Examination of Witnesses (Questions 363-379)
MR HUGH
ROBERTSON, MR
BRIAN REVELL,
MS PAULINE
ROBSON, MR
VINCENT BORG
AND MR
MICHAEL AINSLEY
17 NOVEMBER 2005
Q363 Chairman: Could I welcome you at
the final session for this morning and thank you very much indeed
for coming along. I think first of all I would just like you to
introduce yourselves and your organisations so we have got it
on the record exactly where and who you are.
Ms Robson: I am Pauline Robson
from the Transport & General Workers Union and I am an area
boss representative for the North East.
Mr Revell: My name is Brian Revell
and I am National Organiser of the Transport & General Workers
Union for the food and agriculture sector.
Mr Ainsley: Michael Ainsley, I
am the GMB Organiser for the casino and leisure industry.
Mr Robertson: Hugh Robertson,
Senior Policy Officer for prevention, rehabilitation and compensation
in the TUC.
Mr Borg: Vincent Borg, from Unison's
Health and Safety Unit, Assistant National Officer.
Q364 Chairman: Thank you. Could I
ask you all a question here. What should the Government do to
protect employees from passive smoking exposure?
Ms Robson: A complete ban.
Mr Revell: A complete ban.
Mr Ainsley: A complete ban.
Mr Robertson: There should be
a complete ban with some small exemptions for places in someone's
residential home, for instance.
Mr Borg: Yes, I agree, with small
exemptions.
Q365 Chairman: The next question
is what do you think of what we are led to believe is the Government's
partial ban that is doing the airwaves at the moment? Do you have
a view on that?
Ms Robson: I would not agree with
that at all. Maybe if I could explain, I work in a pub in Newcastle
which is licensed for 300. It is quite a busy pub and even if
150 people in the pub are smoking, and we have had new ventilation
put in by a new company that just started in the summer, the smoke
levels are far too high. I think all workers have a right to a
smoke-free environment. Can you imagine this room, and I counted
the number when I came in there were about 60 people in here,
my pub is about two-thirds the size of this, can you imagine maybe
another 100 to 150 people in here with half of them smoking? You
might go to a pub say two or three times a week. You might actually
spend about eight hours a week in the pub. Our staff spend 40
to 50 hours a week in the pub. We are talking about sessions of
eight to ten hours of constant smoke. Apart from the fact it gives
you cancer, even if you do not get the cancer, you get sore eyes,
you get a sore throat, you stink when you go home, your hair stinks.
I think the Government has missed it and there should have been
a complete ban in the beginning. I listened to what the gentleman
from Ireland said before, and it is very, very true what he says.
If you have got no smoking in the pubs you do not have to decorate
so much, you do not get so many holes in the furniture, and your
insurance is bound to go down. You may lose a few customers but
you will probably find you get new ones. You will get the ones
who never went to pubs who will start going to pubs. You will
get more families going and you will get more children going.
It works in America. I have been in America and there is nothing
wrong with going outside and having a cigarette. I am sorry, I
am ranting, I will let somebody else answer!
Dr Taylor: I think we want her to talk
to the Prime Minister!
Q366 Chairman: That is not within
my gift but thank you very much for that anyway. Just before I
move on to some of my colleagues, we were out in Dublin last week
and we took evidence from two trade unions there. Have you been
in touch with the trade unions in the Irish Republic about what
and why they did what they have done?
Mr Ainsley: Absolutely.
Q367 Chairman: Did it change any
minds, to your knowledge, in terms of sections of the British
trade union movement?
Mr Ainsley: Certainly what we
have done is we have spoken to Mandate who campaign on this issue.
