« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Report of Regional and Area Events
KILMARNOCK, 12 AUGUST 2004
This meeting had been widely advertised using local media, Scottish Civic Forum (SCF) networking, emails, written invitation letters, phone calls, etc. John Dowson, Scottish Civic Forum Coordinator for the South of Scotland (SOS) had visited Kilmarnock on Friday 6
th August 2004 to distribute posters and to meet with interested parties including licensed trade members. The purpose of the visit was to encourage people to come along and to make sure that posters were distributed to relevant notice boards in Kilmarnock.
Jane Overton, also of SCF, assisted John Dowson on the evening. 16 people attended the event with only 14 actually signing in. Those present included representatives of the licensed trade, Phil Gallie MP, representatives of the NHS, members of the public, and a specialist ventilation engineer.
John Dowson began by introducing the subject, giving background, and laying down SCF ground rules about respecting each other's opinions. He distributed the consultation response papers from the Scottish executive and advised people that they could make an individual response using this form. The meeting would address the 6 questions as laid out in the response form.
Under Question 1, the meeting agreed that more needed to be done to reduce people's exposure to second hand smoke. No one in the meeting argued against this. The following points were made.
The licensed trade needs time to implement measures to reduce people's exposure.
This is not necessarily done by imposing a ban.
There was a call for improved ventilation of premises and for separate areas where non-smokers can be reasonably protected from smoke, particularly where food is being served.
Some people felt that the 'voluntary' charter as used by the licensed trade had not worked although this was disputed by licensed trade representatives. They felt that significant progress had been made on a voluntary basis and, although they would support a call for new legislation, they would not support an outright ban.
There was quite some time spent on this issue and it was felt that the targets for the voluntary code were not well understood and there was no clear definition.
If any voluntary code is implemented in future then it is clear that it needs to be precisely defined so that all parties can understand the objectives and that it can be properly monitored or audited as time goes by.
A plea was made for clearer labelling of premises and for clearer separation between smoking and non-smoking areas. People should be able to know immediately whether they are in a smoking or non-smoking area. There should be no room for doubt or need for people to ask.
Some pubs want to be designated as 'smoking areas.' By this they mean that they will put a sign on their front door stating that the premises are designated for smoking. This way there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that smoking is allowed. Those that find this offensive will have no desire to enter such premises and will have a choice before they enter. Some non-smokers were sympathetic to this suggestion and stated that they would simply choose not to enter such premises. Some license holders preferred this solution as they would find it extremely difficult to partition their premises effectively as they consisted of one room. They also made the point that it was almost impossible for them to meet the requirements of the voluntary charter. It is clear that all premises are different and some will find it easier than others to meet any new legislative requirements. It was considered that those premises with an outside area, such as a beer garden, were at a real advantage to others.
There was a long and rather technical debate about the effectiveness of ventilation systems. The ventilation engineer stated that he could design and install systems that would effectively remove harmful substances. This was countered by NHS people saying that research had proven that this was not 100% and harmful substances still remain within premises.
The engineer commented that he was installing systems into many industrial locations such as factories using harmful chemicals and dusts. He stated that if the ventilation systems were not adequate then half of British industry could be closed down overnight. It was his job to protect the health of workers and he could not see how if this can be achieved in factories that it cannot be achieved in licensed premises. He called upon the government to define a 'quality of air' in premises that they would specify. He believed that systems could then be designed to meet that specification. The government should state a technical specification that is measurable for 'clean' air in premises.
There seemed to be quite a bit of support for this line and people expressed some disquiet about the alleged research that the anti-smoking lobby are quoting. They were demanding to know the source of the statement that ventilation systems do not protect workers or customers. No one seemed to know where this research had come from and it is reasonable to expect the government to step in and publish accredited research sources and their conclusions so that interested parties can actually study the research and the findings. Most people are ignorant of detailed research and are mistrustful of it as much of the research is biased and financed by one side of the argument. The engineer stated that there is already technically agreed specification and test data on ventilation equipment and air quality
. This should be more widely published.
People want facts but they need to be sure that the facts are not edited or manipulated if they are to come to their own conclusions.
It as generally accepted that good ventilation systems are good in all work situations and can contribute to the comfort and safety of workers and customers.
