Hansard

I welcome the timely report "Scotland Together" and many of its recommendations on how we can make inroads into our unacceptably high level of fires and fire deaths and injuries. Although we must never be complacent, it is worth pausing to reflect on the fact that the number of fire deaths in Scotland has shown a steady decline over the past 20 years. We should congratulate all members of the fire service on their unstinting efforts. However, despite those improvements, we still have a problem with fire deaths. When I started working for Strathclyde Fire Brigade, as it was then known, in the early 1990s, a fire safety rate of more than 100 a year was the norm. I would therefore rather look at the trend over time than at any single year, irrespective of whether the figure is a record low or a record high.

The report makes a number of positive recommendations, including recommendations that recognise the need for close co-operation between fire and rescue services and other public agencies such as health, housing and social work. I turn briefly to the response to the report by the Fire Brigades Union. I agree with some of the FBU's points, but I was disappointed by its final remark, which was:

"The FBU urges MSPs from all parties to dismiss this report."

I do not believe that the report should be dismissed out of hand, because it makes many worthwhile points. It is right that we should look at reports with a critical eye, but we should not dismiss this report as suggested. I particularly welcome the report's proposals on sprinklers and the introduction of reduced ignition propensity cigarettes, to which I will return in a moment.

In Scottsdale, Arizona, in the USA, sprinklers were made mandatory in all new buildings in 1986. More than 53 per cent of the city is now protected by sprinklers. There have been no fire deaths in buildings that are covered by sprinklers, while there continue to be deaths in buildings without sprinklers. I am convinced that the introduction of domestic sprinklers would make a tremendous difference—my colleague Michael Matheson will cover that in more detail.

I will concentrate on a recommendation in the report that I believe could easily be overlooked but which has the potential to have the most immediate and greatest impact on fire safety rates of any of the recommendations: the introduction of RIP cigarettes. I am glad that the minister paid close attention to that issue. I thank the compilers of the "Scotland Together" report for giving me the opportunity to talk about that issue and I thank the FBU for its support on the matter. I also thank the Chief Fire Officers Association in Scotland for acknowledging, in its parliamentary briefing, the work that I have done on RIP cigarettes.

As other members have said, over the past few years in Scotland around 41 per cent of fire deaths have been caused by smoking materials. That means that four in every 10 fire deaths are attributable to smoking. However, I take the very serious point that Linda Fabiani made about the impact of alcohol on many of those deaths.

New York state was the first state to make RIP cigarettes the only cigarettes that can be sold. It was followed by Canada in 2005 and by Vermont, Illinois, New Hampshire and California in 2006. They will be joined by North Carolina in January 2010. Soon, 99.8 per cent of the US population will be protected from cigarette fires. Australia will introduce a similar measure in March 2010 and Finland will become the first European country to adopt such a measure in April 2010. As I pointed out in my intervention during Mr Kelly's speech, it is perfectly acceptable for individual American states and European and other countries to introduce such measures, so I am at a loss to understand why the UK has not introduced legislation.

In the four years before the measure on RIP cigarettes was introduced in New York state, 167 deaths were caused by smoking materials. In the four years following its introduction, the equivalent figure was 113 deaths—a decrease in fire deaths of 54, or 32.34 per cent. In other words, fire deaths fell by one third after the introduction of the law on RIP cigarettes. Between 1999 and 2006 in Vermont, smoking materials were the leading cause of fire deaths—they were responsible for 19 per cent of such deaths. In the two years since the introduction of the law on RIP cigarettes in Vermont, there have been no fire deaths attributable to smoking materials.

Why has a law on RIP cigarettes not been introduced here? It cannot be due to lack of knowledge, as such laws were first introduced in the US some years ago. Over the past five years, I have lodged five motions on the issue of RIP cigarettes. The first was in April 2004 and the latest was in June this year. Although progress has been made over those five years on people's acceptance of the idea, I am disappointed—to say the least—that no law has yet been introduced in Scotland.

It is doubly disappointing that the UK Government has known for some years about the potential of RIP cigarettes to save lives. In a September 2009 letter to all chief fire officers, Sir Ken Knight, who is the chief fire and rescue adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government, talks about research into RIP cigarettes that was carried out in 2004. He states:

"This research estimated that had cigarettes in the UK conformed to the US standard, introduced in New York in 2003, the number of smoking-related fires would have been reduced in that year by nearly two thirds."

His letter goes on to say that RIP cigarettes

"could potentially reduce the number of fire deaths and injuries by up to 68%, meaning that in the UK, in 2007, up to 75 lives could have been saved."

The question why the UK Government has failed to introduce such a vital and life-saving measure, despite knowing its potential to cut dramatically fire deaths and injuries, remains unanswered. It is for UK ministers to explain why, years after New York introduced such a measure and five years after that research was carried out, people in the UK are still dying needlessly from fires that are caused by cigarettes.

When John McKay introduced his private member's bill into the Canadian Parliament, which resulted in a requirement for RIP cigarettes, he said:

"Cigarette companies have known for years how to eliminate death and injury by changing the density of tobacco and/or making modifications to the paper. They don't do it because they don't have to do it. There is no requirement to force tobacco companies to make fire-safe cigarettes."

He was right when he said that seven years ago. In Scotland, we can see the impact of what he talked about and what failure to legislate for the introduction of RIP cigarettes has meant. Similarly, ASH Scotland has stated:

"It is scandalous that tobacco companies have failed to make their products less of a fire hazard. They have had the technology to make fire-safe cigarettes for almost 20 years and yet failed to market them to avoid costly law suits. This shows their callous disregard for public safety".

The tobacco companies will not introduce fire-safe cigarettes unless they are forced to do so. There is no voluntary route to such a measure. Legislation must be enacted as soon as possible so that we too can dramatically cut our stubbornly high rate of smoking-related fires rates.