« 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 7: VOLUTARY ACTION, REDUCTION OF EXPOSURE AND OTHER VIEWS ON SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
7.1 The remainder of the consultation questionnaire asked questions on three more issues and respondents were invited to express their views on each of these. These questions were :
Question 4. 'If we decide not to introduce a law, what more could be done to encourage individual businesses to take action to become smoke-free or to provide more smoke-free provision?'
Question 5. 'What else could we do to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke?'
Question 6. 'Please let us know about any other views you have about smoking in public places'
7.2 The proportion of respondents choosing to give comments to each of these questions is detailed in chart 7.1. Almost two thirds of respondents (62%) expressed views on what would encourage voluntary action and more than half (55%) gave comment on how else exposure to second-hand smoke could be reduced. Less than half of respondents (47%) gave any further comments at question six.
Chart 7.1
Respondents giving comments at questions four, five and six
Base: All respondents (53,474)
(Source: Q4, Q5 and Q6)
How individual businesses can be encouraged to take voluntary action to become smoke-free
7.3 While there was a wide range of comments given in response to
'If we decide not to introduce a law, what more could be done to encourage individual businesses to take action to become smoke-free or to provide more smoke-free provision?', there were a number of common themes that arose. These themes will be examined, in turn, in the following sections.
Many of the lengthier responses from organisations were similar to the views and suggestions given by other respondents, hence only key differences and opinions expressed by these organisations will be examined.
Incentives and Deterrents to Encourage Voluntary Action
7.4 One of the ways in which respondents suggested the Government could encourage voluntary action was through the provision of incentives. There were numerous different methods suggested by respondents, and a number of respondents thought that this method would be successful in encouraging participation in voluntary schemes.
7.5 The incentive that was suggested by most respondents was that of tax reductions or breaks for businesses participating in voluntary schemes, with slightly fewer suggesting a more general form of financial rewards and a small proportion suggesting that there be a reduction in rates. Other respondents felt that tax incentives or rate concessions should be given only to those who provide a smoke free environment. However, a small number felt that there should be incentives for those providing separate smoking and non-smoking areas.
7.6 Other suggestions included the view that businesses should be encouraged through the provision of grants - either to help with the costs of putting in place separate smoking and non-smoking areas, or more specifically to help with the installation of ventilation systems. A small proportion felt that voluntary action could be encouraged through the provision of free publicity for smoke-free establishments or funds to provide smoking cessation services in the workplace.
7.7 There were also a small number of respondents who felt that incentives were required at an individual level, through either incentives for employees to stop smoking, rewards schemes for employees who don't smoke or the availability of free or cheap nicotine replacement therapy. Indeed some even suggested that businesses should not employ smokers.
7.8 Of those organisations responding to the consultation, there were a small number of suggestions for the use of financial incentives to encourage voluntary participation, with proposals along the lines of those offered by other respondents.
"The provision of financial support in relation to smoking cessation programmes. Incentives to food and drink businesses that choose to operate no smoking establishments, such as reducing the tax on alcohol."
Other Organisation
7..9 Other incentives specified by organisations was to include voluntary action alongside national or local award schemes such as Scotland's Health at Work Award Scheme and Scottish Healthy Choices Awards, for example by increasing the incentives for following these schemes.
7.10 An alternative view to rewarding those who comply with voluntary measures, was that there should be some financial deterrents set in place to discourage businesses from allowing smoking on their premises or for smokers themselves. These ideas included increased tax, rates or insurance premiums for businesses that allow smoking; increased tax on cigarettes; and charges for smokers that use smoking rooms or smoking facilities.
Opposition to Voluntary Schemes
7.11 We have already noted previously that there is a degree of opposition to voluntary schemes. While this section of the consultation was designed to investigate ways in which voluntary action could be made to work, there was still a significant number of respondents who felt that legislation was necessary for the success of any smoke-free schemes and who restated this at question 4. The majority of these respondents felt that voluntary action will not work or that it sends out the wrong message from the Scottish Executive. In addition, a small number of respondents felt that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that public areas are smoke free or that it should not be up to employers. There were also those who thought that
'voluntary action needs to be enforced' or that there should be fines for those who break the law, suggesting that they too support the introduction of a law rather than the use of voluntary measures.
7.12 A large number of the organisations commenting on question 4 expressed the view that there must be a law as voluntary schemes, like those already in place, have proved to be ineffective in protecting people from second-hand smoke. Some pointed out that the current Voluntary Charter on providing smoke free provision in the hospitality sector
12 "
includes a 'do-nothing' option as a means of achieving compliance with the code". Indeed some argued that there are no exemptions or voluntary codes of practice for other dangerous substances, and so questioned why there should be for tobacco smoke.
