The Unwelcome Guest Unwelcome Guest.pdf · Tobacco Industry Initiatives: AIR and Courtesy of Choice 9 The Voluntary Approach 10 Lobbying for a Smoke-Free Scotland 11 The Scottish

How Scotland invited the tobacco industry to smoke outside

The Unwelcome Guest:



Contents

Acknowledgements 1

Acronyms 2

Foreword 3

Introduction 5

The Unwelcome Guest: How Scotland Invited the Tobacco Industry to Smoke Outside 8

Tobacco Industry Initiatives: Smoker’s Rights Groups 8

Tobacco Industry Initiatives: AIR and Courtesy of Choice 9

The Voluntary Approach 10

Lobbying for a Smoke-Free Scotland 11

The Scottish Voluntary Charter 13

Obtaining Hospitality Trade Support for the Use of Ventilation 14

The Scotland CAN! Coalition 15

Tobacco Industry Monitoring of Smoke-Free Activity 15

Developing an Appropriate Climate for Smoke-Free Legislation 15

The MVA Follow-Up Survey 17

‘Accommodation’ and ‘Freedom of Choice’ 18

Stewart Maxwell’s Bill: The Health Committee Call for Evidence 18

‘Economic Impacts’ Argument 19

Contesting the Scientific Evidence 19

Aims to Counter the Health Evidence on SHS 20

Disputing the Health Risks 21

The ‘Right to Breathe Clean Air’ Debate 21

The Scottish Executive Consultation Process 22

The ‘Accommodation’ Argument 25

The SLTA Pub Smoking Seminar 28

2005 Onwards 29

The Scottish Parliament Health Committee’s Call for Evidence 29

The Parliamentary Debates 30

The Stage 3 Parliamentary Debate 32

Chronology 34

Appendix 1: Scotland CAN! Member Organisations 44

References 46

How Scotland invited the tobacco industry to smoke outsideThe Unwelcome Guest:

Report concept and planningSheila Duffy

Report coordinationDr Rachel Harrison, Sheila Duffy

AuthorsDr Rachel Harrison - NarrativeJulia Hurst - Chronology and references

ResearchersMelanie Batty, Julia Hurst, Anne Landman, Dr Kelley Lee

Editorial GroupMaureen Moore, Dr Amanda Amos, Sheila Duffy

ASH Scotland gratefully acknowledges and thanks Cancer Research UK for theirfunding of this report.

We would like to thank Dr Jeffrey Wigand, Professor Gerard Hastings, and allmembers of ASH Scotland staff for their comments and support in the production ofthis report.

ASH Scotland would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard to makesmoke-free legislation in Scotland a reality, including:

All past and present members of ASH Scotland staffAll past and present ASH Scotland board membersMembers and former Members of the Scottish Parliament The Scottish Parliament’s Health and Finance Committees The Cross Party Group on Tobacco ControlAll the many political researchers and civil servants SCOT and the SCOT Steering GroupScotland CAN!1

The Scotland CAN! Communications Group The Scottish Tobacco Control Alliance

And lastly thanks to the majority of the Scottish population who support legislationending smoking in Scotland’s public places.

Published by ASH ScotlandDesigned by Ph7

ASH Scotland 2005

1Scotland CAN! members are listed in full in Appendix 1, p44.

Acknowledgements

C

1



ACoP Approved Code of Practice

AIR Atmosphere Improves Results

AOB Against an Outright Ban

ASH Action on Smoking and Health (in London)

ASH Scotland Action on Smoking and Health Scotland

BAT British American Tobacco

BMA British Medical Association

COSLA Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

CPG Cross Party Group

ETS Environmental Tobacco Smoke

FCTC Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

FOREST Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco

HEBS Health Education Board for Scotland (later renamed NHS Health Scotland)

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

LVA Licensed Vintners’ Association (Ireland)

MSP Member of the Scottish Parliament

PM Philip Morris

RCN Royal College of Nursing

REHIS Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland

SBPA Scottish Beer and Pub Association

SCOT Scottish Coalition on Tobacco

SCCOT Scottish Cancer Coalition on Tobacco

SCOTH Scientific Committee On Tobacco and Health

Scotland CAN! Scotland CAN! (Cleaner Air Now!)

SHS Secondhand Smoke

SLTA Scottish Licensed Trade Association

SNP Scottish National Party

STCA Scottish Tobacco Control Alliance

STUC Scottish Trades Union Congress

TMA Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association

WHO World Health Organization

Acronyms

2



The fight by voluntary organizations andprincipled citizens against the tobaccoindustry has been one of the most dramaticDavid and Goliath public health, legal andpolitical tales of the last decade. Most of theattention in holding the tobacco industryaccountable for the effect of its products onhuman health and life has been focusedinitially on events in the United States,Canada, the EU and on stories such as myown. Recently however, with countries suchas Ireland deciding to end smoking in allenclosed workplaces and public venues, thisfight has become noticeably global. Today,the debate about how we control the damagecaused by tobacco has expanded across theworld. Also expanded are the countries thathave successfully implemented tobaccocontrol policies.

