We move on to item 3 and paper HC/S2/04/17/1, which has been circulated to all members. I welcome our first panel of witnesses. Gordon Greenhill is environmental health manager, regulatory services department, City of Edinburgh Council—this is a long title—and representative of the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland. We need an acronym for that. Liz Manson is operations manager in the policy and performance unit of Dumfries and Galloway Council. Peter Allan is policy planning manager at Dundee City Council.
Obviously, for the committee to agree the bill's principles, members would have to feel that it would have a direct benefit for health. I know that the City of Edinburgh Council and Dundee City Council have banned smoking in the workplace. I wonder whether you have found any evidence that employees have stopped smoking because of the ban. Do you think that there is any direct link between banning smoking in the workplace and people giving up smoking?
We ran quite an intensive campaign that included smoking cessation classes that had a good take-up. I do not know whether figures were produced to show how many people continued to smoke after they had attended the classes. I would be grateful if we could get back to you with a written submission on that.
That would be useful.
We do not have evidence of the reduction of smoking among smokers either.
Can I ask you to move your microphones a little closer to you? I am fighting against fans, here—not fans of me personally, unfortunately, but fans of the electronic variety.
We believed that it was important for us, as employers, to protect the health of our employees, customers and service users. We believed that there would be spin-offs from our workplace ban in the lives of individuals and families and in society as a whole. We felt that it was important to protect non-smokers by reducing the opportunity for people to smoke. We have heard that smokers welcome that, as it helps them to quit if the opportunity or the time that is available to them to smoke at work is reduced. Most of all, we wanted to contribute to the denormalisation of smoking to demonstrate that workplaces—like so many other places, including trains, buses and cinemas—are becoming places where it is unacceptable to smoke. We wanted to be part of that change in culture across the board.
You are going to write to us. Do you have any statistics? Anecdotally, we are hearing that banning smoking in workplaces will deter people from smoking or reduce their smoking. Did you measure that in your council areas?
Dumfries and Galloway Council is about to undertake a baseline survey of staff as part of the Scotland's health at work scheme. However, we do not have any statistics to confirm the smoking levels across the council.
As you know, the bill currently seeks to ban smoking only in regulated areas. However, Dundee City Council's submission states:
It is our view that we need to extend the measure to all public places. We believe that that was the best option to emerge from the Scottish Executive's consultation exercise and we would support it. As it stands, the bill is positive about creating a comfortable environment for people when they are eating, but we think that it should go beyond that to protect employees and customers from passive smoking in places such as bars where alcohol is served. The council has not yet made a decision on the consultation, but all the discussions that we have had about health improvement and health inequalities suggest that we would support a total ban because of the benefits to employees and non-smokers.
The concept that I ask you to consider is the effecting of cultural change by enforcement. As an enforcer, we ensure that people comply with something or not, whether it is a good law or a poor law. On the whole, the bill is to be welcomed as good law.
It is more important that they are paid.
With the co-operation of the local media in publicising them, fixed-penalty notices have had a good effect in changing people's attitudes. If we want to use the law as a method for controlling and changing people's attitudes, the bill probably does not go far enough or range widely enough to address the problem of smoking in public places.
In my haste, I have not passed on apologies from Mike Rumbles or welcomed Stewart Maxwell back to the committee. I do so now.
I return to a comment made by Peter Allan. I think that he referred to the right of employees to work in a smoke-free area. Is he suggesting that Dundee City Council supports the introduction of a statutory right for people to work in a smoke-free area, or does it take the more flexible position that people should have the choice to work in such an area?
We respect the right of our employees to work in a smoke-free environment. However, that causes us problems in respect of people who provide services in the homes of individuals who may be smokers. We are conscious that there is a tension between the right of an individual to smoke, which is a legal activity, in their home, and the right of our employees to work in a smoke-free environment. In our view, all employees should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment, which has implications for the hospitality sector. We like to bear in mind the fact that, from an inequalities perspective, people who work in the hospitality sector are likely to be on low wages and to have poor quality of life. We think that the measure is important to protect a vulnerable section of the work force.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but if we follow your argument to its conclusion, the bill would remove any choice from the owner or manager of a business who wants to provide choice for customers. If there were a separate smoking zone, staff would have the right not to serve people there, but would you allow a member of staff who was prepared to serve there to do so? I am trying to tease out the practicalities of what you are saying about the bill.
In our view, the situation could be simplified if there were a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places. As health improvement organisations, local authorities have a responsibility to protect the health of their citizens. In some instances, the protection of health is a greater good than the provision of choice.
The situation that the member describes does not apply, because the employer has a duty of care to the individual concerned. It is not a case of someone choosing to go into a smoky atmosphere to serve people. The employer should make a risk assessment to determine whether that person should go into the area, so that the choice is not left to the individual employee.
