The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background & objectives

1. This research, commissioned by the Scottish Executive, gathered information on public awareness and opinions in relation to proposed legislation that will make certain enclosed public places smoke-free. The research was carried out by placing a module of questions in the May wave of mruk's omnibus survey.

Methodology

2. Given the nature of the research, a quantitative research exercise was required, with an in-home omnibus approach being considered the most appropriate methodology in addressing the objectives.

Sample profile

3. A total of 1,042 in-home interviews were undertaken with a representative sample of the Scottish population using mruk's in-home Scottish omnibus. Interviews were conducted across 52 constituency based sampling points selected to be geographically representative of the population in Scotland. Interviews were conducted on a random route basis within sampling points. Quotas were established for age, gender and socio economic group with only one interview per household being undertaken. All fieldwork was conducted between 6 ^th and 12 ^th May 2005.

4. The achieved sample was split evenly across genders, with half being conducted with male respondents, and half with female respondents. A spread of ages was achieved in line with the population in Scotland. Around half of the interviews were undertaken with respondents in socio economic groups AB and C1 (47%), with the remainder (53%) being from C2DE socio economic groupings.

5. Overall just over a third of all respondents reported that they were current smokers (36%) with nearly half stating they had never smoked (45%) and a fifth (19%) saying they used to smoke but had now stopped.

6. Amongst those who were currently employed, just under a third (31%) were employed in workplaces which had designated areas on the premises where people could smoke and a further third (31%) had designated smoking areas outside the premises. A quarter (26%) stated that smoking was not allowed anywhere within their place of work.

7. With regards to the smoking 'policy' in the household, 41% did not permit smoking anywhere in the home whilst 28% allowed smoking throughout. For a further 29% smoking was allowed in the home but only in certain rooms.

Main findings

8. Overall, there was high awareness of the proposed legislation that would make enclosed public places smoke free (90%).

9. 83% of respondents perceived that passive smoking and second-hand smoke posed either an extremely great health risk (31%), a great risk (31%) or a medium health risk (21%).

10. The majority of the sample agreed with the statement that action should be taken to reduce people's exposure to passive smoking and second hand smoke (74% agreement).

11. Over half of all respondents (56%) supported the proposed legislation, primarily on the grounds that smoking is detrimental to health and that people disliked it. A third did not support the proposed legislation (33%) believing mainly that smokers have the right to smoke in public places.

12. Opinions regarding the perceived impact of the proposed legislation were mixed. Amongst a variety of consequences mentioned there was a slightly stronger perception that it will help to provide cleaner and safer environments for all and to a lesser extent that it will help to make socialising more enjoyable ( e.g. nights out). However, there was also a common belief that it will have 'no impact' (a view held both by non-smokers as well as smokers).

13. Over half of current smokers in the sample felt that the proposed legislation would have no effect on the amount they smoke (57%). However, a quarter felt it would help them to reduce the amount they smoke (26%) and 6% felt it would help them to stop altogether.

14. Awareness levels of recent advertising about health risks of passive smoking were fairly mixed, with around half of respondents reporting that they either did (48%) or did not recall (47%) advertising. Although many of those who recalled seeing or hearing something could not elaborate beyond 'Scottish Executive ad on TV', other elements recalled did reflect the content of recent advertising campaigns highlighting the dangers of passive smoking or second-hand smoke.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Introduction

1.1 In May 2005 the Scottish Executive identified a requirement to gather information on public awareness and opinions in relation to the proposed legislation that will make certain enclosed public places smoke-free. mruk research was commissioned to carry out this research.

1.2 This summary report will detail the findings from the research undertaken with the general public in Scotland via mruk research's May 2005 omnibus survey.

Background

1.3 Published in January 2004, the Tobacco Action Plan "A Breath of Fresh Air for Scotland" announced the Scottish Executive's intention to consult with the Scottish public on possible approaches for minimising harm caused by second hand smoke. Whilst the action plan identified a need for more public education on the health risks associated with second hand smoke, it also recommended that action was required to extend smoke-free zones in public places.