"I do not regard this as an effective approach to the problem of environmental tobacco smoke. We already have a Voluntary Charter, which isn't working. It is widely accepted that there is no safe level of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, technical fixes don't work, and tobacco smoke cannot respect boundaries. Voluntary codes of practice don't apply to exposure to other environmental carcinogen such as asbestos, so why should they apply to environmental tobacco smoke? Legislation is acceptable, practicable and beneficial. We therefore believe that approaches based on voluntary action should be rejected."
Health organisation
7.13 Many were concerned that a failure to introduce legislation would lead to a non-level playing field, in which some businesses may suffer by going smoke-free. Indeed these organisations also commented that failure to introduce legislation would result in the Scottish population receiving incorrect messages regarding the health risks of second hand smoke. In the words of one health organisation,
"A decision not to introduce a law banning smoking in public places would be a most inappropriate decision. It would send out completely the wrong message to the general public and would undermine any efforts to encourage voluntary action. It would be quite inappropriate to delegate this matter to licensing authorities. It is a matter about which the Scottish Executive should take a clear stand."
7.14 A number of public places were specified by respondents as requiring a law to ensure that they become free of smoke including bars, restaurants and in general other places of work. A small proportion of respondents felt that businesses in the hospitality sector would not ban smoking voluntarily through fear of losing profits, while others felt that it would be difficult to encourage voluntary action due to opposition from lobby / rights groups.
7.15 In the
previous chapter, we noted the issue of exemptions and whether or not any should be introduced and a few organisations also suggested that there might be a requirement for a ban in specific areas. Suggestions for specific areas included at the bar counter in licensed premises, anywhere food is being served and places used by children. Indeed a number of those who felt that there should be legislation went on to specify that there is no reason why workers in the hospitality trade should not be afforded the same protection as other workers. One of the reasons given for this was the low uptake of the current voluntary scheme by businesses.
"Nearly three years after the launch of the Voluntary Charter in Scotland, 4 in 10 food and entertainment premises were found still to allow smoking throughout, rising to 7 in every 10 pubs and bars. It is widely agreed in public health circles that voluntary agreements are no substitute for legislative action for smoke-free public places."
Health organisation
7.16 A number of organisations also pointed out that the changes to people's behaviour regarding wearing seatbelts and drink driving only came about through legislation. Other organisations felt that even if there was no immediate introduction of a law that prohibits smoking in public places, there should be a staged ban. Such phased introduction would initially prohibit smoking in places that serve food, with a complete ban following closely behind.
Provision of Completely Segregated Areas for Smoking
7.17 Once again the idea that there should be a greater provision of segregated areas for smoking was referred to by respondents in reply to this question. Some respondents felt that businesses should be encouraged to provide designated smoking and non-smoking areas, while a small number felt that they should be required to do so by law. Others took this point even further, stating that non-smoking areas should be made the norm and that smoking areas should be the areas that are 'set aside'.
7.18 Along similar lines there were suggestions from a small number of organisations that licensed premises should be required to allocate a minimum of 30% of total floor space as a non-smoking area, to be increased to 40% in year 2, and 50% in year 3.
7.19 One of the problems that respondents associated with providing separated areas for smoking is the drifting of smoke into non-smoking areas. While some respondents felt that completely separate rooms for smoking and non-smoking should be offered, a larger number referred to the provision of adequate ventilation systems. Indeed a small number felt that there should be a legal requirement for premises to have proper ventilation or extraction systems, with fines for those who do not. An alternative suggestion from some was that ventilation systems should be monitored to ensure effectiveness.
7.20 In addition to this some respondents felt that businesses should have clear signs outside their establishment displaying their smoking policy, or that smoking and non-smoking areas should be clearly signed. This would allow members of the public to ensure that an establishment has provision suited to them (whether that is a smoke-free environment or an area where they can smoke). Some responses from organisations even suggested that the smoking status of businesses be published to ensure the public could make an informed choice before entering premises that allow smoking. In addition a number of respondents were concerned about smoking around the bar area, suggesting that smoking should be banned at the bar at least, and that ventilation systems should be put in place to blow smoke away from the bar area to protect staff.
7.21 Nevertheless there were some concerns about having segregated areas for smoking. A small proportion of respondents commented that separate smoking areas pose a bigger danger to staff health, while others felt that ventilation or filtration systems to be ineffective. A relatively large number of organisations responding to the consultation supported this view.
"Any efforts to provide partial protection from environmental tobacco smoke remains flawed, as there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke."
Voluntary organisation
"[Segregation]
puts staff in smoking areas at more risk as concentration of environmental tobacco smoke rises in these segregated smoking areas."