Is that the position under current legislation?
Yes.
You are talking about the application of current legislation, rather than an effect that the bill would produce.
Yes. The member is suggesting that the provisions of the bill would be applied and that there would be clear delineation of areas in establishments in which people could smoke. You are also suggesting that proprietors could decide whether they wished to have such areas and that employees could decide whether they wished to enter them to serve people. I do not think that that situation applies because, as part of their duty of care, proprietors must protect all their staff.
Are employers required under the duty of care and health and safety regulations to monitor the length of time that any one worker must work in a smoke-filled atmosphere, whether in a restaurant or pub or in someone's home? I am thinking of a home help who might have to be in someone's home for longer than normal.
In that situation, each set of premises would have to undergo a risk assessment. That is the norm in any case—a risk assessment should be made of each working situation in all businesses. The situation of each employee would have to be considered individually, which would make the process more onerous than it is at present.
Would a length of time be stipulated?
I am not medically qualified to say how long someone has to be in a smoky atmosphere before they are affected; that is a question for the medical profession. However, we would monitor the time and the intensity. If someone is in a room where 40 people are smoking, the effect is more intense.
We have asked employers in the health service about how they apply the current legislation. From what I have just heard, it seems that councils are not complying with their duty of care. You allow your employees to go to areas where they will be subjected to second-hand smoke. Is there not a contradiction there? It is difficult enough to comply with the current legislation, but now we are talking about legislating again, which will cause further difficulties with compliance.
The bill contains exemptions.
We have heard evidence, week after week, that no level of second-hand smoke is acceptable. We have heard that being subjected to second-hand smoke for very short periods harms a person. I presume that you are here to give evidence because you are in favour of the proposed legislation, but you do not comply with the existing legislation.
You will find that such tensions often exist when public services are provided for individuals who are vulnerable because of their health—for example, people who are in long-term care in hospitals or who are housebound. Organisations have to balance the responsibility to deliver services to people in need and the responsibility to protect their staff. We have reached a compromise in Dundee in our commitment to staff. We recognise people's right to work in a smoke-free environment, but we accept that, on occasion, they will have to go into smokers' homes. When that happens, we try to support staff. We make individuals aware that our staff are coming and we ask them not to smoke while our staff are there and, if possible, to clear the environment of smoke that has been there. We have to balance those needs.
That is not relevant to the bill.
No, but I am answering the question that I was asked.
I understand, but I have to make it clear that some things might not be relevant to the bill.
It is relevant. Organisations are coming here and asking us to legislate. Many of their arguments are based on the effect of passive smoking on bar staff, for example. It is contradictory for organisations that have not resolved such issues for their own staff to come here and ask us to pass legislation that will impact on someone else's staff. Therefore, I would argue that my question was relevant.
Sometimes our questions get into wider areas of banning smoking in all kinds of public place, but we are trying to take evidence on this particular bill. It is quite legitimate to go a certain distance into other areas, but the bill is limited and we must write our report based on evidence that relates to it.
The comparison that Mr McNeil makes might be fair in relation to employment law, but the situation of a person who serves drink to a person who has chosen to go into a bar is fundamentally different from that of a person who gives a service to someone who, because of their health, has no choice in the matter. People who are in long-term care in hospital and who may be terminally ill, and people who are housebound, have been deprived of choice. How we accommodate their needs is important.
If I could bring the discussion back to the bill, does each of your councils operate totally smoke-free cafes and so on that are open to the public?
I think that the answer is yes, but I would like to check that. I cannot think of any premises that the council runs where people are allowed to smoke. That includes the City Chambers for the purposes of wedding functions and so on. I would need to check whether, when we subcontract, we have that condition in the terms of leases for all premises. Generally, we do apply such a policy, but I would have to check the detail.
That is fine—you can give us supplementary written information on that.
Dumfries and Galloway Council's policy is for a complete ban on smoking other than in designated areas. Designated areas do exist in certain facilities, for example in our film theatre and arts centre. Some buildings are completely smoke free. It depends on the nature of the facility, and it is up to the manager to determine the policy.
The most complicated areas for Dundee City Council are where we have franchised out parts of buildings to licensed premises. I think that, in those instances, smoking is still allowed. There is a bar in the Dundee Contemporary Arts centre, which is a popular social facility, where smoking is allowed. As a council, we are faced with the challenge of how to apply some of the principles of what we are discussing today to such facilities.
What are your views on using the criminal law to reduce passive smoking?
We have a problem with the concept. As you are probably well aware, the criminal courts are busy as it is. We would like there to be a split between two means of enforcement. First, the person who is causing the offence, that is the smoker, should be subject to a fixed penalty, which is a quick, effective method of getting across the message that they have perpetrated an offence. Much of the experience of applying such legislation suggests that it does not clog up the courts. For the very few people who do not pay their fixed penalty, the matter should become criminal and go before the procurator fiscal.