One of the strengths of the voluntary groupsthat have tackled the corporate tobaccogiants has been their free and openexchange of information. In direct contrast tothe tobacco industry with its millions ofdollars, the small and often under-fundedvoluntary organizations have found that onlyby sharing their information and experiencescan they tackle the tobacco industry and thecosts that their products exact from society.

This report is a continuation of that tradition.Scotland is a small country but one that hassuffered from low levels of public health fortoo long. The Scots are known around theworld as big-hearted, but the real story is of acountry with hearts weakened by high levelsof coronary disease and a myriad of cancers.The fight to end smoking in enclosed publicplaces in Scotland is remarkable, if onlybecause few countries in the world have

seen such a large proportion of its peopleeither killed or suffering from the diseasescaused by tobacco.

The Scottish experience, outlined in wholefor the first time in this report, is alsoremarkable for the similarities it has withother countries that have decided to endsmoking in public places. Time and again,campaigners against the tobacco companiesare seeing the same tactics and argumentsused to defend the unregulated consumptionof tobacco in public.

This report shows how these tactics wereused in Scotland; it shows how campaignersfor smoke-free laws learned how to combatthese tactics from the experiences ofcolleagues in Ireland, New York, Australiaand Canada. In its turn, this report now goesout as a guide to those campaigners andpublic health advocates in countries juststarting their journey to smoke-free enclosedpublic environments and reducing the harmcaused by a known human carcinogen oninnocents.

In addition to the campaigners for smoke freeenvironments, government must accept itsduty to protect innocents as stated so clearlyby J.S. Mill in 1864 in his essay On Liberty,

"that the only purpose for which power canbe rightfully exercised over any member of acivilized community, against its will, is toprevent harm to others". Once Governmenthas exercised its duty, the shackles of thetobacco industry will be broken and needlessloss of life saved. This has been thedocumented experiences in Ireland, NewYork City and Canada, just to mention a few.

Foreword

3



4

Jeffrey Wigand, Ph.D., MAT, Ph.S.aka, The InsiderSeptember 2005

These positive experiences are a deepcontrast to the tobacco industry's predictionsof doom.

If we, as moral citizens of the world, canconfront the decades of obfuscation of thetobacco industry, focus on the intrinsic healthdangers of tobacco, both to its active andpassive user, and if we resist the manner inwhich the tobacco industry seeks to minimisecontrol and promotes its product, then an

invaluable paradigm will have been learnedfor life in the 21st Century.

There is great "Power in One", and its impactis reflected in the following quotation, "fewwill have the greatness to bend history itself;but each of us can work to change a smallportion of events, and in its total of theseacts, will be written the history of thisgeneration". (J.F. Kennedy)



5

As Scotland’s leading voluntary organisationfor tobacco control, ASH Scotland has playeda central role in combating the damage thattobacco causes to health in Scotland. Themost high profile of ASH Scotland’scampaigns has been to end smoking inenclosed public places. The ScottishExecutive had taken a similar policy positionon legislative action to reduce exposure tosecond-hand smoke (SHS), and so ASHScotland were able to work effectivelyalongside the Executive to work towardsobtaining Scottish legislation on smoking inpublic places. With this campaignsuccessfully culminating in the passage ofthe Smoking, Health and Social Care(Scotland) Act (2005), ‘The UnwelcomeGuest’ report is a timely way in which to bringtogether all the reasons why this campaignhad to be fought, and how, in the end, it was won.

In 1998 the tobacco industry came to anagreement with the attorney generals of thestate governments of the United States.After four years of legal battle, the tobaccoindustry was finally forced to accept that theirproducts had caused massive andpreventable damage to the health ofAmerican citizens. This agreement, theMaster Settlement, stated that the largesttobacco companies had to pay $206 billiondollars over 25 years to the states ofAmerica. It also made provision for theestablishment of depositories of tobaccoindustry documentation.

These depositories allow anti-tobaccocampaigners full access to industrydocuments dated up to 1998. For the firsttime, the full extent to which the tobaccoindustry promotes smoking, combatsregulation and eludes responsibility, was

available for public knowledge. Insights intotheir activities in the UK and in Scotland arealso available, thanks to the British AmericanTobacco (BAT) depository that was set up inGuildford, Surrey.

A 1990 Philip Morris (PM) document1

summarises tobacco industry strategies tominimise the impact of the SHS issue at aEuropean level:

■ "Maintain the debate on primary [health]issue and ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke],"

■ "Expose faulty logic of the WHO [WorldHealth Organization] and anti-smoking groups."

