Political and Social Determinants of The Introduction of The Smoking Ban Act in The UK

Abstract

The subject of considerations in this work is Smoking Ban Act, the laws prohibiting smoking in public places, adopted by the British parliament in 2006 and entered into force on July 1, 2007. The aim of the considerations is to present the political and social determinants of the introduction of the Act in United Kingdom.

Introduction

As an introduction, it should be noted that the described legal act was not the first in the British Isles to deal with this subject. Since the 1960s, London's governmental Public Health Agency was focused on reducing the number of deaths and illnesses caused by smoking. These initiatives reduced the level of smoking in society from 70% of men in 1962 to 24% in 2005 (Wald , Nicolaides-Bouman, 1991). The seriousness of this problem has been recognized and efforts have been made to overcome it. Evidence of the health effects of passive smoking and a decline in the percentage of the population that smoke has increased interest in smoking in public places.

In 1998, the Labour government published the first-ever so-called White Paper on tobacco and cigarettes and continued its tradition of relying on a voluntary approach to smoking control in public places. In the early 2000s it was clear that the level of compliance with the voluntary ban was low and the government in London, also in the context of outdoor smoking, was increasingly pushing for a ban on statutory smoking. It would, however, represent a kind of step change in the UK government's actions to regulate private behaviour, and would risk significant opposition inside the parliament. A manifesto presented by the Labour Party in 2005 proposed only a partial ban. However, it was not completed.

It should also be pointed out that nowadays a total ban on smoking in public places is widely accepted, and its general compliance is relatively high. Further consideration will allow an analysis of how this breakthrough was achieved in decades of efforts to reduce smoking rates in public places.

Genesis of the ban

To fully understand the genesis of the ban, it is necessary to go back years ago, when the first regulations in this area were introduced. In 1997, elections were won by the Labour Party. The Labour Party's new government initially had a very mixed attitude towards the tobacco issue - although it raised tax rates from 3% to 5% on tobacco products, had a controversial position regarding the exemption on his territory of Formula 1 from the EU directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Tessa Jowell, who was appointed British Public Health Minister in 1997, was recognized as a pro -smoking person. Nevertheless, she quickly decided to act to 'address health inequalities' due to smoking in society. The most important of these activities is 'Smoking Kills' (from 1998), the government's first White Paper on smoking, especially education, voluntary agreements with tobacco companies and nicotine replacement therapy - all with the aim of making it easier for people to quit smoking and reducing the impact of this addiction mainly on children and young adults. These proposals have been followed by a growing number of calls for the government to take more active steps to obtain the significant health benefits of smoking cessation and the impact of tobacco smoke. In 2002, the British Medical Association (BMA) called for a ban on smoking in public places due to the risk to non-smokers (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places, 2007). By the end of the 1990s, smoking was already banned in many offices as well as in closed public places such as cinemas and transportation, but only in a handful of pubs, bars, and restaurants. Consequently, these facilities have become a particular subject of debate on whether legislation is required to protect workers and customers from exposure to passive smoking. The government continued to advocate self-regulation of tobacco behaviour. In July 1999, the Health and Safety Committee proposed a Code of Conduct on passive smoking at work.

Introduced in September 1999, the so-called Public Places Charter was signed by fourteen industry associations. The agreement stated that 50 percent of all establishments should adopt a formal smoking policy, and 35% of them should restrict smoking to only designated areas or provide adequate ventilation. However, despite progress in meeting these goals, the percentage of smoke-free seats only increased from 1% to 2%. There was no strategy for extending the above measures in the Labour Party government (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places 2007). A similar position was also represented by the Conservative Party. Its representatives - as was the case in the Labour Party - declared that the market would regulate itself and that the owners of individual premises should be given the freedom to establish smoke-free spaces.

Opinion of the chief physician of the government as an impulse to introduce the ban

The government chief physician, Dr Liam Donaldson, wanted to use his position to argue for more decisive action. His annual report (for 2002) was released in June 2003 with a clear recommendation that the UK move to mandatory ban on smoking in public places, as voluntary industry-specific agreements did not (quickly enough) reduce the health risks of second-hand smoke. It was not only a bold departure from the current government policy, but also faced unforeseen difficulties. L. Donaldson described the timing of the report's publication as 'terrible' due to the resignation of then Health Minister Alan Milburn, just before the planned publication date.