The basic question is - are they 100% effective? If they are not in licensed premises, then how can they be in factories? Does this mean that our factory workers are not properly protected in their work environments?
Some people argued that there should be tax incentives from the government to encourage employers to tackle the technical issues in their premises, such as the installation of ventilation systems. Government needs to provide such incentives to motivate employers and to support the radical change that is called for.
The Government benefits massively from tobacco tax and therefore can afford to give such incentives.
Question 2 asks whether people would support a law that would make enclosed spaces smoke free.
Some people were concerned that if there was a ban, then more people would simply stay at home and smoke or find new drinking and smoking arrangements.
Only 3 people present wanted a complete ban on smoking in public places. The others felt that more work could be done without a full ban and argued strongly that no ban should be imposed.
It was agreed that voluntary codes are not compulsory and need to be. That is what many people feel the legislation should be about and that a ban will bring about a massive cultural change in our country. People were aware of the bans in Ireland and New York although there were mixed stories about the effectiveness of these bans.
Some people wanted a definition of "smoke free." The NHS people stated that they could not accept anything less than 100% as any less would still leave harmful substances in the air.
This was countered by people stating that 100% was not achievable as there are other poisons in the air, say from car fumes, etc. If we mean 100% then how are we going to remove car fumes and other gases from the air in premises, particularly those close to roads.
People asked about the policing of any ban. Who would be guilty of an offence? The employer, the license holder, or the smoker? Who would be fined and what other penalties would be imposed?
How can a license holder stop someone smoking if they refuse to put out the cigarette? Particularly in rural areas where the cigarette may be finished by the time the police arrive.
Others stated that people do largely obey laws. Legislation does in fact change the way we do things. However there was recognition that change is a gradual process and people need time to adjust. To move from a voluntary code to an outright ban may be too much change too quickly.
Question 3 asks if there should be any exemptions.
The licensed trade stated that there should be no exceptions to any legislation. If this is necessary for their workers and customers then it is necessary for all parts of industry and business. No responsible employer can take chances with their workers health. It would be unacceptable for prison officers, or care workers, or those who work in residential homes, to be put under threat of passive smoking. There should be on law for all. You cannot legislate for some employees and then leave others out of it.
How would the government deal with a claim from a prison officer in future years if prisons were exempt?
Surely the government would lose its case because it had taken action with other employers but not prisons? How could this anomaly be justified? A strong plea was made that if a ban is imposed then it has to be imposed everywhere and there should be no exceptions. How do you stop an individual smoking in their own home if they receive home visits from carers who do not like passive smoking? How can we justify putting these workers at risk?
Some people's workplaces are other people's homes!
Question 4 addressed the issue of encouraging voluntary action.
People argued that there should be a sliding scale of improvements over a period of time with incentives and rewards given to businesses that gradually comply. Change needs to be gradual rather than a blanket ban.
Non-smokers argued that voluntary action would not work and there needs to be compulsion.
The question was asked "After smoking what substance kills the most people?" Many people felt that the answer was likely to be alcohol.
Does this mean that the government will next move to ban alcohol? There are many aspects of life and living that are dangerous. The government cannot protect us from everything. Is this whole proposal going too far? Should government step back and accept that there are some areas of people's lives that should be left alone and that people should be able to make informed choices about their own living patterns?
Many people who smoke do not get cancer. Many people get cancer for other reasons than smoking.
Questions 5 and 6 general comments.
The Government should do independent research and publish it widely in a format that the public can have confidence in. Many people do not trust existing data that is being quoted widely.
A product should be put on the market that will measure the air quality in any given room. This should be a cheap piece of equipment that can be installed in any room whether at home or in the workplace. This will allow a resident, a worker , or an employee, to immediately see and measure the quality of the air that they are occupying and breathing.
People are aware that Westminster is also considering legislation under Health & Safety. There was some concern that Scotland might implement a ban before England and for different reasons - (public health!) Will this not bring about further anomalies? Why not wait for Westminster?
The meeting finished after about 2 hours of lively debate. Feedback suggests that people were grateful for the chance to express their opinion and were glad that Kilmarnock had been chosen as a venue even though there was not a large turnout.
« Previous | Contents | Next »