I agree with that.
Does—
Is the proposed law more likely to be obeyed in the observance than by having to be enforced? In other words, do you think that the penalties will not need to be imposed and that, because people know that they exist, they will not breach the law?
We are looking for compliance, not punishment.
That is what I was seeking to say—thank you.
We are looking for a deterrent. Sometimes we need legislation to create a new norm and to advise people of their rights and of which rights they may exercise with other members of the community. It is important that, whatever model of penalty we agree on, communities are convinced that we will take the matter seriously. There is no point introducing legislation and telling communities that we have adopted its provisions if we do not enforce them. If we did that, we would start to lack credibility and any momentum that had been developed would be lost.
Could I finish off my question, convener?
I am so sorry, Helen—I thought that you had already done so.
That is all right. Would a voluntary approach or action to promote better ventilation be a better alternative?
No—emphatically no. That approach has been tried by other local authorities, notably Birmingham City Council, but it does not work.
Ventilation systems are variable: a system is brand spanking new on the day that it is installed; it works well and makes the air changes that it was designed to make. However, it gets dirty and thumped about—people put things into it that they should not and so on—which means that by day two it is not so effective. By the time that day 102 is reached, the system does not shift the air as it should.
We have some experience of voluntary schemes because of the schemes that the licensing boards are running in our area. A number of premises across the region are picking up on the issue and, generally speaking, the voluntary bans are being observed. We support a legislative proposal that has the same basis as the seat-belt argument, which is that, generally speaking, people want to comply with the law. Legislation raises the profile and gives an added seriousness to the issue.
I want to return to the issue of enforcement on which all of you submitted detail, in particular City of Edinburgh Council, which included evidence about the five-day rule and so on. As the bill is drafted, is it likely that it would place an undue demand on enforcement agencies? How will enforcement be run?
It is optimistic to suggest that the bill, as currently drafted, would be cost neutral for local authorities, as the explanatory notes that accompany the bill, which include the financial memorandum, suggest. Complaints would be made and an extra burden would be placed on authorities during inspections. It would be another piece of work that would have to be done. There are 17,000 premises in Edinburgh alone in which we enforce the health and safety at work regulations. If legislation adds another factor, the time that inspections take would increase and the frequency of inspections would reduce.
Would the City of Edinburgh Council put on a special team that would be available to answer calls and queries during restaurant opening hours?
That is a good question. We should take a look at what is happening in enforcement at the moment. It is a wonderfully active field, which in the main is due to the Scottish Parliament.
I am not sure whether that is a compliment.
In the field of local government, it was a compliment. A number of areas that were poorly enforced have been addressed. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill will introduce the need for councils to have teams in place to address various forms of antisocial behaviour. The noise component of the environmental health provisions allows for fixed-penalty notices and the Scottish Parliament has wisely funded the bill to ensure that local authorities have teams in place to issue the FPNs.
Can you send us a note to say how much extra funding would be required for City of Edinburgh Council?
Yes.
We agree that the enforcement arrangements need to be clarified. Environmental health officers would be happy to assume the additional responsibility, provided that resources were made available.
On the issue of costs, although providing local authorities with the resources necessary to carry out the task might be viewed as an increased call on the public purse, we should bear in mind the fact that long-term savings could accrue for the health service from the improvements in people's health and quality of life.
In addition, if the culture change that you mentioned happened, there would not be the need for so much enforcement.
The bill's supporters claim that enforcement and compliance should not worry us too much because the experience in Ireland suggests that everyone will comply. To be fair, anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been a high degree of compliance with the Irish smoking ban. However, rather than consider what has happened in Ireland, do we have information on compliance in council workplaces and public buildings in Scotland? I receive a lot of traffic from people who complain about people smoking on buses despite the fact that smoking on public transport has been banned for some considerable time. Does that tell us anything about likely compliance with a smoking ban? Is information available on how many complaints local authorities receive? Are local authorities confident that their smoking bans consist of more than just tokenistic no-smoking signs? For example, are you sure that the school janitor does not have a fag in the boiler room? How do councils establish whether the level of compliance is acceptable? Such information might indicate what compliance would be like in Scotland rather than in New York or Ireland.
There are two elements to that. In the City of Edinburgh Council, it is a disciplinary offence for employees to light up in an area where they are not meant to do so. I think that the compliance rate is almost 100 per cent. People would be able to tell pretty quickly as they went through the school building whether the janny had had a fag in the boiler room—the smell would be very noticeable. I can find out whether figures are available, but I think that there is almost 100 per cent compliance in the council workplace.
Dumfries and Galloway Council has introduced designated smoking areas in a number of its premises, so staff and customers have somewhere to go if they want to smoke. In certain buildings, a ban has been put in place with the approval of the staff in the building. I know of only one disciplinary incident, in which an employee was disciplined for smoking in a council vehicle. I have no other information about breaches of the policy.
