white felt lining of the vehicle was invariably a ghastly, trickily yellow colour. I remember journeys, some of which were five and a half hours long, where my sister and I endured what really was the most ghastly experience. What it did to us, I have absolutely no idea, but I was almost resolved then that smoking was a filthy, noxious habit that I would be very happy to see curtailed in any way whatsoever. Any child today should be subjected to that, I think, quite unconscionable. I also mentioned going home from school in the days when it was still bench seats in the buses and having to use a knife and fork to find a space through the smoke to even identify where a vacant seat might be. That was the culture of the time and it's gone, and the residual smoking in vehicles, which I think, of course, must be damaging to the health of everyone, irrespective of whether they're a child. The legislative aim today is not to subject children to that legislation, which will make a difference and is worthwhile. I'd like to have thought that social attitudes had changed to the extent that the legislation wouldn't be necessary. Interestingly, I was coming into Parliament in a taxi last week and the taxi driver said to me, as a matter he'd heard it on the radio, and so he thought he'd conduct a wee experiment. So he had spent the morning driving around Edinburgh's taxi counting the number of vehicles he saw within that shift where adults were smoking with young children in the car. And there were 16 examples within the four-hour period in the immediate inner city environment within Edinburgh. So whatever the common sense understanding of how this must affect children might be, the reality is it continues. We need to send a strong message, to say a legislative message, that I hope will prove to be exemplary, that I hope will change public attitudes. As I say, I congratulate Jim Hume on the bill that will be passed later on this afternoon. Thank you. We now turn to the open debate speeches of six minutes, please. Stuart Maxwell, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I begin, like others, by adding my congratulations to Jim Hume on getting his smoking prohibition children motor vehicles Scotland bill to stage 3? I mean, I laid my motion to introduce a bill to ban smoking in enclosed public places in the middle of 2003. And looking back over the last 12 years, it seems to me standing here today that it's rather astonishing to see the distance we have travelled in the fight against the scourge of tobacco and its impacts on our society. I think it was Jenny Marra earlier who said when the legislation was first thought of or thought that we would maybe introduce it, it was seen as ridiculous. It was seen as a crazy idea and many in fact ridiculed the actual prospect of a smoking ban in enclosed public places in Scotland and said to me several times that they would never see it in their lifetime. Yet only a couple of years later the ban was in place and was respected. I have no doubt that this particular bill puts another brick into the road that we are building towards a smoke-free Scotland. It's an important piece of public health legislation and one that will undoubtedly improve the health of children in Scotland. It is a very clear and a very focused piece of legislation aimed at tackling one problem, the exposure of children to tobacco smoke in cars. The Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance abuse survey for 2013 reported that 22 per cent of Scottish children aged 13 to 15 are sometimes often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. That's nearly a quarter of our adolescents are exposed to pollution levels, which are often higher than those in Beijing or Delhi. And don't forget that last weekend the smog in Beijing was so bad that children and elderly people were told to stay at home and not to venture outside. However, some people seem to think that that's all right to expose their own children and other people's children to that level of pollution. Smoking among 13 to 15-year-olds has now reached the lowest levels since we started doing modern surveys of smoking amongst this demographic group. Young people themselves are choosing to turn away from the dangers of tobacco. I believe that it's only right that we should support them by passing legislation that protects them from other people's unhealthy choices when they are too young to be able to make that choice for themselves. Children are more in need of protection than other groups in society for two reasons. One is that they are dependent upon adults, they have little or no autonomy, and the other reason is that children are much more vulnerable to second-hand smoke than adults due to their smaller lung capacity and, of course, their faster breathing rate. We tend to think only of asthma and other respiratory diseases when considering second-hand smoke, but the Royal College of Physicians produced a report in 2010 entitled, Passive Smoking and Children, in which they estimated that one in five of every sudden infant deaths could be attributed to passive smoking. I think that that's a terrifying and a shocking statement. For that reason alone, even if no other, we should pass this legislation this evening. I'm pleased to note that the bill has been amended so that responsibility for enforcement is shared between Police Scotland and local authorities. I think that that was a smart move at stage two. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. He mentions enforcement, and I just wonder if he is convinced, as I think Mr Hume is convinced, that this is actually going to work, because I see a lot of drivers still using their mobile phones in their cars that is not enforced widely, although some people are caught. Does he really think that this is going to work and be enforced? Strangely enough, that was echoes of the arguments in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in advance of the legislation coming in. I think that there is a difference. Many people do not recognise the dangers of the distraction that I'm using on a mobile phone in a car, because I think that there is nobody in our society that doesn't recognise the dangers of second-hand smoke and smoking. Yes, I'm taking up attention. Sorry, Jim Hume. I thank the member for taking intervention and just provide clarity. It is a misconception that there is no enforcement of mobile phones or using seatbelts. I think that the last figures that I saw were about 13,000 people in Scotland in one year being fined for using their mobile phones in cars. I thank Mr Hume for those statistics. I think that the general public will accept this in a similar way that they accepted the original smoking ban in enclosed public places, because the levels of support are clear from the survey evidence and I think that people understand the dangers not only to themselves but also particularly to children. I'm aware that the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland all supported this multimodal approach to enforcement, believing that the legislation would have more impact if this amendment was introduced and I'm glad that this advice has been listened to in that change made. We know that more than a fifth of our adolescents are exposed to second-hand smoking cars and we also know that similar legislation is already in place in Australia and Canada and is working very well. France introduced a ban in the summer and England and Wales enforced the ban at the beginning of October. It's also clear that this bill is likely to be popular with the Scottish public. The Health and Sport Committee found that 93 per cent of the respondents to their call for written evidence supported the bill's general principles and a UGov survey commissioned by Ash Scotland found that 85 per cent of adults and 72 per cent of adult smokers supported the introduction of a ban on smoking in vehicles carrying children. Mr Maxwell, could you begin to conclude? I am, thank you, Presiding Officer. The public are in favour of this legislation, health professionals are in favour of this legislation and I think that the time is ripe for us to protect our children and move Scotland towards a smoke-free future. Once again, I'd like to congratulate Jim Hume and I will vote for this legislation at decision time with a great deal of pleasure. I apologise that there should be speeches of four minutes. I congratulate Jim Hume on introducing the bill, which I'm sure everyone will vote for at decision time. In a sense, we've been over some of the arguments when we were debating the amendments. As I said, the science on this is not in doubt that it already works well in other countries such as Australia and Canada and it has started recently in England as well. Most of all, it is an extension of existing provision and, through the course of the debates, ten and more years ago, I think that everyone now accepts the arguments about the consequences of second-hand smoke for those who are inhaling it but not actually smoking it. I think that it would be appropriate once again in this year when Tom McCabe has tragically died to pay tribute to his work on that bill because, although I was the minister for health when the consultation was launched, I know better than anyone that was he who actually drove this forward and did the work on it. What we're told, of course, is that bad as second-hand smoke is everywhere, it's actually particularly bad in small enclosed spaces such as cars. In fact, there was a fairly staggering statistic that levels increase in spaces such as cars to over 11 times those of a smoky pub. In a sense, there's a particular need for legislation for enclosed public spaces and, of course, on top of that, we have the particular problems that children receive. Again, the briefing that we got from Cancer Research UK was very useful in that regard. They talked about a quotinine indicator that was used to measure second-hand smoke exposure. They said that the indicator showed that levels were 70 per cent higher in children than in adults. They also referred to statistics about 165,000 cases of diseases among children across the UK caused by second-hand smoking. Perhaps Richard Simpson will go more into the details of that, but, as Stuart Maxwell said, a lot of them are respiratory diseases but not all of them are respiratory diseases. I was on the health committee for stage 2, although not for stage 1. Briefly, I will then talk about the amendments. Obviously, one has been referred to in terms of the joint enforcement. Picking up the point about the earlier legislation, that mirrors now the provisions of the smoking bill. I myself moved an amendment, as Jim Hume said, but I was persuaded by his arguments that it was better to keep the bill simple and have the focus on the health of children and the offending smoker, keeping the drivers out of it. I think that there is an important opportunity now to educate people about the harm caused by second-hand smoke. There will have to be a campaign in relation to that specific offence, but, as part of that, I am sure, the wider messages about the dangers of second-hand smoke can be emphasised. That, of course, will be entirely useful in all sorts of ways. As Jenny Marra emphasised, action on smoking has to be right at the top of the agenda on public health. I hope that the Government will still be looking at a range of measures. We have come a long way on smoking, but it does not necessarily have to be the end of the road, because we are not actually going fast enough towards the target. I think that it is 5 per cent of people smoking by the mid-2030s, although some people might want to amend that to nobody smoking by that time. One specific issue that Jenny Marra mentioned is smoking in tenements in what we in Edinburgh would call the stair, rather than the close air. I think that that brought up with me as with many others, and I think that that is an area that the Government could look at. Clearly, we talked about other measures as part of the e-cigarette bill. I will not go into those controversies today, in case I get into another argument with Stuart Maxwell about that. One last point is the health inequalities dimension of smoking, because of those who are smoking it still, I think, four times as many in the most disadvantaged areas compared to the most affluent. Action on smoking is also an action against health inequalities, as well as for public health more generally. We now move to closing speeches. As we round off our work on