Health organisation
Increased Anti-Smoking Advertising and Provision of Smoking Cessation Services
7.22 Some respondents suggested a further method of encouraging voluntary action would be through increased advertisements and advice. These respondents included those who felt that there should be education for employers on the health risks and effects of smoking, and their responsibility for employees' health, increased public awareness campaigns about the health risks, advice for employees to stop smoking, and more education in schools or for children about the dangers of smoking.
7.23 In addition to this, some respondents felt that there should be promotion of the benefits of a smoke free environment and others that felt there should be advice available regarding the provision or creation of smoke-free areas. In addition to this there were those who felt that there should be an increase in the amount of advice or help available to stop smoking, including those who felt that there should be smoking cessation groups or counselling provisions in the workplace. Many organisations also stated that any voluntary action should be supported by further smoking cessation services, whether that be to increase the number of services, to improve the accessibility or to provide specialist services.
7.24 A small number of organisations suggested the need for further publicity, including suggestions for further anti-smoking campaigns, while others felt there needed to be more publicity about the benefits of introducing smoke free spaces. This included the costs of allowing smoking in the workplace, the view that smokers in the workplace have lower productivity, the popularity of the policy in other countries and the real economic impact of these smoke free policies in other countries.
7.25 In addition, a number of organisations felt that there should be more extensive publication of the evidence on the lack of effectiveness of current ventilation methods to reduce the levels of carcinogens to which non-smokers are exposed in many public areas
.
Additional Ideas
7.26 Besides those ideas that have already been discussed, there were a number of other ideas that respondents felt might encourage voluntary participation. These include:
Giving proprietors reassurance that there will be no loss of business / that there may be an increase in business
Reminding businesses that they may face litigation from employees / customers
Encouraging employees / customers to sue employers / proprietors who permit smoking.
Public pressure on businesses to become smoke-free / encourage employees / customers to complain about smoky environments.
Encouragement from Licensing Boards for smoke-free zones.
Allowing smoking at certain times.
Changes to access of tobacco (either increasing cost, removing vending machines from bars or restricting the availability of tobacco)
7.27 Although many of the organisations felt that voluntary schemes would not work, there were further ideas given in addition to those already discussed. The following quotes from organisations summarise these suggestions.
"One innovative proposal would be to introduce smoking cessation groups to bars and hotels and further assist customers and staff in their desire to quit the habit."
Health organisation
"Council-led initiatives to encourage limitation of smoking include the pioneering implementation of Children's Certificates for licensed premises. These include the condition that smoking wouldn't be permitted in areas covered by the certificate during its hours of operation, & is seen as successful because of the perceived commercial benefit."
Local authority
"Introduce an agreed code of practice to make provisions for both smokers and non-smokers alike"
Other organisation
WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE TO REDUCE PEOPLE'S EXPOSURE TO SECOND-HAND SMOKE?
7.28 Despite the extensive array of comments given in response to the question
'What else could we do to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke?' there were a number of common topics that arose. These themes will be examined, in turn, in the following sections. There were a very small number of comments from respondents suggesting that measures do not need to be taken. As these comments have all been covered in previous chapters and the majority of respondents focussed on measures that could be used to reduce exposure, these have not been included here.
7.29 A number of organisations called for a comprehensive smoking strategy that addresses all aspects of the issue, indicating the view that legislation must be supported, encompassing many of the issues discussed below. Generally these organisations mentioned support such as tackling smoking prevalence, increased smoking cessation support, education for a variety of audiences on the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke and increased enforcement of current legislation (such as the sale of tobacco to children and tobacco smuggling), as well as monitoring the effectiveness of legislation.
Provision of Completely Segregated Areas for Smoking
7.30 A large number of respondents felt that the provision of (completely) segregated areas for smoking would be a way in which the Scottish Executive could reduce people's exposure to smoke, often either through the provision of designated areas or separate rooms. Others felt that there should be completely separate establishments for smokers and non-smokers. Once again, a small proportion felt that businesses should be required to provide separate smoking and no-smoking areas by law. Another idea was that smoking should only be permitted at certain times.
7.31 Respondents went on to comment about the specification of these separate areas. The locations where respondents felt there should be separate areas included pubs, restaurants and even open public areas. It was also suggested that non-smoking areas should be larger than smoking areas while further suggestions indicated that non-smoking and smoking areas should be clearly marked or that the policy be displayed outside the establishment. Some organisations gave similar types of suggestions, with one view that in semi-enclosed public places (for example train stations) there should be segregated smoking and non-smoking areas.