They showed us that there has been no drop even in the prevalence
of smoking. I think they said there was one cigarette per day
which is deemed to be smoked less. What it has done is those people
who frequent pubs do not have to worry about other people's tobacco
smoke. That is what our position from the trade union movement
is. This is not for us a public health issue, it is a workers'
health issue. If somebody wants to smoke a cigarette that is entirely
for them, it is their choice to do so, but they do not have the
right or the choice to force somebody else to smoke that cigarette
with them. That is our position and we are bewildered, I have
to say, that the Government have taken this coward's way out because
they are fully aware of all of the evidence. In fact, they have
published documents themselves. There are government documents
here and I will pass these round for anybody to have a look at.
It lists the constituent parts of tobacco smoke. Why anybody should
be exposed to that is amazing, why people want to expose themselves
to it is amazing, but why somebody should expose somebody else
to it is criminal. I do not believe that if that was being pumped
out of a factory chimney that the HSE would allow it to continue
pumping it out. It would be stopped directly. The Government paper
from a few years ago, which you will all be familiar with, challenged
cutting smoking as the leading cause of preventable death. That
is why we are here, not because we have got some issues ourselves
but because we represent workers, and workers are being exposed
to other people's toxins, carcinogens and tobacco smoke on a daily
basis, and it has to stop. There has been some evidence to show
that there are round about 600 workers per year dying of second-hand
smoke. That would clear the Commons. Everybody in the Commons
would be gone through somebody else's tobacco smoke.
Q368 Jim Dowd: We hear this figure
and sometimes it is 600 through passive smoking and sometimes
it is 700,000. How is that figure calculated?
Mr Ainsley: The figure I quote
of 600 is workers who are exposed to second-hand smoke.
Q369 Jim Dowd: Yes, but how is it
calculated?
Mr Ainsley: Again I am not a scientist
or a doctor.
Q370 Jim Dowd: You are just repeating
it?
Mr Ainsley: I am repeating it
because that is my job. I am availed of the facts. I do not need
to go out and find out what those facts are. If somebody tells
me it is dangerous to drive on the pavement I have to accept that
it is dangerous to drive on the pavement.
Jim Dowd: What an astonishingly compliant
man you are! Have you got no curiosity?
Q371 Chairman: We have had evidence
from the Royal College of Physicians on this, both in terms of
secondary smoke and deaths in this country, and I think they used
a figure overall of secondary smoke of 12,000, and they said it
is certainly thousands. Of course, it is a lot less in public
enclosed places in view of the fact that most secondary smoking
is obtained at home, as it were, in domestic premises, but nonetheless
I do not think anybody would dispute the science that there are
deaths from that.
Mr Ainsley: If I could just add
to that. We can argue about the statistics forever. I do not think
there is anybody, smoker or non-smoker, that would argue that
tobacco smoke is not harmful. If it is harmful to the smoker why
is it then not harmful to the person who does not choose to smoke.
Q372 Chairman: Some of my colleagues
will want to come in but trade unions in this country, and I suppose
in many others as well, have a long track record of both representing
people at work and on odd occasions getting involved in litigation
for harm that is done at work. In the industry in which I used
to work it is a full-time job for many thousands of people at
this current time. What litigation has there been or threatened
within the TUC and its membership groups against employers who
you believe to be reckless in a sense?
Mr Robertson: There already have
been a number of cases that have been taken against employers.
The problem of course with second-hand tobacco smoke is that proving
cause and effect is very difficult so the cases that have been
taken have mainly been around asthma and emphysema. It is people,
including bar workers and other workers in a residential home,
who have been unable to work because of second-hand tobacco. They
have given warning to their employers, nothing has been done and
as a result they have had to leave. They have therefore taken
it under the basic negligence of duty of care. In terms of taking
a case for someone who actually dies as a result of second-hand
tobacco, it is very difficult to prove that was a result of what
happened within the workplace, so cases like that would be very
difficult to take at present, I am afraid.
Mr Revell: We recently had a case
where a woman suffered from a worsening asthmatic condition, which
caused her to cough so violently that it created a hernia and
also pelvic floor collapse. We pursued a personal injury claim
against the pub owners and this one was actually settled out of
court in favour of the woman, but I have got a suspicion that,
just like the nuclear industry, a lot of pubcos will be settling
out of court rather than it becoming established on the record
through the courts.