this piece of legislation, I would like to add my thanks to the witnesses who gave both written and oral evidence to the Health and Sport Committee as we scrutinised the bill. I would particularly like to thank the committee clerks and the SPICE team for their help in bringing that evidence together into our committee report. As we near the end of this parliamentary session, the health committee is, as Jim Hume indicated, dealing with a particularly heavy legislation agenda, and we simply could not get through it without the hard work of the people I have mentioned. I would also like to congratulate Jim Hume on the work that he has put in to formulating the bill and on securing the Government support without which it would not have come to fruition. There is no doubt that, in the decades since the legislation to ban smoking in public places was enacted, we have seen a transformational change in attitudes to smoking and an increasing public realisation of the harmful effects of not only the active smoking of tobacco but also of the passive inhalation of tobacco products. That, I am sure, accounts for the widespread support that the legislation has received from the public, with 85 per cent of Scottish adults agreeing with it, including 72 per cent of smokers themselves. There is no doubt that levels of passive smoking in cars can be very high, as we have heard from Jackson Carlaw from his childhood experiences, because of the restricted area in which it can circulate. It has been shown that air conditioning or opening of the windows does not remove the associated risks to the people who are shut into this confined space. As children are particularly vulnerable because of their developing respiratory systems and rapid breathing, of course it is right to protect them from smoke inhalation when they are in vehicles with adults who may be smoking tobacco products. Our concern has not been with the principle of protecting people under 18 from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, but rather with the problems that we foresee there may be an enforcing legislation suggested by John Mason in this debate. That is why we sought to have the impact of the bill assessed by Parliament a few years after it is enacted, a view shared by the Law Society of Scotland to ensure that young people are in fact being protected by the legislation. I really do feel it in a Parliament without a revising chamber and the pressure of working on this health committee such that post legislative scrutiny of the laws we approve is well now impossible. It will become increasingly important to include clauses in public health legislation which will enforce the examination of its impact on modifying public opinion. However, it is clear that Parliament is not yet prepared to accept this reasoning and in this case that certainly won't preclude us from supporting efforts to protect young and vulnerable people from secondary smoke inhalation. I hope that the legislation will have the success that it deserves. I am going to draw my remarks to close by once again congratulating Jim Hume on his successful efforts to bring Scotland into line with other parts of the United Kingdom and those countries that have similar legislation in place such as Canada and Australia. There is a general acceptance that the legislation that we are approving today will not be a panacea, but it has the potential if reinforced by appropriate and on-going education and together with the other anti-smoking initiatives that the minister mentioned, it has the potential to be of significant benefit to the health of Scotland's children by changing people's attitudes towards smoking in cars with children present. Of course, Presiding Officer, we will be joining the rest of the chamber in voting for the bill at decision time this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I join with others in congratulating Jim Hume on bringing forward this bill and seeing it through all its processes. I hope to do something of the same in the spring, although I am not getting the Government's support in the way that he has. Of course, Government support is critical of smoking and, indeed, alcohol are two of the three big problems with our society. We have been on a journey to a smoke-free society. I was delighted to be associated with Kenny Gibson's early efforts in 1999. At that time, the evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke was much less clear. Although, as Jackson Carlaw has graphically described in his usual excellent narrative, the effects were part of common experience as 70 per cent of people smoked. It took another six years for attitudes to change the evidence to emerge and eventually the banning legislation. The bill, on the other hand, now has wide public support, as Stuart Maxwell spelled out, even among smokers. Even Forrest, the tobacco industry-sponsored organisation, has said that smoking in cars with children should not happen, although they still oppose the bill. Many other jurisdictions have acted with good results and there is like to be reasonable compliance, as I hope, as there was in the ban in public places. When the attitudes are right, people will follow the legislation fairly readily. We know that about 60,000 individuals are smoking in cars while children are present, so there is a significant number that needs to change their behaviour. As Malcolm Chisholm reminded us, there is also a very strong health inequalities in smoking, and that is true of smoking in cars as well. The details of the background research are probably well known in the discussions at stage 1 and in the evidence presented. Canadian research showed that smoking in a single cigarette in a stationary car with its windows closed is 11 times higher than in the average bar. As Malcolm Chisholm said, in a moving car it is still seven times as high. The thing about opening the window and having the air conditioning on does not make sufficient difference. There is still a rating of over 100 times greater than the US Environmental Protection Agency's 24-hour standard, 15 times the hazardous rating. There is no doubt about that as being a significant element. The consequences for children are undoubtedly bad. It is worse for children, as many speakers have