7.32 Once again the problem of smoke drifting from smoking areas into non-smoking areas was identified by a number of respondents and others mentioned ventilation systems, including those of the view that there should be improvements made to ventilation systems / filtration / extractor fans to reduce people's exposure to smoke. Indeed, there were respondents who felt that there should be a legal requirement for premises to have proper ventilation or extraction systems or that these should be monitored for effectiveness. Nevertheless there were some concerns about the ability of ventilation or filtration systems to remove the danger of second-hand smoke.
7.33 While very few organisations mentioned the idea of having separate smoking rooms, there was some support for changes to be made to the current situation regarding ventilation. Some felt that ventilation systems should be improved, that there should be legislation and monitoring of ventilation systems and that there should be some financial assistance given to organisations to allow them to install adequate systems. There was also a suggestion to
"fund research into the improvement of ventilation systems including those used in domestic situations" [Voluntary organisation]. Others were concerned that currently ventilation systems can be circumvented or poorly maintained, both of which are difficult to regulate. Thus some organisations also felt any ventilation systems must be monitored for effectiveness.
Support for a Law Banning Smoking
7.34 Some respondents took the opportunity to re-emphasise their support for legislation banning smoking, either in all or certain specified places. Of those responding to the consultation, a significant number said that by banning smoking in enclosed public places the Scottish Executive could reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. Slightly fewer gave specific places where they felt smoking should be banned, including places where food is consumed, pubs, the workplace, public transport and any place which is used by children. Additionally a small number of respondents felt that the law should be extended to cover non-enclosed public places. In addition some respondents thought that smokers or businesses who do not comply with the law should be prosecuted or fined.
7.35 There was also support at this question from organisations submitting lengthier responses for the introduction of a law prohibiting smoking in public places. While some suggested that there should be a ban in all public places, there was a greater concern that smoking be banned in the work place, with some additional suggestions that the law should be expanded to include doorways and entrances to buildings. Furthermore some organisations stated that more should be done to include smoking in the Health and Safety at Work Act. Whilst the majority of these organisations recognised that this is not a devolved issue, they suggested that the Scottish Parliament could impress upon their Westminster colleagues the effectiveness of this as a universal measure.
"The Health and Safety at Work Act should be more explicit than implying that employers have a duty to control smoking in the workplace"
Local Authority
[The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations] "include a list of substances that are established as being hazardous to health. Tobacco is not currently included on this list, despite the fact that ETS has been labelled 'carcinogenic to humans' by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer"
Voluntary organisation
7.36 Indeed a small number of organisations suggested that before any legislation is finalised, there should be a trial period to give feedback on the proposed bill, as illustrated by this comment from a local authority.
"Licensing conditions for the mandatory implementation of a smoking policy at all licensed premises would enable a pilot scheme to be effectively analysed. Such a trial would provide feedback to any proposed Bill."
7.37 Some respondents took their support for legislation even further, suggesting that smoking be banned altogether, while others felt that the Scottish Executive should prohibit the sales of tobacco and cigarettes, or the manufacturing of cigarettes. Other responses included suggestions that the legislation could be expanded to cover other areas such as external covered public areas such as sports stadiums.
Changes to Tobacco or Access to Tobacco
7.38 One of the themes to come out of the responses to question five of the consultation was the idea that there should be changes made with regard to tobacco and access to it, with respondents suggesting ways in which this could be brought about. The most common suggestion was that there should be a substantial increase in the price/taxation of tobacco products.
7.39 Respondents also suggested that there be restrictions on the sales of tobacco, including a requirement for retail outlets to obtain a licence to sell tobacco, no cigarette machines, that cigarettes should not be sold in specific places or that they are only sold at specific times of the day. A small number suggested that the minimum age requirement for tobacco be raised, while others felt that more should be done to prevent cigarettes being sold to under-age smokers.
7.40 These issues also emerged among organisation responses to the consultation. Along with strong support for an increase on taxation of tobacco, a number of organisations felt that more needed to be done to prevent the promotion of tobacco through television, adverts, movies and magazines through increasing legislation and closing loopholes. As one health organisation said "
Ensure that the advertising ban on all forms of tobacco is enforced and that all loopholes in the legislation are closed". There was a feeling that this measure would reduce the number of children who start smoking. One health organisation, quoting a British Medical Journal study, said
"Children are also less likely to start smoking if they are not exposed to it from a young age."
7.41 In addition there was a call for more to be done to reduce the import of cheap cigarettes and tobacco and to
"Ensure that there is sufficient publicity and enforcement to prevent under-age sales" (Health organisation).
7.42 A number of other tobacco related suggestions to help reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke were given by respondents and organisations. Amongst these the following suggestions were made:
Encourage the tobacco industry to produce safer cigarettes
Prevent promotion of smoking on television or at the cinema
Deal with cigarette smuggling / distribution of illegal cigarettes
Make tobacco products an 'under the counter' item.