■ "Activate restaurant trade against government smoking regulations,"

■ "Counter biased and damaging surveysby antis [public health officials],"

■ "Create public backlash against social engineering,"

■ "Establish SRGs [Smokers' Rights Groups] as counterpart of Anti-groups,"and

■ "Position PM as a reasonable companyand a credible source of information."

As this report outlines, many of thesestrategies and tactics have been used by thetobacco industry in their attempts to combatintroduction of the Scottish law protectingpeople from second-hand smoke.

Scotland has shown world-class leadershipin acting decisively to remove SHS from our

Introduction



6

public places and workplaces. From March26th 2006, every worker, child and memberof the general public will be adequatelyprotected from SHS exposure. This reportpulls together for the first time a record of thecampaign for smoke-free legislation inScotland. From setting up coalitions withother organisations, participating in theScottish Executive’s consultation on smokingin public places, publicising the scientific andmedical evidence on SHS exposure, andpromoting smoke-free successes in othercountries, ASH Scotland has been at theforefront of the campaign. ‘The UnwelcomeGuest’ report tells that story.

The Scottish law may be passed, but the fightagainst the tobacco industry and theirsupporters continues. This report ispublished not just to put on record the extentto which the tobacco industry and its alliesfought the Scottish legislation, but to shedsome light on the nature of the ongoing battlethey are waging to undermine Scotland’spotential as a cleaner-air country. Finally, thisreport goes out to all the other countriescontemplating going smoke-free, who, in themidst of tobacco industry propaganda, mayfind clarity, insights and courage in thisrecord of Scotland’s achievement.

7



8

In the 1980s a number of highly influentialreports were published that, whenconsidered as a whole, would play afundamental role in shaping national andinternational political and public opinion onthe health hazards associated with SHSexposure.2 3 4 5 6 By 1987, the consensusamong tobacco industry companies was thatthe growing evidence about the health effectsof SHS was "unhelpful".7 British AmericanTobacco, Rothmans, Gallaher, ImperialTobacco and Philip Morris formed theTobacco Manufacturers’ Association PublicSmoking Working Group to determine themost effective strategies to combat thegrowing body of information that proclaimedSHS was harmful. The group determined to:

"Maintain doubt [about the health effects ofSHS] (principally via third parties)”

"...the group recommends...[becoming]more active in seeking out industry-independent spokespeople to counter-balance the growing body of unhelpfulETS research."7

Tobacco Industry Initiatives:Smoker’s Rights Groups

One of the key players seeking to underminesmoke-free public places in Scotland hasbeen the smoker’s rights group FOREST(Freedom Organisation for the Right to EnjoySmoking Tobacco). FOREST presents itselfas independent from the tobacco industry,

but it derives approximately 96% of itsfunding from tobacco companies and theirallies.8 9 The tobacco industry has createdand deployed Smoker’s Rights Groupsthroughout Europe and the United States asa strategy to defeat public health efforts toreduce tobacco use.10 11 A 26-page, 1985“strictly confidential” report from BritishAmerican Tobacco (BAT) outlines the goalsof FOREST in the UK, to [help the tobaccoindustry] “balance the public debate aboutsmoking and to counter the work of anti-smoking pressure groups andcampaigns."11 The British tobacco industrymaintains a relationship with FOREST whilepreserving the appearance of being at “arm’slength” from it – a relationship that “hasworked to the benefit of both parties."11

An internal ‘regional representation report’from 1979 outlines FOREST’s localrepresentative in Scotland as Iain McTaggartCampbell. Recruitment of regional volunteersand representatives are described as the“eyes and ears” of the organisation.12 In the1980s FOREST commissioned work toassess the extent of public and proprietorsupport for smoke-free restaurants inScotland. System Three conducted a surveyto “measure the views of restaurantproprietors, the people who are closest incontact with diners’ opinions anddemands.” FOREST reported that mostowners were “opposed to governmentlegislation”.11 At this point in time the issue ofsmoke-free restaurants in Scotland was “notseen to be a problem.”13

The Unwelcome Guest: How Scotland Invited the Tobacco Industry to Smoke Outside



ASH Scotland and a number of Scottish cancer and tobaccoprevention charities responded to the Scottish FOREST launch:

FOREST knows that the introduction of restrictions onsmoking in public places in Scotland will help reduce

smoking and help people to quit…Tobacco companies arecommercial enterprises whose imperatives have nothing in

common with the public health community.17

In June 2000, FOREST opened a Scottishbranch in Edinburgh. MSPs were invited to a‘Smoker Friendly Fry Up and Reception’14 atEdinburgh’s Oxygen Bar (one of Scotland’sfirst dedicated oxygen bars, which had thenbeen told by the fire brigade to choosebetween selling oxygen or permittingsmoking on its premises. The bar opted topermit smoking). The launch, attended byBrian Monteith MSP (Conservative, Mid-Scotland and Fife, and former FORESTspokesman), was branded ‘distasteful’ forundermining work to improve Scotland’shealth.15 16 In addition, the Herald newspaperdeclared:

“The message about smoking must begetting across, even in Scotland, why elsewould they be opening an office here?”15

Tobacco Industry Initiatives: AIR and Courtesy of Choice

Internal documents demonstrate that thetobacco industry was proactively searchingfor allies across a range of public targets.These spanned the highest levels of publicpolicy making (i.e. ministers, MPs and MSPs)to local activists.18 The aim was to create theimpression that the majority, as well aspowerful constituencies within society,favoured the industry’s view. This strategy isapparent in their collaboration with large PRfirms to develop two major campaigns in theUK: the Courtesy of Choice programme(launched in 1995) and the AIR

(Atmosphere Improves Results) initiative(launched in 1997). A document entitled “UKHANDOVER” describes the TMA’s role inboth campaigns:

In both cases the tobacco industry worksclosely with partner associations in thosesectors. Activities are principally handledby consultants.19

The AIR initiative was funded by the TMA “to identify and promote practicaltechniques to resolve the public smokingissue.”20 To this day AIR advocatesventilation and self-regulation as a solution toSHS exposure.

Industry documents cite the “importance ofcreating catalysts” via Courtesy of Choiceevents, “to let one event influence another,to build on peer group pressure and keepthe industry and its media carefullyinformed.”23 There were deliberate effortsinitially to get hotels to “pilot” the programmeand then to point to those pilots to get otherhotels to sign up.24 The major hotel chains,such as Hilton, Copthorne and others,followed suit. Courtesy of Choice visits werealso made to Scotland. Scottish ‘pilot’ hotelswere identified and their progress monitored.25

By the late 1990s, tobacco industry alliancebuilding was in full swing. AIR had organised“A Breath of Fresh Air” conference (1998),which focused on “smoking management,through non-smoking areas, ventilationand air-filtration”. The proposals by AIR

”

”

9

”

”



10

The Courtesy of Choice initiative, already a success in the USand in Belgium, was exported to the UK “to head off anyperceived need for legislation” at a cost of around £128K.21

Clive Turner (TMA) expressed strong support for the initiative,writing “I am at a loss to know how we could otherwise tapinto the hotel and leisure industry so cost-effectively.” 22

Courtesy of Choice2 was sold to hoteliers as a kind of seal ofapproval that would aid their market competitiveness.

2 Details of Courtesy of Choice activities can be found at http://www.essentialaction.org/tobacco/qofm/0110a.htmlhttp://www.smoke-free.ca/documents/ventilation.htm

were given centre stage.26 Links had beenbuilt and maintained with key organisationsincluding the Scottish Licensed TradeAssociation, the Association of LicensedMultiple Retailers, and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers’ Association. TheTMA played a critical role in this respect, as described in its “Activity Reports” of thisperiod. SLTA activities are outlined asfollows:

To help to combat the political pressuresin Scotland we have been invited toaddress the SLTA Council in October andto liaise with the SBLRA and the majorScottish retailers (Bass, S&N) toaccelerate change. 27 (09/09/99)

All SLTA members were later mailed with anAIR compliance pack including AIR Chartersignage and policy statements. 28

The Voluntary Approach

On 10th Dec 1998, the Governmentpublished ’Smoking Kills’, the first WhitePaper on Tobacco Control. The White Paperstated that 'completely smoke-free placesare the ideal' but added that a universal banon smoking in all public places “is not justifiedwhilst fast and substantial progress can bemade in partnership with industry.” 29

ASH Scotland was disappointed with the UKGovernment’s approach to smoking in publicplaces:

We are calling for the government to uselegislation to push forward restrictions onsmoking in public places. A voluntarycode will not adequately protect thepublic from the risks of passive smoking. 30

As a result of the White Paper, the UKGovernment worked with principle hospitalitytrade bodies to agree a voluntary charterscheme designed to encourage venues toincrease provision for non-smokers andimprove overall air quality. Voluntary targetswere set, which would be monitored andreviewed on a regular basis. The PublicPlaces Charter on smoking was launched inEngland on September 14th 1999.

