Smoking has been banned in all enclosed public places throughout most of the United Kingdom since July 1st, 2007. England was the last of the four home nations to fall into line. Strongly influenced by Ireland, Scotland was the first to introduce a ban, in March 2006. Wales and Northern Ireland followed suit in April 2007.
Today, smoking is banned in any building if more than one person uses it as a place of work, even if the people who work there do so at different times or if members of the public might visit the building. Smoking rooms are not permitted in any workplace, including pubs and clubs, even if they are properly ventilated and sealed off from the rest of the building. Hotels are also covered, although guests can smoke in designated bedrooms. Every employer has to erect signs informing workers that smoking in the workplace is illegal, or face a fine.
Smoking is prohibited in airports, covered bus and railway stations, taxis and minicabs. Many bus shelters also fall foul of the legislation. This is because the ban includes areas that are "substantially enclosed", the latter defined as having a roof and more than 50 per cent of the perimeter enclosed by walls.
The legislation contains wide-ranging powers, including warrants to give enforcement officers access to public places where they believe smoking may be taking place. People who smoke in a non-smoking area can be fined £50, which could increase to £200 if they repeatedly ignore the ban.
Businesses that ignore illegal smoking can be fined at least £200, rising up to £2,500, if managers fail to stop smokers lighting up. Employers who fail to put up no smoking signs, which should measure no less than 23cm by 16cm, can be fined £200, rising to £1,000 for repeat offences.
Any vehicle (car, van or lorry) used as a "workplace" by more than one person is covered by the ban. Smokers driving company cars, vans, lorries and enclosed tractors in England can be fined £50 for lighting up at the wheel if the vehicle might be handed over to a colleague from work later in the day.
Employees who get a company car for their sole use are allowed to smoke while giving a non-smoking colleague a lift to work, because the journey will count as private use. But employees sharing a pool car will not be allowed to light up, even if they are all heavy smokers.
There are very few exemptions to the ban, but they currently include designated hotel bedrooms and prison cells. The law in Scotland also denies actors the ability to light up on stage or film set. Actors in England are not prevented from smoking on stage (including film and television sets) if it is important to the artistic integrity of the performance.
Background to the UK public smoking ban
In 1998 the UK hospitality industry set up a Charter Group to promote a Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public Places. The Charter, launched in September 1999 with the support of the Department of Health, encouraged publicans and restaurateurs to (a) implement a written policy on smoking (there were five options from smoking allowed throughout to a total ban), and (b) advertise the policy by use of signs on doors and windows so customers knew exactly what they are letting themselves in for.
Since the Charter was launched an increasing number of establishments (a) implemented a policy on smoking and (b) introduced smoke free areas, designated smoking areas and improved ventilation.
In April 2003 the Charter Group submitted a report to the Department of Health explaining how most, if not all, of the original aims and objectives had been met. There was clearly room for improvement but there were more smoke free areas in British pubs and restaurants (and therefore more choice for non-smokers) than ever before; ventilation was improving and many establishments went to great expense to install modern air filtration systems that improved air quality for everyone.
Although the Department of Health gave the report a lukewarm welcome, a DoH spokesman responded to calls by the British Medical Association for a total ban by saying it is "not justified'".
In September 2003, the Sunday Times reported that both Tony Blair (an ex-smoker) and the then Health Secretary John Reid (a former 60-a-day man) were opposed to a total ban. Likewise, the then public health minister Melanie Johnson, made it very clear that a blanket ban on smoking was not on the cards as long as the hospitality industry continued to make progress towards smoke free solutions (by which she appeared to mean more smoke free areas and improved ventilation that can remove the smoke without removing the smoker).
In 2004 the UK Government's Public Health White Paper outlined plans for a smoking ban across workplaces in England and Wales. Only private members clubs and pubs that do not serve food would be exempt.
In the summer of 2005 the Government conducted a three-month public consultation, which concluded on 5 September. Weeks of discussion at Cabinet level followed during which various proposals were discussed. The present Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt is thought to have favoured a full ban on smoking in all enclosed public spaces, although as a 'compromise' it is thought she proposed a ban that would have allowed sealed staff-free 'smoking carriages' in non-food pubs.
