 should will like to take part in the debate is S&P. To press the request to speak buttons now. And then I call on Jim Huliffe to speak to you. And I move the motion. Mr Huliffe, 13 minutes please. I'm delighted to open this afternoon's debate on the smoking prohibition Children in Motor Vehicles Scotland bill. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the Health and Sport committee, the finance committee and the the complicated powers and law reform committee for the robust scrutiny of the bill. Mae'r byw yn ei ddoch i gyd ddysgu ddefnyddio ffarnwyr o'r tyfnodol i ddim yn gwleidio gwrthodol i'r Pwg Chwilydd, ac oedden nhw i'r cymddiadau i gwaith fynd ar y stryd i gefnogaeth i gyd chyw ddim yn cwylo. Mae byw gan i'r byw yn ei ddifu i fynd i'w gwaith i gyda'r byw i gyd dd�ilio i argymwygarwyr ar gyfer cyfleidiau a chmwch i'r byw i'n Meinech cyfwygen. Mae byw yn credu wneud ddau i'r Pwg Chwilydd, Grant's stated goal of having a smoke-free Scotland by 2034 as is set out in its tobacco controlled strategy. I thank the former and current ministers for public health for their open and constructive dialogue to date and look forward to, of course, continuing discussions after today's debate. It is estimated that each week in Scotland 60,000 children are exposed to second hand smoke in cars. Numerous studies and reports have shown that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. In fact, in cars, the concentration of second-hand smoke toxins can be more than 11 times as high as in a pub. Second-hand smoke has proven and profound impacts on health, and particularly the health of children because of their immature respiratory systems. Children suffer because of second-hand smoke. As many as 800 children across the UK visit the doctor each day as a result of ill health linked to second-hand smoke. They can develop coughing, wheezing, asthma, respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia and have an increased risk of lung cancer. The purpose of the bill is straightforward. It is to protect our children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. To do that, the bill targets only motor vehicles, where the concentrations of harmful particles from smoke are some of the most significant. The bill would make it an offence for anyone aged 18 or over to smoke in a private vehicle when anyone under the age of 18 is also present when the vehicle is in a public place. That approach aims to encourage all adult occupants of a vehicle to think twice before lighting a cigarette and take responsibility for the potential health impacts of their decision to smoke when there is a child in the car. To remove doubt and undue penalisation in this case where the smoking adult is not the driver of the vehicle, the driver does not commit an offence for failing to prevent smoking in the vehicle. That is different from the regulations that came into effect in England and Wales last week. As set out in a policy memorandum, I believe that making the driver libel for the offence is unhelpful. The goal of the bill is to protect the health of children and, as such, any unnecessary element could risk moving the focus away from that very goal. We have seen that legislation be implemented in some US states as well as parts of Canada and Australia. In its report, the Health and Sport Committee suggests that making the driver libel would bring the bill in line with other duties on drivers, such as seatbel legislation. However, that particular legislation is designed for the safety of vehicle occupants in relation to risks such as accidents that only the driver has control over. My bill is about providing protection to children from adverse health effects, which are unrelated to anything that the driver is doing. Additionally, I believe that it is unreasonable to expect the driver to be able to control the behaviour of other adults in the vehicle when the driver's focus must always be on the road. Of course, if the driver is a person smoking, they would be committing an offence. Smoking in a vehicle can generate high levels of airborne particles due to the small volume of air in the vehicle and the potential for it to be recycled without filtering. If you are smoking in a vehicle, even with the rooftop down or the windows open, you are still in close proximity to other occupants of that vehicle. For that reason, my bill makes no exception for people in a convertible vehicle who are smoking in the presence of a child. The Health and Sport Committee in its report also notes that a key factor that will impact on the success of the bill is the clarity of the legislation, in their words. Aside from that fact that the law will apply in Scotland where, sadly, opportunities to drive around in convertibles with a roof down are not that many, I believe that the approach provides the necessary clarity for those enforcement agencies. As an additional clarification, I confirmed to the committee on the 23 June that there is no desire or intention to legislate for what people to do in their homes. For that reason, the bill provides an exception for people using a vehicle that is designed or adapted for human habitation and is being used for that purpose. In other words, the exception only applies while the vehicle is actually being used in the same way as a person uses their house and not while it is being used exclusively for the purpose of transportation. That ensures that people who may habitually reside in motor homes or those who may reside in vehicles on an occasional basis, such as holidaymakers, are not committing an offence if the vehicle is being used as accommodation at that time. The penalty for those who are found guilty of an offence is also clearly set on level 3 on the standard scale, where a fixed penalty scheme will be available. I anticipate that that will be the principal means of enforcement. Provisions for the fixed penalty scheme are set out in the schedule to the bill. In many respects, the provisions are similar to those set out in schedule 1 to the Smoking, Health and Social Care Scotland Act 2005, which I referred to during the policy development stage of the bill. However, the bill includes two specific provisions that I believe are clearer than those provided in the 2005 act. The first one is that schedule 1 to the 2005 act does not specify the amount of the penalty for smoking in public places. Instead, it simply provides ministers with the power to prescribe the amount in secondary legislation. That amount set in 2006 is £50, which is my view that £50 isn't strong enough deterrent for everyone and that it does not do enough to properly raise the profile of the danger caused by second-hand smoke. Those are also views that came through strongly in responses to my consultation. With that in light, the schedule to my bill sets the amount of the fixed penalty at £100, with the power to Scottish ministers to vary through regulations. However, my bill does not provide for an early payments discount. I think that that would unnecessarily complex a measure that is designed to protect children's health. The penalty should act as a deterrent. People with a greater disposable income may not be deterred if they think that they can get away with a reduced payment on more than one occasion. I believe that those facts are taken together and provide clarity for all parties. Anyone issued with a fixed penalty should pay the set penalty of £100 and be given 29 days to do so. Failure to pay within the time period will, of course, leave an individual liable to prosecution. This legislation is not about raising revenue or forcing people to stop smoking. It is designed to purely prevent acute exposure of children to second-hand smoke and put an end to the anxiety that they are subjected to. The bill currently provides that the measures will be enforced by Police Scotland. Following the committee evidence sessions and report, and after discussions with the Scottish Government, I believe that there is a merit in adopting a joint enforcement approach between Police Scotland and the local authorities. I am happy to work with the Scottish Government on strengthening this part of the bill. Questions about how enforceable the legislation were also brought up during the consultations, but Assistant Chief Constable Higgins noted in oral evidence to the committee that it is better to have the ability to do something and use it rarely than not to have the ability to do it at all. Police officers are entrusted with exercising common sense, pragmatism, professional judgment and discretion in determining what approach to take when enforcing the law, particularly in instances where age is a consideration. Assistant Chief Constable Higgins noted that officers make judgment calls constantly every minute of every day and decide in what action to take or not to take. The committee also noted in its report that police officers have experience in assessing the age of teenagers, such as in circumstances when they are in possession of alcohol. I see no reasons why officers could not apply the same discretion, experience and professionalism in relation to the legislation. In instances, of course, when there may be doubt about the age of the passengers. While enforcement of the law, of course, will be an operational matter for enforcement agencies, I think that they have an important role to play in not just applying the law, but also in educating people and reminding them of it. However, I must note that the legislation and education are not mutually exclusive. Education campaigns alone, as the committee notes, have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles. Legislation can complement education where education has not succeeded. It is an effective deterrent and can bring about a positive culture shift. You only need to look at the impact of the legislation on smoking in public places. Attitudes to that legislation have changed enormously as a result of the 2005 act. The 2005 act was coupled with a high-profile campaign that educated people about the dangers and made them think twice about their actions. In many cases, it is not the fear of being caught that changes people's behaviour, but the concern that their actions are not socially acceptable. That chimes with the Scottish Government's own position in its memorandum to the lead committee that legislation accompanied by an education campaign would be self-enforcing. I expect that that legislation will be accompanied by a high-profile campaign that will serve to educate people about the new law and encourage people to think about their actions. I would like to conclude by pointing out that the legislation that I am proposing aims to place a layer of protection for children's health against second-hand smoke. Children that have no option but to go into those smoke-filled cars, whether it is to their school or oddly to their sports. Once again, I thank those involved in the consultation processes. I look forward to continuing working and loising with the committee, the ministers and her officials to further refine the bill, should it be supported today, as well as working with fellow members of this Parliament. I firmly believe that the bill offers our children a healthier start in life. I am delighted to move the motion. My name is that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the smoking prohibition, children in motor vehicles, Scotland Bill. I now call on Duncan McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee. I take the opportunity, first of all, to thank all those witnesses who worked with the committee, the committee members and our clerking staff, who allowed us to provide scrutiny of the bill. It is a pleasant change when we deal with so much Government legislation to be reminded that the Scottish Parliament has a place for members to pursue legislation that can make a difference to the people in Scotland. That is the number of 13 and 15-year-olds in Scotland who reported that they are often or sometimes exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. That figure, from a recent survey commissioned by Ash, is not one to be complacent about. Indeed, a wide range of stakeholders in the national health service, academia, local authorities and non-governmental organisations responded to the committee's call for written views, and we are grateful for those who did so. It may come as no surprise that 93 per cent of respondents supported the bill's general principles. The bill is about protecting children, as has already been said. It highlights that children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effect of passive smoking in vehicles. Most obviously, that is because children are dependent on others for transport. We all know that countless parents and, indeed, grandparents carers could easily list chauffeur as their secondary occupation, but, seriously, it is precisely children's dependence on others for transport that means that, when someone lights up in a car, children cannot remove themselves from harm. Unlike at home, there is no possibility of, in a moving vehicle, to take it outside. NHS Health Scotland informed the committee that a misconception prevails that there is no danger from second-hand smoke if the atmosphere is ventilated or smoke cannot be