Do you want to add something, Mr Allan? You do not have to do so.
I would be surprised if there were many cultural differences between ourselves and the Irish and New Yorkers.
We will take evidence from New York next week by video link. That will be a bit glamorous for us. Unfortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger still has not replied to our letter—I live in hope.
In its written evidence, the City of Edinburgh Council said that the no-smoking policy in the City Chambers had not resulted in loss of income. The submission goes on to say:
No, I would not expect there to be a loss of income, although I am not an expert in the trade. There are a number of smoke-free restaurants in Edinburgh that do a very good trade and are well attended by the public. The City of Edinburgh Council's strict no-smoking policy for wedding and other receptions that take place in the City Chambers has not led to a fall-off in income. People are desperate to book our facilities.
That is interesting.
You make a good point. The grand ceiling in the City Chambers used to be yellow by the end of each year.
I did not realise that Jean Turner's role in life was to scrutinise carpets and toilets.
I am a non-smoker and I notice that carpets and toilet equipment in hotels and other places where people smoke are often ruined.
I can find out whether our facilities manager has the figures. From a purely subjective point of view, I think that we no longer have those yellow stained ceilings or burned carpets in the City Chambers. Equipment might well be lasting much longer and probably costs have been cut somewhere in the council.
Dr Turner asked about the economic impact of the bill. Traders in Dundee tell us that they would prefer smoking to be dealt with through a voluntary arrangement, but that if there were to be legislation they would like it to be applied consistently across the trade. Traders want a level playing field. Dundee City Council attaches a condition banning smoking when issuing children's certificates, but it can do so only when a licence comes up for renewal. Because of that, some premises will not have to accept the new condition for nearly two years. Traders think that that is unfair, but the licensing board cannot do more to introduce the condition in children's certificates. Traders would like any legislation to apply consistently to everyone so that it would not affect competition.
Would it be simpler to amend licensing legislation than to pass a stand-alone bill? I am pretty ignorant of licensing law—apart from the licensing of taxi drivers, which I know about for some obscure reason.
I am no expert, either, but I have been advised that, at the moment, the licensing regulations do not even extend to restaurants unless they have a bar. If the ban on smoking in public places were to be extended to all premises that served food, I do not believe that the licensing regulations would cover them all.
We have been taking the opportunity to change smoking facilities into other, more positive facilities, such as staffrooms or rooms with nappy-changing facilities, because space is at a premium in many offices and in other premises. In workplaces in which there is a smoking staffroom and a non-smoking staffroom, the imposition of a smoking ban would mean that the smoking staffroom could be used for something that staff would consider as an additional benefit. That opportunity exists.
I have a question about signage. Do any of the witnesses have views on the requirement in the bill that signs should be put up to indicate where smoking is not permitted? In particular, what are your thoughts on the size, shape or wording of those signs? I think that the City of Edinburgh Council had something to say about that.
It seems that the signs' size—and, in the case of a city that gets a large number of visitors, the languages that are used—will be defined by regulation. It is standard practice for such matters to be defined in legislation and we would expect that to be the case, so that enforcement is easy and practice is uniform across the country.
We would be happy for local authorities to be included in the list of consultees.
I want to move on to consider connecting spaces. Do you have a view on the requirement in the bill that, next to regulated areas, there should be areas called connecting spaces, which should also be non-smoking areas? I know that the issue was mentioned in your submissions, but I would like to hear your views.
There needs to be clarity on what is being enforced. If the bill defined a connecting space as a box with four walls, a roof and a door, that would be wonderful, but many buildings in Scotland are not designed in that way. We should be thankful that that is the case, because variety adds to architectural beauty.
Do you agree, Ms Manson?
Yes.
Stewart Maxwell, the bill's proponent, has his regulatory five minutes to ask questions.
Good afternoon. I was interested in your discussion of fixed-penalty notices. Do you have any thoughts on the idea of fiscals imposing fiscal fines? Would that not be, in effect, the same thing? Would fiscal fines clog up the courts? I think that that was the phrase that you used.
Fiscal fines would still have an impact on the fiscals' time and on councils' time, because a report would have to be done. As you are probably aware, non-police reporting procedures are quite lengthy for the officers involved. In many cases, the fixed penalty is one and done. At the moment, 98 per cent of the fixed penalties in Edinburgh are being paid. The remaining 2 per cent must then go to the fiscals, who deal with the majority of them through fiscal fines. Obviously, those cases are not publicised, because they have not been through the courts. The small percentage that is left goes for trial. I do not see how using fiscal fines would free up fiscal time. A junior fiscal would still have to read a report, write letters, send them out and so on. Therefore, there would be an impact on the fiscal service.