Q373 Chairman: That was a local government
worker I think in the town of Preston a number of years ago. Perhaps
you could tell us about that?
Mr Borg: I am not familiar with
the one in Preston. I am aware that Unison has brought a number
of cases. There were a couple against Stockport Metropolitan Borough
Council where our members have suffered years of passive smoking
at work. One member, Veronica Bland, eventually developed chronic
bronchitis. She received £15,000 from Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council in 1993. In 1995 Beryl Rowe received £25,000
compensation from Stockport Council. She had to retire on ill-health
grounds after suffering eye, nose, throat and bronchial hypersensitivity.
This returns if she goes into a smoky atmosphere. The council
had increased her exposure by shutting down the ventilation system
in the office. If I could take the opportunity to comment on one
other issue. It seems we all know that passive smoking is dangerous
and it is recognised even by the present Government that passive
smoking is dangerous. That is why there is a proposal for the
ban, but it is a partial ban which seems nonsensical. The distinction
seems to be if a pub does not serve food it will be exempt. There
is an implication there which seems to suggest if you eat in a
smoky atmosphere it is worse for you. That is the only sensible
interpretation of that and that is clearly not the case. case.
We know passive smoking is dangerous because of inhalation and
that happens whether you are in a pub that serves food or a pub
that does not serve food.
Q374 Dr Naysmith: Can I just pick
up Michael's point. When we were in Ireland (and you have said
something similar) it was very clear that the whole thing had
been treated right from the start as a health and safety at work
matter. They claim that is why it has been so successful in making
it work because once you have established that passive smoke causes
problems for the workforce, you then find it very difficult to
logically talk about exemptions. They also said that this was
discussed pretty well before the ban came in by the Irish government.
I have two points to make. Firstly, why do you think our Government
has gone along that particular line of mixing up two or three
different objectives all in one bill and, secondly, have there
been discussions with the trade unions about what shape the bill
it should be at all?
Mr Robertson: No, in terms of
discussions that have taken place, the unions have made a number
of representations as opposed to having discussions with ministers
over recent years over a ban. The advantage of the Irish ban is
it was clear, simple and understood and therefore it was almost
self-enforcing because there are no exemptions all over the place
so therefore people know they do not smoke in public places in
work places. Also they did the education job as part of the build-up
to the bill. There was a very good education campaign. I went
over at the time it was going on to ensure that there was an understanding
of why it was being brought in. The unions have always said that
in actual fact because second-hand tobacco smoke is a carcinogen
and it is created from workplace activities, it should be treated
in the same way as any other workplace carcinogen, and should
be banned as far as reasonably practicable and it is reasonably
practicable; you just do not allow people to smoke. The Scottish
Executive would have liked to have gone down that path but, of
course, health and safety is not a devolved function and that
is why they have also had to do it in the public health one. The
English Bill is also going to cover it under the public health
Bill and we can understand why. The primary role from the trade
union point of view is to protect workers. We welcome public health
issues, of course, but this should not be seen primarily from
our point of view as a public health Bill. We see it as being
a very basic, bread and butter, simple, health and safety issue
about which there should be no arguments.
Q375 Dr Naysmith: Can you see any
way of getting it back onto the rails of being that in this country
or is it too late?
Mr Robertson: The Health and Safety
Commission have put in a submission to the Government as part
of the consultation where they supported a full ban. It is part
of a health Bill and I do not think it would help if it was now
taken away and looked at separately instead. I think the answer
is to remove the exemptions because in effect that would make
it a health and safety Bill.
Mr Ainsley: The Government needs
to make a case for why there should be any exemptions. It is called
a Health Improvement and Protection Bill. Who are they going to
protect? Why are they deciding that some workers do not need protection?
