The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Key Findings of Responses to a Public Consultation

C HAPTER 5: SUPPORT FORA LAW TO MAKE ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACES SMOKE-FREE

5.1 The consultation paper asked a second question which was "would you support a law that would make enclosed public places smoke-free?" and respondents were once again given the option to say yes, no or don't know as well as the opportunity to add any further comments.

5.2 As shown in the following chart, four-fifths of respondents (80%) said that they would support such a law, while 18% stated that they would not support such a law. A further 2% did not know whether they would support this law.

Whether support a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free
Base: All respondents (53,474)

(Source: Q2)

5.3 In terms of responses from the general public, there is slightly more support for the proposed law from female respondents (82%) than males (78%). Again there is little difference in respondents' views when analysed by age group. When the response submission method is compared it can be seen that those who used the web to respond to the public consultation paper were more likely to say that they would support a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free than those responding via a consultation questionnaire (91% compared with 74% respectively). This can be explained by a higher proportion of non-smokers in those responding via the web.

5.4 Unsurprisingly, only 30% of smokers said that they would support the introduction of such a law compared with 92% of non-smoking respondents. Those responding from prisons were less keen on the idea of a ban, with only 63% stating that they would support a law to make enclosed public places smoke free. There were also some differences in response from organisations. Once again, within the companies and organisations responding to the consultation, those in the hospitality sector, especially bars and pubs, were less supportive of a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free than other types of organisation.

Whether support a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free

5.5 The majority of replies from health organisations, local authorities, and voluntary organisations stated that they would support the introduction of a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free. However of the organisations claiming they would not support such a law, a number are involved in tobacco sales or the provision of ventilation services.

5.6 After giving their opinion on whether a law should be introduced, respondents were then invited to make further comments regarding this question. The majority of the general public (65%) choose not to add to their response; however most of those submitting lengthier responses did give additional comments in reply to this question. Of those who did choose to respond, the comments that were made were similar to those given to question 1 and followed the same broad themes. Where further comments were given, some recurring themes were mentioned. These will be dealt with in turn.

The Health Risks of Smoking and Passive Smoking

5.7 Once again he associated health risks of smoking and passive smoking were mentioned by a large number of respondents who agreed they would support a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free. These included some respondents who claimed that passive smoking is a health risk, those that said it can kill and others that a law is needed to protect the health of non-smokers. Others went on to comment about specific illnesses that are caused or aggravated by smoking or passive smoking and that certain groups of people are particularly vulnerable. Further to this some respondents stated that the introduction of this law would improve the nation's health.

5.8 A small number of respondents who stated that they did not support the introduction of a law did, however, go on to say that non-smokers should be protected from other people's smoke. In contrast, a small number of those who do not support the introduction of a law claimed that the dangers from passive smoking are exaggerated or that other things are as/more dangerous.

5.9 Again, comments from organisations focused on health risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke, that a ban would improve the nation's health or that passive smoking can cause a variety of illnesses including lung cancer. A small number of organisations also commented that a ban on smoking would save NHS resources. Some even stated that no other product as harmful as tobacco is permitted by the Government. Furthermore some felt that legislation is required since the voluntary charter has failed to protect people's health, as illustrated by this comment from one individual.

"Legislation is the most appropriate way to protect the public's health from ETS. The Voluntary Charter is clearly not working. More than 70% of pubs and almost 40% of leisure industry sites still permit smoking throughout. Smoke free areas do not protect people - smoke travels. Although ventilation can increase comfort it does not protect public health There are precedents for legislation to protect public health eg. seat belt and drink-driving legislation."

5.10 One of the greatest concerns regarding health mentioned by organisations related to workers, especially those within the hospitality industry. These views, generally from health organisations and local authorities, suggested that employers have the duty to protect workers from environmental tobacco smoke. While some quoted the number of estimated deaths caused by exposure at work, others went on to suggest that reducing or eliminating workers exposure to ETS is in keeping with the Health and Safety legislation, as illustrated in the quotes below from two health organisations.

"It is inappropriate that workers are subjected to second hand smoke. All workers have the right to expect that every substance harmful to their health is adequately controlled. Eliminating or substantially reducing exposure to tobacco smoke would be in keeping with the duties of every employer under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Act."

"We would urge the Scottish Executive to press the Westminster government to review and implement the application of existing Health and Safety legislation by the Health & Safety Executive with regard to employer's responsibility to protect their workers from the health risk of ETS."

Individual Choice

5.11 We noted in the previous chapter that individual choice was a theme referred to by a number of respondents and this issue was raised again in relation to this question. Whether or not respondents were in favour of the introduction of a law that would prohibit smoking in enclosed public places, many were concerned about the rights of individuals or businesses.

5.12 A significant proportion of those who supported the proposed law said that they were concerned about the freedom of choice for all. Within this grouping, a number of respondents felt that non-smokers have a right to breathe clean air and others felt that at the moment smokers can choose to smoke or not, whilst passive smokers have no choice in the matter. A small number were of the view that smoker's rights have always been given more consideration, or that voluntary schemes work in favour of smokers.

5.13 Of the respondents who said they would not support this law, many also gave freedom of choice for all as their reason. Of this grouping, some claimed that smokers have rights as well as non-smokers and some felt that a law would take away their freedom of choice. There were suggestions made that proprietors should be able to choose the smoking status of their establishment, both by those opposed to a law and a smaller number of those in support of a law.

5.14 Similarly, among organisations responding to this public consultation paper, there was a view that all should have the right to choose whether or not they inhale tobacco smoke.