Although the Cabinet proposed prohibiting smoking only in pubs serving food in line with Labour's election manifesto, a free vote was offered after many Labour MPs threatened to rebel. On 14 February 2006 MPs in the House of Commons voted by a margin of 200 votes for a total ban on smoking in public places.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt voted for a comprehensive ban even though, during the debate, she proposed that private clubs be exempted. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Charles Clarke all voted for a blanket ban. But Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and Defence Secretary John Reid opposed it.
In June 2006, the House of Lords' Select Committee on Economic Affairs reported in their Government Policy on the Management of Risk that: "The case of passive smoking is an example in which policy demonstrates a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health problem, with insufficient regard to statistical evidence."
Despite this the bill was passed in the House of Lords in July 2006.
Media comment
Following the vote by MPs on February 14, 2006, newspapers and columnists commented as follows:
“Last night’s decision by the House of Commons to ban smoking on all licensed premises and in private members’ clubs in England is perhaps the most Draconian infringement of personal liberty yet imposed by this Government, and it is depressing that so many Conservatives and Liberal Democrats joined forces on so illiberal a measure,” said the Daily Telegraph.
The Independent questioned the need for such a law. The paper notes that an increasing number of pubs had already banned smoking under pressure from staff or customers. “However far one believes that a ban on smoking in England should extend - and we argued all along that the market should decide - there can be no excuse for the abject muddle with which the Government presented its case before yesterday's vote.”
The Daily Mail argued it was a pity that private clubs have not been allowed to create separate smoking sections. The paper expresses concern regarding “Labour’s nanny state”, while claiming the smoking ban is in tune with public mood.
The Guardian took a different view. “Parliament, so often maligned and so often ignorantly, has done itself and the nation proud by banning smoking in England,” said the paper, arguing that it was a “victory for health.”
The Daily Mirror agreed, commenting that the Government’s decision to ban smoking in public places was the right one and that in ten years time people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
“I have lived under a Latin American military dictatorship where daily life was freer than in Britain today,” wrote Dr Theodore Dalrymple in The Times. “The State is increasingly concerning itself with the individual’s private habits, instituting a reign of virtue, chief among which is healthiness…The pettiness of this official persecution of smokers (who are not prevented from paying a lot of tax) can hardly be exaggerated.”
“The problem is that our present masters don’t understand the limits of government,” commented John Mortimer in the Daily Telegraph. “The nanny state quickly descends into the police state. The non-smoking law will be enforced by police officers who can levy fines without any judicial proceeding and on hearsay evidence. The legislation will not only endanger justice but bring the law into disrepute. It will be a law that is likely to be broken by thousands of otherwise law-abiding people in pubs and clubs up and down the country. It is a mistake to criminalise an activity that a large body of reasonable people do not regard as criminal.”
“Smoking is a significant health risk - but the evidence that passive smoking is a significant danger is limited and contradictory. If there is a risk from breathing other people’s smoke, it is small,” wrote Rob Lyons in Spiked. “How could such a small risk be the subject of such censure? Society seems to have completely lost its bearings when it comes to judging risk.”
“MPs left to their own devices [have] voted to restrict liberty and enhance central control against local option,” added Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. “They voted for a nationwide ban on smoking in all public enclosed spaces, including semi-private ones. It was simple, clean and illiberal. You need only say, ‘You can’t favour people blowing smoke in other people’s faces,’ and MPs will leap to ban it, with the Illiberal Democrats in the van. The nation was last night coated in parliament’s disinfectant self-righteousness.
“What riles me is that as part of this government’s manifesto the deal was a partial ban. They lied,” commented Sue Carroll in the Mirror. “Secondly that we, the British public have laid down, rolled over and allowed our liberty to be taken away. What you drink comes next. Times don’t come more wretched than this.”
“By now, the anti-smoking lobby have basically won the argument,” fumed Philip Hensher in the Independent. “One after another, the least likely places - Ireland! New York! - have fallen to the forces of virtue, the proponents of getting hammered in atmospheres of Alpine purity, and legions of prigs everywhere.”
“I'm furious that there's so little scepticism towards health professionals and health lobby groups,” added musician and writer Joe Jackson in the Independent. “What about pleasure, freedom of choice, culture, social harmony, business, civil rights? I believe we’re overly obsessed with health fads and scares, scapegoats, panaceas, and ‘zero risk’. Health is important, but putting doctors in charge of public policy is like putting plumbers in charge of architecture.”