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 6: WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ANY EXEMPTIONS

6.1 It has already been noted in earlier chapters of this report that some individuals responding to the consultation paper have opted for some form of compromise measures rather than an outright ban on smoking in all enclosed public places. One of the specific questions posed to respondents was "if a law was introduced, do you think there should be any exemptions to it?" Over half of respondents (56%) said that there should not be any exemptions and 35% felt there should be exemptions.

Whether there should be exemptions
Base: All respondents (53,474)

(Source: Q3)

6.2 Within the general public responses, males and females responding to the consultation had similar views on whether there should be any exemptions to a law that prohibits smoking in public places. However, there were some differences in response in terms of age, with more respondents under 25 saying that there should be exemptions than those aged 25 or older: 41% of under 16's and 45% of 16-24 year olds said there should be exemptions compared with 34% of 25-59 year olds and 35% of those aged 60 or over.

6.3 Once again there is a large difference in opinion between those who smoke compared with those that do not smoke; 78% of smokers said that there should be exemptions compared with only 26% of non-smokers.

6.4 Interestingly, organisations and groups providing a response were also more likely than individuals to agree that there should be exemptions (42% compared with 35% respectively). If this is broken down further, the majority (63% or more) of those in the hospitality industry and residential homes think that there should be exemptions.

Whether there should be exemptions

6.5 There were differing views given by organisations to this question. For example, across the health organisations responding, few agreed that there should be exemptions, although higher numbers of this type of organisation did not give a positive or negative response to this question. The majority of businesses did not state their opinion on this matter.

6.6 Of the 80% who are in support of a law, the majority stated that they do not think that there should be any exemptions. Only a relatively small number supported the use of exemptions in a law to make enclosed public places smoke free. This is illustrated in chart 6.2. Of the 18% of respondents who did not think that a law should be introduced, 85% thought that there should be exemptions if a law were introduced.

Whether those who support a law think there should be exemptions
Base: All respondents who support a law (42,547)

(Source: Q2 and Q3)

6.7 Once again all respondents were given the opportunity to express their reasons for the answer they gave and many of the themes and issues already identified were reiterated. More than half of those who said there should be exemptions gave a reason for this response (62%) compared with only 26% of those who felt that there should be no exemptions and 27% who did not know or did not reply to this question.

6.8 While there were differences between sub-groups for some of the comments made by respondents regarding the question of exemptions, there were also some recurring themes emerging. These themes will be examined, in turn, in the following sections. Once again the topics of segregation and ventilation of smoking areas and the health risks were mentioned by a small number of respondents. However as these comments repeat the views already discussed in detail in the previous two chapters, this chapter will focus on the comments specifically regarding exemptions. The key arguments of organisations that submitted lengthier responses and the differences between their views and those of the general public are discussed the last section of this chapter.

In Favour of Exemptions

6.9 The two key comments made by respondents referred to either a need for provision of segregated / designated smoking areas or examples of specific public places where smoking should be allowed. The social nature of smoking is highlighted in particular; the areas specified for exemptions by greatest proportions of respondents were pubs / bars / places where alcohol is consumed and clubs. Some respondents even commented that smoking and drinking go 'hand in hand', therefore it would be difficult not to smoke in these venues. Alongside these exemptions, some respondents felt that there would need to be appropriate signage to indicate whether smoking is permitted in premises.

6.10 A very common theme among respondents was that of provision of segregated areas, with comments ranging from the need for either completely separate establishments, the positioning of smoking areas in separate rooms or the sensible positioning of smoking and non-smoking areas. Some respondents commented that non-smokers should not have to pass through these areas.

6.11 In addition to this, some respondents commented on a need for ventilation systems in areas where smoking is permitted, with many suggesting that these ventilation systems would have to be very good. One measure was that pubs should be able to apply for special 'smoking licences'. Another suggestion was for the regulation of smoking areas where smoking is permitted. There were also some comments that proprietors should be responsible for ensuring all health and safety measures are in place and the provision of licensed smoking clubs for members only.

