Health and Sport Committee
Meeting date: Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Official Report
519KB pdf
Petition
Smoking Ban (Review) (PE1451)
Item 5, which is our final item, is to consider the committee’s approach to PE1451, by Belinda Cunnison. Members will have read the paper prepared by the clerks. I invite comments from members.
As committee members will be aware, we have received an extra paper in support of PE1451, in the form of a letter from Mr Bill Gibson, who is a constituent of mine. Mr Gibson has asked that I present his evidence to the committee.
By way of background, Mr Gibson is a founding member of Freedom to Choose Scotland and chairman of the International Coalition Against Prohibition. He visited me at my regional office in Dumfries on Friday, when he presented eight years of research on two DVDs, which contained audio and video evidence to support the claims, and substantial written evidence on the health effects of second-hand smoke, which I have also brought to the committee.
The written evidence sets out a lot of comprehensive scientific evidence that Mr Gibson has put together. Freedom to Choose Scotland believes that the evidence shows that ventilation is improving. It contends that advances in ventilation and air cleaning technology and the existence of the European indoor air quality standard EN 13779 relating to ventilation for non-residential buildings justify a review of the smoking prohibition and control provisions of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005.
I have a couple of points to make. I have some experience of ventilation in the automotive industry. I engage daily with hundreds of companies that are involved in protecting their workforce from pollution and breathing in particulates that would damage their health. In my view, there is no ventilation that would—in any shape or form—protect someone in a workplace from smoke.
In the example from the workplace that I am talking about, the person is inside a sealed container. The pieces of apparatus to extract the air cost enormous amounts of money not only to buy in the first place, but to operate efficiently. The only way that an individual can be protected is by providing them with a full mask, but that is not enough, because air must be brought in to pass over the face so that nothing comes in that can be breathed. In the automotive industry they do not spend money for nothing, I assure you.
There is no question but that ventilation systems are improving—I am sure that they improve every day—but, if someone was smoking in a pub or a public place, or a room such as the one that we are in, the smoke must pass you by before it gets out.
That takes us to the other element: passive smoking. We are quite clear that the ban is having a great effect on the public’s health and, with regard to passive smoking, people are getting the message that the problem is not only what you do to yourself, but what you do to others. The idea that we would interrupt a good programme at this stage is not a good one. I do not think that this programme should ever be interrupted, at any stage. I do not think that there will come a time when we should lift the smoking ban. I do not think that technology will get to the stage at which people will be able to smoke in a room and, at the same time, people who work in that room will be protected. In a pub situation, employers have a duty of care in relation to their staff. The idea that we would listen to this petition and relax the law at this time is entirely wrong. We would be putting people at work at risk.
Freedom is freedom to do things concerning yourself, not freedom to do things to other people. I would not support the continuation of this petition in any shape or form.
I have to leave, convener, but I absolutely support Gil Paterson. I agree that the proposal would be a retrograde step. The ventilation debate was held in 2001. It stopped the legislation coming in earlier, when Kenneth Gibson and I first proposed a ban in 1999. Although ventilation has improved, there is no way that, without a full mask, the suggestion will work. Passive smoking will be dangerous in any case. Proof of that is what led to the act. I do not see that changing. I think that the petition should be closed.
One of the strongest points that Gil Paterson made was that, although we might argue about the overall impact on smokers and non-smokers, there has been a hugely positive impact with regard to the exposure to second-hand smoke of bar workers and workers in the hospitality industry. The first principles of health and safety suggest that you would not introduce ventilation but eliminate the hazard. I think that the legislation has eliminated the hazard to those workers, but that is my own opinion.
Does anyone believe that it is necessary to take further action on the petition?
As no one has indicated that they take that view, do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our meeting. Thank you all for your participation and patience.
Meeting closed at 12:53.