Restrict attractiveness and visibility of tobacco products in all outlets, with cigarettes well out of sight of children
Remove exemptions for nicotine in tobacco from medicines, food or other consumer legislation.
Discontinue duty-free on tobacco and cigarettes.
7.43 Keeping the nation aware of the dangers of smoking by working with the cigarette industry to provide more information was also a suggestion given by an organisation, which felt that empowering people by improving knowledge of the dangers of smoking would have a positive impact on health.
Increased Anti-Smoking Advertising and Education About the Dangers of Smoke
7.44 Once again respondents identified increased advertising and advice regarding the detrimental effects of smoking as a way in which the Scottish Executive could reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke. Some respondents felt that there should be more anti-smoking campaigns including those who felt there should be publicly funded campaigns to educate people about the dangers of smoking and passive smoking, campaigns targeting schools / children, and campaigns to encourage people to stop smoking.
"Legislation is an important tool in changing behaviour… however legislation should be supported by other measures to help change the public's attitude towards smoking"
Health organisation
7.45 Indeed the idea that anti-smoking campaigns would lead to fewer smokers and less second-hand tobacco smoke was common among organisations, with some suggesting the need for more campaigns targeted towards children (some suggesting starting with children in nursery school and continuing throughout their lifespan).
"[Need to] ensure that schools take a comprehensive approach to the prevention and cessation of smoking."
Health organisation
7.46 Other respondents felt that there should be campaigns to emphasise the antisocial nature of smoking, to encourage parents not to smoke around children or in the home and even campaigns to encourage non-smokers to complain when people smoke in public places.
7.47 In addition to this, some thought that there should be an increase in the education of the public to the dangers of smoke. These ideas included more education for smokers about the dangers of passive smoking, more education for employees and employers about both the dangers of smoke and the employer's responsibility to protect employees' health. One such idea was to publicise the effects of second-hand smoke more widely.
7.48 Organisations also called for more education about the ineffectiveness of segregation and ventilation systems on reducing the risks of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
7.49 One health organisation also stated that the introduction of legislation will undoubtedly generate additional demand for smoking cessation service, therefore the Government should act to strengthen these services across Scotland. Many other respondents also suggested that the provision of nicotine replacement therapy and smoking cessation services could help to reduce people's exposure to second hand smoke. The idea of continuation of the monitoring and support of smoking cessation services that are available in Scotland was popular among some organisations, with a few suggesting that there be improvements to the services. These improvements include targeting services to specific disadvantaged groups, increased accessibility to cessation services, over the counter availability and the inclusion of counselling as part of the services.
"Remove as many barriers to attending smoking cessation services as possible i.e. allow people to 'walk-in' rather than having to make an appointment." Health organisation
7.50 In addition, one health organisation called for specific health education action
"Exposure to ETS in eg homes & private cars impacts negatively on the health of non-smoking family members - especially children. This can only be addressed by a determined & directed health education and health promotion awareness-raising campaign. Education and support should start at the antenatal stage and be a life long issue.".
Additional Ideas
7.51 In addition to those suggestions that could be grouped into the themes that have already been discussed, there were a number of suggestions of ways to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke given by respondents. Amongst these the following were the most common:
Financial incentives for businesses to become smoke free
Financial incentives / grants for provision of proper ventilation systems
Provision of protective face masks
Encouraging people to go outside to smoke / provision of (covered) outdoor smoking areas
Provision of healthy work breaks to reduce stress (when people are less stressed they smoke less)
"It is essential to research further the factors that predisposes one to smoke and what prevents one from smoking" with the view to reducing the prevalence of smoking
Involving young people in research and policy to suggest ideas on how to discourage young people from taking up the habit and how to help those who are already smokers to give up
7.52 While there were a very small number of comments suggesting that nothing should be done to reduce people's exposure to second hand smoke, the majority of respondents did give suggestions. Whilst respondents tended to give suggestions regarding ventilation, segregation and legislation, organisations submitting lengthier responses tended to focus on the education of the public. That is not to say that other respondents did not suggest these measures, they were not however as common. The following quote from a health organisation reflects the main view of those organisations submitting lengthier responses.
"Legislation to make enclosed public places smoke-free should be seen as a component of a multifaceted tobacco control strategy. Further investment in a range of other measures, to reduce the uptake and prevalence of smoking by helping people not to start smoking and helping smokers to quit, is also needed. An important specific area for action is education and support for parents, expectant parents and other carers, aimed at reducing babies' and children's exposure to ETS in the home."