6.12 Some of the other areas where respondents stated that either an exemption should apply or that there should be provision of segregated smoking areas include:

• Restaurants

• Hospitals (for terminally ill patients)

• Cafes and other eating areas

• Workplaces

• Prisons

• Nursing homes

6.13 Some of those who did not provide a definitive answer to this question also said that there should be some exemptions, or referred specifically to the need for completely separate smoking areas. A small number of respondents felt that it would be against human rights to ban smoking in care or residential homes. As with those supporting exemptions, some of these individuals felt that there should be provision of (completely) separate smoking rooms, that smoke should not be able to travel from smoking areas to the other areas, or that smoking areas must be properly ventilated.

6.14 Even among respondents who indicated that they did not support any exemptions in response to the initial question, a small number said that smoking areas must be completely separate or enclosed, or specified a public place where they felt exemptions should apply.

6.15 In addition to focussing on where exemptions should apply, some respondents felt that there would be problems with a complete ban in that it would be difficult to enforce. A small proportion of those in favour of exemptions said that banning smoking in hospitality businesses would result in a loss of trade and could result in some going out of business. Some respondents were concerned that a blanket ban would cause smokers to smoke in entrances, and a small proportion felt that there should be provision of outdoor smoking facilities, as these have helped the success of bans elsewhere.

6.16 Among those in favour of exemptions, the type of public places where most respondents felt exemptions should not be put in place were restaurants, cafes or places where food is served. Nevertheless, views were polarised on this, with an equal number claiming that these areas should be included in the exemptions. Other places that these respondents felt should not be given exemptions included at the bar (to protect bar staff) and around children. A very small number expressed the view that smoking should only be allowed at home, despite suggesting that a law should contain exemptions.

Against Exemptions

6.17 Of those against the idea of having exemptions, a significant number stated that there was no need for exclusions, while slightly fewer thought that a law that permitted smoking in specified areas would cause problems. Examples of the types of problems that they felt would occur, included 'allowing exemptions would encourage abuse of the system', 'exemptions would create confusion', 'having exemptions would make the law difficult to enforce' and 'allowing exemptions would allow loop-holes' / 'create grey areas'.

6.18 Others were concerned that allowing exemptions sends a mixed message about the risks, whilst others pointed out that when the law was introduced into Ireland (and other countries) they had no exemptions, and that has worked.

6.19 Once again, the problems with the inefficiency of ventilation systems and segregated areas for smoking and non-smoking were highlighted by some respondents. In addition, of those who did not express a definitive answer to this question, a small number said that they support a complete ban, whilst others felt non-smokers / staff should not have to inhale smoke.

6.20 One possible solution that has been offered by a small number of respondents at this, and other questions, is the possibility of gradually phasing-in a smoking ban. According to this suggestion, when the law begins there should be inclusion of exemptions, but that over time these exemptions would be phased out, resulting eventually in a complete ban.

Individual Choice

6.21 Respondents were also concerned with the issue of an individual's right to choose. Many of those who felt that there should be exemptions gave the freedom of choice for all as their reason, although this was interpreted in different ways; some thought that proprietors or managers should have the right to choose whether to allow smoking on their premises, and some felt that having no exemptions would be against human rights. Others felt that employees should be given the choice, and asked if they are willing to work in a smoking environment. Nevertheless a small number felt that non-smokers should not have to inhale smoke anywhere, despite calling for exemptions.

6.22 A small proportion of respondents who said there should not be any exemptions felt that people should have the right to a smoke-free environment, while others felt that smokers should respect non-smokers rights. Of those who did not reply to this question or who did not know whether there should be exemptions, a significant proportion mentioned that individuals should be allowed to choose; however this was split between those who were supporting the rights of smokers and those who felt that non-smokers / staff should not have to inhale smoke.

Views of Organisations

6.23 While organisations were split on the view of exemptions, many of the comments given in response to this question were very similar. A number felt that there needed to be greater clarity of the phrase 'enclosed public place'. For example would this include private clubs, places where the public are required to queue in close proximity (bus and train stations) and public places which are also people's homes (long term care facilities)? There was also a strong feeling that exemptions or too many exemptions would lead to confusion and may make the introduction of a law ineffectual.

"A ban is a ban and there should be no exceptions. A ban on smoking in public places is the correct action."