An extra burden on environmental health officers and local authorities has been mentioned, about which all the witnesses seemed to agree. Do you accept that the bill would not place a burden on environmental health officers to enforce its provisions?
Absolutely—you are right. The bill does not enable anybody to enforce its provisions because it does not state what the enforcing body would be. That needs to be clarified.
I will clarify that for you now, if you want. The enforcing body would be the police. I think that it said that in the policy memorandum and in the explanatory notes. If the bill is passed, it will become a crime to smoke in regulated areas. Do you accept that the police are the normal route for the purposes of reporting such criminal activities?
No. The local authority undertakes the majority of prosecutions in Edinburgh. The local authority is the enforcing body for incidents that relate to health or health and safety and has dual responsibility for fixed penalties for littering, dog fouling and so on.
Yes, but if an individual in a pub broke the law in that pub, would the staff phone the local authority or the police?
The Nicholson report suggests that they would phone the local authority.
That is not where we are just now, is it?
At this moment in time, they would phone the police, but that is a different concept entirely. We are talking about legislation that deals with, for example, someone sitting in a restaurant who lights up a cigarette. Such situations are akin to those covered by legislation that deals with the dropping of litter and dog fouling. The police would not readily respond to, or prioritise, such a smoking incident. The police prioritise calls and, as someone who works in daily, close partnership with the police, if I were to give that incident a ranking, I suggest that it would come in at about a four, which means a four-hour response. Therefore, there would be no enforcement in relation to such incidents.
Do you accept that calling the police would be a last resort anyway? Effectively, the owner or manager of the premises would deal with the problem on site at the time, as they do with incidents such as those that involve people who are under-age trying to buy drink or people causing trouble, or with any other kind of problem on their premises.
Absolutely—I agree with that entirely. Such confrontational situations can flare up occasionally. However, we very rarely call the police for back-up in relation to fixed penalties. You are saying that the police would inspect premises for the relevant signs and compliance.
No. I did not say that at all.
So only one half of the bill would be enforced. You said that only the police would be empowered.
I am sorry, but I think that you are misunderstanding me and, perhaps, the bill. The bill says that people such as environmental health officers, who have a locus to go into premises for normal inspections, would have an additional duty—I accept that it would be an additional duty—to inspect premises for evidence of smoking. That would be part of their work load. I am trying to distinguish between their normal duties of going into premises—an extra visit would not be required—and the idea that you mentioned earlier of having special teams, which I find rather strange.
No, that task would be added on; it would not be a major part of the officers' work. In fact, it would be a tiny part of their work. However, we are talking about meeting the public's needs. The police would not respond to a report of someone lighting up in premises that served food, but if the public believed that nothing was happening about such incidents because those in charge of the premises were doing nothing, they would need to be able to phone someone who would respond. If officers were walking past premises and saw someone smoking there, they would go in and serve a fixed-penalty notice. That is how good legislation works and how cultural change is effected—action is taken there and then.
You accept that environmental health officers and others, including the police, make regular and on-going visits to premises.
The police do not make such visits to non-licensed premises that sell food.
As far as I am aware, environmental health officers visit all premises that sell food. The police also visit a number of premises—especially licensed premises—regularly. Would the task not become a tiny part—as you said—of the role of those groups and others who make regular visits? I am trying to understand where the idea of special teams and an extra burden comes from.
No—the special teams would not be an extra burden. I said that an amalgam of legislation is going about in relation to antisocial behaviour and the Nicholson report. If the bill was passed, it would be common sense to add the duties that it creates to those of the teams that are in place.
What does the panel think of the police enforcing the legislation in the same way as it has enforced other legislation—through blitzes? The police could suddenly target and check some premises, just as they target areas for speeding. They respond to public demand when people complain about a matter in their area. Would enforcement be driven by public demand? The police could take action in that way, rather than in the way that Gordon Greenhill talked about.
That is a standard procedure that we use with the police regularly for many of the pieces of legislation that we enforce. However, it does not effect cultural change or make something the norm if we let matters deteriorate and then undertake a blitz, for which we depend on available police time. I can speak only about the situation in Edinburgh, where the police have extra resource away from their normal duties only one day a week, which is allocated to various tasks throughout the year.
I was not suggesting that.
Does either of the other witnesses want to comment on the matter?
I said that our environmental health staff would be happy to accept appropriate responsibilities as part of their regular inspection services but, as Gordon Greenhill said, that would add something to their checklist, which would have a resource implication. We would expect the police to be alert to the matter as they make their normal visits to establishments. As for the idea of blitzes, in some of our towns and villages in Dumfries and Galloway, a blitz would be on one establishment, which would take a journey of 40 miles to reach.
That would be the case in the Borders, too.