In conjunction with the Charter, the Healthand Safety Commission consulted to developa UK wide Approved Code of Practice(ACoP) on smoking in the workplace. Thiswould define the kind of smoking policiesemployers needed to operate to comply withexisting health and safety legislationmeasures. The draft AcoP was launched inJuly 1999. The guidance suggested smoke-free public places were an option wherereasonably practical, and that the hospitality

””

”

”



AIR encouraged the hospitality industry to sign up tothe Public Places Charter to prevent the need for

legislation. They argued that introducing smoke-freeareas would “lead to increased profit”, and that“signing up to the Charter will provide a good

defence in passive smoking litigation cases.” 31

trade might consider creating designatedsmoking areas and using improvedventilation.32 Maureen Moore (ChiefExecutive, ASH Scotland) responded bysaying:

Failure to introduce comprehensivelegislation on passive smoking is anabdication of public health responsibility.The proposed Code does not go farenough…We call on the ScottishParliament to legislate to restrict smokingin public places. 33

These decisions at UK level had anoverarching influence on the scope forchange in Scotland. The Scotland Act hadachieved Royal Assent in November 1998,leading to the establishment of the ScottishParliament, which assumed its full powersupon inauguration on 1st July 1999. Tobaccocontrol advocates in Scotland were agreedthat the White Paper didn’t go far enough inreducing exposure to SHS. The ScottishExecutive endorsed the “Smoking Kills”White Paper and undertook to drive forwardimplementation of the tobacco controlprogramme in a Scottish context.

Lobbying for a Smoke-FreeScotland

In the summer of 1998, ASH Scotland hadconvened an expert working group to look atsmoking policies in public places in Scotland.This included members of COSLA, the BMA,UNISON and the Scottish Office. In March

1999, ASH Scotland published its policypaper on smoking in public places, whichcalled for the Scottish Executive to make acommitment to reducing smoking prevalenceand smoking related deaths via restrictionson smoking in public places. The policy paperhighlighted the medical and scientificevidence demonstrating the risks associatedwith SHS, and highlighted a number ofpossible suggestions for different legislativeoptions in Scotland. ASH Scotland proposedlegislation that would allow for identifiedsectors to apply for exemptions. Forexample, bars and restaurants would adopt astepped approach, introducing 25% non-smoking areas, increasing this after a time-limited period to 50% non-smoking areas.This policy paper marked the start of ASHScotland’s intensive lobbying on theissue of smoking in public places.

Simon Millson (BAT) outlined concerns aboutpost-devolution lobbying opportunities forsmoke-free public places in Scotland in anemail to all staff (10th June 1999). He warnedthat “following devolution…Scottish TMA lobbying groups have beenestablished.”36

In August 1999, accumulating evidence onthe health risks associated with SHSexposure prompted renewed calls for theScottish Parliament to restrict smoking inpublic places. Hugh Henry MSP (Labour,Paisley South) stressed the “need to look atways of tackling Scotland’s appalinghealth record.”37 At this time, Scotland’sChief Medical Officer Sir David Carter also

11

””



pressed for a ban on smoking in public placesin his annual report. As a result of these twocalls, the issue of smoke-free public places inScotland gained a lot of media attention.There were reports of backing for the idea oflegislation by some members of the ScottishParliament, but the majority of presscoverage was extremely negative.

The main opposition voices in the Scottishmedia at this time were FOREST, BrainMonteith MSP and the SLTA. Simon Clark(FOREST) argued that the parliament had tobe careful not to introduce a law that wentagainst public wishes. In the same week,3225 Scottish News of the World readerscalled a poll line on smoking in public placesand 95% backed Hugh Henry’s call (168total).38

FOREST claimed that there was no properevidence on risks of passive smoking callingit “the greatest myth of the 20th century.”39

“Passive smoking is a hoax by the anti-smoking lobby.”40 The SLTA responded that

It would be ludicrous and unworkable toeven suggest banning smoking” [inScotland]…” Even if was banned it wouldbe impossible to police because you willalways get civil disobedience. 41

Members of the Conservative Party wereopposed to the idea of legislation, withquotes appearing from spokespersonssuggesting that going smoke-free would be“ridiculous”42 and that even the idea had“a touch of the Nanny State” about it. 43

A few weeks later, the Sunday Timesreported that the tobacco industry waspreparing to lobby the Scottish Parliament inan attempt to prevent the introduction of tightrestrictions on smoking in public places:

Tobacco industry executives admit thatthey are worried that proposed curbs onsmokers in Scotland’s pubs andrestaurants could pave the way formeasures across Britain, threatening amarket worth almost £13 billion a year.They intend to recruit sympathetic MSPsand put pressure on the ScottishExecutive to abort the proposals. 44

In the same article, John Carlisle, the right-wing former Conservative MP who wasspokesperson for the TMA at the time saidthat the industry was ready to “lobbyunashamedly” to limit any anti-smokingmoves by Holyrood.