1.4 Following on from the publication of the Tobacco Action Plan the Scottish Executive carried out an extensive public consultation 'Smoking in Public Places'. As part of this mruk research was commissioned in September 2004 to undertake a general population survey. Following this public consultation, the Scottish Executive published the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill in December 2004.

1.5 The Bill is currently before the Scottish parliament and draft regulations, which set out those premises to be classed as no-smoking or exempt from the legislation, were the subject of public consultation, which ended on 26 May. The premises currently defined as no-smoking are those which are wholly enclosed and:

• to which the public or a section of the public has access;
• which are being used wholly or mainly as a place of work by persons who are employees;
• which are being used by and for the purposes of a club or other unincorporated association; or
• which are being used wholly or mainly for the provision of education or of health or care services.

1.6 Should the legislation be passed by the Scottish Parliament, smoking will be prohibited in enclosed public spaces (with a few exemptions mainly on humanitarian grounds e.g. adult care homes).

1.7 The Scottish Executive considered it important to monitor public opinion during the run-up to the introduction of the Bill. mruk research were commissioned to undertake research to monitor public opinions held in relation to smoking in public places and the proposed legislation.

CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

Research Objectives

2.1 The principle aim of the research was to gather information and views from a representative sample of the population in Scotland with respect to:

• smoking in public places;
• specific aspects of the proposed policy on smoking in public places
• communications material relating to the health risks of passive smoking

2.2 Specific issues to be addressed included:

• Smoking status (smoker, ex-smoker and non-smoker);
• Smoking policy within the work place;
• Smoking 'policy' at home;
• Knowledge of / support for smoke-free legislation (including reasons for stance);
• Perceived potential personal impact of the legislation;
• Opinions of level of risk associated with passive smoking / second hand smoke;
• Awareness of recent advertising about health risks of passive smoking.

Research Methodology

2.3 Given the nature of the objectives, an in-home omnibus approach was considered to be the most appropriate methodology in addressing the objectives.

2.4 mruk research runs a monthly, face-to-face in-home omnibus of 1,000 interviews with a representative sample of the population in Scotland. ¹

2.5 A total of 1,042 interviews were achieved during the May 2005 omnibus, with fieldwork conducted from 6 ^th - 12 ^th May. A copy of the questions used in the May omnibus survey can be found in Appendix 2.

2.6 The quotas set on gender, age, socio economic group and area are detailed in table 2.1 overleaf.

Table 2.1 mruk in-home omnibus quotas

*Census 2001 data for the Scottish adult population (aged 16 and over). ²

**There is no 'South' geographical area, with southern sampling points incorporated into either East or West as appropriate. As the areas are specific to the mruk omnibus, the Census data shown is the equivalent share based on the approximated population of the equivalent 1996 Parliamentary Constituencies.

CHAPTER THREE PROFILE OF THE SAMPLE

3.1 This section of the report summarises the profile of respondents in terms of their overall demographics and characteristics. The sample structure is designed to be representative of the population in Scotland in terms of age, gender, socio-economic grouping and geographical spread.

Age

3.2 A good spread of ages was achieved in the sample structure broadly in line with the population in Scotland. (Figure 3.1)

Figure 3.1 Age

Gender

3.3 The achieved sample in the May in-home omnibus survey was split evenly with half of interviews conducted with male respondents (50% - 523 males) and half with female respondents (50% - 519 females), broadly in line with the profile of the population in Scotland.

Social economic group ( SEG)

3.4 Around half of all interviews were undertaken with respondents in socio economic groups AB and C1 (47% combined) whilst the remainder (53% combined) were classified as either C2 or DE (Figure 3.2). This is broadly in line with the population in Scotland.

Figure 3.2 Socio economic grouping ( SEG)

Geographic area

3.5 In line with the geographic spread of the population in Scotland, a greater proportion of interviews were conducted with respondents residing in the West and East in comparison to the North of Scotland (figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 Geographic area

Employment status

3.6 Over half of the total sample was in some form of employment (56%) with a third (35%) not employed ³ (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 Employment Status

Housing tenure

3.7 Nearly two thirds of the sample (59%) owned the property they resided in, with the remainder renting their property (41%).