said, because of their immature lungs and faster rate of respiration. The level of cotonene has been proved to be much higher in children experiencing second-hand smoke in the same situation as adults. Asthma, for example, can easily be exacerbated, and that number dropped significantly after the smoking ban, the admissions. I hope that we will see something similar, if not as great, with this ban. One of the interesting pieces of research that I came across only last week from Japan is that second-hand smoke is strongly associated with dental caries in children, something that I had not previously thought of. However, there is a lot of research that has been shown. Smoke exposure increases the risk of meningitis, which is 18 studies, DNA problems with DNA, birth, stillbirth, defects, increased cot deaths, increased levels of meningitis, increased teenage hearing loss with gluia, worse situation for mental health with hyperactivity and conduct disorders, all those things. Members have referred to the Salsus reports, and Stuart Maxwell said that the numbers are the lowest that we have seen, which is excellent. There is a gender reversal there that is really worrying, and this is reflected, of course, in the adult situation, with rising levels of lung cancer in women. I think that I have only got four minutes, so I will move to the end here and just say that this is an excellent bill. However, we need to think now about the next steps. What are going to be the next steps? This is a salami tactic that we gradually choke off the tobacco industry and the faster we do it, the better. Jenny Marra's suggestion that we need to look at common spaces as a method of extending the ban in public places to stay heads, to closers, I think is welcome. However, there are all sorts of legislation abroad that we should look at. As you said, you are just about to finish, daughters. I support this bill, and I also support the call for a debate under the Government's time on major public health issues. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I now call on Maureen Mawr at six minutes. Minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to thank all members for their constructive and almost totally consensual contributions on this very important issue. That is the important piece of legislation for the health of Scotland's children. That, I think, is Parliament at its best. I would like to take the opportunity again to thank Jim Hume and the non-governmental bills unit for their work. I would also like to thank the Health and Sport Committee members for their helpful consideration and that committee's clerks who assisted that work over the last year. I would also like to thank my very busy Scottish Government officials in the tobacco control team for all their work on this bill and the health bill, which they have to deal with at the same time. I wish them a good festive season. I thank those who gave their time to provide evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, almost all of whom advocated that this legislation was both proportionate. There has been much consensus and it is great to hear such support for the bill. As I highlighted in my opening statement, the Scottish Government has made clear for some time our commitment to protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke. I know that many others are committed to the same goal and during the passage of the bill, Cancer Research UK lent their support by saying that making it illegal to smoke in cars with children will help to protect them from the hundreds of lethal chemicals around 70 of which cause cancer found in cigarette smoke. This bill is an important milestone. It will play its part alongside the vast range of measures that will continue to be progressed by the Scottish Government to reduce tobacco-related harm. It has been 10 years since the introduction of smoke-free legislation. That important step has seen attitudes shift significantly. This is another measure that will build on and continue to drive that change in culture that we wish to see. As James Cant, the head of the British Lung Foundation, when he gave evidence to the committee said, I envisaged that in a couple of years' time or even sooner people will look at this issue in the same way that we look at putting a child in their car seat. We have to put the seatbelt on because that is what you do to keep the child or young person safe on that journey. This is exactly what I hope will be achieved. Putting in place robust tobacco control measures is not about stigmatising those who wish to smoke. Ultimately, I think that we would all agree that doing all we can to encourage children and young people to choose not to smoke and protecting them from the harm caused by secondhand smoke is necessary. That is another important step in creating a tobacco-free generation in Scotland by 2034. It continues to promote the shift in social attitudes so that choosing not to smoke is the norm. I have had helpful dialogue with Jim Hume throughout the Parliament's consideration of the bill and we have worked together to improve the bill's provisions. I have always made clear the Scottish Government's support for the underprinig principles. It is my belief that the bill's provisions are strong and the approach taken to implementing this offence is the right one, and we are happy to support this bill at decision time. Jim Hume, to wind up the debate. Mr Hume, you have a generous ear for this. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It gives me a great pleasure to know that the bill does cross-party lines today. We have a mutual goal of protecting children's health in Scotland and it does this Parliament proud. As I have said repeatedly, the goal of this bill is to protect children and young people under the age of 18 from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. I am really happy to see that the hard work put in by everyone involved in this has resulted in a good, strong, cohesive and effective bill, which I hope and believe will be passed at decision time today. In its journey through the parliamentary procedure, the bill was strengthened at stage 2 and given unanimous support. We are now faced with the decision of whether to take the last step into passing this bill, which will see at least 60,000 children every week in Scotland benefiting from better health. At this final stage, detailed scrutiny input from those 160 that responded to my consultation, the many organisations and individuals mentioned in parliamentary committees has come to a fruition with a bill that will do what it was intended to do. That is to protect the vulnerable from the toxic fumes of secondhand smoke in a very enclosed space. Again, I thank all the members on the committees for their constructive work. Again, the ministerial team, fellow members, the numerous charities, organisations, academics and my own office team, Hume, passed and present. It is good to see one from the past in the gallery today, Craig Moran. I thank them all again. However, there is one person that I would like to thank, a woman who was selfless throughout her life, gave rather than to quote, inspired me and drove me on to make a difference in my community, a non-smoker who died five years and one week ago today from lung cancer. Doubtless brought on from inhaling secondhand smoke and that was my own mother, Joyce Hume, so I'd like to dedicate this bill to her today. I mentioned the consultation. It gathered wide positive support. Those responses shaped this bill and it is a credit to this Parliament that we have such a system. Despite differing views on aspects of the bill, we have a bill as the next logical step to protect the health of our children. I believe that it will do so. By developing policies on smoking, we are closing loopholes in legislation that are hazardous to children. As members pointed out, there are significant benefits to people from an early age by cutting down exposure to smoking. Research clearly shows that children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves. That is a point that the Public Health Minister also emphasised in the Government's ticket right outside campaign that she mentioned. Campaigns have not been enough to protect the 60,000 children every week exposed to secondhand smoking cars. In its report, the Health and Sport Committee says and a quote, "...education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to secondhand smoke and vehicles and as such, those further measures are needed." Deputy Presiding Officer, change in behaviour is vital. Reducing the exposure to secondhand smoke in vehicles can not only have immediate benefits in protecting children's respiratory systems but it can also reduce the likelihood that they will develop conditions in the future. We have the chance now to shape a number of preventative measures, freeing up resources from the NHS in the future but also giving a better chance to get a healthier start in life, saving millions of pounds and lives for generations to come. That is as much about the short-term benefits as it is about ensuring the long-term benefits and prevention from serious diseases such as lung cancer, as I mentioned before. It was a famous inventor who recognised this about 100 years ago, Thomas Edison, believe it or not, and I will quote. He stated, This bill today is in the interest of patients, cares for the human frame and goes a long way in disease prevention. This feature that Edison talked about is now. To truly protect children and their health, we must start by prevention, prevent diseases and remove their catalysts. I have had close and constructive work with the Scottish Government and I hope that that continues into the future as the bill becomes enacted and in place. It is appropriate that legislation designed to protect children must not be burdensome to anyone, confusing or hard to explain. This is why I am glad that at this stage, this last stage, the bill stands as a clear and simple message to all. It also provides clarity of enforcement for police officers and environmental officers in enforcing the bill's provisions. To this end, I am encouraged by the campaign that will be undertaken by the Scottish ministers to set the commencement of the bill's provision into force under section 5. I welcome the high-profile information and the awareness campaign that will be given to this important new law. We want more people to realise and understand the detriment to children's health from second-hand smoke, to recognise that opening the window makes very little difference and can, in fact, worsen the intensity of smoke in the rear seats. The campaign can add to the benefits of the purpose of the bill itself as it can provide positive spillovers and more opportunities for a wider part of the population who may not have children at the moment. That may alter their behaviour when they give their friends a lift to work. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that provisions in the bill, as currently stand, can be clearly understood and enforced. I believe that they will be effective in encouraging a cultural shift towards healthier habits and a better understanding of the danger of second-hand smoke, even when it cannot be seen. I also believe that this bill will have a positive impact on improving the health of many future generations to come. That is why voting for this bill is in the interests of parents' children and their future children, that we need to remove one more factor of harmful health from their lifestyles. The bill has had the backing of the British Medical Association, Scotland's commissioner for young children and young people, Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation and many, many more, a long list of supporters and professionals in health, the people who know. It gives this Parliament a good standing to have been one of the pioneering parliaments in Europe to have adopted such legislation. British Heart Foundation recognised this bill's debate as, as a quote, the first to introduce the debate about regulating smoking in vehicles in any UK Parliament, and it sparked great media debate in their words. The bill's progress in British Heart Foundation's words has led to a ban in England and Wales, so we can be proud that the Scottish Parliament has again led the way in protecting the vulnerable. It will give children a better start in life, knowing that the aspect of their health is legally protected in such an enclosed space. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to conclude by again thanking those involved for their co-operative approach. We have a bill today that can give 60,000 children every week in Scotland the healthy start to life that they deserve. I look forward to support from across the chamber today at decision time. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on the smoking prohibition in children in motor vehicles Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15201 in the name of Stuart Stevenson on the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. Mr Stevenson, I would like to call on you to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee please, six minutes or thereby. There is always a benefit in reviewing with a critical eye the regimes that govern our work here in Parliament and the work of individual members. The proposals put forward in the bill before us today seek to improve public accessibility of information reported by MSPs, allowing for public scrutiny to be effective. We will also ensure that a wide range of parliamentary sanctions are available and it broadens the definition of the serious criminal offence of paid advocacy. At present, due to partial overlaps in the reporting requirements in MSPs under the Parliament's registers of interests and the political party's elections and referendum's act of 2000, otherwise PEPERA, certain financial interests must be reported to both the Electoral Commission and the Parliament. The PEPERA requirements are defined in terms of donations for political activities, which includes parliamentary activities, whereas the Parliament is interested solely in financial interests that could be perceived to influence MSPs in carrying out their parliamentary duties. The two regimes have different criteria for registration, which can make the system complex. There are two separate complaints processes depending on whether an MSP is reported to the Electoral Commission or to the Standards Commissioner for Failure to register a financial interest. The committee believes that removing dual reporting will provide for simpler reporting requirements for financial interests overall for MSPs and greater transparency and accountability to the public than is the case at present. That will make details of MSPs financial interests more transparent, as they will be more easily accessible in a single place on our Parliament's website. The means of pursuing a complaint in relation to financial interests will also be streamlined for the public. The bill makes the necessary adjustments to the categories of registrable interest to enable the Electoral Commission to draw all the information that it needs from the Parliament's register. When dual reporting ends, the Standards Commissioner will take on sole responsibility for investigating breaches of those PEPERA requirements, which are currently investigated by the Electoral Commission, which the bill will incorporate into our revised register of categories. That will broaden the commissioner's remit and simplify the process for the public, one place for direct complaints. On another matter, the group of states against corruption, Greco, published the report in 2013, which recommended that consideration be given to lowering the current thresholds for registering gifts. Present members must register gifts of the value of 1 per cent of a member's salary at the start of the parliamentary session. That makes the current figure £570. The qualification is that it includes gifts that do not meet the prejudice test, for example gifts between members of the MSP's family. Others jurisdictions have lower levels of registration. The House of Commons is going to £300, House of Lords is going to £140 and in Northern Ireland it is £240. With those developments in mind and the desire to increase the transparency of members' interests in this place, the committee decided to include a measure in this bill to lower the threshold for registering gifts. The bill will reduce the threshold for registering gifts to half a per cent of a member's salary, rounded down to the nearest £10 at the beginning of the current parliamentary session. That would presently be £280. Let me turn to paid advocacy provisions. Paid advocacy is where an individual uses their position as an MSP to advocate a particular matter in return for payment, including a benefit in kind, or to urge any other MSP to do so. It is a criminal offence at a breach of the interest act for an MSP to undertake paid advocacy. As I have stated in previous debates, we first debated the subject in April this year, no MSP has ever been found to be in breach of the paid advocacy provisions. The committee is very clear, given the gravity with which paid advocacy should be treated, that there is a case for increasing the scope of the criminal offence. To that end, the bill amends the existing paid advocacy offence for greater consistency with the bribery act of 2010. Paid advocacy offence currently requires actual receipt of an inducement on MSP or an MSP's partner, where that results in some benefit to the MSP. However, the bribery act 2010 goes further than that. It does not require an individual to actually receive inducements in order to commit an offence but only to agree to receive such inducements. The committee considers that if an MSP is found to have agreed to undertake advocacy for financial gain or to have encouraged a fellow MSP to do so, it should be considered guilty of an offence regardless of whether the inducements have actually been received. During the stage 1 debate, Tamish Scott asked me whether that would cover a scenario where a member requests an inducement for advocating a cause. I took the opportunity to amend the bill at stage 2 to put beyond doubt that this scenario 2 should be covered by the paid advocacy offence and we amended it at stage 2. I move the motion that stands in my name that the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill be passed. I now call on Minister Jo Fitzpatrick, three minutes Minister. I am not going to propose to take too much time this afternoon commenting on the details of the bill before us. It will probably come as no surprise that the Government continues to give the member's interest bill its full support. My congratulations