OTHER VIEWS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS ON SMOKING
7.53 In the last question of the consultation, respondents were invited to give any further comments -
'Please let us know about any other views you have about smoking in public places'. This section of the consultation gave respondents the opportunity to give any views that they had on the topic that did not fit into other questions. Not surprisingly, this section gave rise to a wide-ranging assortment of comments, although once again there were a number of common themes within these views, many of which reconfirm previous comments and arguments. Each of these themes is discussed in the following sections.
Negative Comments about Smoking and the Tobacco Industry
7.54 In response to the last section of the consultation, respondents gave comments on a variety of negative aspects regarding smoking, smokers, and the tobacco industry. Of these comments, complaints about the fact that smoking makes the clothes and hair of non-smokers smell was mentioned most frequently, with slightly fewer respondents saying that smoking is disgusting or offensive or that they hate smoking. Other negative comments about smoking included, cigarettes causes burns of passers-by, 'smoking is bad for the environment', smoking near someone is like assault'; and 'smoking is a fire hazard'.
7.55 Furthermore, some respondents made negative comments about smokers themselves. These were wide ranging remarks, from
'smokers use lit cigarettes to cause damage' to the suggestion that smokers are less prolific at work;
'smoking breaks lead to lower productivity in industry'. The two most common complaints about smokers were that smokers cause litter problems or don't use bins and smokers are inconsiderate or selfish.
7.56 A very small proportion of these respondents also made negative remarks about the tobacco industry, among which were the suggestions that they have 'too much clout' and that they should be made liable.
7.57 Organisations responding to the consultation rarely made reference to negative aspects of smoking, smokers or the tobacco industry, other than to comment about the negative effects of smoke on health or the fire hazard of cigarettes. More frequent, however, was the view that, whatever strategy is adopted, it would be essential that addictions need to be managed with care and compassion for those affected
.
Health Risks
7.58 A number of the remarks made in response to question 6 centred, once again, on the health risks associated with smoking and passive smoking. This included respondents who said that there should be a ban because of the harmful effects that passive smoking has on non-smokers, whilst others stated more generally that smoking should be banned because of the harmful effects on health. Others felt that '[it is the] Government's duty to protect the health of the nation'. A smaller number referred to specific illnesses that are caused or aggravated by smoke or that tobacco smoke kills.
7.59 A number of organisations who submitted lengthier responses commented on the social class difference in health in Scotland. Many highlighted the high mortality rate and the higher numbers of smokers in lower socio-economic classes, and suggested that the two are linked. One relatively common view among these organisation was that the introduction of legislation would help smokers give up, which would in turn help improve the health of poorer Scottish people. However some felt that tackling smoking alone would not completely solve this issue, and that more needs to be done to help tackle the underlying reasons why people on lower income smoke.
7.60 Additionally some respondents commented on the health benefits of a ban on smoking in public places. As well as general comments about the long-term health benefits of a ban, there were some more specific remarks including, 'A ban will save NHS resources' and 'a ban will benefit children's health'. In addition many had views that legislation is essential to attain a real and sustained improvement in the health of the people of Scotland
.
"One of the major benefits arising from banning smoking in public places (country not specified) has been a significant decrease in tobacco consumption. This has resulted both from increased quit rates with an average 4% decrease in those who smoke and also from a decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked by those who continue to smoke but can no longer do so at work. There is also evidence that they become more aware of the hazard their smoking poses to the health of others and smoke less in the company of children in their own homes. This highly significant decrease will itself have major beneficial effects on the health of Scots in addition to the direct benefits of banning second hand smoke in public places."
Health organisation
7.61 Other comments that were integrated into this topic included those who said that smoking / passive smoking causes illness and comments that smoking and passive smoking kills. Indeed a small number of organisations went on to specify the illnesses that are caused as a result of smoke, including lung cancer, asthma and other respiratory problems.
7.62 There were also concerns from organisations about the health of workers in Scotland, as stated by one health organisations
"Passive smoking at work kills almost twice as many as exposure at home". Indeed one organisation expressed the view that more must be done to protect the health or workers in the hospitality trade specifically.
[We] "believe that employees working in the hospitality industry deserve the same levels of protection as all other workers… ETS is killing one person in the hospitality industry in the UK a week."
Voluntary organisation
7.63 Nevertheless there was some opposition to the view that environmental tobacco smoke posed a health risk, with some suggesting that the evidence appears far from conclusive and that further independent research is required. A number of those both in favour of legislation and those opposed to it felt that there must be further investigation into the effects of passive smoking. Other comments given by respondents included the views that individuals should be responsible for their own health, and that other pollutants are just as or more dangerous (e.g. traffic fumes).