Presence of children

3.8 The majority of respondents had no children present in the household (57%). Of the total sample around 1 in 5 had children aged 5 to 18 (23%) whilst 16% had children aged 18 and over; 9% had children 5 years old or younger.

Smoking status & smoking 'policy' in the home

3.9 It was important to ascertain the smoking status of the respondents so as to provide further insight into the attitudes towards smoking in public places amongst both smokers and non-smokers. Around a third of the sample (36%) stated that they were current smokers, half had never smoked (45%) and 1 in 5 (19%) had been a smoker but had now stopped (figure 3.4). The prevalence of smokers in the sample was somewhat higher than the national figure of 28% (all adults aged 16+, Scottish Household Survey 2003). ⁴

Figure 3.4 Smoking status

3.10 There was a greater prevalence of current smokers amongst socio economic groups C2 (46%), D (43%) and E (46%) in comparison to AB (20%, with 60% having never smoked) and C1 (30%). In addition, there were relatively fewer smokers in the North of Scotland (25%) than in the East or West (38% in both).

3.11 In line with the objectives, the survey also sought to establish what type of smoking 'policy' respondents had within their own homes i.e. whether smoking was allowed throughout the home, only in certain rooms or nowhere at all. For around 4 out of 10 (41%) smoking was not allowed anywhere in the home, although for over a quarter it was permitted throughout (28%). A further 29% did allow smoking but only in certain rooms and 2% permitted smoking but not in front of their children (table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Smoking 'policy' in the home

Base: 1,042 (All respondents)
Source: mruk research, May 2005

3.12 There was a slightly greater tendency for smoking to be not allowed throughout the homes of those in favour of the legislation (62% of whom said smoking was not allowed anywhere in the home), non-smokers (66%) and socio economic group AB (58% Vs 31% of D and 32% of E). In addition, respondents in the North of Scotland were also slightly more likely to have a no smoking policy in the home (60% Vs 44% in the East and 33% in the West).

CHAPTER FOUR MAIN RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 This section of the report summarises the key findings from the research undertaken using the mruk in-home omnibus. The main issues addressed are:

• Workplace smoking policy;
• Awareness of / support for smoke-free legislation (including reasons for stance);
• Perceived impact of legislation;
• Attitudes towards level of risk associated with passive / second-hand smoke;
• Awareness of recent advertising highlighting risks of passive smoking / second-hand smoke.

4.2 Comment will also be provided on any notable demographic differences for each question being asked. Notable differences are defined as those where the difference between the responses from the sub-groups lies out with the margin of error range associated with each answer. Further information on this is contained in the footnote below. ⁵

Workplace smoking policy

4.3 Respondents in employment were asked to state what their workplace smoking policy was. Overall, respondents reported that they had designated areas where smoking was allowed either on the premises (30%) or outside (29%). A quarter (26%) of employed respondents stated that smoking was not allowed anywhere at their place of work (table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Workplace smoking policy

Base: 588 (Respondents in employment)
Source: mruk research, May 2005

As the margin of error ranges does not overlap (13% - 27% Vs 32% - 48%) this indicates that the difference between the overall scores of 40% (for 16 - 24 year olds) and 20% (for 45 - 54 year olds) is significant. Tables containing margin of error information can be found in Appendix 3. Copies of all the data tabulations are also provided in Appendix 4.

Awareness of / support for smoke-free legislation

4.4 It was important to gauge the level of awareness of the proposed legislation to make enclosed public places smoke-free. Overall, claimed awareness was high with the vast majority (90%) stating that they knew the Scottish Executive was introducing a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free. Of the remainder, 7% said that they were not aware and 3% were unsure.

4.5 Awareness of the new legislation was slightly lower in the East of Scotland (85%) compared to the West (94%) and the North (93%).

