« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Report of Regional and Area Events
DALKEITH, 2 SEPTEMBER FROM 2004
This event was advertised both locally via the local community centre, voluntary organisation council and advertised in the Edinburgh evening news. The Dalkeith Advertiser was contacted and expressed interest however did not attend the evening.
There were 15 people present from a variety of backgrounds including health professionals, local publican, local authority officials, councillor and members of the public.
Given the background of Mr McConnell (First Minister) being reported as stating his favour of an Ireland type ban in the newspapers/TV in the previous days to this meeting it was stressed that this was a political opinion and not yet (so far as we are aware) the policy being adopted by the Executive. It was also stressed that process of consultation was still very much live and useful.
These kinds of statements in the middle of a consultation exercise are most unhelpful to enable people to engage meaningfully in what they may view as a paper exercise.
Discussion was open and covered the following -
Is it a ban that is being proposed (this comes directly from Mr McConnell's reported statements in Ireland)?
There should be some kind of choice for people.
Could we have restricted licences as an option to be looked at.
Felt that that this option would not protect workers' rights - how can that be addressed?
Agreement in the meeting that the status quo of the type of voluntary code was not an option.
What about having restricted areas for smoking?
A small minority in this group (2/11) think that there is still a debate around the effects of second hand smoking.
Strong opinion were expressed by the majority on the conclusiveness of the evidence regarding these effects.
We agreed that this was a debate which we did not have either the time nor the expertise to pursue and also that the Executive were starting from the point that there is no debate about this issue.
Separate spaces for non-smokers were not always possible especially in small pubs/hotels/restaurants.
Agreed that voluntary charter is not working.
Strong opinion that whatever we do we need a level playing field i.e. cannot have some pubs which are allowed to have smoking while others cannot.
Strong opinion that this should be a public health matter rather than a workers' right or economic argument.
Mandatory Code - this was thought to be a step in the right direction, although there were concerns about how a mandatory could could be enforced.
Common sense - could be extended to other things like pubs etc not selling cigarettes on their premises.
Mandatory code with stepped progress as proposed by the SLTA would take some time if we have progressively more non smoking areas in premises from 30% to 40% to 60% then what?
How long would we have this 'step in the right direction' before we took the next step?
Family orientated pubs could take a lead maybe.
Argument against this is that the code does not seemed to have produced very much result so far as a voluntary code.
We only briefly touched on exceptions to the rule and it was felt that some considered thought needed to be given to how this could work - some discussion about whether people could smoke in their cars if they use them for work or they are supplied by their employer, what about care workers, prisons etc.
How could you enforce this type of ban.
The definition of 'a public place' was one which people felt was not very clear - i.e. was a bus shelter a 'semi-enclosed public place' ? Some felt that bus shelters should be included (3) while others felt this to be ridiculous and only about irritation rather than public health.
Summary
A smaller group which had a wide representation from publicans to members of the public to health professionals, to a councillor. The publican made the point that in his premises he had a discussion with his regulars (95% smokers) who were of the opinion that this was just not a good thing to do and consequently the publican felt that if this happened his trade would be hit hard and possibly he would need to close his premises. Some discussion was had around the idea of compensation for publicans if it could be proved that the legislation had been the major factor in the closing of premises. Strongly held opinion that this should be a public health decision and therefore support for those it affected needed to be put in place at the same time. This would mean resources allocated.
« Previous | Contents | Next »