Freedom of Choice
7.64 One of the main themes mentioned throughout the consultation by respondents, which was reiterated in response to this section, was the concern about freedom of choice, whether that be for smokers, non-smokers, or freedom of choice for all. On one hand there were respondents who felt that a complete ban would remove freedom of choice and would be an infringement of human rights, or even 'dictatorial', while on the other there were those who thought that smokers are infringing non-smokers' rights or that a ban would allow non-smokers freedom of choice. Nevertheless there were often comments from organisations, and a small number of other respondents, who felt that tackling the dangers of passive smoking is more important than individuals' rights, that smokers should be able to smoke, but not in places that causes harm to others.
7.65 Nevertheless there was concern from some respondents that any legislation should not ostracise smokers. Indeed this view that the introduction of legislation that is
"not anti-smokers, but anti-smoking places" will be an improvement in the civil liberties for the majority (non-smokers) rather than an infringement of liberty for smokers was shared by many organisations.
"Legislation to create smoke-free public places would provide the people of Scotland with a genuine choice about protecting their health from the effects of tobacco smoke."
Health organisation
7.66 Some respondents suggested that people are free to choose not to enter places that allow smoking, and a small number suggested that the hospitality sector (and other types of business) be allowed to decide for themselves whether they allow smoking. In addition there were a number of respondents who expressed the wish for individuals to be responsible for their own health. While the majority of organisations were in favour of the rights of non-smokers, there were others who felt that the public should have an element of choice as should license holders.
Support for a Law Banning Smoking
7.67 In the final section of the consultation there was further support expressed for a ban that would prohibit smoking in public places. A significant number of those responding to the questionnaire said that they would support a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places, while a smaller number of respondents felt that a ban should be extended to include non-enclosed public places, or that smoking should only be allowed in the home. There was also a call for the legislation to include all licensed premises, to ensure that they all operate on a level playing field. Indeed some respondents felt that there needs to be legislation or prosecution to back up any legislation that is brought into play.
7.68 There was also further support for some form of legislation with respondents again suggesting that there should be a law against smoking in a specific public place, including places where food is consumed, public transport and places of work. Again, some comments focussed on the need to protect children, with significant number of respondents suggesting that smoking should be prohibited in public places that are used by children, with even more respondents indicating the need for more to be done to protect children from second-hand smoke.
7.69 Other organisations were of the opinion that a more balanced approach should be pursued. This includes the view that civil liberties apply to all individuals, smokers and non-smokers. These organisations stated that any legislation must protect the health of non-smokers, but should not demonise smokers.
7.70 Positive aspects of the introduction of a ban prohibiting smoking in public places were mentioned by many respondents. A relatively large number of respondents felt that banning smoking in public places in other countries has been successful. Yet again respondents gave the view that legislation would have health benefits and would save the NHS money. Other types of positive aspects of a ban that were stated included;
A ban would encourage smokers to smoke less / give up
A ban would help ex-smokers not to start again
A ban would protect employers / smokers from future litigation
Banning smoking would produce a more comfortable environment in public places / workplaces
A ban will encourage non-smokers to make more use of pubs / restaurants etc. which may result in an increase in trade
A ban would "
leave behind the sick man of Europe" image / improve Scotland's image
7.71 Some organisations felt that a ban was necessary either because voluntary schemes had proven not to work or to show the Government's commitment to reducing exposure to ETS.
Concerns about legislation
7.72 While there was strong support for legislation, many organisations expressed concerns about the practicalities such as enforcement, punishments and the support given to smokers. Concerns about enforcement was particularly notable amongst local authorities, who expressed the need for clear guidance regarding enforcement and suggested that there would be a need for adequate funding. One suggested that licensed premises could report to the Licensing Board for consideration when dealing with licensing applications as in Ireland. Another suggested that the public would need to be made aware of how to report infringement of legislation and be confident that they are dealt with.
"Provisions for enforcement must be in place which will identify what the offences are, who enforcement action may be taken against, and who the legislation will be enforced by. Any future legislative provision should be adequately resourced, to ensure there are sufficient appropriately trained and qualified staff available to give meaning to these controls. "
Health organisation
7.73 A number of organisations felt that without appropriate means for enforcement, legislation could become obsolete. There were comments that there may be a need for covert surveillance work outside normal working hours and questions regarding who would be responsible for enforcing these laws. Organisations also commented on the punishment that would be used, some questioning who would be punishable, the smoker or the business, others suggesting that one or both be subject to fines.
7.74 A number of comments were made regarding the need for action that deals with all tobacco issues together, not simply the introduction of legislation. These issues included the control of tobacco sales to underage children, illegal entry of tobacco into Britain, advertising and imagery of tobacco products and the availability of smoking cessation support.
