Hansard

The last bill of 2015 is very well scheduled, as we woke this morning to a new report about cancer and its risk factors. In debates in the chamber, we generally say that 40 per cent of cancers are preventable, but this morning’s report from the Stony Brook cancer centre in New York says that cancer is overwhelmingly a result of environmental factors, and that only 10 per cent to 30 per cent of cancers are down to the way the body naturally functions. There have been a variety of responses to this morning’s report, but the evidence is gathering pace every year that environmental factors lead to cancer. This morning, as I woke up to the radio, I wondered whether Jim Hume had primed the New York researchers to release their findings just ahead of the debate. There is little doubt that more needs to be done to improve or to prevent environmental factors that can lead to cancer.

ASH Scotland says that a fifth of 13 to 15-year-olds are exposed to smoke in cars. Jim Hume himself cites the compelling figure of 60,000 children being exposed to smoke in the small and enclosed spaces of motor cars. I think back to jobs that I had in bars when I was a student, 20 years ago, when I was exposed for hours on end to a thick fug of smoke. I had the stench of smoke on my hair and clothes when I finished my shift. We simply would not tolerate such conditions now; they are not culturally acceptable, any more.

It was the ban on smoking in public places that created the tipping point at which that behaviour changed. The legislation was bold and brave, but was initially branded as being crazy. However, when it was implemented, people changed their behaviour and complied with it more or less overnight because they knew, deep down, that it was the right thing to do and that it made sense for their own health and for the health of the people around them.

That is exactly what I expect to happen with the bill that we are discussing today. People will look back and think it crazy that we allowed smoke to permeate such a small enclosed space as a motor car, exposing passengers to the danger. I am well aware of the libertarian arguments about personal volition in private spaces, and I have a lot of sympathy with those arguments. However, when there is such a broad consensus in favour of a publicly funded health service that is provided for through taxation, it is incumbent on us, as custodians of that health service, to make sure that it is sustainable in the long term: the cost of smoking of millions of pounds to our health service is simply not sustainable. That is why we need to legislate to improve environmental factors as well as people’s health, and the bill will do exactly that.

I will explain why Labour voted against the Conservative amendments this afternoon. Amendment 1 was, in essence, a sunset clause asking the Government to review the legislation after five years. As I have already outlined, I think that the bill is an addendum to the ban on smoking in public places, that it will create a culture change and that it will generally garner compliance, so I do not think that a sunset clause is necessary.

On amendment 2, as I explained earlier, I think that Parliament should be undertaking post-legislative scrutiny as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I was sympathetic to Jackson Carlaw’s argument that we need to make public health policy on the basis of evidence. I hope that the Government has heard that message loud and clear.

I believe that the public will comply with the bill because they know and understand the arguments on the issue. Smokers themselves know the dangers of their smoke. However, as we know, there are barriers—poverty and environmental barriers—to their quitting. I predict that in 30 years we will have a smoke-free Scotland and that we will look back and wonder how tobacco companies exploited our health and placed on the NHS the massive burden that they place on it now.

In that vein, it is worrying that we have not had debates on the big issues in public health in this country outside the legislative programme. This morning’s news should give the Scottish Government real food for thought. Given the worrying Scottish cancer statistics that came out this week and this morning’s evidence that far more incidences of cancer than we had thought are probably preventable, anyone who is serious about the long-term sustainability of the health service should be taking the preventative agenda very seriously indeed.

Why not make next year the year of prevention? We expect a new tobacco strategy in 2017, but I think that the Scottish Government should bring a debate to Parliament much earlier than that. On diet, I cannot think of any initiative from the Scottish Government in the past few years to improve our relationship with fat and sugar. The minister is shaking her head—she might explain later whether there has been such an initiative. Further, the Scottish Government has been content to leave its efforts on alcohol to minimum pricing, which is currently tied up in the courts.

I thank and congratulate Jim Hume on taking some very powerful vested interests to task by getting the bill passed today. I know the work that goes into bringing a member’s bill to fruition and Jim has guided the whole process with his own hands. It is a worthy legacy for a health spokesperson, so we will be delighted to support the bill at decision time tonight.