I BELIEVE in John Stuart Mill’s principle that we are all free to do as we choose, even if the behaviour we choose to indulge in causes us harm. But we should not forget that that principle comes at a very high price – in the case of smoking, 114,000 people die in the UK every year from smoking-related illnesses. That is a terrible toll of misery and destruction. Many are also made ill and die from inhaling the smoke of others. The liberal principle has clear limits: we are free to harm ourselves, but not to harm others.
The Tobacco Smoking (Public Places and Workplaces) Bill is not an attempt to ban smoking – but if any smokers are encouraged to quit as a result of the bill (and there is good reason to believe that some will) I would of course be delighted.
My bill would make it unlawful to smoke in enclosed public places other than in a designated smoking area. It would be an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of the legislation and occupiers of public places would be compelled to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance – with employees given protection from being required by their contracts of employment to work in a smoking area.
The case for the bill rests on the fact that smoking damages the health of third parties. This is a fact, whatever the tobacco industry and its allies may pretend. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, some of which have marked irritant properties and some 60 of which are known or suspected carcinogens. Short-term exposure to second-hand smoke has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Thirty minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. A recent Department of Health survey for England shows that people who are exposed to other people’s tobacco smoke for six or more hours a week are 50 per cent more likely than those who are not so exposed to develop asthma symptoms and breathlessness, coughing and wheezing. The National Asthma Campaign states that one in five people with asthma are prevented from using parts of their workplace where people smoke because of cigarette and other tobacco fumes.
The British Medical Association has stated that passive smoking causes at least 1,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. The true figure is probably higher. By comparison, the total number of fatal accidents at work from all causes in the UK in 2002–03 was reported by the Health and Safety Executive as 226.
A survey published by ASH in April 1999 revealed that approximately three million people in the UK are still regularly exposed to second-hand smoke at work. And workplace smoking is still particularly common in the hospitality trades including restaurants, pubs and casinos.
Smoking is a serious workplace health and safety hazard. Usually, and rightly, such hazards are the subject of tight legal regulation. Yet current law in the UK provides wholly inadequate protection against the risks of second-hand smoke. Although second-hand smoke is a workplace carcinogen, it is not listed under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.
The hospitality industry has argued that a voluntary approach to smoking restrictions is preferable to legislation. The charter group was set up by the industry to promote that voluntary action. The attempt has largely failed. Although the major chain Pizza Hut, which is part of Whitbread, announced in August last year that it would go smoke-free, most other restaurant chains continue to permit smoking, including other parts of the Whitbread Group. The number of pubs banning smoking is less than one per cent of the total and may total fewer than 50 across the whole country.
A number of other countries and local jurisdictions have already acted to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places, including Ireland, Norway, California, Massachusetts, much of Australia and the city of New York. There is no re-liable evidence that smoking bans damage business; indeed, the reverse is the case. The BMJ journal, Tobacco Control, looked at 97 studies worldwide. All independent studies have found no negative impact on takings. Studies that did show a negative impact had tobacco industry backing and most used subjective measures.
We have all heard dire predictions of disaster from the well-organised tobacco and hospitality lobbies in New York. Yet New York city finance commissioner Martha Stark recently revealed that the business tax take from the city’s hospitality venues had increased by 12 per cent in the first nine months since the city’s smoking ban took effect.
Smoking restrictions generally do not require intensive or costly enforcement. That has been the experience in Ireland and New York and of course on the London Underground and other UK public transport systems. The reason is that such restrictions are generally ob-served by popular consensus.
There is widespread support in the UK for similar action. The Office for National Statistics’ report on Smoking Related Behaviour and Attitudes 2002 found that, “over four-fifths of those interviewed agreed that there should be restrictions on smoking at work (88 per cent), in restaurants (88 per cent) and in other public places such as banks and post offices (87 per cent). A smaller percentage of respondents (54 per cent) thought that smoking should be restricted in pubs”.
My bill does not go as far as the Irish or New York legislation: it does not require all workplaces to be fully smoke-free, al-though I certainly hope that many would wish to choose that option. My bill can be described as a British compromise. It gives statutory force to the worthy aims of the charter group and ensures that they will be met in practice. It provides protection for employees and members of the public from the damaging effects of second-hand smoke. It allows smokers the freedom to continue their habit, although I hope and
believe that it will also help to persuade many of them that it is time to quit. The bill is short and simple and, I believe, it would make a major contribution to solving one of the greatest public health challenges we now face.
