Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-391)
MR HUGH
ROBERTSON, MR
BRIAN REVELL,
MS PAULINE
ROBSON, MR
VINCENT BORG
AND MR
MICHAEL AINSLEY
17 NOVEMBER 2005
Q380 Chairman: We are not there yet
on that. You have got a lot of students earning some money while
they are at Newcastle University.
Ms Robson: They supported a total
ban.
Q381 Chairman: They are not permanent
workers, are they?
Ms Robson: No.
Q382 Chairman: What choice would
they have to go and earn some money elsewhere in Newcastle as
opposed to working in a pub for a few hours a night or at weekends?
Ms Robson: They tend to gravitate
to pubs because it is part of their social life as well, that
is probably how they view it. They can get a few shifts here and
there, especially weekend shifts.
Q383 Chairman: Would there be alternative
forms of employment for those people working for six or eight
hours in a public house on a Friday and Saturday?
Ms Robson: There would not be
a lot on an evening unless they wanted to work in a restaurant.
Then you get the other end of the scale, that is the single mothers
or people who are on benefits who can only earn a certain amount
of money and they would chose to work in a pub as well because
they can get a couple of shifts. It is not really fair on anybody's
health. I only came here for the health side of it.
Q384 Chairman: I understand that.
People do pose the question that if you go to work in a pub you
know what you are going to walk into. It is important that we
see what alternatives there are on that issue.
Mr Robertson: The point is, and
one of the reasons we do want to see it as a health and safety
issue, is there is no other area where we say you can choose to
work in an unsafe environment. It is against all European legislation
and against the Health and Safety at Work Act. It is up to employers
to protect people. Some people may think, "I can get a job
here and I smoke so I do not mind" but the reality is that
even smokers are increasing their risk by working in smoky environments,
and some pubs are very smoky environments. Not only that, it would
mean these people could never give up smoking, for instance, once
they have actually started. It is totally contrary to every principle
of protection of workers to say that you can either take danger
money or that you can decide to take a risk. I certainly think
it would be an absolute disaster were that to be countenanced
in terms of any legislation on smoking.
Q385 Dr Taylor: I think it was Mr
Ainsley who said that you have to precede this with a very good
education campaign. The T&GW paper in the summary at the end
supports a comprehensive implementation date of April 2006. Would
that be compatible with education? You probably heard previous
witnesses accepting the need for a total ban but wanting to delay
it to allow implementation. Is there a compromise? They were thinking
of 2009.
Mr Ainsley: No, I do not believe
that is the case at all. When I was talking about education and
getting the public on side, I think that job has already been
done. People are now aware of it. The reason why we sat by passively
in the past was because we were not aware that we were being affected
by other people's tobacco smoke. There have been many campaigns
now, not least the ones on the tobacco packets that get discarded
in the streets where we can see those warnings to smokers. That
job has been done, people are aware, and we are not prepared to
sit back passively now and allow ourselves to be poisoned by other
people. It is entirely up to them what they want to do to themselves.
They cannot do it to the rest of us; it is not right. If I could
get back to the Government's position on this, their position
is that they will protect everybody, that is where they start
from, and they have got a ludicrous suggestion that they will
have a metre exclusion zone around a bar to protect the bar staff
in pubs. I use an analogy which possibly is not the best analogy
to use in mixed company so I will water it down a little bit.
There is no such thing as the urine-free end of a swimming pool.
Tobacco smoke cannot read, it does not take any notice of signs,
and if it is present in the room then the people in that room
will be affected by it.
Q386 Chairman: I think we had some
transport people here but what about people like ASLEF, regarding
the train system, I was going to say public transport but it is
publicly accessible transport. GNER, in particular, have gone
from two smoking carriages one at either end, as it were, to no
smoking. Have you had evidence from the trade unions organised
in the transport sector of any problems with that type of move?
Mr Robertson: We have asked the
rail unions in particular, but I think also the T&G also have
members in transport. The reality is that with the exception of
the times when pubs are coming out and when there is a mixture
of anti-social behaviour, by and large the bans have been self-enforcing.