The same concept would apply in the Highlands and Islands. I accept that such measures may be appropriate in urban settings, but that would not necessarily apply everywhere. We would expect the police to pick up the matter as part of their normal visits.
Blitzes might be the most efficient way in which the police could respond. They would be less likely to respond to individual cases. If blitzes were the most efficient method, we would support them.
I thank all the witnesses for attending.
Good afternoon. How would you answer the criticism that is advanced mainly by the pro-tobacco lobby—some of whom we have heard evidence from—and which is also supported in some sections of the medical press, that the risk from second-hand smoke has been exaggerated?
Scotland CAN contends that there is ample evidence of the hazardous effect of second-hand smoke on health. Numerous studies that have been conducted over many years are very persuasive that environmental tobacco smoke is hazardous to health. Indeed, our own chief medical officer agrees with that contention.
I reinforce that. Examining the evidence base in this area is fiendishly difficult, because there are so many contentious issues and people come at it from so many different angles. However, ultimately, you have to take the word and the work of serious professional organisations that have examined the issue and come to a determination. Organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all agreed that second-hand smoke is a hazard to public health. We have to accept that.
The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has classed second-hand smoke as a carcinogen. The BMA tells us—and there is masses of evidence to support it—that there is a need to do something about second-hand smoke. Few reports dispute that. There is a body of evidence that is widely accepted.
Professor Hastings, in your written submission you refer to a study in 2002—
I am sorry, but I have just received a note to ask Marjory Burns to move her microphone closer. It is a mystery note that is not signed. I am just obeying it.
Professor Hastings, in your submission, you refer to an International Agency for Reseach on Cancer study in 2002, in relation to which you say:
Are you sure that you have my paper?
Yes, we have the Cancer Research UK paper.
I am sorry, but there are two bits of evidence. There is also the evidence that I submitted last week, which is different.
I am trying to find the additional submission from Cancer Research UK Scotland among our papers, but the pages are not numbered. [Interruption.] I have now found it; excuse my confusion.
In much of the evidence—for example, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation cited a study from 2002 in Tobacco Control—there is a hint that a ban on smoking in the workplace leads to people reducing their smoking habit. Is there evidence of a direct causal link between the two? I know of people in California who stopped smoking because of the ban on smoking. What do the figures demonstrate?
Several studies demonstrate that link where smoking has been banned, not only in individual workplaces but more generally. There is evidence that, if we had a complete ban on smoking in workplaces, we could hit all the targets required to help people to stop smoking without taking any further action.
A study, or rather a systematic review of all the studies that had been done previously, was cited in the British Medical Journal in 2002. The review came to the conclusion that a ban on smoking increased quit rates by something like 3.8 per cent. Another study is about to be published that is slightly more conservative, but it still reckons that such a ban would double the quit rate. A ban would have an immense public health benefit in that sense, as well as preventing people from ingesting involuntarily a cocktail of rather nasty chemicals.
It has been argued in some written evidence that the relationship in the bill between food and a smoking ban reinforces the view that the bill is more about comfort than health. Do you support that view?
Do not be paranoid about the microphone, Miss Burns; it is working.
No, I do not support that view. It is clear that the public has a strong interest in the comfort factor associated with reducing environmental tobacco smoke; there is no doubt about that. However, it is also clear that a high percentage of people make the connection between second-hand smoke and damage to their health. The benefits of reducing environmental tobacco smoke and the potential health gain are clear to many people.
Some organisations, including your own, make it clear in evidence that there should be a ban on smoking in the workplace, which would come under the heading of employment law and would therefore be reserved to Westminster. We are thinking about what powers the Scottish Parliament has to ban smoking and we cannot deal with matters concerning employment law. Do you have any views on that?
Scotland CAN supports the bill, but we see it as the first in a chain of steps that have to be taken to regulate environmental tobacco smoke in all public places. That is the ultimate position that we want to reach, but we will support the bill as a step in the right direction.
If we took a step further in Scotland than the measures proposed in the bill and prohibited smoking in all public places, effectively we would achieve the same end. In achieving that end, the issue of banning smoking in workplaces is a technical one. Scotland is perfectly capable of taking a lead on the matter if it wishes to do so.
This issue has been touched on already, but what amendments, if any, should be made to the bill?
My principal amendment would be to extend its scope. I cannot see the justification for banning smoking simply in places where food is served; such a ban would be a great first step, but only a first step.
I agree. As I understand it, the bill makes provision for incremental progress in regulated areas as time goes on.
The bill is a first stage, but our ultimate aim is for a ban on smoking in all public places. The line should not be drawn at places in which food is served.
The exempt spaces that the bill would create—previous witnesses have supported them—are areas of hospitals and care homes that are, in effect, a person's home. Would you go as far as to say that smoking should not be allowed in such areas?
