Memorandum by Ken Livingstone, Mayor of
London (SP30)
INTRODUCTION
1. This memorandum addresses the Government's
proposals to restrict smoking in public places. I have submitted
a formal response to the Department of Health's consultation on
the Smokefree Elements of the Health Improvement and Protection
Bill. My memorandum to the Health Committee's previous inquiry
into the Government's Public Health White Paper also addressed
the issue of smoking in public places.
2. I have a duty to consider the health
of people in London in planning and delivering strategies and
programmes. The GLA Act requires me to seek to "promote improvement
in health" and to minimise any negative impacts on health.
SUMMARY
3. I am of the view that a complete national
ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces, without
exemption (Option 2), is clearly the most favourable of the four
options set out in the Government's recent consultation on the
Smokefree Elements of the Health Improvement and Protection Bill.
A partial ban makes little sense given what we now know about
smoking, because:
— a partial ban is likely to be less
effective than a total ban in reducing smoking and protecting
people from second hand smoke;
— health inequalities are likely to
increase if a partial ban is imposed;
— evidence suggests that banning smoking
in enclosed public spaces is likely to reduce the amount of smoking
in the home;
— public opinion is increasingly in
favour of a total ban;
— the economic case for a complete
ban compared to a partial ban is overwhelming; and
— recent research has revealed that
no country or state has experienced negative economic impact following
a smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
BACKGROUND
4. The Government's admission in its consultation
paper that a partial ban is likely to be less effective than a
total ban in reducing smoking and protecting individuals from
second hand smoke lends supports to the argument for adopting
Option 2. We know that around 70% of smokers want to give up.
Evidence suggests that programmes to create smokefree environments
protect people from serious health problems, while providing strong
motivation for smokers who are trying to quit. Such programmes
have been shown to cause a 30% drop in consumption of cigarettes
amongst people who work in smokefree venues. In the long-term,
making enclosed public places smokefree will help prevent young
people from taking up smoking.
5. A partial ban is likely to increase health
inequalities, since it is likely to be in the most deprived areas,
where the highest rates of smoking prevail, that customers will
put pressure on the pub to allow smoking to continue. This view
is borne out by recent research carried out in Shropshire on smoking
in deprived areas. [34]Two
recent studies in London come to very much the same conclusion.
[35]
6. From an equalities perspective there
can be no justification for a ban that exempts certain workplaces.
All workers must be afforded the same level of protection from
second hand smoke. Ventilation systems are not the answer, since
there is no system that is able to remove all particulate material
from tobacco smoke in smoking areas.
7. Contrary to concerns about whether banning
smoke in pubs would simply shift smoking to the home, the latest
research form the Royal College of Physicians has revealed that
a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces is likely to reduce
the amount of smoking in the home. [36]
8. Public opinion in favour of a complete
ban has been increasing over the past several years. The most
recent research on smoking behaviour and attitudes among the general
population[37]
reveals the largest increase in support for smoking restrictions
has been for increasing restrictions in pubs—from just under
a half in 1996 to nearly two-thirds in 2004. In addition, 30%
of non-smokers said they would visit a pub more often if there
were smoking restrictions in place, while even among smokers,
the vast majority (85%) said they would continue to visit about
as often as nowadays.
9. The net annual benefits derived from
a total ban (£3,374 million-£3,784 million, compared
to £2,842 million-£3,616 million for a partial ban)
would appear to make the case for Option 2 overwhelming.
10. There is evidence that similar bans
in other places have not met with the kind of hostility that was
originally feared. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that both
smokers and non-smokers welcome smoking bans and that they benefit
the local economy. Recent research presented at the Smoke Free
Europe Conference 2005 revealed that no country or state has experienced
negative economic impact following a smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
[38]
RECOMMENDATIONS
11. The Government should introduce legislation
as soon as possible to provide for a complete national ban on
smoking in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces without exemptions.
12. If only a partial ban is introduced
nationally, the Government should give me the power to ban smoking
in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces in London.
September 2005
34 Smoke ban "will widen health gap"-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4162352.stm Back
35
The first of these is a telephone survey of London public houses
undertaken by ORC International at the request of Jennette Arnold,
the London Assembly rapporteur on smoke-free public policies.
The second is a survey of all public houses in Southwark, undertaken
by their environmental health service. The final report of the
study is available from www.southwarkpct.nhs.uk/menshealth. Back
36
See http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk Back
37
Department of Health, Smoking-Related Behaviour and Attitudes,
2004 Back
38
Ross & Joossens, Smokefree Europe makes economic sense: a
report on the economic aspects of smokefree policies, Smoke Free
Europe Partnership, 2005 Back
| 