seen. According to research by the University of Aberdeen, even with the windows down, passengers in a vehicle encounter levels of second-hand smoke 10 times higher than reported to be safe by the World Health Organization. Children are particularly at risk because they breathe faster, have less developed immune systems and their smaller airways mean that they absorb smoke more quickly than you or I do. The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh informed the committee that every year, 4,000 new cases of respiratory infection—wies and asthma—could be avoided by reducing children's exposure to passive smoking. The chamber has been pointed out when the member is no stranger to smoking legislation. It has seen the impact that this can have on rates of smoking and bringing about a change in culture. It also knows that the importance of getting the detail right and we believe, as a committee, that the bill achieves this and that the committee supports the general principles. However, there are areas, some of which the member in charge has noted, which we consider would benefit from further consideration. The bill applies to private vehicles with two exceptions—motor cycles and vehicles being used for human habitation for not less than one night. This seems sensible, as motor bikes are not designed to carry children and some vehicles are used as homes or accommodation. In its memorandum, the Scottish Government supported a further exemption for convertible vehicles with the roof down and stowed away. I have already mentioned the University of Aberdeen's research, which shows that even in ventilated vehicles, dangerous levels of smoke can prevail. I would therefore seek the Scottish Government's views on whether it intends to press the amendment at stage 2 and, if so, what evidence it has to support it. The bill also raises an important issue about liability. When someone smokes in a pub, we have legislated to make that person and the public liable. If a child passenger under 14 years of age is not wearing a seat belt, the driver is liable for the offence. In this bill, however, only the adult smoking would be held responsible. We have considered the views on whether the driver should also bear responsibility if the person smoking is a passenger and we have considered on balance that they should be. In his written response to a report, the member in charge disagreed, arguing that that would add complexity and detrack from the bill's health focus. The committee considers drivers hold a unique responsibility to ensure the safety of their passengers. Making the driver jointly responsible would offer added protection to the children and also bring about... Yes, briefly. I thank the member for giving way. There is also a difference regarding the driver's liability for someone with a seat belt. The driver liable for someone not wearing a seat belt is only in the case when the person not wearing a seat belt is under 14. If we had vicarious liability in this case, the driver would be liable for people of all ages. Would the member not agree that that may be more difficult for a driver to persuade an adult to stub out perhaps when they are in the back of the car? The member has said previously that he is prepared to engage with the committee in this debate. I hope that he does that with an open mind. The committee is clear in their view that it would offer added protection to children and also bring about a consistency with the law in England and Wales. As I said, I invite the member in charge and the Scottish Government to give further consideration to the issue in the light of the committee's findings. Another key issue that arose during the committee's consideration was whether the bill should contain a defence. The bill provides a defence if, at the time of smoking, a person reasonably believed to be... reasonably believed that all other documents were adults. The evidence that we received on this supported defence noted that the offence is enforced by summary conviction. In some cases, a smoker may not know the age of the passengers. That sparked a diversion of views in the debate. I know that the Scottish Government has confirmed that it does not favour a defence being included in the bill. We also consider whether any alternative proposals could replace the defence. For example, the Health and Tobacco, Nicotine and Care Bill, currently before the committee, requires businesses selling tobacco products to take steps to determine a customer's age if they appear to be under 25. We would welcome further consideration by the member in charge and, indeed, the Scottish Government of this alternative to the defence that is currently included in the bill. The bill proposes fixed penalty notices that will be used to enforce the offence. According to the financial memorandum, approximately 200 notices will be issued per annum. While the committee supports this arrangement in principle, we also heard evidence from Cancer Research UK about the increasing socioeconomic dimension to tackling second-hand smoke. NHS Borders and Ash Scotland also suggested that first-time offenders should be offered an education programme rather than a penalty to ensure that those experienced financial hardship would not be disproportionately affected. The member in charge in written response to the stage 1 report argued that that would have limited impact due to the low number of notices expected to be issued. However, we would ask the Scottish Government to respond on whether a provision like that would be desirable or indeed feasible. I know that the bill's co-provision will come into force six months before the date of royal assent. If passed, an education campaign will raise awareness of the new law. Its memorandum with the Scottish Government favoured an approach whereby the commencement date is determined by ministerial power to enable better co-ordination with an educational campaign. That seems to be a sensible approach, and we will consider any amendments that are brought forward. In summary, the Health and Sport Committee considers this bill as an important and necessary step in protecting children from harmful effects of second-hand smoke. We therefore support the bill's general principles and recommend that the Scottish Parliament agrees to them. Many thanks. Members will realise perhaps that we are a bit tight for time this afternoon, so I ask members to try and keep to the time. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government on this important bill, and I would like to start by noting my thanks to Jim Whom whose hard work has brought us here today. The cost of tobacco use to individuals, families and Scottish society remains too high. Effective tobacco control is central to realising the right to life and the right to the highest standards of health for everyone. As Duncan McNeill alluded to, Scotland can be proud of itself as a world leader on tobacco control. Although the Parliament is still young colleagues, it has already created a legacy of strong cross-party support on a range of tobacco control laws. In 2005, the Parliament passed historic smoke-free legislation paving the way for the rest of the UK to follow. The legal age for tobacco sales was raised from 16 to 18 in 2007. In 2010, the Parliament, with an overwhelming majority, agreed legislation to create the first tobacco retail register in the UK and ban tobacco vending machines and tobacco displays. This year saw the final instalment of Scotland's tobacco display regulations, which are among the most robust in the world. In 2013, the Government was pleased to be the first in the UK to announce its support for plain packaging and to play its part in securing legislation that is due to come in force across the UK next year. Our health bill, which includes further measures on tobacco and e-cigarettes, is currently being considered by the Parliament. We also continue to build on the investment of successive Governments in awareness-raising campaigns and NHS smoking cessation services. Those have helped hundreds of thousands of people to try and quit smoking. However, we cannot be complacent. In publishing our 2013 tobacco strategy, the Government was among the first in the world to set a national tobacco-free target. Our bold vision is to reduce smoking rates to 5 per cent or less by 2034. There is still a long way to go. Continuing to protect people, especially children, from second hand smoke, is a creed strand of that strategy. That is an important part of ensuring that every child in Scotland has the best start in life. While existing smoke-free legislation has undoubtedly made a difference, children can still be exposed to second hand smoke in cars and homes. Where children are medically at risk due to conditions such as asthma, the harmful effects can be especially severe. Our strategy included our 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. To achieve that, we had developed our national campaign, Take It Right Outside. It seems to raise awareness of the risks posed by second hand smoke to children. The campaign evaluation showed that it was well received and had an impact on behaviour, but more needs to be done to drive home the message that it is never safe to smoke in enclosed places with children. We have worked hard on that and expect that you will have all been aware that I relaunched that campaign yesterday. While our 2013 strategy did not commit to banning smoking in cars, it committed to considering whether legislation might be required in the future. At the end of last year, we consulted on that and 79 per cent of those who responded thought that it should be an offence to smoke in a car with a child. Therefore, the bill before us today proposes to make it an offence for someone over the age of 18 to smoke in a vehicle carrying a person under the age of 18. Mr Hume's considered work in bringing forward this bill and the Health and Sport Committee's stage 1 deliberations have helped us to explore both the aims of the proposed legislation and how it will work in practice. The Government has already made it clear that it supports the legislation in principle. There can be no doubt that we all have a responsibility to protect children from tobacco smoke. I note the Health and Sport Committee's conclusion that education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles and that legislation is a necessary next step. As such, the committee recommends that this Parliament supports the measures proposed in the bill. The committee has also rightly flagged a number of areas for further consideration on how the legislation is delivered. I know that Mr Hume has already responded to the committee on some of those, and I will also write to the committee with my views, but will touch on some of the areas now. The Scottish Government has already made it clear its preference for joint enforcement between Police Scotland and environmental health officers. I am therefore pleased to note that the committee supports that principle. We will engage with COSLA on that and provide further information on the costs for members to scrutinise. I share the committee's view that any exemptions from the proposed legislation should not be unnecessarily complicated. With regard to convertible vehicles, as Duncan McNeill noted, I also note the evidence provided by the University of Aberdeen that a child within one metre of a cigarette would still be exposed to second-hand smoke. I can therefore confirm that I am persuaded to not bring forward an amendment to exempt convertible vehicles. I note the health and sport committee's recommendation to apply the offence to the driver as well as the smoker. While Mr Hume has outlined why he rejects that recommendation, I look forward to hearing the wider views during this debate. The committee has also raised the possibility of an education programme as an alternative to the proposed penalty of £100. Again, I thank Mr Hume for his consideration of that and for outlining his position today, and I am minded to agree with him. There is much that we would need to consider in developing and introducing an education programme, including content, equability of access across the country, infrastructure and administration. We would need to consider costs and value for money in the light of the small number of anticipated fines around £200 per year, which was set out in the member's financial memorandum. More importantly, we would need to consider the timescales for taking forward this work and the impact that that might have on the implementation of the legislation. Although I do not think that an education programme would be the right alternative, I would be interested in hearing views today and on whether the £100 penalty is an appropriate level. Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that the Scottish Government supports the legislation and will work with Mr Hume to ensure that it is implemented quickly. We must all work together to protect children from the harm of second-hand smoke. There should be no delays in ensuring that protection in law is in place. Can I warmly commend Jim Hume on the work that he has put into this bill, which we are considering today at stage 1, into getting it to this stage? I look forward to giving Scottish Labour to support this bill later today at decision time. Taking through a private member's bill is a long and difficult process, and I would like to acknowledge the determination and hard work that he has put into bringing this issue to the fore. I am sure that many people are responsible in his team as well. It should represent the next stage in this Parliament's efforts to reduce the high levels of smoking that we have in Scotland and protect people from the harmful effects of nicotine. As a Parliament, we can look back on quite a proud record on tackling smoking in Scotland, the advertising ban, the increase in the age of sales, the change to the law on vending machines and the tobacco retail register, all complementing the historic smoking ban in public places nine years ago now. As the minister said in May next year, plain packaging will come to Scotland with branded advertising becoming completely illegal in May 2017. Like any radical reforming piece of legislation, it is quite easy to look back at the smoking ban in public places and somehow feel that it was an inevitable step. We know that other parliaments have followed suit and the smoking ban is now accepted in our communities, but we must not forget that despite the consensus that was reached eventually in this Parliament at the time that it took a lot of work and persuasion and effort to win that argument for the smoking ban, it was bold, it was ambitious and it was the right thing to do. This Parliament was proudly able to stand up against vested interests and opponents who challenged it and convinced people in Scotland that this was in all of our interests, both in our health interests, our wellbeing and in terms of our public budget in the NHS. It is perhaps the single most memorable piece of legislation that this Parliament has produced and illustrated that we in Scotland, a clever country but with a very shameful record on public health, could use the powers of devolution to lead the way and change indeed to save lives, but it was never intended to be the last word in our battle to reduce the historically high incidence of smoking. It is nearly a decade on now and the figures show that we still have much to do, so I feel particularly grateful to Jim Hume today for bringing this piece of legislation, because for nine years we have not seen all that many radical procedures that have been proposed, and so I think that it is to his credit today that we are debating this, because smoking is still responsible for the death of around 13,500 Scots every year. It accounts for 33,500 hospital admissions in our country and is estimated to cost the NHS in Scotland around £400 million. In the most deprived areas, 40 per cent of people smoke compared to 11 per cent in the least deprived. It has a clear role in reinforcing the health inequalities that exist in our communities. It is also estimated that 15,000 young people from the ages of 13 to 24 start smoking every year, and despite our efforts to educate and raise awareness, too many children are giving smoking a try and damaging their health as a result. I do not think that it is any coincidence that, once children are exposed to the smell and to the attraction of nicotine, that they may be by adults in cars, as Jim Hume's bill tries to address today, that smoking becomes more part of their culture, more part of a daily routine and then perhaps more acceptable for them to start trying themselves. As a country, we do not compare well to our neighbours. Around 23 per cent of people smoke in Scotland compared to 20 per cent in England. The issue that we seek to tackle specifically today, second hand smoking, is still responsible for too many lives because a private vehicle remains one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke and, in such a confined space, it poses an obvious health risk. The time is absolutely right to correct this anomaly and brings us in line with other parts of the United Kingdom. All the evidence shows that this measure has the support of the health professionals who see the consequences of smoking every day in our hospitals and in our GP surgeries and who I know are determined to try and reduce the amount of smoking in our country. The police who will be asked to enforce the bill and, crucially, the people of this country. I am sure that we will agree that today, Presiding Officer, but if the Government is to achieve its target, a welcome one that we would all support of creating a tobacco-free generation by 2034, we must continue to be as bold now as the smoking ban was then. I hope that this is not the last time in this Parliament that we will debate more radical moves and perhaps in the next Parliament, too. Just this week, figures in smoking cessation show that we are not on track to meet the Government's own target. Indeed, in the most deprived areas of Scotland, the quip rate, after three months, fell way short of the target of 12,000. That, we only managed to hit 58 per cent. Indeed, NHS Shetland was the only health board to meet the smoking cessation target. Changing behaviour and lifestyle is not easy, but I think that this bill is an important step towards that today. I am proud to say that Scottish Labour will be supporting Jim Hume's bill at decision time this evening. Many thanks and I now call on the next mill in six minutes please. Let me say at the outset that Scottish Conservatives will be supporting this bill at stage one because we agree with the policy intent to promote the health and well-being of children defined as those under the age of 18 by protecting them from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. We do, however, have some reservations, particularly about its enforceability. If the bill does become law, we would want to see its impact monitored. That is in line with a recent study in Wales that has shown that the impact of any legislation for which aims to reduce the effects of secondhand smoke on child health should be continuously monitored. We agree with the law society's suggestion that the effects of the prohibition should be researched and reported on by the Scottish Government at regular intervals. My colleague Jackson Carlaw and his closing speech will outline our thoughts on an amendment that we are considering to deal with the eventuality that the desired impact of the legislation is not achieved. The bill seeks to achieve the policy intent by prohibiting smoking by any adult occupant in a motor vehicle where a child is present. The vehicle must be in a public place and motor homes are excluded if they are part for habitation purposes for a period of not less than one night. With smoking defined as smoking tobacco or any substance or mixture which includes tobacco or any other lit substance or mixture, the vaping of e-cigarettes would not be covered by the bill's provisions. To my mind, it might be difficult to differentiate between smoking and vaping, particularly in a moving vehicle. As an aside, I note the law society's suggestion that the prohibition of e-cigarettes should be considered within the bill's provision, given that further research is required and hopefully on-going on the long-term risks and the benefits to public health in general and to young people in particular. There is no doubt that levels of passive smoking cars can be very high due to the restricted area in which smoke is circulated, resulting in much higher levels than those experienced in buildings, and air conditioning or opening windows does not remove this hazard. Of course, the young people affected cannot remove themselves from exposure to it. According to Asthma UK, around 22 per cent of children in Scotland report exposure to passive smoking cars, and it is currently estimated that 60,000 individuals smoke in cars while children are present. Passive smoke is considered by medical experts as being a significant causal factor of respiratory conditions such as asthma, wheeze and glue ear, and it has also been implicated in sudden infant death syndrome and increasingly considered a risk factor for cardiovascular disease among children. There is little doubt that passive smoke is particularly harmful to children who breathe rapidly and whose lungs and respiratory systems are still developing. What is interesting, and perhaps even surprising though, is that recent polling has shown that 85 per cent of Scottish adults agree with the proposed legislation, and that this is supported by smokers themselves, with 72 per cent of smokers agreeing to a new law. With regard to enforcement, Police Scotland suggests that they will be able to detect breaches of the law without difficulty and compare that with the enforcement of seatbelt legislation, where 36,000 breaches were detected in 2013-14. Personally, I can see it being relatively straightforward to detect the offence in cars with small children as passengers, but in the 15 to 17-year-old age group that must be challenging given the adult appearance of many of today's teenagers. I think that the BMMA makes a fair point in suggesting that an outright ban on smoking vehicles would ensure that vulnerable adults as well as children would be protected and would be easier to enforce. It would also have an impact on road safety, in my opinion, although I appreciate that that's not what the bill is about. So I do have a degree of scepticism about how this law can be enforced and I expect that my colleague will express his even greater doubts towards the end of the debate. None of our witnesses regarded this proposed legislation as a panacea, but most felt that it would have a significant effect on the health of Scotland's children and saw it as a step towards the Government's stated goal of reducing the proportion of children exposed to tobacco smoke from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent by 2020. There's a general acceptance that the introduction of the law would have to be reinforced by an educational programme and there is some feeling that such a programme might suffice to change people's attitudes towards smoking in cars with children present without the actual need for legislation. But most of our witnesses did regard the legislation as necessary and pointed out that the successes achieved in the countries that already have such a law, such as Canada, where the number of children exposed to second hand smoking cars has gone down by 10 per cent and Australia and several states in North America. It remains to be seen, of course, how effective the new law will be in England and Wales when it came into force just last week. Presiding Officer, there's an overwhelming medical case that children need protection from passive smoke, which is why we support the general principles of the bill. But there are issues around the actual need for legislation over and above education, given the growing recognition of the health issues by the public in general. There are also issues around disenforcement and, as we've heard, some disagreement around who should be liable for the offence. The driver and the smoker are suggested by the health committee or only the smoker as proposed by the member in charge of the bill. There needs to be further discussion on Police Scotland's proposal that the legislation should be extended to authorise enforcement by others such as environmental health officers, local authority officers and traffic wardens. I haven't had time, Presiding Officer, to go into detail about a number of aspects of the bill, which no doubt others will deal with. However, I look forward to hearing the debate this afternoon and will consider very carefully any further proposals that come forward at stages 2 and 3, assuming that the bill at stage 1 is approved tonight. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of six minutes, and we are quite tight for time. I call Stewart Maxwell to be followed by Cara Hilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on the smoking prohibition in children and vehicles Scotland bill, which is, to my mind, the next logical step in denormalising smoking and protecting the health of most vulnerable members of our society, namely our children. It is nine years since the smoking ban in Scotland came into force, and in that time the health of our children has improved. Now less than 20 per cent of pregnant mothers are smoking at their first booking inviscid, a target that was met several years early. Smoking among 13 to 15-year-olds is at its lowest since modern surveys began. Indeed, the health benefits began to be seen very early. Just one year after the introduction of the smoking ban, a study conducted in nine Scottish hospitals found the reduction in the rate of child asthma admissions of 18 per cent per year compared to an increase of 5 per cent per year in the years preceding it, which is indeed an enormous boost to our children's health. That same study also found that there was a 39 per cent reduction in second-hand smoke exposure in 11-year-olds as well as in adult non-smokers. Children are being exposed to less smoke, and that is indeed very good news. Many parents take great care to protect their children from smoke in their own homes. However, in cars, the only way to protect a child from smoke is not to smoke. I am sorry to say that the health and sports committee's stage 1 report found that education campaigns highlighting the dangers for children of smoke-filled cars simply have not worked. Smoking in a car quickly creates dangerous levels of air pollution, indeed often higher levels of air pollution than that of heavily polluted cities such as Beijing or Delhi. Turning the air conditioning on or rolling down the windows has been shown not to bring the concentration of smoke in the car down to levels below which they are known to present a health risk. As I am sure everyone knows, children are much more vulnerable than adults to the hazards of smoke due to their smaller lungs and faster rates of breathing. Indeed, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh estimates that over 5,000 new cases of respiratory infection, wheeze and asthma in Scottish children could be avoided by reducing the children's exposure to passive smoking. The Scottish Government has introduced a national target to reduce the proportion of children exposed to tobacco smoke from 12 per cent into 2012 to 6 per cent in 2020, as other members have mentioned. The bill could, I believe, provide great support towards meeting that target. Indeed, there has been some research from Canada where some provinces have already introduced a ban on smoking in vehicles to show that the proportion of children exposed to second-hand smoke was reduced by around 10 per cent relative to the period before the ban was implemented and when comparing provinces that had a ban with those that had not introduced a ban. Make no mistake about that, the bill would be popular. 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. I am aware that some pro-smoking groups oppose the bill on the grounds of civil liberties. Some things never change. They say that smoking is legal and that what people do in the privacy of their own cars is entirely their own business. In general, I have some sympathy with that argument. However, I agree for the most part that we should not tell adults what to do when they are in the privacy of their own homes and for the most part of their own cars. However, we have to weigh the right of an adult to smoke against the right of a child to good health. We all know that smoking damages not only the health of smokers but also those who breathe in their second-hand smoke. Therefore, on those scales, I would say that the balance has to come down on the side of the child. A child in a smoke-filled car has no power to protect him or herself, so we have to act to protect children for the dangers of second-hand smoke. More and more countries are moving to ban smoking in vehicles with children in them—Australia, Cyprus and some provinces in Canada—to name just a few are countries that already have bans in place. France introduced such a ban in July and, of course, on October 1, a ban on smoking in cars with children present came into effect in England and Wales. Scotland would be moving very much in the mainstream of tobacco regulation by introducing that measure. However, I am sure that the committee will be considering a number of possible changes at stage 2. One such change should perhaps be around enforcement, which, at the moment, the bill states should be the sole responsibility of Police Scotland. It has been proposed that it should in fact be shared between local authorities and the police. I am aware that the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland all support this multimodal approach to enforcement, believing that legislation would have more impact if the amendment was introduced. I have to say that that is indeed correct. At the moment, it is estimated that 60,000 people in Scotland smoked while children were present in their car. We know that the Scottish public are pretty law-abiding. Seatbelt legislation, Drake Drive legislation are successful and they work because the public accepts the need for the laws and by and large obeys them. Given the strength of goodwill towards the legislation that is indicated by the UGAR poll commissioned by Ash Scotland, which I mentioned previously, it is clear that the Scottish public would on the whole obey the legislation and that it would be successful and enforceable and that that would be another boost to the health of our children. I very much welcome the bill, which I think keeps Scotland moving forward on the path to its ultimate goal of a tobacco-free generation by 2034. I commend Jim Hume for bringing forward this very important health measure. Many thanks. Very, very tight for time today. Call Cara Hilton to be followed by Jim Eady. Up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin also by paying tribute to the dedication demonstrated in Jim Hume in getting the bill to this stage. I know that this has involved many months, possibly years of work and research, as well as a very effective consultation on the draft proposals. I am pleased too that the Scottish Government have agreed to support the bill. In Scotland, private vehicles are one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to second-hand smoke. The bill builds upon the other important legislative safeguards against passive smoking, and in particular the Smoking Health and Social Care Scotland Act 2005, which saw the previous Scottish Labour-led executive lead the UK in barren smoking in enclosed public spaces. The minister and Jenny Marra have already outlined further progress that has been made since then, but I think that it is a shame that, while Scotland led the way in the past, that this important public health bill that Jim has brought forward only comes after England and Wales have already introduced such protection. However, I hope that we will see change soon. Turning to the provisions of the bill, this is undoubtedly another important step forward in protecting the health and wellbeing of Scotland's children from harmful exposure to second-hand smoke. The bill not only has the potential to improve children's health and wellbeing, but to save lives, too. Research by Cancer Research UK estimates that second-hand smoke kills at least 12,000 people in the UK every single year, with exposure to passive smoking increasing risk of stroke by 25 per cent and heart disease by 30 per cent. As members have already highlighted, every single day in Scotland there are 60,000 car journeys that involve a child being exposed to second-hand smoke. Indeed, Ash Scotland reported that more than one in four Scottish children aged 13 to 15 are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in cars. In the evidence to the health committee, children in Scotland pointed out that children in most disadvantaged areas are more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke, with 33 per cent subject to high levels of exposure compared to just 3 per cent of children in more affluent areas. That highlights, too, the need to link the legislation into our wider aspirations, to get it right for every child and to tackle health inequalities, too. As Jenny Marra highlighted already, there is real and indeed growing evidence to prove that exposure to smoke in enclosed spaces such as cars is particularly dangerous, given the higher concentration levels of toxic substances. In the briefing for today's debate, Ash Scotland says that the toxin levels in cars where someone is smoking are higher than pollution levels in cities like Beijing and Delhi, and they are certainly in breach of Scotland's own air pollution standards. The BMA has argued that smoking in cars exposes passengers to toxins 11 times greater than they would experience in a smoke-filled pub, and it makes little difference if the car windows are open or not. As Duncan McNeill has already explained, second-hand smoke will still affect the passengers. It contains more than 4,000 chemicals, and often it can be a lethal cocktail. That is especially the case for children who are much more vulnerable than adults to the effects of second-hand smoke, thanks to their smaller airways, faster rates of breathing and less-felt immune systems, increasing the risk of a number of health problems, including cancer, meningitis, asthma and glue ear, and more than doubling the risk of sudden infant death. Indeed, research shows that 300,000 children in the UK visit a GP each year because of the effect of second-hand smoke, with 9,500 admitted to hospital. However, the danger is not simply the health impact of second-hand smoke. It is also the normalisation of smoking in a young person's life. The Royal College of Physicians noted that if a child spends a lot of time in a smoking environment, they are much more likely to take up the habit themselves. cynics have argued that the bill is unenforceable. Members have touched on that today, and I heard people talking about that on the radio on my journey in today, but I think that all the evidence that was seen from comparable schemes shows that there are positive outcomes. The Canadian ban has reduced the proportion of children exposed to second-hand smoke by 10 per cent, and in Queensland, four years after the legislation was implemented, it was reported that 88 per cent of cars were smoked free, so I have every confidence that the measures in this bill will be enforced by Police Scotland without significant difficulty. Politicians always like to support policies that are popular, and as members have highlighted, there is absolutely no doubt that a ban on smoking in vehicles is an extremely popular policy supported by the vast majority of the Scottish population, including the majority of smokers. However, the bill is not perfect, and I welcome the comments from the minister that she has opened to further discussions. I think that one of the key issues that we need to look at is the fact that the bill only makes a smoker themselves criminally liable. I think that if we are truly to take on the issue of second-hand smoking more importantly the culture of smoking more generally, I think that it is imperative that we hold the driver liable as well. This is an amendment that has been proposed by the Parliament's Health and Sport Committee, it has been backed by the Law Society of Scotland, and it is also the system that has been adopted in England and Wales. I understand that the approach has been rejected by Jim Hume so far in the favour of simplicity, but I do not agree that adding this duty will make the bill too difficult to enforce. Surely any driver of your vehicle has got a duty of care to the passengers that they are carrying, so I hope that we can see progress on that issue. In 2014, Scotland became the first country to set a national target to reduce the percentage of children exposed to second-hand smoke from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by 2020, and to set a goal for Scotland to become tobacco-free by 2034. I believe that this bill is an opportunity to realise that ambition. We know beyond doubt that passing smoking in enclosed space does serious harm to people's health, yet thousands of children are being exposed to smoking in cars every single day, with serious consequences for Scotland's children. Inflecting smoking on children is simply unacceptable. It is time to act, protecting children from smoking in cars is the right thing to do. This bill will make a tremendous contribution to the public health of Scotland. I commend Jim Hume once again, and I hope that the bill will receive the unanimous support of members today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others who have spoken in the debate this afternoon, I, too, support the general principles of the bill, as I believe that it is an important step in protecting children from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke in a confined space. I, too, also congratulate Jim Hume for the leadership that he has provided on this issue. I welcome the Scottish Government's support for the bill and the scrutiny provided by the Health and Sport Committee in its evidence sessions and in its stage 1 report. However, of course, the bill is just one of a package of measures, as the minister said, which are focused on reducing the impact of smoking on public health in general. That has included the age restrictions on the sale of tobacco products, which was increased from 16 to 18 years in 2007, the overhaul of tobacco sale and display law, including legislation to ban tobacco vending machines, and a ban on the display of tobacco and smoking-related products in shops, which, of course, was carried out through legislation in 2010. We have also seen the establishment of the first tobacco retail register in the UK in 2011, and we have seen a range of comprehensive awareness-raising campaigns, as well as record investment in NHS smoking cessation services, helping hundreds of thousands of people to give up smoking, not least of all in my own health board area of NHS Lothian. Jim Hume was right to highlight that children's exposure to second-hand smoke in private vehicles poses a significant health risk of developing respiratory disease due to their immature respiratory systems. A point that has been made by several speakers this afternoon and in the evidence provided by many of the organisations that gave evidence to the Health and Sport Committee. At that point, it is probably worth reminding ourselves that the