The effects of ventilation
26. While recognising the health effects of exposure
to SHS, representatives of the licensed trade argued that ventilation
of licensed premises is a better and less prescriptive alternative
to a prohibition on smoking in public places and workplaces. They
have further argued that ventilation is a solution which other
countries in the European Union have found satisfactory. Mr Nick
Bish, Chief Executive of the Association of Licensed Multiple
Retailers (ALMR), a trade association for companies operating
licensed retail business with pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs,
told us:
The science definitely exists. The wind-tunnel
point is not right. You do not need wind-tunnels to move air around.
There is nothing magical about the particulates and carcinogens
and things like that that will linger where all other contaminants
will be removed. The technology exists for operating theatres
with negative or positive pressure to keep them clear. The ventilation
industry exists. It is an enormous industry. It must be doing
something right somewhere. The Health and Safety Executive offer
workers exposure limits and define those, and the ventilation
industry provides the kit to deliver those answers.[24]
Mr Bish went on to concede that ventilation was no
longer (as the hospitality industry had perhaps previously thought)
the whole answer to the problem, and that smoking cessation had
now become a major plank of Government policy. Nonetheless, he
maintained that ventilation could provide both comfort and safety
for workers in the hospitality industry: "There is a solution
there. If we want to do it, there is a way. The ventilation industry
can do it… That is just science. It works."[25]
27. One of the chief scientific exponents of the
efficacy of ventilation in licensed premises has been Dr Andrew
Geens, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Glamorgan's School
of Technology Division of Built and Natural Environment.[26]
In 2002, Dr Geens conducted a study of the ventilation system
of the Airport Hotel, Manchester, measuring the carbon monoxide
(CO), carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate levels on four consecutive
days (Monday to Thursday) in December. The ventilation system
was switched on during the second and fourth days and switched
off during the first and third days. Dr Geens found that the CO2
and CO levels were lower and rose less during the day on those
days on which the ventilation system was operating, with CO levels
reaching a maximum of 2-4 ppm when the ventilation was on compared
to 10-14 ppm when it was switched off.
28. A further article by Dr Geens, co-authored by
Dr Max Graham, also of the University of Glamorgan, appeared in
the Building Services Journal of March 2005. This study focused
on the Baker's Arms, a village pub in the Home Counties, in which
particulate levels were measured over a period of time in October
2004. It concluded that "ventilation is effective in controlling
the level of contamination", though it conceded that "ventilation
can only dilute or partially displace contaminants and occupational
exposure limits are based on the 'as low as reasonably practicable'
principle".[27]
29. In contrast, the efficacy of ventilation is widely
rejected by medical experts. Professor Dame Carol Black, President
of the Royal College of Physicians, told the Committee that "The
only thing you do by improving ventilation, however good your
ventilation system is, is you make the air smell rather better,
you just circulate the air around, you do nothing to take away
the carcinogens in that environment".[28]
Mr Bill Callaghan, the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission
(HSC), reinforced this view: "The evidence is that although
ventilation can remove the smell, it cannot tackle the issue of
removing the carcinogens."[29]
This opinion was also shared by Mr Shaun Woodward MP, Under-Secretary
of State for Northern Ireland. Announcing plans for a comprehensive
ban on smoking in enclosed public places for Northern Ireland,
he stated "Ventilation doesn't work".[30]
30. A study of nicotine levels and particulate levels
in licensed premises was conducted in Manchester in 2005. Dr Edwards
described a study in a public house in Cannock, Staffordshire,
which had "state of the art filtration equipment".[31]
The effect of this equipment, according to Dr Edwards, was unimpressive.
When the system was switched off, the levels of PM2.5 (a particulate
frequently monitored in such experiments) were between 800 and
900, which is approximately 16 or 18 times higher than those on
a very busy road. The filtration equipment reduced levels to 500
or 600.
You can say, yes, there is a reduction, maybe
30 per cent, 40 per cent, whatever the figure is, but a reduction
to still a very high level is meaningless, and there is no evidence
that ventilation reduces the level of carcinogens and the level
of toxic components in secondhand smoke to levels which would
protect health […] [the hospitality and tobacco industries]
make no claim about health effects. None of them has ever done
that, and that is because they cannot.[32]
31. Dr Edwards was particularly critical of Dr Geens's
work. He questioned Dr Geens's methodology and presentation, pointing
to the fact that the monitoring did not include evenings, when,
he supposed, levels of SHS would be at their highest, and that
Dr Geens presented percentage reductions, which, Dr Edwards alleged,
were "meaningless" if they were simply "reducing
from a very, very high level to a very high level".[33]
32. It has also been argued that proprietors and
licensees would be reluctant to invest in expensive ventilation
systems if, as the Government has strongly hinted, a comprehensive
ban on smoking is only a few years away. Mr Woodward pointed out
that this would be "a pretty unfair burden" to put on
businesses.[34]
33. We are not
convinced that ventilation offers a practical means of reducing
SHS to safe levels. The scientific evidence is clear that there
is no safe level of SHS. The expert evidence we have heard suggests
that at best ventilation can only dilute or partially displace
contaminates. Ventilation offers cosmetic improvements but does
not represent a sufficient response to the health and safety risks
inherent in SHS.
Restrictions on smoking
34. Given the wide acceptance of the scientific evidence
that SHS is harmful to the health of non-smokers and that ventilation
is not an adequate solution to the problem, governments in many
parts of the world have introduced restrictions and controls on
smoking in public places and workplaces. Comprehensive smoke-free
legislation, whereby smoking is prohibited in almost all public
places and workplaces (with very limited exceptions), has now
been introduced in Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Italy
and South Africa, as well as several states of the USA including
New York, California and Delaware. Norway implemented its comprehensive
ban on smoking in public after a partial ban was found to be unworkable.[35]Table
1: Smoke-free legislation around the world
