« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Report of Regional and Area Events
GLENROTHES, FIFE, 3 AUGUST 2004
Introduction
The meeting was held at the Lomond Centre, Glenrothes, Fife from 6 to 8pm. 34 people attended, plus two SCF Coordinators - the participants broadly representing
Health workers - 14
Licensed trade - 10
Individuals - 9
ASH - 1
Structure of Meeting
Following 15 minutes of introductions, covering the process for the evening, and some background information relating to the overall consultation approach, the meeting broke into two discussion groups.
Group Discussions
Following agreement of some ground-rules for conducting the discussion the groups followed an outline structure as follows
Is further action required over and above the present voluntary approach?
If so, should it be legislation?
If legislation, should there be any exemptions?
If not legislation what else can be done/more could be done?
Other points/issues/proposals
As two groups undertook the above, the report back provides the detail as two separate mini-reports.
Group 1
Initial discussion took place around the question of whether the current voluntary approach was working, and whilst there were some views to indicate that some progress had been made, within the licensed trade, the general view was that in this particular industry the voluntary approach was patchy and did not provide the protection to the non-smoker clientele and employees.
Due to the composition of the participants much discussion focused on the licensed trade, as there is great concern as to the impact any ban might have on income and livelihoods.
Comments and questions at this stage included:
The provision of smoking/non-smoking areas in many establishments is a nonsense as it does not provide the comfort for non-smokers as intended
Is there a call for non-smoking pubs? - how many are there in existence?
The Ireland/Dublin experience was given as evidence that a ban worked and that livelihoods were not affected. However, a contrary view was expressed that the reality in the more rural areas outside Dublin did not support this.
Following this focus on pubs and restaurants it was pointed out that the discussion needed to look at the wider matter of enclosed public places, therefore including other workplaces, transport etc.
It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point that there was a view that a better definition required of what would be covered in any possible legislation.
On the wider discussion of all workplaces, and in the context of the previous discussion around licensed premises, the question was raised as to
"does one size fit all". The discussion moved on to consider the prospect of legislation with the following points raised:
There needs to be protection for employees.
Enforcement - concern as to how this will be carried out and a need to make this very clear at the outset.
Concern that smoking/more smoking would be pushed into the home with increased danger to children.
Where extractor systems have been used there have been problems with them bringing in outside toxins. The view expressed that extractor systems only improved the comfort level rather than remove the harmful toxins/carcinogens. There are, however, as expressed by one health employee, systems that will do the job if there is the willingness to spend the money.
There would be great difficulty in trying to differentiate between types of workplace.
Litigation is becoming an increasing concern and legislation would provide protection to employers.
The majority of pub employees smoke.
Licensees would favour a smoking/no smoking approach within their establishments.
Evidence from United States indicates that there was a dramatic reduction in heart attacks after smoking bans were introduced.
Exemptions
There was some concern over the prospect of exemptions, primarily around the issue of employees' health. Specific points with regard to exemptions were
People's own homes should not be included e.g. for people in receipt of home care service, health visitors. However, there needs to be safeguards built in to protect employees who do not wish to work in a smoky environment.
Questions raised as to why prisons should be considered although there was some recognition of difficulties that might arise if smoking were banned.
Care homes should be include but there need to be "controls" to ensure safety for the wider population of the home.
Support for Legislation
Following much discussion, a show of hands at this stage, provided 14 in favour of a ban of smoking in enclosed public places (to be better defined) and 3 supporting an approach of separate provision for smoker/non-smokers within licensed premises.
Broader Issues
There were a number of wider issues raised, as needing consideration, in order to provide a fuller set of support measures.
More education required, not only for the younger people, but also aimed at telling the public generally of the dangers of smoking, with a wider message necessary, over and above the cancer one.
The image being portrayed on TV needs looking at with possible curbs on smoking being shown.
More resources needed to help the smokers and non-smokers - cessation clinics, identified smoking areas at hospitals to protect those who currently have face all the smokers at the front entrance.
Group 2
Here there was no consensus reached, with a clear division as to any support for legislation. It is not possible, therefore, to provide any sense of balance of weight either one way or another. The discussion is, therefore, provided as a series of bullet points, thus recording the wide range of views, opinions and concerns expressed:
Mixed message from the Executive with regard to what they mean by "smoking in public places" - workplaces are not public places.
Theatres - have provided evidence that a smoking ban can work.
Residential homes and the like need to be carefully considered.
The voluntary code has resulted in some grey areas - 7 out every 10 licensed premises still permit smoking throughout.
Ban in a shopping centre led to café, that had previously allowed smoking, to introduce smoking ban over lunch times - level playing field would be useful.
Current situation provides limited choice for non-smokers.
Concern that total ban would lead to loss of jobs - Eire experience has shown a 19% downturn in pubs business but a 23% increase in off-sales.
Legislation would clarify grey areas.
Air ventilation does not make the air safe.
There needs to be support for smokers - cessation clinics etc.
Legislation should be an extension of the voluntary code with any ban being tied to food areas.
Need to remember that the proposals are wider than just the hospitality industry.
Litigation could become a problem for publicans and other employers.
If legislation comes in then any exemptions might well provide difficult situations for staff - e.g. prisons, home carers. Protection of workers a concern here.
Why are we waiting - just do it !!
All employers should have non-smoking policies.
Legislation should be without exceptions (view of two people only).
On a show of hands a 60-40 favoured legislation, 70-30 were against a complete ban.
« Previous | Contents | Next »