Scottish Government announced a new target to reduce the proportion of children in Scotland exposed to second-hand smoke in the home from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by 2020, and it has envisaged that this will protect an additional 50,000 children from exposure from second-hand smoke and that Scotland is the first country in the UK to set such a target. Jim Hume was also right when he said that children most affected by exposure to second-hand smoke have no other transport options or are too young to make other arrangements and are quite simply not empowered to change the behaviour of adults around them. Or, as Duncan McNeill stated, those children cannot remove themselves from harm. That is just one of the reasons why I believe that the bill is so necessary. A common reason cited for supporting the bill was evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoking and its disproportionate impact on children. It is estimated that each year, second-hand smoke exposure in the UK exposes children to a number of diseases. Over 20,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infection, 120,000 cases of middle-ear disease, at least 22,000 new cases of wheeze and asthma and 200 cases of bacterial meningitis. It was James Kant, the director at British Heart Foundation Scotland, who said, and I quote, "...second-hand smoke leads to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and other health problems such as asthma. The effects on children are particularly harmful, putting them more at risk of respiratory infections, asthma and sudden infant death." We would all do well to reflect on the importance of that observation. Ash Scotland referred to data that shows that 22 per cent of Scottish children aged 13 and 15 are sometimes often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. The Scottish Parliament's information centre briefing, which Jim Hulme referred to, states that it is currently estimated that 60,000 individuals smoke in cars in Scotland while children are present. That is a significant problem for children's health and one that, as Cara Hilton says, calls for action to be taken. Public opinion, as a number of speakers, including the net mill, have said, is on the side of the legislation. The fact that 85 per cent of Scottish adults overall and 72 per cent of smokers support the introduction of the bill shows that public opinion is ahead of the Parliament on the issue. Both Ash Scotland and Cancer Research UK have pointed to the fact that enforcement of the new law will be simple and straightforward. The Ash Scotland briefing said that enforcement of the new law will be simple and straightforward, similar to enforcing the law on seat belt use. Police Scotland has suggested that officers will be able to detect breaches of the law without significant difficulty, pointing to the 36,000 breaches of the seat belt law identified in 2013-14. It also states that, in Queensland, more than 600 fines were given in the 15 months following the introduction of a similar law, suggesting that enforcement is possible and practical. Therefore, the proposed measures are both proportionate and enforceable. In conclusion, the bill is not a panacea, but it is an important step in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke, and it is for that reason that all of us in this chamber should support the bill at decision time this evening. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate as smoking is an on-going matter, which is of great concern to many of us. I also applaud Jim Hume MSP for getting the bill to this stage today. As previously stated by others, studies have shown that around 23 per cent of adults smoke in Scotland, which equates to as many as 60,000 car journeys each day in Scotland, where children are present, and as many as 22 per cent of Scottish children aged 13 to 15 are sometimes or often exposed to tobacco smoke in the car. Those figures are a cause for real concern, as tobacco-related ill health remains one of the biggest public health challenges, and the second-hand smoke is especially harmful to children. As Cara Hylton and others mentioned, the negative effects associated with exposure to second-hand smoking are well documented, and children are at particular risks, given that their lungs and respiratory systems are still developing. Private vehicles are an important source of second-hand smoke exposure in children, and this ban will protect children's health. However, an outright ban on smoking in vehicles would also ensure that vulnerable adults were protected and would be easier to enforce. Second-hand smoke can increase the risk of a number of health problems in children, including the lower respiratory infections, middle-ear disease and bacterial meningitis, and more than doubles the risk of sudden infant death. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that passive smoking is associated with medical risk factors for cardiovascular disease among children. International examples show that legislation of this type can be effective and the public seem overwhelmingly supportive of the introduction. On 1 October 2015, new laws in England and Wales came into force that prohibited smoking in cars where children are present. In addition, similar laws are already in place within four United States states, 10 of the 13 Canadian provinces and in six countries, including Australia. Scotland has a proud history on tobacco control, having in the past led the way on smoking-free legislation and enclosed public spaces and in being the first country in the UK to commit to bringing in standardised packaging. It is essential that Scotland passes legislation to ensure that it does not lag behind in protecting public health from the harms of tobacco. With the Scottish Government's national targets introduced to reduce children's exposure to second-hand smoking from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent in 2020, I strongly believe that this bill could help this effort. This bill also seeks to contribute to the wider issue of smoking and work towards a smoke-free Scotland by engendering a culture shift and awareness of the harm caused by smoking in the presence of children. We should strive for a smoke-free future where not only our children are protected from this harmful habit but also the adults in our society. In conclusion, private vehicles remain one of the few places in Scotland where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke. Making it an offence to smoke in a vehicle with anyone under 18 per cent is a proportionate measure to protect children from the health risks associated with second-hand smoking, therefore I am happy to support this bill. Many thanks. I now call on Richard Lyle to be followed by Dr Elaine Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by saying how related I am to speaking as a member of the Health and Sport Committee in this important debate? Importance of this bill and the realisation really struck me when I read a key line in the Cancer Research UK briefing which said, in Scotland, private vehicles remain one of the few places where children can legally be exposed to tobacco smoke or second-hand smoke. Making it an offence to smoke in a vehicle with anyone under 18 per cent would be a proportionate measure to protect children from health risks associated with second-hand smoke. I think that that quite eloquently puts the argument firmly to the floor in saying that it is a well-considered, thought-thoroughly and crucially proportionate approach that has been taken. I do want, however, to take that last line of the Cancer UK briefing and share with you a bit more detail, detail on the impact that second-hand smoke will have on those under 18. The impact that second-hand smoke can have and, in particular, the risks that are associated to children given their lungs and respiratory systems, which are undergoing continuous development, is startling. According to Cancer Research UK, it is estimated that, every year, second-hand smoke kills over 12,000 people in the UK from lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and chronic COPD—12,000 people. The Scottish Government has been committed to tackling the wider issues in relation to smoking and has made, through the introduction of its smoking strategy, significant steps to working towards a smoke regeneration by the year 2034. Action being taken in introduction of the bill will not only contribute to working towards that target but will contribute along the national target to reduce children's exposure to second-hand smoke from 12 per cent in 2012 to 6 per cent in 2020. In conjunction with the announcement of new targets to reduce the amount of children affected by second-hand smoke, the Scottish Government has launched the Take It Right Outside campaign, urging smokers not to smoke around children. The campaign stresses that it is never safe to smoke indoors when children are present. Just one of the many initiatives and a compliment that this Government has driven forward to make a difference on the issue of tobacco control. We know the damage that second-hand smoke can cause. We already have the pioneering success with the smoking ban and its implementation and the impact that it has had not only on health but, crucially, on tackling social norms. That is, after all, which part of this is about which is the norm and challenging it constructively. We know the damage that it causes and we know also the problem that very much exists. According to Ash Scotland, it is currently estimated that 60,000 people smoke in their cars while children are present. 22 per cent of the Scottish children aged 3 to 15 are sometimes often exposed to tobacco smoke in their car. We have a problem. We have the damaging impact that we now have a proposed bill. However, the question is then rightly so. That question is how it is both implemented and enforced. The proposed measures are both proportionate and enforceable. The bill was set out away for Police Scotland to be responsible for enforcing this legislation, just as it had tasked with enforcing a seatbelt legislation that saw some 36,000 breaches in 2013-14. All children should be protected as much as possible. As members of this Parliament, it is our responsibility to be the voice of the children and young people of Scotland when they need their voices to be heard. The penalties app will be proportionate with £100 fixed penalty notice being issued to those who are found capable of the offence and applies to any vehicle. I am confident that the people of Scotland will take a responsible approach to this, and therefore there will be a benefit to both children and adults who may be exposed to second-hand smoke. To summarise again, we have a problem. We have the damaging impact. We have the proposed bill. We all know how to take it forward. Therefore, I believe that we have the responsibility to take action. I am a smoker, but I am also a supporter of this bill. I used to smoke in my car when my children were younger. I explore the thought of doing it now. I see now the damaging impact that it can have on our children. I know now why my children don't smoke. As a grandfather now, my habits have definitely changed. I never think of smoking whilst my grandson or granddaughter were in the car. My grandson is free now, says to me. Stop smoking, stop smoking. It comes down to their rights and my rights. I have the right to smoke, but my grandchildren and all the children across this country have rights, too. They have the right to fresh air. I do not have the right to impinge on that. To conclude, I would like to offer support to the introduction of the idea of the spell to Jim Hume and to welcome the SNP Government to take it forward. Let us work together to make this bill work, to make it a positive difference to the lives of not only the children in Scotland, but to the people of Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Jim Hume on bringing forward the bill and the health committee for its scrutiny of the bill. I am very pleased to speak at this stage one debate on the smoking prohibition children in motor vehicles bill, supporting both Jim Hume's bill and the health committee's suggestions in its report. I know also that many other people will be pleased that this bill has reached this stage in Parliament and will be hoping that there is time for it to pass fully before the end of this session, but I am thinking particularly about a group of children whom I met almost a year ago. At that time they were in P7 in Heath Hall primary school in my constituency. Aware of the discussions around the legislation in England and in Wales, which have now resulted in the ban that came into force at the beginning of the month, those pupils had undertaken a research project on the arguments for and against the ban. That made them aware that, although action had been taken by the UK Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, no legislation had yet been discussed here. Having considered the evidence, the proposition that smoking in cars carrying children should be banned was put to the class and received 100 per cent support. The pupils then individually wrote to me expressing what each of them thought was the strongest