7.75 Other organisations felt that legislation (of whatever format) should be piloted to investigate any impact on businesses, whilst another suggestion was that there should be a chance to comment on the draft legislation and any definitions before it was passed and implemented.
7.76 There was also concern expressed by one local authority about the terminology of any measures that are taken. They felt that the terminology used must be more objective and positive, for example using 'control of exposure to tobacco smoke' rather than 'banning smoking'. In addition one organisation expressed concerns that the economic impact of any legislation be taken into account.
7.77 A number of other concerns about the effects of legislation were also raised. One such concern was that of timescale, with some organisations requesting that legislation be brought into play as soon as possible, other requesting that legislation be phased or delayed to allow businesses to prepare.
Opposition to legislation
7.78 Earlier chapters have already noted that that there were a number of respondents who stated that they were opposed to an outright ban. The majority of those expressing opposition to legislation simply stated that they did not think there should be an outright ban. However some did specify places that should not be included in a ban, the majority of whom specified pubs/bars. Once again organisations commented that long-term residential homes may require exemptions. A small number of respondents stated that there should be voluntary action rather than legislation, whilst others pointed out that smoking is not illegal.
7.79 A small number of respondents suggested that the Scottish Parliament should find a compromise that suits smokers and non-smokers. There was some support given for complete separation of smoking and non-smoking areas by a small proportion of those responding to the consultation, although a small proportion mentioned that there needed to be improved or monitored ventilation of such areas and others felt that providing smoking and non-smoking areas is ineffective.
7.80 Some responses proposed that there would be negative effects of introducing a ban, specifically:
Loss of trade for hospitality businesses
Smoking ban has been a disaster (for tourism) in Ireland / other country.
A ban would segregate smokers and non smokers
Smokers would smoke in toilets / cupboards etc if there was a ban (fire hazard)
A ban will result in people smoking more at home, increasing the risk to children
7.81 Indeed a small number of organisations who gave lengthier responses were opposed to the introduction of a ban in enclosed public places. The majority of these organisations, however, did recognise the need for further action. The comments given included the view that there is no evidence of a public demand for smoking ban rather than restrictions. These organisations instead suggested a second voluntary Charter that includes a ban on smoking at counters in licensed premises, no smoking where food is served, licensed premises to allocate at least 30% of floor space to non-smoking area, with a potential increase each year, pubs and clubs to display smoking policy signs, no smoking in any licensed premises from which the public are excluded. One local authority favoured
"The continuation of the ongoing and successful voluntary action at this time but takes the view that further consideration should be given to legislation (a) requiring that premises where people congregate regularly be required to have smoking and non-smoking areas where that is practical in terms of space and design, and (b) to protect the health and welfare of all staff operating in these environments."
7.82 The majority of organisations opposed to legislation stated that they thought voluntary measures should be used instead. Reasons quoted included the rights of smokers, the potential loss of business (with supporting figures from New York and Ireland) and the social effects of such a ban. The majority of those who appeared to be most strongly against the introduction of legislation were business organisations and other organisations with a vested interest in hospitality or sales of tobacco products.
7.83 Other comments from organisations opposed to the introduction of legislation at this time included the following points:
Other Comments from the General public and Organisations
7.84 As the final section of the consultation invited those responding to give any other views on smoking in public places, there was a vast array of opinions stated in this section. The majority of these have been touched on in the previous sections; however there were a few which did not fit into these topics. Some of the more common remarks include:
Help encourage smokers to give up or provide free counselling or medication
Help under 16's gain access to smoking cessation services and NRT
Increase the provision of smoking cessation services
"All NHS staff should be provided with training on the effects of smoking and the promotion of smoking cessation."
Health organisation
More should be done to discourage children from starting smoking
The Government does not want to ban smoking because of the loss of revenue from tobacco tax
Concerns that legislation should not be a devolved issue
Other pollutants are just as / more dangerous.
7.85 Overall, the comments given in response to this last section of the public consultation were varied and vast. However, the majority of responses acknowledge the need for some form of further action to be taken to protect people from second-hand smoke.
Views on the Consultation
7.86 There were also a number of negative comments regarding the consultation as a whole. Some suggested that the consultation was biased to non-smokers or the licensed trade, others suggested that postal surveys or another methodology would have given fairer results. One organisation suggested that the consultation was biased in favour of a ban, whilst some other respondents felt that the decision had already been made. There were also a number of comments relating to the availability of the consultation, suggesting that it should have been made more widely available. As noted earlier in this report, the consultation paper reported on here is only one strand of the consultation exercise. Reports on each of the other elements of the overall exercise are available on the Scottish Executive website. An evidence report summarising each of the consultation strands is also available on the Scottish Executive website.
« Previous | Contents | Next »