The Impact of a Ban Against Smoking in Enclosed Public Places

5.15 Again, some respondents who chose to respond also gave their opinion on the effect that the introduction of such legislation would have. Unsurprisingly, those who were in favour of the law concentrated on the possible positive effects of such a ban, whilst those opposed to a law commented on the negative effects that it could have.

5.16 Of those who said they were in favour of a law, many commented that it would have a non-health related positive effects. Respondents noted that smoking bans in other countries have been effective / beneficial, and mentioned specific benefits including that it would stop people's clothes smelling or that it would produce a more pleasant environment. In addition, respondents referred to the health risks of smoking and these comments included some associated benefits that a ban would bring about: that it would protect children's health or improve the nation's health, that it would encourage smokers to give up and that it would discourage young people from starting smoking.

5.17 Other positive effects of a ban included the following:

• It would save NHS resources

• A ban would produce a cleaner / healthier environment

• It would educate the public on the dangers of smoking

• A ban would make it clear that smoking is socially unacceptable

5.18 Indeed similar positive impacts were mentioned by organisations responding to the consultation. Many felt that the introduction of a law prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places would reduce the prevalence of smoking in Scotland either through the cessation of smoking or, according to one health organisation, by decreasing cigarette consumption at a level equivalent to that following a 3 per pack tax increase on cigarettes. Others suggested that a ban would mean that children didn't think of smoking as the norm. In the words of one health organisation,

"The Scottish Executive should lead the devolved parliaments in ensuring the development of legislation to protect workers and the public from the scientifically documented carcinogenic, cardiovascular, respiratory and toxic effects of ETS. This would provide a central plank for an integrated cross-government approach to assist the Scottish nation to tackle its unenviable health and health-inequalities record."

5.19 As mentioned before, some respondents cited potential negative effects of a ban as the reason why they did not support the introduction of such a law. These comments included those who were concerned that the law would harm the hospitality industry or that pubs in particular would lose business. Indeed among organisations responding to the consultation there was some concern about the effects a ban would have on business, especially from those in hospitality trade. As one business organisation put it,

"We remain concerned that there would be a loss of revenue (resulting in loss of jobs and even closure of some businesses) across the hospitality industry. If the Irish experience to date were to be repeated on the introduction of the legislation in Scotland, losses in the hotel and restaurant sectors would be less significant than in pubs, but no legislation should be attempted without a serious assessment of the likely economic cost."

5.20 Other concerns included the view that the introduction of legislation would remove the social centre of some communities, be difficult to enforce and would not remove the problem of environmental tobacco smoke, but simply move it elsewhere.

Issues Emerging in Support of a Ban

5.21 Of the respondents who agreed with the introduction of a law that would prohibit smoking in enclosed public places, some went on to say that they support a ban that would prevent smoking in all public places. A similar number said that such a ban would need to be enforced by legislation, or that penalties would be required. A small number of respondents (including a small number of businesses and other organisations) called for the legislation to be extended to cover other areas including outdoor areas where the public are in close proximity, entrances to buildings, rail / bus shelters and in all vehicles.

5.22 Again, some respondents (both those in favour and against a law) opted for more of a compromise measure by suggesting a ban that prevented smoking in certain specified public places. This included those who felt that smoking should be banned in restaurants, cafes or other eating-places, on public transport (including taxis) and in work places. Of those who said that they would not support a law that would make enclosed public places smoke-free, a larger number said that there should be segregated / designated areas for smoking, while some suggested that smoking be allowed in a specified public area such as specified areas in pubs or clubs.

5.23 Responses from organisations varied from those of the general public with greater consideration being given to the practicalities of such a ban. Among organisations who stated they were supportive of a law prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places, the majority felt that action must be through legislation. Many suggested that previous attempts to reduce people's exposure to smoke through voluntary schemes have been largely unsuccessful. This is illustrated in the following quotation from a health organisation, which also indicates the concerns some organisations had regarding the inefficiency of ventilation systems in reducing the dangers of exposure to second-hand smoke.

"Ventilation systems have been suggested as a means of reducing exposure to second-hand smoke in workplaces and leisure facilities, but research suggests that the air flows possible with current ventilation systems are not sufficient to eliminate the health risk associated with second-hand smoke."

5.24 Nevertheless there were some concerns expressed about the practicalities of introducing such a law. These included organisations who wished for further clarification about exactly what areas would be included within such a law; specifically whether private clubs, such as students unions, would be included and if not how staff working in these premises would be protected. Others felt that a law would have to be standard throughout the country and some had concerns that there must be adequate funding in place to allow stringent enforcement of legislation.

5.25 Organisations replying that they would not support a law generally gave support for a more balanced approach, allowing freedom of choice for all. The consensus among the replies from these organisations was that there are alternatives to a ban, including the use of segregated areas with proper ventilation systems, or voluntary schemes such as those already in existence. Some organisations not supportive of a ban commented on the detrimental financial impact such a ban would have on businesses such as pubs and others within the hospitality trade, suggesting that voluntary schemes and partial measures would not have such an adverse impact. Nevertheless, of those organisations in support of a ban, many felt that the ban must be inclusive, so that no one business is given an unfair advantage.

5.26 Overall the majority of respondents supported the proposed law to make all enclosed public places smoke-free, quoting the associated health risks of exposure to environmental smoke, non-smokers right to breathe smoke-free air and the positive effects that a law would offer. Needless to say though, there were still some who while they supported a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free, were concerned about the rights of smokers, and did suggest compromise measures such as segregated areas or banning smoking in certain public places only.

« Previous | Contents | Next »