argument in favour of a ban and the effects on children of passive smoking. Some mentioned the number of chemicals and cigarette smoke, some wrote about the health conditions such as aspects that could be developed, and some about the bad examples that were set to children by their parents and other adults smoking. I am afraid that they all wanted to note the reasons why the Scottish Parliament was not legislating like England and Wales. In the face of such well-informed criticism, on our lack of action in Scotland, I offered to go to Heathhall primary and to meet with the class, armed with a copy of Jim Hume's bill, to which I was pleased, I have to say, to be able to advise the pupils that I was one of the signatories. We discussed the process of scrutiny of members' bill, and I explained that I did not know how long it would take for the bill to progress. Of course, all those pupils who were in P7 last year will now be in S1 and dispersed in schools in the Dumfries area, but I do hope that those pupils will be so interested in the topic that they are aware that the bill will pass an important milestone today. I was most impressed with that whole exercise as an exercise in democracy in a primary school. The pupils had also prepared posters on the dangers to children of second-hand smoke in vehicles. The Scottish Government has proposed an amendment to the commencement date to co-ordinate that with an education campaign, and indeed the Law Society in its briefing, which highlights the need for a prominent and rigorous public education programme that addresses smoking cessation in addition to the dangers to children of passive smoking. My experience of the awareness of the Heathhall primary 7 pupil leads me to suggest that some of the public education could be focused on children. Children are receptive to the messages about the harm that second-hand smoke can do to them, and they probably do not want their parents or their grandparents to smoke at all, and they will encourage smoking cessation. As all parents know, it is much easier to break a promise to yourself to cease doing something than to break a promise to any of your children. Of course, an education campaign aimed at drivers and their passengers who smoke will also be necessary, but it is my view that the children of smokers or children who travel with smokers could be helpfully engaged in getting the message across. I was also interested to note in the Law Society's briefing that they wish to see the scope of the bill expressly extended to the use of e-cigarettes, as it is not clear that they would fall into the definition of lit substances that include tobacco. I personally am in favour of the suggestion. While e-cigarettes are less harmful to smokers than conventional cigarettes and can be a helpful substitute, the proliferation of vaping shops selling electronic tobacco products throughout high streets and the promotion of a range of flavours that could be added to e-cigarettes does concern me. There is a danger of rehabilitating and normalising smoking, and some of the flavours offered are clearly designed to attract young people who do not already smoke. Too little is known yet about the long-term effect of nicotine vapour, and we should not be taking risks with the health of children, in particular by permitting those products to be used in confined public spaces or in vehicles carrying children. The health committee recommended that the driver be made vicariously liable if someone else smokes in a vehicle when under 18s are present. Drivers are already responsible for ensuring that children use the correct child restraint or seat belt if under the age of 14 or less than 1.35 metres in height, even if the driver is not the parent of the child concerned. It seems sensible to me to take a similar approach to smoking. That approach is indeed taken in the UK regulations that have just come into force. Issues around enforcement have been raised, and, as with other motoring offences such as using a mobile phone or eating while driving, enforcement could be problematic in some cases. Although, unlike eating or using a mobile phone, the smell of smoking in the vehicle containing children would be rather a giveaway. I note that there are discussions between COSLA and the Scottish Government regarding making the legislation jointly enforceable by Police Scotland and councils and environmental health officers who already enforce the ban on smoking in public places, and that would seem to be a sensible development. In conclusion, I congratulate Jim Hume on bringing forward this important legislation and the health committee for its constructive comments in the stage 1 report. With the support of the Scottish Government, I hope that we will soon address the gap in our legislation, which my young constituents in Heathaw primary 7 were so anxious that we should close. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and, like all the contributions before me, I understand that this bill will play an important role in ensuring that we continue on the path to create an healthier Scotland. Not only will it protect the health of children, but it can positively influence the decreasing number of smokers in Scotland. I thank the committee for their work. I am not a member of the committee, and I thank Jim Hume for bringing this bill in front of Parliament. I also welcome the consideration that they took on the effect and worries that this bill could have had on the travelling communities. I do like the idea that the matter was brought up to light, and I am delighted that the issue has been addressed with respect to the privacy of the travelling community's mobile home. I thank the Scottish Government, of course, for the support of the bill, and they continue to work on encouraging the decrease of the level of smoking in Scotland. As part of the Scottish Government tobacco control strategy, creating a tobacco-free generation, this bill stands shorter to shorter with campaigns and legislation so that smoking health and social care Scotland Act 2005 and others, which are all contributing to reducing the level of smoking in Scotland. I would like to congratulate the work of Scotland's public health minister, Morrin Wat, with the angry campaign to take it right outside promoting common awareness that is never safe to smoke in the home or in a car with children. A commitment to this campaign is very important, an issue in the strategy outlined by the Scottish Government, and the committee's work and all this combined creates a very promising future for the health of Scotland. I'll have to say at this point that I'm an ex-smoker, like many of us. I used to smoke far too much, and I used to smoke in the car, and when you think about it years later, you say, why on earth are we thinking about being in this confined space and travelling far away, travelling to France with three children in the back, and thinking that somehow it was all right just to put down the window a little bit and engaging on that one or two cigarettes from time to time. I think it's absolutely a disgrace, not only a disgrace, but it's extremely dangerous. It's a number of times. I thought that my cigarette had fallen down the floor and trying to stop the car quickly, even when I was on my own, but when I was with my children, press the photo, what could have happened and what must have happened in a lot of cases. So it's never safe to smoke in the car, and that's my point there, but everyone's situation is different. There are small changes that parents can make to their smoking behaviour. We should pay great dividends in terms of protecting their children from single-hand smoke, and I did that. I smoked a lot outside under the rain before I decided at least to stop more than 20 years ago, and I've never looked back. I would encourage anybody to follow suit. Of course, we heard, should make sure, saying that this situation happened as well in other countries, and France has implemented it not a long time ago, in July. I agree with the minister's position. Fine seems adequate to me when some city council are charging around about 50 pounds for cigarettes and littering. I think that 100 pounds fine for intoxicating children with single-hand smoke is appropriate. But we all have a responsibility for this nation to stop hurting itself with tobacco produce. It's not only about smokers, it's not only about ex smokers like me, but it's about all society and thinking right and from children to adults, but we need to change our attitude regarding smoking. Jim Holmes built Alps, ensuring the good health of children and young people. I personally would have maybe gone further and stopped everyone smoking cars regardless of whom, isn't it? Jenny Mada called for this piece of legislation not to be the last word on the matter, and I agree with that type of statement. I think there is still a lot more to be done, and I know that in the future children will be shocked to know that it's ever been possible to smoke in a vehicle, but it was even possible to be in an enclosed metal tank packed with highly flammable fuel and machinery which moves at fast speeds on wheels and somewhere you could ignite a naked flame with inches away from such a dangerous project. You know, it's very shocking that the person of the control of this car would not think of the passenger safety, so I do think that we could have maybe gone further on this. I will support, of course, the bill at stage one, and the bill is a stepping stone towards the future, towards healthier and more smoke-free Scotland. I thank again the minister for his members' bill. It's so important that this Parliament not only has a Government's bill but Members' bill as well, and that shows really the variety and the diversity of his Parliament. I recommend him for this, and I thank the minister for his time. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Jackson Carlaw up to seven minutes, please. There was one moment this afternoon, and it was an exchange between the minister and Duncan McNeill on the subject of cabriolets, where I thought that I saw a gaping hole in the legislation emerging, because where does that leave horse-drawn carriages and horses and carts? Or indeed, if a child can be affected by smoke within one metre, then one metre walking down a street, presumably, is equally damaging. I only highlight it to say that where the legislative process can take us in terms of the debate. I'm a lifelong non-smoker, contrary to what Jenny Marra might think. Actually, it was passive smoking and exposure to it that made me a lifelong non-smoker. My three examples were firstly going home from school from Kelvin bridge on the Glasgow underground, as we used to call it in those far-off days, where there was a little ashtray on the floor of the carriage and it was thick with tobacco smoke. I would then get on the bus, and it was one of those buses that had a corridor up one side and bench seats, and you needed a knife and fork to carve through the smoke to find the seat that you would eventually sit in. Then I had my father, who smoked a cigar called Hamlet, and happiness it was not. I remember again, he would get his new car with the oyster grey velour roof lining, and within very little time at all it would be a bile yellow. I used to think, well, if it's sticking to the roof, what else is it sticking to as well? I thought it was a perfect example. Similarly, going to the cinema, what an ordeal that was, you could hardly see the film only once when I saw the film The Towering Inferno did tobacco smoke add to the atmosphere. It was a hideous experience, and so I have no sympathy in many respects for tobacco, and for that reason, as the net mill made clear in her opening speech, because we support the underlying principles, Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1 tonight, and in all probability will support it at stage 3 as well. There is the matter of enforcement and policing priorities. Is this so prevalent an issue that only a legislative solution is appropriate? It is, after all, not a road traffic matter. Unlike using a mobile phone, or driving under the influence of alcohol, or even not wearing a seatbelt, this is a legislative measure aimed at motorists, which is uniquely not driven by road traffic concerns. In that sense, it's new. It will also be impossible to establish on a drive-by situation, whether older children are under or over 18 years of age. As the bill does not apply to e-cigarettes, the confusion arising could be such that motorists are stopped for no good or appropriate reason by police officers. Jim Hulme could I quote the police officer assistant chief constable Higgins in his evidence to the committee. He said, our officers are well vests in assessing our situation. As they see it from a pragmatic point of view, if they passed a car and saw somebody smoking in it and saw a child sitting in the back, it would give them a fair indication that the child was under 18, it would be overlaying a common sense pragmatic approach that they would take and that they were very happy to enforce the legislation. Jackson Cameron? The roads are not just littered with cars with smoking drivers, but with good intentions as well. Joint enforcement with local authorities