We need to be careful when we talk about that issue. The reasons for banning smoking in such places would definitely be about worker health and safety. The committee should consider other places that have banned smoking to see what has happened there. In New York, smoking was banned in prisons and in public places that were considered to be people's homes. That was done overnight.
And there were no riots?
No.
Were the prisoners still getting other drugs? I find that astonishing.
One of the reasons for my going to New York to ask questions was that I was amazed that that had been done. However, I know from the work that my organisation has done in prisons that massive numbers of inmates ask for support to quit smoking.
We will ask about that astonishing fact in New York next week.
It is worth noting that Ireland has not chosen the American solution. The law in Ireland has certain specific exemptions that cover places where, in effect, people's homes are involved. The issue must be dealt with carefully. The Parliament should take advice on the best way forward from people who work in such areas—I do not feel qualified to make a judgment on that.
Given what you have just said, do you think that the tobacco industry's recent advertising campaign will have little effect? I do not know whether you have seen the advertisements.
Tell me more about them.
They try to promote freedom of choice for people to smoke in public places.
Freedom of choice is the ultimate specious argument, when we are talking about a habit that is taken up by kids before they are old enough to make a decision. By the time that they are old enough to decide, they are fiendishly addicted to tobacco.
Do you have a view on the bill's requirement for areas called connecting spaces—in effect, they would be buffer zones—next to regulated areas?
I will broaden out the issue and talk about ventilation, which was discussed in the previous evidence session, and how to cope with the problematic fact that the bill would not introduce a complete ban.
That was nearly another reference to toilets. Do any of the other witnesses wish to comment—not on swimming pools, but on connecting spaces?
Perhaps I could bowdlerise Professor Hastings's comment. We tend to say that having a no-smoking area is like having a chlorine-free end in a swimming pool; it is physically impossible for such a thing to exist. Scotland CAN accepts that ventilation is not the answer and that, if there are going to be separate smoking and non-smoking areas in pubs and restaurants, there must be buffer zones between them.
The small print of the manufacturers' guidelines does not guarantee that ventilation equipment will take away carcinogens; it simply says that it will make the air slightly more pleasant for those who are sitting in it.
What are your views on using criminal law to reduce the incidence of passive smoking and on the fact that many people could end up with a criminal record? That could affect other aspects of their lives, such as their ability to get insurance.
Scotland CAN has been trying for many years to get smoke-free public places through voluntary arrangements. However, that approach has been ineffectual and it is time for statutory regulation. Although we might regret such a move, we see no other way of protecting people's health from the effects of second-hand smoke.
Were the voluntary arrangements that you mentioned onerous enough? Should such an approach have been taken in stages, one of which would have been a requirement for separate, distinct smoking and non-smoking spaces to be provided if premises were physically capable of being arranged in that way?
With all due respect, that is water under the bridge. The voluntary charter has been shown to be ineffectual. At the time, we agreed to the charter—albeit with some reluctance—because we felt that it would be a step in the right direction and that it was the best that we were going to get. As far as people with asthma, for example, were concerned, even their being able to rely on information at the entrance of premises that told them whether smoking was permitted would be an improvement on their having absolutely no information about whether they were about to enter a smoky zone.
It took 14 years to establish the Irish model; we are trying to do it overnight. Will the legislation be enforceable? The provisions will create offences under criminal law, so the police will have to enforce them.
As far as the Irish example is concerned, a minuscule number of people now have a criminal record as a result of the legislation. The vast majority are perfectly happy to obey the rules. For example, I heard a lovely story from the west coast of Ireland. Guys who were drinking in a pub that was having a lock-in were going outside at 2 am to have a smoke. That speaks to the fact—[Interruption.]
I hear some disgruntled mumblings. Do you disagree with that, Duncan?
No, but last week when we asked experts about Ireland, they said that they could not comment on facts and figures because the legislation had not yet been in place for a year. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence—
The evidence is more than anecdotal. The Office of Tobacco Control—
You are giving information that someone could not give us last week about the statistics in Ireland, the level of compliance and so on.
I am sorry, but that evidence is available.
How long has the ban been in place?
Three months, but the Office of Tobacco Control has just produced a report on where it has got to so far. The committee should have that report, which appeared about a week ago.
We have not heard from Ms Owens.
As you might know, our head office is in Liverpool. A delegation of environmental health officers from Liverpool was sent to Ireland to talk to their counterparts about enforcement because they were worried about what would happen if we get legislation on this side of the Irish sea. They came back absolutely delighted because their counterparts in Ireland had reassured them that the work is not that onerous. I have seen the adverts; people do not have to walk around being the smoking police in outfits like traffic wardens. The New York Bureau of Tobacco Control, to which the committee will speak next week, has a high level of compliance. It has a three-strikes-and-you're-out system for removing people's licences—obviously, that system applies only if licences are in place.