Why is it that their health is not important? We cannot see any
logic in this whatsoever. It is not as though it is a difficult
thing to do. Everybody else is doing it, New York, California,
New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, you name it. Everybody is accepting
that if an individual wants to poison themselves that is entirely
up to them but they are not entitled to do it to anybody else.
The Government is fully aware of the situation. They are putting
warnings on cigarettes warning a smoker that they are poisoning
themselves and other people. There is no point in telling somebody
who is addicted that they are harming somebody else, you have
to tell everybody else. It is everybody else who has the right
to know that, not just the smoker.
Q376 Charlotte Atkins: I should declare
that I am a Unison member. I want to ask you about the issue of
exemption. Mr Robertson said that you would accept certain exceptions.
I do not think anyone would argue nowadays that because you know
it is going to be smoky in a pub those workers should not be protected.
I know that is an argument that has been used in the past. Having
said that, there are still certain exemptions and I would like
you to go through those exemptions and indicate to us how we can
protect those workers in those particular situations because I
think it is difficult. You are from the TUC and you are indicating
that you have a slightly different view.
Mr Robertson: There are a number
of areas where we would support an exemption and it is primarily
where someone is in a workplace which is also residential accommodation,
for example prisons, secure mental units and ships as well.
Q377 Charlotte Atkins: And oil platforms?
Mr Robertson: That is another
example. To tell people who are actually in these places that
they have got different rights to smoke, that they cannot smoke
as individuals at all because people in secure units in prisons
cannot just walk out the door and smoke outside, is not a possibility.
We recommend there should be circumstances where there are exemptions.
However, in order to protect the staff and to protect the other
people in there it should be restricted either to separate rooms
or, if they have an individual room, to their own room. There
should not be a blanket ban, it should be for the residential
part and only where they are not affecting anyone else. The rest
of the areas where people work or congregate should certainly
not be seen as having a blanket exemption.
Q378 Charlotte Atkins: Staff will
still have to go into prison cells and they will still have to
go into the areas that psychiatric patients occupy. What are you
suggesting in terms of protecting that workforce? We do not want
a workforce that is subjected to unacceptable health impacts whereas
others are free of that.
Mr Robertson: Absolutely. You
will also get that in the case of people who visit people in their
homes, for example health visitors and many members of the unions
here. It is a very difficult area and that is one where we did
say in our recommendations there has to be strong guidance to
protect the staff. However, I do think there would be problems
if you were just to put a blanket ban on all residential areas.
If smoking is to be allowed, it has to be under very controlled
conditions, in separate rooms with proper ventilation so that
it is not affecting the staff in particular but also other residents
who choose not to smoke.
Q379 Chairman: Pauline, Charlotte
mentioned this issue about people's rights to go to the pub. Nobody
would argue that if you go to work in a pub you have certain rights,
but some people say if you go to work in a pub you know that people
smoke in a pub and you are walking into it, it is your choice.
What do you say to that argument?
Ms Robson: I have worked in a
pub for 35 years and 35 years ago smoking was not an issue. I
did not even think about it when I was younger. It is only as
you become more educated and when you see the advertisements that
are coming on the television now—there is that new one where
you see the clot going up the vein, it really freaks you out—that
you are encouraged not to smoke. I work in a pub, we take about
£40,000 per week, it is a busy pub and we have about 46 staff.
I went to them before I came here and I asked them about this.
A lot of them are students who are just working in the pub for
extra money while they are at university and a lot of them are
smokers, but because they have been educated to know how bad smoking
is they are quite concerned about it. They do not really want
to make a career out of it, it is like a stopgap. It was weird
when I got the e-mail from the Health Select Committee. It appeared
to me that you were writing off some workers as though they did
not matter because they worked in the industries where people
go in to smoke. I think a total ban would be the best thing. Everybody
would know where they stood and there would not be some playing
off against others. We owe the next generation good healthy living
and we should show them an example. When this was voted on in
Parliament I wonder what percentage of those that voted to keep
it were smokers.
| 
