WHEN IN 1998 the government issued its white paper on tobacco, Smoking Kills, Tessa Jowell, the then-minister for Public Health, said: “The government does not believe in banning smoking in public places. But we do believe that non-smokers should not have to put up with smoke in the workplace.”

Six years on, the delicate balance between the rights of smokers and the rights of workers is as contentious as ever. Although 50 per cent of workplaces are now completely smoke free, few pubs and restaurants have banned smoking, making the effects of second-hand smoke on their employees the main focus of the current debate.

Public awareness of passive smoking has increased greatly in recent decades. But the evidence of health risks remains controversial. Although it is well established that passive smoking exacerbates asthma, and can cause various respiratory disorders, the statistical methods used to link it to lung cancer and coronary heart disease are still questioned by some scientists.

Individual studies tend to be inconclusive, but pooling the results from these studies and reanalysing them shows that passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer and coronary heart disease by 25 per cent each. Many – including the British Medical Association and the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson – have interpreted such results as clear evidence that passive smoking can seriously harm health and, in consequence, have called for a ban on smoking in public places.

Last November, the President of the Royal College of Physicians and leaders of other medical colleges wrote to The Times calling for legislation to make public places smoke free, arguing that the current voluntary code fails to protect many workers, especially in the hospitality industry.

Some believe that ending smoking in the workplace could also be a simple and cost-effective method of encouraging smokers to quit. Echoing the call for a ban, Securing Good Health for the Whole Population, the second report of Cabinet advisor Derek Wanless published in February, quoted studies estimating that a comprehensive workplace ban in England might reduce the number of adult smokers by around four per cent.

The Republic of Ireland’s smoking ban, introduced in March, has fuelled public debate on the issue, with much media at-attention focused on the effects of the ban on the country’s legendary pubs and bars. Speaking earlier this month, Tony Blair confirmed that the government is now considering including a public smoking ban in a public health white paper to be published in the autumn. His comments were welcomed by Deborah Arnott, Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). “New powers for local councils to act in their own areas would be an important and very welcome step in the right direction,” she said.

Ken Livingstone and Steven Norris, both candidates in the London mayoral elections, have stated that they would be willing to introduce a New York style ban on smoking in public places in London if the law allowed it and the public desired it. will eventually be killed by their habit In 2002, the Office for National Statistics reported that 54 per cent of the public were in favour of restrictions on smoking in pubs, 88 per cent in restaurants and 87 per cent in other public places.

But some question whether social engineering is the correct approach to balancing the rights of smokers and non-smokers. Health Secretary John Reid has said that he is an advocate of informed choice, rather than bans. Tim Lord, Chief Executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, agrees that the majority of people would prefer to have a choice of smoking or non-smoking facilities rather than an outright ban: “We urge people who are in favour of moderation, freedom of choice and common sense, whether smokers or non-smokers, to speak up and influence the debate.”