You describe a situation in which a local authority is the enforcement agency, but the bill suggests that the police and the procurator fiscal should have that role.
I understand it to be a joint arrangement; environmental health departments will examine evidence of smoking and signage and the police will respond to actual incidents of smoking. The police are placed to respond quickly to such incidents, but in the main I would expect the proprietor to ask the person to either put out their cigarette or leave the premises. The proprietor would take that action and deal with the situation there and then, as they do with other things that people might do in their premises that are not within the law. Proprietors want to comply with the law. They would call the police in the normal way only if someone were to behave in an antisocial manner and cause trouble.
We will obtain a copy of the Office of Tobacco Control report that was referred to, for Duncan McNeil and the rest of the committee.
I turn to the practicalities of enforcement and implementation. The written evidence argues that a ban might have a positive economic impact, as demonstrated in Ireland and New York, but some studies record the opposite effect. In particular, an independent review that was conducted by Ridgewood Economic Associates and cited by the New York Nightlife Association records a negative economic impact. Do you have views on that?
A large number of studies have been done on the economic impact of bans and an excellent review of those studies was published last year in the journal Tobacco Control. The review examined the quality and funding of the studies and found that the 21 studies that were judged to be of high quality—on the basis that they had objective outcomes and were published in peer-reviewed journals—found that there was no economic impact.
That is fine; we have got a note of that.
I have one question.
It might be a five-minute question for all I know.
Much of the evidence has been covered by the questions that have been asked by the committee. David Davidson asked you about the Irish taking 14 years to introduce a ban. What steps have been taken in Scotland and throughout the UK? David Davidson seemed to suggest that we are going to act overnight; I assume that you would not agree with that. I can think of many different attempts that have been made over many years to reduce the smoking rates.
We have probably spent more than 14 years working towards this point. On a recent study visit to New York, I was delighted to find that we are ahead of the game because we have a ban on advertising whereas the legislation there still has to provide for the tobacco industry's promotional activities in the state. The fact that we have been preparing for a long time is also demonstrated by the availability of smoking cessation support and lots of awareness-raising campaigns. MORI polls show a year-on-year increase in the number of people who support such action.
Action has been taken on smoking, but my focus is on the 1.2 million people who smoke and who will have to be encouraged to comply with the legislation. Rightly or wrongly, those people are unconvinced by the passive smoking argument. Smoking kills and we accept that, but all the efforts that you mentioned are focused on stopping people smoking, not on passive smoking, which is still a contentious subject.
I am somewhere between the two points of view. We have progressed a long way and it would be wrong to say that we are starting from zero. However, if the bill is to get on to the statute book and be good law, we need to ensure that we take people with us. It is a matter of the legislators recognising that they have to have courage.
I tried to do that, too.
Better than this bill or better than the Irish one?
Better than this bill.
As I said, I would improve the bill by extending its powers, as has been done in Ireland.
I have a couple of things to say to Duncan McNeil. If the choice is the bill or no bill, there is no doubt that it has to be the bill. If you bear in mind the fact that there are 800,000 people in Scotland with lung disease—
From smoking, not from passive smoking.
No, they have lung disease.
Please let the witness finish, Duncan.
They have lung disease, which can be caused by a variety of things. Approximately half of those 800,000 people have asthma, and 80 per cent of those people will tell you that environmental tobacco smoke makes their asthma worse. You asked the earlier panel of witnesses about health effects and I assure you that people with asthma suffer immediate effects from being in a smoky environment. They are involuntarily breathing in something that is hazardous to their health and which could send them to hospital, or cause them to have attacks. It can cause people to develop asthma when they would not otherwise have it, whether they are adults or children. The health benefits and health damage are very clear and we support the bill as a way of protecting people's health.
The bill deals with passive smoking in public spaces. If I am frustrated with the evidence that has been led so far, it is because the people who have come to the committee have argued about the harmful effects of smoking and passive smoking but they have not reduced their arguments down to passive smoking in public spaces. They still claim that passive smoking in public spaces contributes to all those effects on health, but passive smoking is only a small part of that. An extreme example of a person who suffers from passive smoking would be someone who shares a house with someone who smokes 60 a day. Is that equal to someone who occasionally goes into a pub?
If you are talking about a restaurant, for example, I agree that some people come in and visit it, but other people have to work there. Those people ingest as much smoke as someone who lives with a smoker. There are real issues. If someone lives with a smoker, they can at least negotiate with them and perhaps the smoker will go outside to smoke; I think that a lot of people do that now, particularly if they have children. However, in a restaurant or other place of work, people cannot do that.
I am not suggesting that it is not a problem; we just have to evaluate the extent of the problem.
We will conclude the discussion with Professor Hastings's very interesting metaphor. I thank the members of the final witness panel.
Meeting suspended until 15:36 and thereafter continued in private until 16:42.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation