|
Why smoking in workplaces and public places is an
issue
The evidence that exposure to other people’s
smoke is dangerous to health is now incontrovertible. It has been confirmed
by the Government’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Sir Liam Donaldson (in July
2003) as well as by the heads of all of Britain’s thirteen Royal Colleges of Medicine (in
November 2003), and by the Scottish CMO Dr Mac Armstrong (in April 2004).
Comprehensive reviews of the effects of passive smoking include reports by
the US National Research Council, the US Surgeon General, the National Health and Medical Research Council
of Australia and the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and
Health. More recent studies include a World Health Organization (WHO)
consultation report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Child Health, a
report by the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a review
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Finally, the
Government’s advisers the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
reported in November 2004 that exposure to secondhand smoke was a serious
health risk to non-smokers, increasing their chance of contracting lung
cancer and heart disease, in both cases by about a quarter.[1]
Professor Konrad Jamrozik of Imperial College
London has estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace
causes around 617 premature deaths in the UK each year. [2] This can be compared with the total
number of deaths in the UK from all industrial accidents,
reported by the Health and Safety Executive to be 235 in 2003/4. [3]
The degree
of risk depends on the extent and duration of exposure. Particularly at
risk are bar staff, casino workers and other employees in workplaces where
smoking is routine. Professor Jamrozik estimates that secondhand smoke
causes one premature death a week among workers in the hospitality
industries. (For further information regarding the health risks from passive
smoking see Fact
sheet 8: Secondhand Smoke and the more detailed ASH
Policy briefing on secondhand smoke .
Impact on smoking rates
It is known that ending smoking in workplaces is
a simple and cost-effective way to encourage smokers to quit. Derek Wanless
in his recent report to the UK Government on public health (“Securing Good
Health for the Whole Population”) stated that “A number of other countries
have now implemented a workplace smoking ban via legislation. Some of this
experience has been shown to be successful in reducing the prevalence of
smoking” (para 4.21). “Some studies estimate that a workplace smoking ban
in England might reduce smoking prevalence by
around 4 percentage points – equivalent to a reduction from the present 27
per cent prevalence rate to 23 per cent if a comprehensive workplace ban
were introduced in this country.” (Box 4.2). [4] According to the Regulatory Impact
Assessment of the Health Bill, the Government predicts a fall in smoking
prevalence of 1.7%, resulting in almost 700,000 fewer smokers.[5]
Current law and new legislation
A bill to ban smoking in virtually all workplaces
in England was approved by Parliament in July
2006 and is due to come into effect in mid 2007. See www.smokefreeaction.org.uk for
further details. Separate measures apply to Wales and Northern
Ireland which are also
due to come into force in 2007. Scotland has
already enacted legislation which took effect from 26 March 2006.)
In the meantime, Section 2(1) of the Health and
Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a general duty on employers to their
employees and provides that: “it shall be the duty of every employer to
ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at
work of all his employees. Section 2(2)(e) of HSAW 1974, places a specific
duty on the employer in respect of employees: “to provide and maintain a
safe working environment which is, so far as is reasonably practicable,
safe, without risks to health and adequate as regards facilities and
arrangements for their welfare at work”. The key factor in cases for compensation
under HSWA is not whether the employer in fact knew about the risks of
particular substances or practices in the workplaces, but whether they
ought to have known, in the light of knowledge available at the time. This
is the concept of “guilty knowledge”. In 1998, ASH obtained a legal
opinion from John Melville Williams QC which suggests that the date of
guilty knowledge in respect of secondhand smoke would be likely to be held
by the courts to be sometime in the early 1990s.[6]
In a number of cases, for example that involving
a casino worker represented by the GMB, there have been significant out of
court settlements. The employee claimed he had contracted asthma three
years ago after breathing in the smoke of customers’ cigarettes and cigars.
He was awarded over £50,000 although this was on the basis that the
employer did not accept liability for his illness. [7] ASH and the trade union law firm Thompsons
are now working to identify further cases to bring to court. [8]
However,
the HSWA offers only a slow route to progress, and employees may only be
able to seek compensation after they have been made ill. ASH believes that
there is an urgent need for specific new legislation to end smoking in
workplaces and enclosed public places.