There are no problems. There have been attempts to have commuter
boycotts of smoking bans—and there was one in Brighton when
that was introduced—and they totally fizzled out. The reality
is passengers themselves have been unwilling to put up with other
people's smoking. If you go on a train nowadays, unless it is
late at night or there is other anti-social behaviour going on,
you do not see people smoking. The transport unions and the rail
unions have been heavy supporters of this. They believe that their
members having to go through the one smoking carriage that is
left is a bit of nightmare for them and they would rather there
was a complete ban.
Q387 Jim Dowd: The same was true
also in the airline business which is overwhelmingly no smoking.
There are a few Eastern European airlines that still allow smoking
but nearly everyone else has banned smoking completely across
the whole network.
Mr Robertson: Yes, that happened
after the US would not allow any airline that allowed smoking
to pass over US airspace. As a result, every company then introduced
a complete ban ten years ago.
Mr Ainsley: Can I just say that
if the Government are serious about this then you have to change
the culture. If you send mixed messages about it is banned, it
is not banned, it is banned here, it is not banned there, then
you are not going to change the culture. You are not going to
do what you set out to do in the first place.
Q388 Chairman: Could I just add that
the whole trade union movement would not agree with what people
have said here today. We had the Tobacco Workers' Alliance write
to us and they have got trade union members in it. What is the
attitude there within the TUC?
Mr Revell: Maybe if I could respond
there because I am responsible for tobacco workers within the
Transport and General Workers Union and they have made their views
very clear. They want things to continue as they are. They do
not want a change. Within the T&G we have had quite a lively
discussion with those who are involved in the tobacco industry
and those who are on the receiving end, bar staff, our NALHM membership,
the National Association of Licensed House Managers and Casino
Workers. At the end of the day our General Executive Council took
the view that the most important issue was that of health and
safety for those who were confronted with a smoking environment
and accordingly we have submitted our views. To be honest, our
members in the tobacco industry do actually understand why we
have taken that stance. We do support the Tobacco Workers' Alliance
but, to be honest, we will not engage when it comes to health
issues. No way would we say there is anything that is not damaging
about smoking, so with regard to the Tobacco Workers` Alliance,
there are areas such as taxation where we are against too much
taxation because it leads to a greater degree of smuggling and
crime and also it is the poorest decile in society that smokes
the most, so it is a regressive tax that hits the poorest people.
Q389 Jim Dowd: The Tobacco Workers
Alliance are in Amicus are they not, they are not part of the
T&G?
Mr Revell: It is T&G and the
GMB, not just Amicus.
Q390 Jim Dowd: But they have the
lion's share?
Mr Revell: They have the lion's
share although there is not very much of a share to go round because
there are not many jobs in the tobacco industry now. We have got
the largest cigarette factory in Gallagher's.
Q391 Charlotte Atkins: What is the
number of jobs in tobacco?
Mr Revell: It is about 4,000 now
and declining. The technology is phenomenal.
Mr Robertson: If I could quote
in actual fact at this year's Congress there was a motion on passive
smoking which was supported by every single union (one voted against)
and Amicus also have supported it. The TUC and all unions are
very concerned about the loss of jobs within the tobacco industry
but that is primarily nothing to do with the public health policy.
It is the fact that these factories have been closed because jobs
are moving abroad primarily to East Asia. The Southampton factory
has just gone, the Midlands one went about two years ago and what
is happening is that it is much cheaper to produce them abroad.
That is the threat to the tobacco industry and we have always
supported tobacco workers in their fight against these closures
and we will continue to do so.
Mr Ainsley: I have had some dialogue
with workers in the Alliance and put it very clearly to them that
what we want for workers everywhere is the same consideration
they have in their workplace and that is to have a smoke-free
workplace.
Chairman: Could I thank you all very
much indeed for this session. I think you may have heard me say
earlier we are hoping this report will be out for people's Christmas
stockings, although we have at least another week of evidence
taking yet. Thank you for coming along.
| 