go to the members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and indeed to its clerks. The committee has made excellent and rapid use of the relevant powers made available to the Parliament under the Scotland Act 2012. The preparatory work to underpin the policy reforms contained in the bill was carefully considered and led to a robust framework. That was added to the amendments that the convener has just mentioned. It is obviously worth noting that this is a committee bill. We do not have them that often, so it is useful that we highlight that fact. There is a useful tool in our parliamentary processes and it is absolutely appropriate that this bill came forward as a committee bill. During the stage 1 debate, members across the chamber stood together behind those proposals and I have no reason to consider that position will change today. It is not often that a bill receives such unified support that deserves special mention. At stage 1, I summarised my broad assessment of what the bill delivers. The three main things from the Government's perspective. First, it seeks to establish measures to enhance members' accountability to the public, reflecting the latest views as to what constitutes appropriate property standards. Secondly, it seeks to standardise arrangements for reporting interests and streamlines the activity that is required of members and offers the public a single point of reference and ends the dual reporting that the convener talked about. Thirdly, it offers the Parliament flexibility in the event that circumstances arise that necessitate enforcement activity. The bill aimed high in seeking to produce a comprehensive review of existing practices. Of those three major areas, any one of them would have been significant to come forward in the first order. We cannot underestimate the amount of work that went into producing the bill and pulling together the three different strands. I consider that every member of the Parliament will benefit as a result of those changes, be that in terms of demonstrating their accountability to their electorate or from the streamlined reporting processes. The proposal to end dual reporting is a significant step forward to commend the committee for its commitment to that move and the benefits that it should deliver for both members of this Parliament and members of the public. The measures in the bill are not just symbolic reforms. They can be characterised as practical improvements, which can be realised from the start of the next parliamentary session. The Government welcomes the commitment that is shown by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointment Committee, and we look forward to the bill passing at decision time. This is a short but nevertheless important debate on the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament. Across the chamber, we all agree that we need robust, accountable and transparent mechanisms for reporting members' interests. The Parliament rightly prides itself on its openness and accountability, and the bill gives the Parliament the opportunity to revisit the existing legislation surrounding members' interests. The bill will help to increase transparency and accessibility of information about members' financial interests and will ensure that the Parliament has a robust set of sanctions to deal with any breaches to its rules. A useful measure included in the bill is the motion of censure, which will serve as a useful middle ground if a member is found to be in breach of the rules but that breach is not serious enough to justify the removal of parliamentary privilege. A motion of censure would allow debate and would give the member in question the opportunity to explain the breach and apologise. Another useful change is the length of time for which information of members' interests will be kept. The committee considered it more appropriate to keep registered entries for 10 years instead of five. There are a number of practical reasons for that. It will assist members by ensuring that information about their previously held interests are available at the start of a session. Similarly, if a member is not returned to Parliament but returns at a subsequent election, it is easier for them to check the interests that were previously recorded. The change will also increase transparency in relation to members' interests as the information will be easily accessible to the public for longer. Those changes, combined with the changes to the register, will provide an additional layer of transparency to the public seeking to access information on members' interests. As Stuart Stevenson said in his opening comments, the ending of dual reporting is an important step. At the moment, information is on the Parliament's website and the Electoral Commission website. That depends on the nature of the interest. Streamlining the process assists people in accessing information and will help members to comply more easily with the regime. I am pleased that no member has ever been found to be in breach of the rules and paid advocacy, but we must keep those rules under review so that it is right to strengthen that through the bill. Most members of the public would expect there to be a breach if a member agreed to undertake paid advocacy, even when cash does not change hands. That bill will ensure that such behaviour will be caught. The amendments that Stuart Stevenson brought forward at stage 2 extend section 9 of the bill so that it covers a member or their partner requesting an inducement for the member to carry out paid advocacy. That is a further and very useful clarification and a welcome addition to the bill. I take this opportunity to thank Stuart Stevenson and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the clerks for the work that they have done to progress this important piece of legislation. I am pleased to speak today for Scottish Labour and to support this motion that seeks the Parliament's agreement to the principles of this bill. The provisions will increase transparency and strengthen the standard regime in the Scottish Parliament. Openness, transparency and accountability must be at the forefront of the way in which this Parliament operates and I am happy to support the motion in Stuart Stevenson's name