A PROPOSED ban on smoking in cars when under-18s are present will lead to children reporting their own parents to the police, the pro-tobacco lobby has warned.
The Scottish Government is backing legislation brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Jim Hume, which would make it a criminal offence to smoke in a car with children, a move that has been widely supported by health campaigners.
However, the pro-smoking lobby group Forest, in a submission to Holyrood's health committee which is scrutinising the proposed legislation, said while it does not support parents smoking in cars with youngsters present, introducing legislation is a "gross overreaction to a very small problem."
The group claimed that the move would prove to be a stepping stone to banning smoking in all cars regardless of whether children are present as well as in homes where youngsters live. They also argued the move was not backed up by conclusive evidence and will be all but impossible to enforce.
Meanwhile, Police Scotland raised concern over the impact on its resources if the force is given sole responsibility for enforcing the ban.
The Forest submission said: "The only way this could be enforced is by encouraging neighbours, family members or even the children themselves to go to the police or social services. Is that the type of over-regulated, curtain-twitching society politicians want Scotland to become?
"Clearly, banning smoking in cars carrying children is part of a wider, more illiberal plan to control the behaviour of adult smokers to the point where they can no longer smoke in their own private vehicles even when they are on their own."
While the vast majority of groups responding to a consultation have said the police should enforce the ban once it comes in, Forest said that the job should be left to environmental health officers if it is introduced. It is envisaged that offenders would be given a fixed penalty notice of £100, with prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000 imposed if it is not paid.
Forest, which receives funding from tobacco giants such as British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco, added: "Frankly, so few adults smoke in cars with children these days it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack and a complete waste of police time and money."
Police Scotland said it supported the Bill, but raised questions over whether it would be a proportionate or necessary use of its limited resources to enforce a public health issue.
Its submission, the force said: "Police Scotland would therefore question the use of police resources to enforce this legislation and their diversion from work focusing on the Force Priorities such as Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism, for example.
"The work of Road Policing officers in particular is focused on reducing road casualties and tackling road crime and whilst this is a broad remit, there is little, if any, room for matters of public health."
It also raised concern over well-meaning members of the public reporting smoking in cars with children present, which it would be obliged to investigate.
It added: "Whilst the probable level of third-party reporting cannot be gauged it again raises questions as to the whether the use of limited police resources to investigate a public health matter of this kind is necessary and proportionate."
The legislation has attracted broad support in Holyrood and was backed by almost nine out of 10 people replying to a consultation. At a health committee meeting last week, The British Lung Foundation, Ash Scotland, the British Heart Foundation and the NHS all spoke out in favour of the move.
MSPs heard that almost three-quarters of smokers were in favour of the ban and that winding down windows did not protect children from second hand smoke.
A submission from The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland, which will also give evidence on Tuesday, said: "Children are a particularly vulnerable group in society with often limited choices when considering transport. The Institute believes that the proposed prohibition will have a positive impact on childhood health and health inequalities in Scotland."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article