 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
December 2002 |
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROOM TO BREATHE |  Back to contents | |
|
|
|||
|
|
In 1998, the Government released the white paper Smoking kills1 which emphasised the fact that 70 per cent of the UK population do not smoke. It also highlighted the health risks of passive smoking - the inhalation by non-smokers of other people's tobacco smoke. Plans to reduce the risks of passive smoke were aimed primarily at workplaces - which were targeted with the introduction of a draft approved code of practice (ACoP) on passive smoking at work - and public places such as public houses and restaurants - which were targeted with the introduction of the public places charter (PPC) a voluntary sign-up agreement between the Government and the hospitality industry. While the ACoP will not introduce new legislation, it aims to give guidance on existing health and safety legislation, including the interpretation of legislation and advice on smoking policies for employers to protect their employees from passive smoke. From the perspective of the hospitality industry, the ACoP will offer protection to employees, while the PPC will give customers a choice over the type of atmosphere they choose to visit. In ideal circumstances, the two will work in harmony, protecting employees while offering customers a choice of atmosphere. However, while the ACoP was passed by the Health and Safety Commission
in September 2000, it has The public places charter The PPC is a voluntary agreement between the Government and the
hospitality industry, mainly aimed at public houses and restaurants.
The organisation Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR) has the responsibility
of co-ordinating compliance with the PPC. It requires that premises
have a written smoking policy in place and that the relevant policy
sign is placed in the most prominent window or door. By indicating
the type of smoking policy that the establishment operates customers
can choose the atmosphere that they spend their leisure time in.
In order to comply with the charter, a hospitality venue must display
one of an agreed series of signs (developed by AIR) appropriate
to its smoking policy at the most prominent entrance, have There are five policy options for hospitality premises within the PPC:
In discussion with the Department of Health, trade leaders agreed that 50 per cent of all hospitality premises should be charter compliant by January 2003. Of those charter-compliant venues, 35 per cent should restrict smoking to designated and enforced areas and/or have ventilation that meets agreed industry standards. Smoking strategy The environmental health division in Leeds adopted a smoking strategy in February 1999. The aim was to reduce the opportunities for smoking by restricting places where people could smoke, thereby protecting people from the health risks of passive smoke. As part of this strategy, a postal survey of all hospitality premises in Leeds was undertaken by Leeds environmental health service and Leeds Health Authority to establish the smoke-free facilities currently offered. The questionnaire was sent to approximately 1,550 hospitality premises registered with Leeds' environmental health, including pubs, cafes and restaurants. Pre-paid envelopes were included to encourage return of the completed questionnaires. The response rate was approximately 30 per cent, with replies coming from a cross-section of the city with all postcodes and premises types represented.
Pilot visits Following the survey results, a series of targeted pilot visits to pubs in selected postcodes was undertaken - namely LS9, LS14 and LS25 - representing a mix of affluent and deprived areas all within the East Leeds Primary Care Trust (PCT) area. The visits were designed to raise awareness of and increase compliance with the PPC. There are 49 pubs within the three postcode areas. Three of the premises were ostensibly complying with the PPC at the time of the visit, by showing signs at the main entrance describing the smoking policy. It was not known whether these pubs had formally complied with the charter by registering details of their policy with AIR. The landlords/managers of the other 46 premises had little or no prior knowledge of the PPC. Some of the pubs visited belonged to larger pub chains but disappointingly, knowledge of the charter among these proprietors was still very limited. All the premises visited agreed to sign up to the PPC by displaying the appropriate policy sticker and returning the freepost postcard to AIR, thus registering their compliance. All wanted to keep their present policy in place. Signs and policy statements were provided for each of these premises. The visits themselves proved informative in gauging publicans' opinions about the PPC and legislation regarding smoking in public places and workplaces in general. Landlords and managers seem to favour a "level playing field" for all concerned. Therefore, if legislation was introduced requiring every pub to provide some form of smoke-free facility, this would be more equitable, with less risk of some venues losing out on trade. Many landlords also commented that they were non-smokers themselves and would welcome restrictions in smoking in their establishments, but recognised that the majority of their customers smoked. This type of comment may illustrate either fears over loss of trade, or possibly a feeling that any restrictions imposed on smoking might be better coming from an outside, anonymous body.