and support the member's interest bill. I now call Mary Scanlon. I associate myself with the comments made by Mary Fee. I would also like to thank Stuart Stevenson and the Standards and Procedures Committee for bringing forward these amendments to the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament. It is very nice to have the last debate of the year on a consensual note. Anything that brings greater transparency to this issue has to be welcomed. In the interests of clarity, transparency and consistency, I would like to take the opportunity to raise the same question that I raised at stage 2. That relates to benefits in kind. Given that we have the opportunity for the full chamber to hear, I think that it is appropriate if we could get some clarity on this issue. Stuart Stevenson said at stage 2 that it is not currently in offence to receive an inducement as long as the member does not do anything in response to receipt of the inducement, which is fine. He also said that it is the conditionality, the link between the benefit that is delivered and the action that the member has taken that is important. I think that each and every one of us across the chamber has been invited out to dinner quite regularly, where our hosts tend to take full advantage of the time with us to let us know exactly what their concerns are. The example that I would like to use today would relate to the UHI college lecturers. If I was still a lecturer, I might be saying to Mr Matheson to keep a little bit quiet while I speak, I do find it. It was never easy as a teacher when someone chatted in the background, so Cabinet Secretary or no Cabinet Secretary. If you are invited out to dinner, and if the UHI, for example, highlighted the fact that lecturers in the Highlands are paid £7,000 below lecturers elsewhere in Scotland, If I come into Parliament the next week and I raise this issue about the unfair pay to lecturers in the Highlands, then I would just like some clarity. Have I received a benefit in kind? Am I just receiving information? Do I then become a paid advocate? I think that we would all welcome clarity on that issue. Mr Stevenson, to wind up the debate, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me just start with the point that Mary Scanlon has made, which is a fair and proper point. The example that she gives of our, any of us, being out to dinner with someone who wishes to put a point to us. That is not caught by this unless the dinner is provided on condition that we take an action under the member's interest act. I think that it is that conditionality that is the important point. I will say that Parliament will be likely to be returning to the broader issue that is captured there when we discuss the lobbying bill, because of course that may well be that that is a matter of lobbying that will be caught, and the people who are lobbying us would be likely to have to register under the lobbying bill. Presiding Officer, that is for another day, but it is the conditionality. We can still go out to dinner. I am going out tonight, although I think that I am paying, so that certainly will not be caught. The invitations are now closed on that particular subject. Presiding Officer, Mary Fee dealt more than adequately with the subject of the sanctions that are being introduced and the broad sanction regime in particular at the issue of a motion of censure, so I do not propose to say anything material more about that. I do want to just talk about the removal of dual reporting. Although we will be passing a bill today, it actually cannot proceed as a new part of our law and our procedures here until the electoral commission is satisfied that the information and the register of interests will be sufficient to meet its needs. The clerks to the committee have been working with the electoral commission to ensure the provisions in the bill are satisfactory, and I, like others, thank officials in this Parliament and also at the electoral commission for their assistance in this matter. The current framework for ending dual reporting in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 does not extend to independent MSPs, and I want to just say a word or two about that. As that act stands, dual reporting can only be ended for members of registered political parties and not for independent members. Our bill contains an amendment to that act, which will allow dual reporting to be ended for all MSPs. I am pleased to be able to work with each of the independent members in this Parliament to make sure that the provisions in that regard are understood and agreed. Indeed, I saw Margot MacDonald towards the end of her life. I had a three-minute discussion on this subject and an hour of update on what was going on in Parliament. I will not reveal what I told her about what you were all up to. That would be a breach of confidence beyond what should be proper. I am pleased that the committee has been able to bring forward this committee bill, which I believe will streamline processes for dealing with financial interests, increase transparency and ensure that we have robust sanctions. I encourage all colleagues to support this change in the next few minutes. Thank you very much, Mr Stevenson. I do not expect an answer just now, but maybe when the lobbying bill comes forward, maybe you could tell me if Santa brings me presents, will I be a paid advocate for him. That concludes the debate on the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill. We now would like a motion without notice from the minister bringing forward decision time to now. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? Thank you. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 15146 in the name of Jim Hume. On the smoking prohibition children and motor vehicles Scotland bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the smoking prohibition children and motor vehicles Scotland bill is passed. The next question is at motion number 15201 in the name of Stuart Stevenson. On the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill is passed. I wish every member a happy, restful and peaceful Christmas in your year. I look forward to seeing you all when we return after the recess. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.