Since this annual report has always been prepared independently, it was not shown to ministers until the night before its publication. L. Donaldson spoke with A. Milburn about the report, but the Secretary of State stepped down from his position in the government. John Reid was appointed in his place. This resulted in a short delay in the publication of the document. However, the final publication of the CMO report meant that it was inevitable that the ban on smoking in public places had to be fixed and resolved in the Labour Party's 2005 election program.

The debate on this has become very intense. Two critical decisions had to be made. The first is whether to decide on such legislation at all or not. It was clear that the existing voluntary approach was not working as only a few pubs were banned from smoking. The lack of self-regulation forced the government to adopt stricter measures. In this respect, ASH found John Reid's contribution particularly critical. As the only health minister who has so far taken such a strong negative stance and has not influenced other members of the government at all to overcome resistance to legislation in this area. J. Reid was a heavy smoker, he only quit smoking 18 months before taking office. He was sceptical about calls for a complete ban on smoking in public places. Speaking at the Labour Big Conversation in June 2004.

Difference in the Labour Party and the Conservative Party's approach to the ban.

The hybrid proposal appeared in the Labour Party manifesto for the May 2005 general election. Following the Labour Party's victory, John Reid was replaced as Secretary of Health by P. Hewitt. She had to decide how to pass the new legislation in parliament. The cabinet itself was still divided on the proposal and there was a strong campaign to implement comprehensive measures. In the new parliament, Kevin Barron has been appointed chairman of the Health Committee. This was because he was a long-known advocate of tobacco control measures. He quickly decided to work on smoking in public places at the Commission. At the beginning of the committee hearings, most of the eleven Members were against a smoking ban. However, evidence on the effectiveness of this type of ban has been systematically gathered, for example from Ireland.

On October 27, 2005, the Health Improvement Act was published. Since the compromise clause on private membership clubs and non-food public venues was included in its content, criticism of the new regulations came from both supporters of the full ban and the nicotine lobby, although there was a growing consensus in the hospitality industry that restrictions should apply to the entire sector in order to preserve fair competition. It was feared that some pubs would simply stop serving food to avoid the ban.

Under these circumstances, the Conservative Party has always held the position that self-regulation is necessary here. In 2005, this party's agenda on the future of health care stated, among other things, that 'We don't think food producers are to blame that if people eat unhealthy ... we don't think pubs are guilty that people drink or smoke. We will look for voluntary and not statutory solutions to public health problems' (Jones, 2005). The authorities of the above-mentioned Conservative Party decided that its deputies had complete freedom in making decisions on this matter. It was supposed to force some kind of pressure on the ruling Labour Party, which for a very long time was unable to establish a unified position, despite earlier political declarations.

The key moment in this situation was that the opposition decided to give its members the right to vote freely on the ban. This came at a time when there was considerable anxiety in the laureate government as to whether they would get enough votes from their deputies. The prime minister indicated that he did not consider the smoking ban, although it was a clearly defined electoral commitment, as important as other controversial issues he had to deal with at the time. It also opened the way for free voting on the side of the ruling party.

The problem for the supporters of a full ban at the time was how to get a large enough majority in the House of Commons to withstand pressure from the House of Lords. On February 14, 2006, supporters of the ban won the first vote. Many deputies who originally opposed the total ban voted by a majority - 200 people - to introduce completely smoke-free zones in public places and workplaces. The Lords, despite Lord Tebbit's resistance, voted the same as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Therefore, finally in December 2006, the government announced that the ban on smoking in England would take effect on July 1, 2007.

Presented legal changes met with some social resistance. An initiative called 'Freedom of Choice' has launched a campaign for a review of smoking ban in the workplace. Its officials claimed that the Human Rights Act of 1998 had been violated because it did not respect the privacy rights of people who wish to smoke in public places. Proponents of the regulation counter argued that smokers' right to indulge would expire as soon as it negatively affected other people around them.

Right-wing and left-wing ideology

In relation to the ban, the Conservative Party did not recognize its legitimacy. The party supported the search for non-statutory methods of improving the health of the society. This clearly shows a difference between the right-wing Conservative Party and the left-wing Labour Party, which was in favour of the ban. A general difference in the approach to the smoking ban with regard to the political option can be clearly seen.