4.6 Following on from this, respondents were then asked whether they supported the proposed law that would make enclosed public-places smoke-free. Over half (56%) said that they did support the proposed legislation; a third (33%) were against it and around 1 in 10 (11%) were unsure (figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Level of support for proposed law

4.7 Support for the proposed legislation was stronger amongst those who had never smoked (82%) and ex-smokers (64%) compared to just 19% of current smokers (70% of whom did not support it). Respondents in socio economic group AB were also more inclined to support the ban (71%) with support decreasing through the groups; only 41% of socio economic group E were in favour of the smoke-free law.

Reasons for supporting the proposed law

4.8 Respondents were then asked to spontaneously provide reasons for why they supported the proposed legislation, were against it or were unsure. Those in support of the law (56% of the total sample) felt this way predominantly because of the perceived detrimental impact of smoking on people's health (33% of all mentions amongst those supporting the law). Other prominent reasons included disliking smoking (27% of mentions) and the belief that people should not have to be exposed to second-hand smoke (17% - table 4.2 overleaf).

Table 4.2 Reasons for supporting the proposed legislation

Base: 605 (Total number of mentions made by those who support proposed law - 582 respondents)
* all 'others' 1% or less
Source: mruk research, May 2005

4.9 The third of respondents who did not support the proposed legislation (33% of the total sample) felt to a great extent that smokers have the right to smoke in public places (39% of all mentions amongst those who did not support the law). A range of other reasons were also cited (table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Reasons for not supporting the proposed legislation

Base: 351 (Total number of mentions made by those who do not support proposed law - 345 respondents)

* all 'others' 1% or less
Source: mruk research, May 2005

4.10 Finally, those who were unsure whether they supported the proposed legislation (11% of the total sample) also offered a range of reasons for their uncertainty. Whilst there was a greater proportion that could not offer a reason for their uncertainty (32% of mentions were 'don't know'), the most common view offered was that smokers have the right to smoke in public places (19% of mentions). The others reasons cited are detailed below (table 4.4 overleaf).

Table 4.4 Reasons for being unsure about the proposed legislation

Base: 121 (Total number of mentions made by those unsure of whether they support proposed law - 115 respondents)

* all 'others' 1% or less

Source: mruk research, May 2005

Perceived impact of smoke-free legislation

4.11 In line with the core objectives, respondents were also asked to (spontaneously) state how they felt the proposed legislation making enclosed public places smoke-free would impact on them.

4.12 As can be seen in table 4.5, respondents felt the legislation would impact on them in a range of ways. A significant proportion of respondents stated that the legislation would have a positive impact on their life. There was a somewhat stronger belief that the legislation would provide cleaner and safer environments (23% of mentions) and nights out would be more pleasurable and enjoyable (15%), it was also evident that some felt it would have no impact (21%). Amongst the other potential consequences it was also evident that some people felt that it could impact on their socialising, regardless of whether they smoked or not.

Table 4.5 Perceived impact of proposed legislation

Base: 1,292 (Total number of mentions made by all 1,042 respondents)
* all 'others' 1% or less
Source: mruk research, May 2005

4.13 The potential impact was further explored by asking current smokers in the sample (36% of the total sample) whether they thought the proposed legislation would help them to stop smoking (table 4.6 overleaf). Although over half felt it would have no effect on the amount they smoke (57%) and some were uncertain (9% 'unsure'), around a third of smokers felt the smoke-free law would help them to reduce the amount they smoke (26%) or stop altogether (6%).

Table 4.6 Perceived impact of proposed legislation on smoking status

Base: 375 (respondents who were current smokers)
Source: mruk research, May 2005

Attitudes to passive smoking and second-hand smoke

4.14 Core to the objectives of the research, the survey also sought to determine the perceived level of risk associated with passive smoking or second-hand smoke. As can be seen in table 4.7 the majority of respondents perceived that second-hand smoke did pose a serious health risk.