Of the 46 pubs in LS9, LS14 and LS25 visited, all agreed at the time to put up a policy sign and to register with AIR by returning a freepost postcard. An additional three pubs in these areas were already displaying charter signs - all smoking throughout - and were not visited. Despite the good intentions of the landlords and managers, it is the figures registered with AIR that must be assessed in terms of charter compliance. Therefore, of the 49 pubs mentioned, only 13 were found to be subsequently registered with AIR in July 2002 and thus charter compliant (27 per cent). This compares extremely poorly with the target of 50 per cent compliance by January 2003. Of these 13 charter-compliant pubs, only one pub offered a smoke-free area (8 per cent). This, again, compares poorly with the target of 35 per cent of charter-compliant premises having a smoke-free area or adequate ventilation. Out of the 1,550 total hospitality premises in Leeds, 84 were compliant with the charter in July 2002 (5.4 per cent). This compares extremely poorly with the target of 50 per cent compliance by January 2003. Of these, five were already complying in November 2000, before the research began, and 13 of these were pubs. The other 66 pubs may have registered via their brewery or pub chain, as a result of the initial survey, or after reading trade publications. Of the 84 charter-compliant venues in Leeds that complied in July 2002, 22 (26 per cent) had a non-smoking area, although none were listed with AIR as having adequate ventilation. Had all the 46 premises that were visited during the pilot sent off postcards to AIR to register formally as complying, this would have meant an additional 33 charter-compliant premises in Leeds, totalling 117 charter-compliant premises (7.5 per cent). Thus, even if all venues that were visited had registered themselves formally with AIR, charter-compliance in Leeds would still be extremely low. Voluntary charter ineffective The PPC and draft ACoP on passive smoking at work set out with laudable intentions to protect members of the public and employees from the health risks of passive smoke. However, the voluntary sign-up nature of the charter and the non-implementation of the ACoP have either diluted the messages or have reduced the issue of passive smoking as a priority. Many varied attempts have been made in Leeds to raise awareness of the charter, including contact with AIR, contact with trade bodies and breweries, direct mail to all hospitality premises, sending information to interested survey respondents and visits to all pubs in selected postcodes in East Leeds. Despite these efforts the number of venues in Leeds complying formally with the PPC and the number of venues interested in creating smoke-free areas remains abysmally low. It is therefore the contention of Leeds environmental health and Leeds Public Health Network that the PPC in its present format does not offer a workable solution to the issue of passive smoke in public places, most notably hospitality premises. It behoves the Government to find solutions to the problem that would not allow venues to escape their responsibilities in protecting customers and staff, and that would also treat venues equally in the demands expected from them. By asking venues to voluntarily sign up to an agreement that in effect asks them to do nothing except display a sign, it is hardly surprising that venues will choose this option rather than to proactively tackle passive smoke in their venue. Should this scenario continue, the provision of smoke-free areas by hospitality venues will not be progressed. References
|
||
The
results were encouraging, with 59 per cent of the premises that
replied providing some form of smoke-free facilities (figure 1).
However, those with an interest in providing smoke-free facilities
could have been more inclined to return the questionnaire. 
Of
the premises visited in LS9, LS14 and LS25, 90 per cent had a policy
of smoking throughout, 7 per cent had separate non-smoking areas
and 3 per cent had a separate non-smoking room (figure 2). None
of the premises had a total ban on smoking in place. This contrasts
with the picture gained from all pubs across Leeds that responded
to the survey (figure 3). For all pubs responding, 52 per cent had
a policy of smoking throughout, 25 per cent had a smoke-free area,
21 per cent had a designated smoking room and 2 per cent had a total
ban on smoking. A further comparison can also be drawn with the
picture for all hospitality premises from across Leeds who responded
to the survey (figure 1). For all hospitality venues responding,
41 per cent allowed smoking throughout, 30 per cent had a designated
smoking room, 17 per cent had a smoke-free area and 12 per cent
had a total ban on smoking. 
When
comparing the percentages of establishments that offered some degree
of smoke-free facility, the survey showed that 59 per cent of all
hospitality premises and 48 per cent of all public houses that responded
had some form of smoke-free facility in place. In contrast, the
visits showed that 
Charter-compliant
venues 