The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Report of Regional and Area Events

REPORT FROM THE FOURTH SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE REGIONAL CONSULTATION EVENT - ABERDEEN RAMADA JARVIS HOTEL

27 August 2004

Introduction

This was the last in a series of national public consultation meetings on smoking in public places. The event attracted 124 participants, including SCF and SE officials.

The meeting followed the tried and tested format of panel presentations with a questions and answer session followed by group discussion. Panel presentations were made by:

• Tom McCabe, MSP, Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care

• Prof James Friend, Chair, Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

• Stuart Ross, Chief Executive, Belhaven Brewery Co Ltd

• Maureen Moore, ASH Scotland

In addition, Kenny Simpson, GMB was a panel member.

After the panel session, all those in attendance were invited to join one of four discussion groups, which ran simultaneously. The group discussions were aimed at providing everyone with an opportunity to raise their views on the proposals and discuss these with others. Each group was facilitated by a Scottish Civic Forum facilitator who assured participants that all views would be fed into the Scottish Executive to inform the consultation. The group discussion sessions followed the sequence of questions posed in the consultation document and reports on each are attached.

The discussion in the breakout group was structured around the 6 questions posed in the Scottish Executive's consultation leaflet.

Having considered the health risks associated with passive smoking, do you think that further action needs to be taken to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke?

On a show of hands, almost everyone in the group (20-25 persons) answered "yes" to the question.

Other points made were:

• Everyone has the right to smoke and everyone has the right not to inhale.

• Smoke makes it difficult to take children to public places.

Would you support a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free?

On a show of hands, 12 persons supported a law and 7 opposed it. The remainder abstained.

Other points made expanded on these opposing views:

• The licensed trade ought not to suffer, as it is feared that it will suffer from a ban, because it contributes to the national economy. The trade is willing to extend smoke-free provision.

• The full economic effects of the ban in Ireland have not yet been seen because it has not yet operated through winter, when the willingness to go outside may be less.

• One participant felt that the licensed trade are entrepreneurs who should be able to see the opportunities in changed circumstances; whilst another pointed out that if non-smoking pubs were financially viable there would be more of them already.

• In pubs people have an absolute right to a smoke-free environment.

• The majority of pub users smoke, therefore there should be stepped implementation of a ban in pubs.

• Non-smokers do not boycott smoky pubs because they have other motivations for using them.

• The format of the Executive's questions makes it difficult to express views.

If a law was introduced, do you think there should be any exemptions to it?

• Smokers need a public place to go. It is reasonable that restaurants be smoke-free, therefore they should be able to smoke in pubs.

• In Norway the hospitality sector has been given the benefit of a phased implementation of the ban.

• Linked to the previous point, one third of Scottish pubs already have smoke-free areas.

• Pubs should have a minority of space set aside for smokers, on the basis of the percentage of smokers in the population.

• There should be no exemptions for licensed premises where food is served or children present.

• It is difficult for smokers on certain ferries where it is not possible to go on deck, and in airports when changing planes. 'Smokers' boxes' were suggested in such places, these being properly enclosed spaces to keep the smoke in, not just areas set aside, from which smoke can drift.

If it is decided not to introduce a law, what more could be done to encourage individual businesses to take voluntary action to become smoke-free or to provide more smoke-free provision?

• The licensed trade is asking for government help in this regard.

• There should be greater variety of licensed provision.

• Licences should be given to premises to allow smoking, a condition being provision of non-smoking areas and filtration.

• There were mixed views on the effectiveness of filtration.

What else could we do to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke?

• A view was expressed that the focus on reducing passive smoking gets away from the real issue, which is to reduce active smoking because that would definitely reduce passive smoking.

• One participant suggested that smoking should be subject to total prohibition, although another argued that such a view is irrelevant because that option is not under consideration.

• There should be safe outside smoking areas.

• There should be a major education campaign on the dangers of passive smoking.

• There should be better information on the risks of passive smoking. The figures currently being aired seem contradictory.

• There should be more good research.

• We need to tackle the higher incidence of health problems in poorer areas.

• We need to look at the changes in attitudes as young people grow up. Education for primary school children on the dangers of smoking can be very effective. They often smoke in their teens but later want to stop.

Any other views about smoking in public places?

• Smoking should be banned in playparks, even though they are outdoors. (In the same way as dogs are banned from playparks.)

• Bus shelters should be non-smoking.

This group consisted of 17 people, 6 publicans, some health professionals, others primarily from the general public.

In relation to question 1 in the Executive response form regarding the need for further action there was no disagreement. Although there was some voices who would dispute the extent of the problem.

In relation to the Voluntary Code which had been introduced by the SLTA with support from the Executive:

• Not working.

• Ventilation? Does it work?

• Many premises paid lip service which they hoped would avoid legislation.

• It has worked but cannot go any further as a Voluntary code.

• Possible market for licensed premises in non-smokers.

• Does not address staff health issues.

• Publicans felt that voluntary code was dictated to them by clientele i.e. smokers don't want a ban.

• Should be mandatory standards which would make it better.

Legislation: Total ban

Not a good idea to have local authorities all doing different things such as used to be the case with licensing hours in different counties.

Whatever gets done needs to be uniform across Scotland.

However different areas have different needs - rural/urban.

Needs to be seen as a Public Health issue.

If we do not have a total ban and just have non-smoking/smoking areas then what about staff who need to work in that atmosphere.

View was expressed there is a class issue that needs to be addressed - working class deprived areas people would see this as another erosion of their freedoms.

Other view expressed that as deprived areas tend to suffer more from smoking related illnesses proportionately, then all the more reason that it should be brought in to allow them access to better health and close the inequality in health gap which there is in the country - acknowledged that there are larger issues which also need to be addressed in this area.