presumably will be restricted to stationary vehicles. However, we will support the bill tonight, setting those concerns to one side, but with a general, rather than a specific reservation, I turn to this now. Increasingly, in order to change public health attitudes, we are resorting to legislative solutions. Inevitably, the case for such measures is invariably subjective, often untried and without the necessary evidence base and support. This is not to say that the proposed measure is misguided. It is to argue that we cannot always be sure based on what is known. It leads to some adopting an absolutist argument that breaks no alternative view in order to seemingly reinforce the case for a particular measure when common sense dictates that this cannot be proven. I should say at this point that the Scottish Conservatives, in my view, were wrong to oppose the smoking in public places ban that Mr Maxwell brought forward a decade ago. I was not a member of this Parliament then, so that might be regarded as easy for me to say now. In fact, I did try to say as much in the last Parliament and conscious of the sensibilities, including that opinion in a draft speech that, out of courtesy, I forward to our late colleague, David McLeachie. You might say that I lit the fuse and wait for the explosion. I didn't wait long, the thunderous footbot fall down the corridor and the earnest demonstration were real and instant enough. However, when earlier in this Parliament alcohol minimum unit pricing was progressed, I worked hard to overcome the skeptics in my own party to ensure that the Scottish Conservatives supported the bill. One key to achieving that was the inclusion of a sunset clause. The advantage of that, it seemed to me, was that we could adopt a legislative measure, give it every chance to succeed and then in a sensible post-legislative debate after a number of years review its effectiveness. On this basis, a wider consensus was achieved to support the measure. Let us be in no doubt—had such a provision been attached to Mr Maxwell's bill—any sunset debate would unanimously have validated the policy. However, that may not always be the case. I accept that, when all else has failed, there is a temptation to consider legislative alternatives. It may be that initiatives emerge in future on matters such as obesity or on respect of other addictions. There may be a good case made for any measure but not a proven one. Rather than constructing an artificial debate, it may be more consensual and credible to argue that there is a proposal and a case for giving it a shot at succeeding, but that consensus and credibility with a sceptical public may well be more readily achieved or overcome if all concerned known advance that, after a sensible period of time, the measure will be tested in a post-legislative vote and then either found wanting and allowed to fall or, more hopefully, be vindicated by actual practical evidence and reaffirmed. The routine inclusion of a sunset clause in ambitious but speculative public health legislative initiatives is not onerous. It simply establishes that Parliament will review the success of a measure after, say, three or five years. Why would we not? If a measure has proved effective, it will be reaffirmed. If not, it will fall. However, the process itself will allow for more general support as we seek to at least try to improve Scotland's public health over a much broader range of issues. For those reasons, Scottish Conservatives will propose a sunset clause for this bill. We think that that is exactly the kind of measure that could be effective and does speak to an attack on the public health of young people, which we should tackle fearlessly and directly. However, a sunset clause will at least test the effectiveness of the measure in, say, three years' time. Will you draw two clothes, please? Then we can achieve wider support for both political and public. It is not suggested in any way that delay hinders or frustrate the bill. Our support for it is not conditional on this, but to require Parliament to review it, building on the precedent set in the MUP legislation and establishing a sensible precedent for the future. Many thanks, and I call on Dr Richard Simpson. Up to seven minutes, please, Dr Simpson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This bill continues the progress in Scotland, I believe, to tackle smoking, begun in 1999 by Kenny Gibson. At a time when the evidence on second-hand smoke was still weak but then continued by Stuart Maxwell ending in the UK leading public places ban. However, the second-hand smoking issue and the evidence for it is no longer weak. This member's bill is justified on many grounds and I congratulate Jim Hume on its progress. It is justified on the grounds of the research evidence of effects, the fact that children are not autonomous and therefore are unable to protect themselves making the measure ethically justifiable. It is correct on the grounds that the reports from the BMA Board of Science in 2007 and the Royal College of Physicians report in 2010 also supported this measure. However, the experience from elsewhere has already demonstrated the improved outcomes and I would therefore slightly question whether a sunset clause is necessary. I think that it is when it is a new measure which has been untested elsewhere but I think that when it is tested elsewhere that may be a slightly unnecessary addition. Research has shown that there are direct links between a child's exposure to second-hand smoke and a range of illnesses. Those include, as Nanette Mone said, southern infant death, asthma, respiratory infection, bronchitis, pneumonia, meningitis, middle-ear disease and Stuart Maxwell reminded us of the proven benefits, particularly in asthma admissions, which derive from the public places ban, something that was quite skeptical from the forest group and others but is absolute proof of the public health ban working. Canadian research has shown that a single cigarette and a stationary car with its windows closed can produce 11 times the level of second-hand smoke found in an average, I presume, Canadian bar. The levels of fine breathable particles were over 100 times greater than the US environmental agencies 24 hours standard for exposure, 15 times the EPA hazardous rating and the interesting thing is the research has shown that the levels of pollution are not reduced to a reasonable level when the windows are open. I think that that is critical because that was one of the main defences. Open the windows and it will be fine. It is just not the case. We already have bans in a number of situations. Company cars, smoking company cars is banned. Any car used for this purpose has a ban on smoking in Germany, Chile and other places. The other thing that is important is that it is a widely held belief and there is some evidence to support it that, despite Jackson Carlaw's experience, children who are exposed to smoking behaviours are more likely to take it up rather than less. It probably demonstrates his extreme common sense and intelligence at a young age. 2 per cent of 13-year-olds, 9 per cent of 15-year-olds in Scotland are regular smokers, though it is very good to see in the Salcish report that numbers are reducing, and I think that that is very welcome. However, there are still estimated around 15,000 young people taking up smoking every year, and that can lead to the replacement in this industry in which the tobacco industry needs to continue their profits every year. It is vital that we bear down on this as far as we can. Annette Milner's Stuart Maxwell reminded us that 85 per cent of adults agreed that the proposed legislation applying to cars was welcome. The same polling showed that this is supported by smokers themselves, 70 to 72 per cent, including, of course, Richard Lyle. Evidence from the Australian states of introduced bans have suggested that compliance is actually high, and I think that this was the fascinating thing about the public health ban. It was said that we were going to have terrible trouble enforcing this, there would be riots in the streets, the publicans would go on strike, people in pubs would actually move around, but the number of prosecutions has been tiny, absolutely tiny. Scots are a law-abiding race, and therefore applying a law of this sort will probably be obeyed. The estimate, I think, is 200 fixed penalty notices a year. It may well be considerably less. In Canada, nine out of 10 provinces of legislation, for example, in Nova Scotia and Ontario, self-reported exposure to passive smoking reduced by over a quarter after the legislation was introduced. We heard from many members about other areas of Australia, Cyprus among others. According to Ash, the best available evidence shows that 22 per cent of Scottish children of age 13 and 15 are currently, sometimes, are often exposed to tobacco smoking cars. That is a large number, maybe 60,000 individuals, so reducing that will be very important. The issue, however, as Cara Hylton and Elaine Murray reminded us along with others, has already been legislated in Westminster. In England and Wales, it has been illegal to smoke in a car or other vehicle with anyone under 18 years of age since October 1. I slightly failed to understand why a sue motion, or now it is called a legislative consent motion, since the Lord got into a bit of difficulty, was not actually applied in this particular case, thus making the law even across the whole of the UK. I do not quite understand that, but still the bill is nevertheless welcome. The act of smoking that some people have raised in cars of itself, is it a problem? Jackson Carlaw suggested that it was not, but there is good evidence that smokers are more prone to accidents. Smoking is itself a distraction, and there are some countries such as Kuwait, for example, which have introduced a total ban on smoking in cars. That would, of course, have the effect of protecting other vulnerable groups—non-smokers, smokers who are trying to give up, and particularly adults with incapacity, because they are an important group. The smoking among groups with mental health and learning disability is hugely high, and those adults may need protection as well. In conclusion, there are some specific points, such as the convertible car issue, and I am glad that that has been dealt with. The issue of drivers being responsible, I think that is a matter for stage 2. The issue of the penalties, I think, will need to have further consideration on who should enforce them and whether that should be extended to other groups. I certainly think that that is correct. There will need to be effective publicity before the implementation. The member referred to the discretion in determining the age of the passengers, and I agree with that, but the committee did not agree that the defence of not knowing that we are all adults should be applied, and again, that will need further work. As Jenny Marra said, we need to keep up the pressure with new measures. Plain packaging, the Government is supporting, and that is good, and it needs to come in. I would suggest that play parks and play areas, local authorities should have powers to ban smoking in those areas. We should have a ban on smoking outside stadium, not just inside stadium, because you have to go through big crowds of smoking, lots of passive smoke, and support for parents to stop smoking in homes, as Jim Eadie referred to, is really important. We should continue that. For all those reasons, Labour will be supporting the bill tonight, and it is a very welcome measure. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I thank all Members for a very good and constructive debate on this very important piece of legislation for the health of Scotland's children. That is Parliament at its best. I would also like to take this opportunity again to thank Jim Hume and the non-government bills unit for their work, and the health and sport committee members for their helpful consideration and the committee clerks who assisted that work. I think that the stage 1 report is very good. Obviously, there are some issues that need further consideration, but it is great to hear such support for the principles of the bill. As highlighted in my opening statement, the Scottish Government has made it clear for some time our commitment to protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke. Jenny Marra and Cara Hylton said that not much had been done since the 2005 legislation, which, incidentally, was first proposed in a private member's bill by my colleague Stuart Matchsthal, which was taken over by the Government at the time. Much has happened since then. The 2010 tobacco retail register, a prohibition of vending machines and tobacco displays, the on-going campaigns, the latest of which I launched yesterday, and I will take it right outside. The plane packaging would, of course, be in our health bill if we had not managed, along with others, to persuade the UK Government to do it on a UK-wide basis. Of course, smoking in hospital grounds is in the current health bill that is going through. Make no mistake, if Jim Hume hadn't been proposing this bill—I will take you in a minute—if Jim Hume hadn't been proposing this legislation, he knows very well that it would have been in the health bill. However, that shows that there are different ways of working with the Government—collegiate cross-party. The Health and Sport Committee might have liked it to be in the health bill, but that is the way that we have decided to do it. I will take the members into consideration. I pre-empted my question. I mean all credit to Stuart Maxwell. Everyone knows that the smoking ban was the genesis of his bill. If the Scottish Government, as we had adopted his bill when we were in Government, why did not the Scottish Government decide to adopt Jim Hume's bill? I am just answering to your question. Under the new First Minister, she said in her very first speech that she wanted to work in a more collegiate way. That is a precise example of that happening. I also point out to Jenny Marra that she got her figures wrong. Smoking has dropped to 20 per cent, not 23 per cent, but 3 per cent drop in the year 2013-14. Of course, people are now choosing different ways of stopping smoking, but the bill is a very important milestone. It will play its part alongside the vast range of measures that will continue to be progressed by the Scottish Government to reduce tobacco-related harm. I am confident that the rationale behind the measures will earn widespread support in line with public attitudes. It is estimated that 85 per cent of Scots want children to be protected from passive smoking while travelling in the confined space of a car. As a Parliament, we must respond to that. There was no sunset clause, Mr Carlaw, in the England and Wales legislation, and there has been good evidence. That is based on the public wanting this bill and good evidence in the consultations that have been done in relation to this bill and the consultations that the Government itself undertook. Nearly 10 years on from the introduction of smoke-free legislation, it is difficult, as Dr Simpson mentioned, to imagine smoking in the workplaces, cafes or pubs. Attitudes have changed, and the purpose of the legislation is to build on and continue to drive a change in culture. In the net mill, there is a perception that the seat belt legislation and the mobile phone legislation are not enforced yet. In 2013-14, Police Scotland detected over 36,000 seat belt offences and 34,000 mobile phone offences, so it is perhaps good to get those figures out there that the Police are obviously taking action where necessary. As with any legislation, there may be amendments and improvements that will be suggested as the bill progresses through Parliament. Again, I would like to state how important it is that we work together to ensure that the legislation is effective, enforceable and implemented quickly. I think that we need to be very careful when considering some amendments that might come forward, for example, making the driver liable. I feel that there may be quality issues. Imagine, for example, a female driver with a very overbearing and forceful male passenger who might refuse to request of a driver. We need to be very clear if we want to make the driver liable. Elaine Murray made a very good point about the public education focusing on children. We know, for example, that more children are interested in recycling than perhaps some of their parents. That is why we are funding the assist pilot, which is peer mentoring on the harms of smoking. Ultimately, the Government believes that the underpinning principles of the bill are strong, and that is why we are happy as a Government to support the bill at stage 1. I have had a very helpful dialogue with Jim Hulmeson coming into post, and I know that my colleague Michael Matheson had that before me. I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with Mr Hulmeson in giving consideration to the range of issues discussed today and possible amendments that will come up in stage 2. Thank you very much. I now call on Jim Hulmeson to wind up the debate. Mr Hulmeson, you have until 5 o'clock. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the Minister for those remarks and for all the members for their views, support and contributions. I am greatly, very greatly encouraged by the wide range of support from across the chamber. I want to address a few of the concerns and issues that were raised from the members. I do not want to be chirlist, but Carhillton mentioned that the legislation in the UK, the rest of the UK, I should say that England and Wales was before us. The legislation was proposed in this Parliament prior to any discussions south of the border, and the British Heart Foundation have noted that the Parliament's proposal has led the way to England and Wales legislating, and I can remark that it actually went down and gave evidence on my consultation results some couple of years ago. We are still leading the way in Scotland. I have written to the Health and Sport Committee after the publication of its stage 1 report, which I was grateful for. It provided clarification points on a number of issues that have emerged this afternoon. I would like to share some of those points with the members to ensure that there is a clear understanding over the principles and aims of the bill. First, on whether the measures in the bill are necessary, the Health and Sport Committee came to the conclusion that education campaigns alone have not succeeded in protecting children from exposure to second-hand smoke in vehicles. As such, those further measures are unfortunately needed. The Ticket Right Outside campaign continues its efforts to educate people and the Public Health Minister, Maureen Watt, having visited a nursery in Glasgow yesterday to raise awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke. It was much appreciated, but much more orchestrated efforts are needed to reach that goal. The Ticket Right Outside campaign, which was mentioned by Duncan McNeill and Richard Lyle, has correctly identified the fact that no amount of second-hand smoke is safe. However, there are still 60,000 children per week that sit through smoke-filled cars in their journeys, as was mentioned by Anne McTaggart and some others. My bill is a necessary step, needed to make sure that education and enforcement are uniform across Scotland. It educates and discourages adults from smoking in the presence of a child. I previously mentioned, as did others, such as Nanette Milne and Jim Eadie, that conditions and diseases such as asthma, tract infections and an increased risk of lung cancer are avoidable, but they continue to affect children because of second-hand smoke. I want to reiterate that there is a strong case for this Parliament to adopt this legislation and protect our children today. That will enable at least 60,000 children to have a healthiest start in life in Scotland. I want to be clear about another topic that has been brought up, relating to the penalisation of the person who smokes. The bill is clear at this stage that any vehicle passenger who is over 18 and is smoking when the children are in the vehicle will be liable for a penalty. I believe at this stage, but I am happy to work with other members, the Government and, of course, the committee regarding vicarious liability provisions, but I think that it may risk the bill being overly complex at this stage and it may risk unduly penalising individuals. Instead, the focus should remain on protecting children and, through this measure, help to educate people as well as children themselves, who will be future drivers of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. As I said, I will be happy to work with members and the committee on that. I also believe that setting a single-rate penalty of £100 will serve the purposes of clarity, uniformity and enforcement and fairness between all who are found liable to pay the penalty. I believe that the arguments against that, claiming that it will negatively impact those from less well-off backgrounds, does not really stand. The deterrent will be as strong as it can, in fact, be more fair to those who cannot afford to pay a reduced fine immediately, as they will be given 29 days to do so. What this flat-rate penalty does is ensure that those who are able to pay immediately do not get a better deal by having an early payment discount. I want to see this line used not as a means to criminalise people but to deter them from subjecting children to second-hand smoke in cars. In the same way that I will not accept a discount at this stage on children's health, I am opposed to accepting a discount from this deterring measure. An additional clarification of which I would like to provide is that the bill is clear on the exemption of the types of vehicles. People using a motor vehicle that is designed or adapted for human habitation and is being used for that purpose will not be liable for a penalty. I am very glad to hear Christian Allard's strong support for that. As I have stated before, the enforcement of this law will be a responsibility of Police Scotland. However, through a constructive dialogue that I have had with the Scottish Government, it emerged that principles would be able to go even further through a joint enforcement mechanism wherein local authorities can share the enforcement responsibility with Police Scotland. Of course, we know that we can trust Police Scotland to utilise its professional expertise on the individual cases that will arise, as they stated in the committee's scrutiny. I want to note the results of the 2014 Scottish household survey that was published a few weeks ago, mentioned by Jenny Marra. The survey shows a drop of 3 per cent over the past three years and the number of adults who smoke in Scotland down to 20 per cent. Just this week, we saw the numbers of quit attempts through NHS smoking cessation services at upwards of 66,000 for 2014-15. That is a 19 per cent rate. That is to be welcomed, but it also demonstrates the opportunity that we have right now to capture the potential benefit of this legislation, in that it might encourage more adults to consider whether it is responsible or acceptable to smoke in the presence of children more generally. In fact, the Scottish Government's tobacco control strategy seeks to reduce the proportion of children exposed to second-hand smoke in the home from 12 per cent to 6 per cent by 2020. I welcome that, and I note that the bill will contribute to that. Does the member agree with me that one of the reasons for taking the smoke outside is the lingering effect that the chemicals from the smoke can stay there for up to five hours afterwards, and that that may well be the same case not so much but may well be the same case in cars? I think that it is well known that the lingering effect of the 50s or so toxins in second-hand smoke linger for some time in cars, and we know that, obviously, when the smoke dissipates, you cannot see it, but the dangerous toxins are still there. Studies from countries that have banned smoking in vehicles show that legislating in this area can encourage people to voluntary introduce smoke-free homes. From places in Canada, the United States, to Australia, the positive impact of having that legislation in place has been demonstrated. If that legislation leads to culture and behavioural change in the car, as I hope and I do believe will, then it is possible that people in Scotland will voluntarily reduce smoking in other areas where children are present. Other studies show that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to become smokers themselves, apart from Jackson Carlaw, of course. Reducing the exposure to second-hand smoking in vehicles cannot only have immediate benefits in protecting children's respiratory systems, but it can also reduce the likelihood of children taking up smoking in later life, which, of course, can only be a good thing. In taking the bill forward, I have been encouraged by the positive views of individuals, parents and grandparents, and the opinions of people under 18, as well as health organisations and charities. I am hopeful that, by adopting the bill at stage 1, the Parliament will have a significant contribution towards enabling every child in Scotland to have a healthy life and develop healthy habits. No child should have to go through the physical and psychological anxiety of being trapped in a car with adults who smoke. The necessary education and deterrents can come through the bill towards enabling people to look after their health and wellbeing. I thank the member for his positive and thoughtful contributions to this afternoon's debate, as well as the Scottish Government who has contributed in its own expertise to strengthening the bill. I look forward to continuing the process of the bill, as Elaine Murray says. I look forward to a country in which children are protected when they are at their most vulnerable, and they will be given the most healthiest of stats to life that they deserve. That concludes the debate on the smoking prohibition in children in motor vehicles. Scotland Bill, we now move on to decision time. There is only one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 14437, in the name of Jim Hume, on smoking prohibition in children in motor vehicles. Scotland Bill, we agree to, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to, and that concludes decision time.