In my opinion, however, the issue of introducing a smoking ban should be looked above the political divisions. In order to understand the issue of the ban, we have to go back many years, where tendency that later influenced the imposition of the ban can be seen. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that individual enterprises have started to implement smoking bans regardless of government decisions. It can therefore be said that it was the public opinion that exerted the pressure that translated directly into the introduction of the ban. A very important aspect is the fact that both members of the opposition and the ruling party were given a free choice to accept or reject the proposed legal act. Voting of deputies was therefore a vote of public opinion rather than of members of political parties. Of course, they voted for the parties they represented, but they had full freedom to make their decisions. Deputies voted as ordinary citizens, in accordance with their conscience and opinion on the smoking issue, and not a pre-imposed party decision. In my opinion, seeing the ban from the perspective of the left or the right is fundamentally wrong. Activities carried out by the public, entrepreneurs running pubs or meeting places, somehow forced the introduction of a ban. In my view, when the Conservative Party or any other right-wing party was in power, the situation would have taken the same course, despite the fact that conservative parties are not in the habit of interfering with such an issue, fully aware that the smoking culture is deeply entrenched in society.

Right-wing ideology is characterized by a more traditional approach to many issues, such as a culture where smoking is an important element, as well as a sceptical attitude to change. The total ban on public smoking is without a doubt such a change. Interventionism in this area is more characterized by a left-wing ideology, which is more protective and even at the cost of taking some freedom from society, it tries to take care of its health and physical condition.

The hybrid policy proposed by the Labour Party in this area was not positively received by individual sectors and it is not surprising. No details have been shown as to which companies and to what extent will be allowed to smoke tobacco products by customers, and from the entrepreneurs' point of view, it is a very important aspect in the context of obtaining potential profits. It can be said that the decision was made by society, and although it should be the norm in democratic societies, it was not so clearly visible in any other act.

Summary

When concluding these considerations, it is first necessary to evaluate the effect of the introduced changes. Prior to the ban, many studies were carried out to assess how second-hand smoke is linked to health problems. These analyses showed that passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease in non-smoking adults by a quarter, and the risk of stroke by as much as 30%. It has also been shown that inhaling the smoke of other people's cigarettes is especially harmful to children as their lungs are still developing, which puts a greater risk of respiratory infections, asthma, bacterial meningitis, and cot death.

Hazel Cheeseman, Policy Director at ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), explicitly stated that 'immediately after the legislation was enacted, more people tried to quit, and many of them succeeded because it is much easier to avoid situations that encourage smoking '(British Heart Foundation, 2017). According to a study by the British Medical Journal, it can be estimated that one year after the ban on smoking in public places, the number of hospital admissions in Great Britain due to a heart attack was 1,200 lower. This was directly related to improved air quality and fewer smokers. In 2006, 22 percent of the country's adults smoked, while 18 percent of the UK's population reported smoking in 2015. This is the most dynamic decline in smoking levels in Great Britain since 1974. In British bars, before the ban, the air quality was much worse than outside. Air pollution levels in Scottish and Welsh bars were often twice as high as in English bars. Following the ban, air pollution in British bars was reduced by a staggering 93 percent.

Summing up the considerations presented, it should be clearly indicated that the goal set by all this work was fully achieved. The political and social determinants of the introduction of the act on the ban on smoking in public places in Great Britain from 2007 have been presented in detail. The act was adopted by the public with great approval, as it was a response to their preferences. Of course, there were voices saying that this was too much state interference in the life of an individual, but there were few such voices. The policy aimed at raising awareness of the harmfulness of smoking (especially passive smoking) has shaped the world view of the people of Great Britain, regardless of the political ideology represented. The right-wing side was not so determined about the ban as smoking is part of the culture. Everyone has the right to choose to smoke, and that was the main argument of those against the ban. The organizations which publicly expressed their disapproval after the introduction of the law were neither right-wing nor left-wing. This makes it clear that when it comes to accepting or not accepting this law, political ideology is not important. Health awareness and personal preferences influence perceptions in this regard.