A ban would have the effect of influencing generational social habits - making it socially unacceptable to smoke therefore encouraging younger generations away from viewing smoking as acceptable.

Reminder that this is not a ban on smoking but a ban on smoking in public places which is being discussed.

Any kind of ban could drive smokers into their own homes where it could have a detrimental effect on children/family members who don't smoke.

If we have smoking rooms who is going to clean them and what about their health and safety.

Does public places include bus stops/railway stations?

Legislation can help to change culture and have knock on effects e.g. drink driving, seat belts.

Definition of Public Places needs refined.

If your car is used for work is it a public place during the working day?

Taxi transport - used for transporting clients - is it included?

Extra resource issue for Local Authorities - Community wardens.

Compensation for pubs (as for fisherman who de-commission boats) - should they lose money?

How do you prove that you should receive compensation?

The panel discussion had overrun and some adverse comment was made about the fact that some of the panel session had been devoted to a debate between panel members that could have taken place elsewhere. This had resulted in the time for the discussion group being curtailed - a number of participants were unhappy about this and felt that the time for the group discussion should have been time protected.

Time was limited due to the panel session over-running. The basic rules for discussion were outlined to which all participants agreed.

This was a group of around 25 people with fairly even split between those who supported a ban and those who didn't.

We opened the discussion with question 1 in the consultation paper. All those in the group agreed that action was required to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. Points of view on how this could be best achieved diverged at this point of the discussion. Points made around the group were as follows:

Using a legislative approach will speed up the process, but could it happen naturally anyway, albeit at a slower pace?

How much money is currently spent trying to help people stop smoking? Is it working? Removing the influence of adult smokers might reduce the numbers of young people who take up smoking.

How much money is spent on treating smoking-related illness? Would banning be effective in reducing this financial burden?

Would a ban provide freedom of choice - customers should be able to choose.

There are now fewer places where smoking is allowed. Will smokers be fazed by an additional ban on smoking in public places?

The effect of smoking on non-smokers should be recognised. Do staff have a choice?

Some support (about 40% in the group) for legislation which supports a stepped approach to a ban on smoking in public places.

Government should pay a subsidy to publicans if they want 100% smoke free environments.

Why are we only hearing about pubs? Surely other employers are affected?

Publicans recognise the need to reduce smoking but there needs also to be some recognition of the economic impact. What will be done to alleviate financial difficulties?

Could pubs become smoking cessation centres?

Approval for planning applications should only be given to smoke-free pubs.

Whether a legal or voluntary approach is decided on, it is vital that implementation is staged.

Research has shown an initial dip in takings followed by an increase. How can small business be helped to cope with a dip? Would GPs agree to accept a 30% decrease in earnings, as the publican will have to?

Why aren't other employers as vocal as the SLTA?

Legislation worked for seatbelts - it could have a similar effect on smoking.

No exemptions should be allowed - particularly private clubs who would then be at an advantage.

The group agreed the following priorities for reporting in the plenary session:

It was recognised that less smoking was a good thing.

There was some support for a stepped approach - either legislative or voluntary.

Others wanted immediate protection for non-smokers through an immediate ban.

The debate needed to extend beyond the impact on the licensed trade - other employers were involved.

No exemptions should be allowed should legislation be the favoured approach.

At the beginning of the workshop everyone was asked to stand up and to place themselves along a continuum to show what kind of action should be taken on smoking in public places.

2 people placed themselves in between voluntary action and targeted ban

Conclusions

Evidence on smoking and passive smoking was accepted, but it was felt that both sides were scaremongering and a more objective use of the facts would be helpful.

Action was wanted by all.

Legislation was wanted by the majority (11 out of 16). Some want stepped legislation.

Exemptions were seen as crucial - getting the right ones could make the legislation work and ensure good public support. The question of whether pubs could be exempt was raised.

Implementation was seen as an issue. And how would it be policed?

Choice was a major issue for many. It is complicated by being thought of in different ways by those discussing choice.

There was support from almost all the workshop for bans in public places which people are felt to have no choice but to use, i.e when shopping or travelling.

However there was less agreement when it comes to places people go for leisure, the pub being seen perhaps as almost unique because of its use as a place to socialise with others.

Dialogue was needed. More dissemination of facts and information was needed, more discussion of how to take action than afforded by the consultation process or perhaps as part of the consultation process.

Discussion

Should there be further action or not?

All felt action should be taken. Much of the discussion was about pubs and it was hard to widen it out although some wanted to. Participants were not clear about what happened in public places other than the leisure industry. Some felt that there was no smoking in all other public places e.g. workplaces, libraries, supermarkets. One person said 'is this argument about pubs profits?' while a publican felt it was all about 'having a go at pubs'.

Some felt that a total ban was necessary because smoke drifts. Others felt it should be left to free choice.

The evidence on smoking was accepted but one person did raise the question of what the long term evidence showed.

If 80% of smokers want help in stopping, should they not be helped to stop?

The question of how it would be enforced and policed was raised.

Should there be a law on smoking in enclosed public places?

Three people wanted a voluntary ban, two were uncertain, 11 wanted legislation of some kind. Some wanted stepped legislation.

Publicans argued about freedom of choice, while other participants pointed out that they wanted the freedom to go to pubs and other places and not smoke. Smoke drifts, so it is hard to have no smoking areas.

If there is a law should there be any exemptions?

There was no clear opinion. Singapore was mentioned as a model. One person felt that getting the right package of exemptions could make or break any legislation by either getting public support or alienating it.

« Previous | Contents | Next »