Table 4.7 Level of risk associated with passive smoking / second-hand smoke

Base: 1,042 (All respondents)
Source: mruk research, May 2005

4.15 Non-smokers and socio economic group AB were slightly more inclined to perceive passive or second-hand smoke as an extremely great health risk (52% and 40% respectively).

4.16 In addition, all respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the opinion that action should be taken to reduce people's exposure to passive smoking or second-hand smoke. Overall, three-quarters (74%) agreed that action should be taken with nearly half of these (46%) strongly agreeing (figure 4.2 overleaf).

Figure 4.2 'Action should be taken to reduce people's exposure to passive smoking / second hand smoke'

4.17 A greater proportion of respondents in socio economic group AB tended to agree that action should be taken (86% agreement Vs 60% of group E), as did non-smokers (91% agreement with 71% strongly agreeing) and ex-smokers (81% agreement) compared to current smokers (49% agreement). In addition, there was higher agreement amongst those who supported the new law (97% agreement) compared to those who were against it (41% agreement with 21% disagreeing). Strength of agreement was also highest amongst socio economic group AB (59% strongly agreeing) and respondents in the North of Scotland (60% strongly agreeing).

Awareness of recent advertising about the health risks of passive smoking

4.18 In addition to determining the level of awareness of the proposed legislation, a further core objective was to establish levels of awareness of any recent advertising in the media about the health risks of passive smoking. Around half of the total sample did recall seeing or hearing some form of advertising (48%) with the other half (47%) recalling nothing (5% were unsure).

4.19 Awareness was lowest amongst respondents aged 65 and over (59% had not seen or heard anything). Highest awareness was in the North of Scotland (70%) and West of Scotland (50%) compared to the East of Scotland (36%).

4.20 Those who stated that they had seen or heard some form of advertising (48% of the total sample - 500 respondents) were then asked what advertising they had seen or heard. Respondents recalled a wide range of various elements from the advertising and table 4.7 summarises the main responses. Whilst a greater proportion were unable to comment beyond recalling Scottish Executive television advertising (38%), other respondents were also able to recall details of recent television campaigns highlighting the dangers of passive smoking. The campaigns portrayed images of second-hand smoke as a snake preparing to strike at non-smokers and images of young children breathing in second-hand smoke (table 4.8).

Table 4.8 Advertising recalled about health risks of passive smoking

Base: 609 (number of mentions made by those recalling recent advertising about health risks of passive smoking - 500 respondents)
Source: mruk research, May 2005

Summary of main findings

4.21 Overall, there was a high level of awareness of the proposed legislation that would make enclosed public places smoke free (90%).

4.22. 83% of respondents perceived that passive smoking and second-hand smoke posed either an extremely great health risk (31%), a great risk (31%) or a medium health risk (21%).

4.23. The majority of the sample agreed with the belief that action should be taken to reduce people's exposure to passive smoking and second hand smoke (74% agreement).

4.24 Over half of all respondents (56%) supported the proposed legislation, primarily on the grounds that smoking is detrimental to health and that people 'hated' it. A third did not support the proposed legislation (33%) mainly believing that smokers have the right to smoke in public places.

4.25 Respondents anticipated that the proposed legislation would impact on them in a range of ways. Amongst a variety of consequences mentioned there was a slightly stronger perception that it would help to provide cleaner and safer environments for all and to a lesser extent that it would help to make socialising more enjoyable. However, there was also a common belief that it would have 'no impact' (a view held both by non-smokers as well as smokers).

4.26 Over half of current smokers felt that the proposed legislation would have no effect on the amount they smoke (57%). However, a quarter felt it would help them to reduce the amount they smoke (26%) and 6% felt it would help them to stop altogether.

4.27 Awareness levels of recent advertising about health risks of passive smoking were fairly mixed, with around half of respondents reporting that they either did (48%) or did not recall (47%) advertising. Although many of those who recalled seeing or hearing something could not elaborate beyond 'Scottish Executive ad on TV', some respondents recalled elements that did reflect the content of recent advertising campaigns highlighting the dangers of passive smoking or second-hand smoke.

« Previous | Contents | Next »