Health organisation

"Residential homes could be considered for exemption as this would support the 'home for life' ethos …. Day centres for people with mental health problems could also be considered. It may further isolate some service users if they withdrew from the services because they are not allowed to smoke. Any exemptions must be balanced with the need to protect staff who should have the right not to enter a designated smoking area, and whilst it is not recognised to be completely effective, adequate ventilation should be in place in all smoking areas. A duty of care should be imposed on care providers to pro-actively address smoking cessation amongst service users. "

Local Authority

6.24 Others were concerned that the introduction of a law with exemptions would not fully protect the public from the health risks associated with second hand smoke. Whilst some used this to argue against the idea of exemptions (those saying no to question 3), others stated that should the Government feel exemptions are required, then each exempt area should be have its own policy that is specified to suit the needs of that location, to ensure the protection of those using the premises. Alongside the use of separate smoking rooms with good ventilation, a small number suggested these policies should include a smoking cessation programme.

"Any exemptions must be balanced with the need to protect staff who should have the right not to enter a designated smoking area, and whilst it is not recognised to be completely effective, adequate ventilation should be in place in all smoking areas. A duty of care should be imposed on care providers to pro-actively address smoking cessation amongst service users."

Health organisation

6.25 Even among some of the organisations who stated that there should be no exemptions, there was concern that there needs to be careful consideration of certain types of locations. While the general public tended to focus on pubs, clubs and restaurants when commenting on possible exemptions, businesses and organisations mainly referred to long-stay care facilities, prisons and work places that are also homes of looked after individuals. In addition a small number mentioned hotel rooms and such like. However, equally, there were those who felt that no part of the hospitality industry should be exempt.

6.26 While, as mentioned previously, many felt that allowing smoking in long-stay care facilities, and so on, would put workers in these places in danger of the effects of second-hand smoke, there was also recognition that the needs and rights of people in these residences must be taken into consideration. What is a workplace for one individual will be a home for another. While some felt that exemptions in these areas would mean that "staff would still have to enter these areas and be exposed to the smoke, which would be unacceptable", there were others who felt that some exemptions did need to be made or at least given more serious consideration.

"The following settings should be excluded from the definition of 'enclosed public space': people's own homes; residents' own rooms in residential homes, nursing homes or sheltered housing complexes; hotel, guest room or B&B bedrooms; single prison cells; single rooms in residential facilities in further or higher educational establishments; all areas of inpatient psychiatric wards; NHS continuing care facilities. The most appropriate way to strike a balance between the wishes of smokers and the wishes, health, safety and comfort of non-smokers in the above settings as well as any staff who work within them or visit them in the course of their duties is to develop settings-specific smoking policies rather than to impose legislation."

6.27 Some individuals within voluntary organisations, particularly those who had experience of mental illness, also had concerns about the impact of a ban on smoking in public places. There was a view from some that there is need for an individual to be able to smoke when they are ill or in crisis, and that a ban on smoking in public places could serve to exacerbate problems. Nevertheless they were equally concerned about respecting non-smokers.

6.28 Whilst these views are representative of many organisations, there were a small number who felt that the hospitality sector should be given an exemption. Unsurprisingly, most of these organisations were in the hospitality sector themselves. These organisations called for voluntary codes of practices to be used instead. One stated that should a law be introduced there should be a significant period of notice to let businesses prepare to mitigate for the associated loss of revenues. In contrast to this, other organisations felt that the law should be introduced as soon as possible. As one health organisation said "the gradual introduction of a ban, as suggested by the licensed trade, would produce another generation of tobacco addicts".

Additionally the following views were expressed by organisations:

• "It makes good business sense for all public places to be smoke-free"

• The introduction of a ban will have positive effects, including benefits to health and businesses

• Any law needs to be a nationally introduced, rather than on a local authority basis

• "if a law were to be introduced, the only way that it would be fair to all retailers, would be if it was a strict, across the board rule with no exceptions".

• There may be a need to provide sheltered smoking areas outside public buildings but within public places.

6.29 Respondents were more split over the issue of exemptions than any other. However, the majority did feel that there should not be any exemptions, or that if any were to be included these should be kept to a minimum. Of the organisations submitting lengthier responses, there was some debate on the definition of 'enclosed public places' and many were concerned about the application of the law to public places that are also residential with the majority of these suggesting that the proposed law contains exemptions.

« Previous | Contents | Next »