In November 2004, the Government published a
White Paper on public health, which proposed to end smoking in the great
majority of workplaces and public places except for private clubs and for
pubs which do not serve food. [9] Despite a public consultation which
revealed overwhelming support for a comprehensive smoking ban, the
Government retained the proposed exemptions for pubs and clubs when it
published the Health Bill in late 2005. However on 14 February 2006, MPs voted with a large majority to remove the
exemptions for pubs and clubs. The bill received majority support in the
House of Lords and became law in July 2006. It is expected to take effect
in mid 2007.
Public
support for new legislation
As awareness of the health risks of passive
smoking has grown, demand for smoke-free public places has dramatically
increased. The 2003 Office for National Statistics survey found that for
the 55% of non-smokers who mind if people smoke near them, tobacco smoke
causes a variety of problems: 21% said it affected their breathing; 17%
said it irritated their eyes, and 17% said it made them cough. [10]
There is overwhelming public support for new
legislation to end smoking in the workplace. In May 2004, a MORI poll of
over 4,000 respondents, commissioned by ASH, showed that four out of five
(80%) of those polled support a law to ensure that all enclosed workplaces
must be smokefree.[11]
|
Ireland, Canada, Norway and New Zealand
have each passed laws to ensure all enclosed workplaces are smoke
free. How strongly, if at all, would you support or oppose a
proposal to bring in a similar law in this country?
|
|
Strongly support a smoke free law
|
54%
|
|
Tend to support
|
25%
|
|
Neither support nor oppose
|
8%
|
|
Tend to oppose
|
7%
|
|
Strongly oppose a smoke free law
|
4%
|
|
Don’t know
|
*
|
Public Places Charter
After the publication of the “Smoking Kills”
White Paper in 1998, the principal trade bodies within the hospitality
industry, working with the Government, agreed to draw up a Charter to deal
with the problems of passive smoking. The scheme was designed to encourage
venues to increase provision for non-smokers and improve overall air
quality.
Despite extensive publicity within the
hospitality trade to promote the Public Places Charter, compliance with the
initiative was low. In discussion with the Department of Health, trade
leaders agreed that 50% of all pubs and half of the members of the
Restaurant Association should be Charter Compliant by January 2003, with
35% of that 50% restricting smoking to designated and enforced areas and/or
have ventilation that meets agreed industry standards. In its progress
report published in April 2003, the Charter Group revealed that 46% of
restaurants and pubs surveyed still allowed smoking throughout, with 22%
having separate smoking and non-smoking areas. Less than 1% banned smoking
completely. [12]
The tobacco industry and its supporters have
argued that improved ventilation is the answer to the problem of passive
smoking. The best air-cleaning systems, if properly operated and
maintained, can remove some of the toxic components found in tobacco
smoke. However, air-conditioning systems merely circulate the air and do
not adequately remove tobacco smoke from the indoor atmosphere. In
practice, mechanical ventilation systems alone are not a satisfactory
alternative to banning or restricting smoking.
Economic impact of smoking policies
Studies in the USA have shown that banning smoking in restaurants has either a neutral
or beneficial effect and may increase tourist business. [13]
[14] A review of studies examining the economic
effects of smoke-free policies found that those studies claiming a negative
economic impact were backed by the tobacco industry and that most were
subjective and of poor quality. [15]
For further information detailing the economic
advantages of smoke-free policies see the ASH briefing: ‘Smoke-free provision in the
hospitality industry – Economic and policy implications.’
Public transport and other public places
Smoking is restricted or banned on most forms of
public transport in the UK. Responsibility for enforcing the
policies rests with the individual transport companies. Licensed taxi
drivers are not allowed to refuse a smoking passenger although they may request
passengers not to smoke. Following a public consultation, the Government
said that the case was not sufficiently strong to change the law and that
the voluntary approach whereby taxi drivers can request passengers not to
smoke should continue. [16] [17] However, smoking will be banned in
taxis and shared commercial vehicles once the Health Act comes into force.
Many other public places such as cinemas,
shopping centres, banks, etc. also ban smoking, while in places where
people may spend a long period of time such as airports and places of
entertainment, separate smoking and non-smoking areas are normally
provided.
How does the UK compare with other countries?
In most countries where smoking is
restricted or banned in public places, the controls form part of broad
tobacco control legislation, often including bans on tobacco advertising,
for example. Such countries include New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand. Some countries such as Norway and Sweden have a long history of tobacco
control legislation and have amended existing laws to include measures to
protect people from involuntary smoking. Other countries with effective
laws covering most public places include Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and the US States of California and Minnesota. For updates on smoke-free laws around the world
see:
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/publicplaces/html/intlaw.html
|
Comments