We recognise that with measures such asthe poll tax Scotland has in the past beenused as a sounding board forcontroversial issues by the WestminsterGovernment. We are very conscious thata move there could be the frontrunner forWestminster. 44

The report also noted that the TMA hadretained a Scottish lobbying firm, then calledMcGrigor Donald, to “be the industry’s eyesand ears” north of the Border. It was alsoreported that David Swan, the TMA’s chiefexecutive, was meeting with ScottishExecutive civil servants that week to discuss

12

AIR was involved in setting the ventilationstandards for air cleaning equipment with the UKDepartment of Health. An email by Simon Millson(BAT) to BAT staff on the “UK White Paper onTobacco Control” dated 20 November 1998states:

The AIR project…has done an excellent jobwith the hospitality sector and the Departmentof Health, managing to offset any regulatory

imposition and set targets with the hospitalitytrade associations in terms of rolling out aprogramme of installation of air filtrationsystems etc. in pubs and bars. 34

Research by ventilation expert Professor JamesRepace has since shown that using the standardsfor ventilation promoted by AIR, an estimated 5 ofevery 100 bar workers in the UK would die as aresult of exposure to SHS in the workplace. 35

”

”

”””

””

”



A powerpoint presentation on “TMA Draft Budget andPriorities 2000/01” (02 March 2000) includes £50,000allocated for work on the “Scottish Challenge”.

46A

financial report for the nine month period ending 31December 2000 confirms that the £50,000 funding

was to the McGrigor Donald Scottish Challenge”,£6000 more than budgeted because of a “high level

of activity in Scotland”.47

‘the industry’s concerns’. In the months thatfollowed, the TMA would intensify their effortsand include direct lobbying of MSPs andScottish opinion formers. Key MSPs andjournalists had been invited to a prestigiousdinner at the Edinburgh Sheraton Hotel, to behosted by John Carlisle. 44

The plans outlined in this report aresupported by tobacco industry documentsfrom around the same time. Minutes of ameeting of the TMA Campaign Groups (9Sept 1999) state “Scotland. Activemonitoring is being conducted. DS (DavidSwan) and CO (C Ogden) to visit ScottishHealth Officials in Edinburgh”.45

Lobbying activity of voluntary groups onsmoke-free public places also stepped upseveral notches around this time with anumber of new initiatives set up in order tomove the campaign forward effectively, andto counter increased lobbying efforts from thetobacco industry and their allies.

The first of these new initiatives was theScottish Cancer Coalition on Tobacco(SCCOT), which was launched by ASHScotland in October 1999 during EuropeAgainst Cancer Week. SCCOT was analliance of ASH Scotland and the leadingcancer charities; Roy Castle Lung CancerFoundation, Macmillan Cancer Relief, Centrefor Tobacco Control Research, CancerResearch UK, Cancer BACUP and MarieCurie Cancer Care.

The SCCOT coalition was established by

ASH Scotland to raise awareness of the linksbetween cancer and tobacco use and toprovide a forum to advise and inform theScottish Parliament. With an increasednumber of MSPs committed to reducingtobacco-related mortality in Scotland, and asa direct result of the SCCOT initiative, theScottish Parliament Cross Party Group(CPG) on Tobacco Control3 was formed inDecember 1999. A major function of the CPGwas, and still is, to raise the profile of tobaccocontrol issues within the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Voluntary Charter

In October 1999, ASH Scotland and HEBS(Health Education Board for Scotland)commissioned the MVA to carry out a surveyof smoking policies in the Scottish leisureindustry. The aim of this survey was toprovide baseline data from which to monitorthe forthcoming Scottish Voluntary Charteron smoking in public places. On 11th May2000, ASH Scotland and HEBS published thefindings of this survey. Out of 1007businesses, 58% allowed the public to smokeon the premises. Only 47% of businesses,15% of pubs and 8% of betting shops hadsmoking policies in place.48 A follow upsurvey would be conducted in 2003, toevaluate the effectiveness of the voluntarycharter in Scotland.

The Scottish Voluntary Charter waslaunched on 23rd May 2000, by the then Health Minister Susan Deacon, at the SLTA’s annual conference in Dundee.

13

3 Further details on the Cross Party Group on Tobacco Control are available at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cpg-tobac.htm



Deacon called on the hospitality industry to embrace the Scottish Charter, butwarned that legislation on smoking in publicplaces would not be ruled out if the licensedtrade failed to support it.49 Maureen Moore(ASH Scotland) said “if the Charter doesnot work, the Scottish Parliament shouldlegislate to enforce restrictions onsmoking in public places.”49 FORESTapplauded that proprietors had been “giventhe flexibility to decide a smoking policybased on customer demand.”50 PaulWaterson (SLTA) said:

Our position is that we believe the air ourcustomers and staff breathe should be asclean as possible…. ‘I think a smokingban is unnecessary and undesirable butwe realise there has to be some form ofmanagement. The evidence is there toprove that if you have an efficientventilation system and smokingmanagement system in place, it can be abonus. 51

Obtaining hospitality tradesupport for the use of ventilation

The SLTA’s position on the use of effectiveventilation systems is indicative of tobaccoindustry initiatives intended to promoteventilation to the hospitality trade as anacceptable solution to the problem of SHSexposure. In addition to the Courtesy ofChoice and AIR tactics already outlined, thetobacco industry often makes use of publicrelations firms in order to assist in developing

and selling messages to the UK public. Thisis demonstrated in a report produced for BATby the public relations firm Spring O’Brienentitled “Pubs, Bars and Smoking, Solvinga Growing Problem, A proposal forimproving indoor air quality from SpringO’Brien Limited”. The report outlines aninitiative to demonstrate that ventilation is theway forward to protect businesses, with theobjective as follows:

To encourage all trade retailers toenhance their ventilation and so avoidlegislation aimed at minimising smokingon their premises” and “To establish a co-operative approach with a major industrybody representing the major ‘players’ inthe licensed trade. 52

Written parliamentary questions and answersfrom this time demonstrate that the ScottishExecutive was committed to seeing a markedimprovement in non-smoking facilities inleisure and hospitality amenities. Emphasiswas also placed on the MVA follow up surveythat was planned for 2003 as a crucialprovider of this information:

The Executive will consider the need forfurther measures on the effects of passivesmoking when the results of a recentsurvey, commissioned by HEBS and ASHScotland on public perceptions of passivesmoking are known, together with theimpact of the Scottish Voluntary Charteron Smoking in Public Places and theHSE's (Health and Safety Executive)proposed code of practice on passivesmoking in the workplace. 54

14

Obtaining support for the use of ventilation is a tacticalso outlined in BAT’s ‘Project Care’ report, which isdescribed as concerned with “resocialising smoking”by gaining support for air filtration. “The ultimateobjective is to win the support of non-smokers toretaining the availability of the indoor environmentfor smokers” 53

”

”

””

”

”



The use of this strategy is supported in a later report by consultants WeberShandler (March 2001) on “Social Reporting: Issues & Process”. This describes

the need to “open up the channels for constructive dialogue withstakeholder groups, many of whom are naturally hostile to tobacco” and to

“Use the process to build alliances and long term relations with thesegroups”. The long-term objective is identified “to gradually position BAT as aresponsible and responsive company.” 57 Additional documents show close

monitoring of groups supporting tobacco control. Literature produced by ASHScotland, for example, can be found in the Guildford depository.

A highly significant step in lobbying forsmoke-free public places in Scotland camewith the arrival of Scotland CAN! (CleanerAir Now). The coalition was launched on the31st May 2000, following the publicannouncement of the Scottish VoluntaryCharter. Scotland CAN! was founded by ASHScotland specifically to campaign for smoke-free public places in Scotland, and to raisepublic awareness of the harmful healthimpacts of SHS. At Scotland CAN’s highprofile launch, the coalition unveiled thenames of over 60 businesses, trade unions,football clubs, medical and children'scharities that supported the campaign torestrict smoking in public places. The launchwas also supported by Hugh Henry MSP andthe actor Richard Wilson.

Paul Waterson (SLTA) responded to thelaunch claiming that Scotland CAN! could:

scupper the delicate negotiations, byputting publicans on the defensive… Weneed to encourage licensees to sign upand implement their own measures – nothave them imposed. 55

Tobacco Industry Monitoring ofSmoke-free Activity

The following month, overtures to “UKscientific stakeholders” were discussed inBAT emails. It was noted that:

meetings with ASH and CRC [Cancer

Research Campaign] have beenarranged…A more proactive plannedapproach is needed for the other UKstakeholders. 56

Other listed organisations to make contactwith included the National Asthma Campaignand the Roy Castle Foundation.56

The tobacco industry invested aconsiderable amount of energy onintelligence gathering on the ‘anti-tobacco brigade’, although thedocuments currently available run to themid/late 1990’s and so do not offer muchdetail on how this has been subsequentlyused.

Developing an AppropriateClimate for Smoke-FreeLegislation

ASH Scotland and Scotland CAN! agreed tohold off from campaigning for specificlegislation until the effects of the voluntarycharter could be measured. The MVA follow-up survey would be repeated in October2002. ASH Scotland had identified goodpractice from California and Australia onintroducing smoking in public placesrestrictions - clear public informationcampaigns on SHS, followed by incrementalapproaches to restrictions seemed to be themost effective way of moving forward –starting from least controversial areas (i.e.

The Scotland CAN! coalition

15

”

”

”

”



workplaces) - before dealing with the mostcontentious areas (i.e. pubs and bars). Aproper long-term strategy was the keyingredient to success.

The external environment was not amenableto smoke-free legislation – this had beenclearly demonstrated by the extremelynegative response in the media to HughHenry’s (1999) call for restrictions onsmoking in public places.

ASH Scotland and Scotland CAN! used thetime up until completion of the MVA follow upsurvey to focus on developing an appropriateclimate for legislation by strategic awarenessraising for the general public, for MSPs, andfor the Scottish media.

In Autumn 2002, ASH Scotland and ScotlandCAN! made the case to Scotland’s politicalparties for legislation to restrict smoking inpublic places by holding fringe events at theLiberal Democrat, Conservative and SNPconferences. Scotland CAN! meetingminutes dated 15th November 2002 notedthat: “it does not look likely that manyMSPs would accept banning smoking inpublic places as policy at this time.”58

Voluntary organisations continued to arguefor an evidence-based public informationcampaign to highlight the health risks ofexposure to SHS. Scottish MPs were lobbiedto press the UK Government to adopt theproposed Approved Code of Practice onsmoking in the workplace. More than twoyears had passed since the Health andSafety Commission recommended that theGovernment should adopt the ACOP, andthere was still no sign that this commitment toprotect workers in the UK would be realised.At this time, it was estimated that about 3million people in the UK were exposed toother people's smoke at work, and evidenceon the increased risks of lung cancer, heartdisease and other life threatening conditionsas a result of SHS exposure continued togrow.

As part of the media awareness raising

strategy, ASH Scotland approached theEvening News (15th January 2003) with thesuggestion that an article be placed on SHSand smoking in public places. They repliedthat this was not thought to be newsworthy atthe present time. Less than two years later,the newspapers would be phoning for public-places related comments on a day-to-daybasis.

With the Scottish Parliament elections due on1 May 2003, ASH Scotland set to work on amanifesto for tobacco control in Scotland.The Scottish Parliament had a very realopportunity to build on its achievements of itsfirst term. The ASH Scotland manifesto calledfor tobacco to be at the top of the Executive'spriority list for public health, reflecting itsposition as Scotland's biggest cause ofpreventable death and ill-health. Thedocument outlined how the ScottishParliament could take further steps to reducetobacco use and cancer rates in Scotland,and called for legislation on smoke-freepublic places. It also made the case for theintroduction of policies to promote smoke-free workplaces; for the development ofeducation campaigns based on othercountries’ successes in tackling exposure toSHS; and for increased investment insmoking cessation services in Scotland. Themanifesto was sent to all parliamentarycandidates before the election, and wasmarketed as a blueprint for tobacco control inthe next Parliament.

Membership of the Cross Party Group (CPG)had now increased to include MSPs fromacross the political spectrum, and a numberof voluntary organisations were alsorepresented on the group. CPG membersstepped up their lobbying of the ScottishExecutive during 2003, with an increasednumber of parliamentary questions andmotions related to smoke- free public placesin Scotland. In response to a question posedon the effectiveness of ventilation by the then Convenor Brian Adam MSP (ScottishNational Party, Aberdeen North), the new Deputy Health Minister Tom McCabestated:

16



The Scottish Executive does not endorseventilation systems alone as offeringcomplete protection against the healthrisks associated with passive smoking….there remains no scientific evidence orconsensus about whether there is anysafe level of exposure to ETS…. The mosteffective protection from EnvironmentalTobacco Smoke (ETS) is a completelysmoke-free environment. 59

When asked what plans the ScottishExecutive had to ensure that people whowished to use leisure facilities could do sowithout exposing themselves to any healthrisks associated with SHS, Tom McCabeanswered:

The Scottish Executive proposes to begin awide reaching public consultation later thisyear on how best to extend the provision ofsmoke-free areas in public places,including local leisure facilities. 59

The MVA follow-up survey

The results of the MVA survey conclusivelyshowed that the voluntary approach wasfailing to protect public health in Scotland.After more than two years, seven in every tenScottish pubs permitted smoking throughout,and four in every five businesses in theScottish leisure industry did not have anysmoking restrictions at all.60 The hospitalityindustry argued that they had met three outof four of the targets that they had setthemselves. ASH Scotland responded:

The survey exposes the myth that mostpublic places in Scotland have introducedsome form of smoking policy. The failureto implement policies means that neitherstaff nor customers are being protectedfrom the health risks of passive smoking.We are particularly concerned that pubsand bars in poorer areas are least likely tohave smoking policies in place. We canno longer turn a blind eye to the fact thattobacco use is increasingly entrenched

amongst the poorest in Scottish societyand will continue to be so if this inequalityremains unchallenged. 61

Whilst Tom McCabe welcomed the progressbeing made by the Scottish VoluntaryCharter, he was reportedly disappointed bythe small proportion of firms in the food andentertainment sector that had complied withall the charter’s requirements.62 TheExecutive pledged to conduct a review of the national tobacco control strategy, and to produce an action plan on smoking that was specifically designed to meetScotland’s needs. One part of this plan wouldbe the wide-ranging public consultation onsmoking in public places. Tom McCabestated:

We are ruling out nothing at this stageand an extension of the voluntaryapproach remains an option. We willconsult on this, and other possibleoptions, including statutory controls inorder to see how we can best achieve theextension of smoke-free areas in publicplaces. 62

Following this announcement, ASH Scotlandand NHS Health Scotland 4 developed aseries of recommendations for further actionon a number of tobacco control issues.These recommendations would be used toinform the Scottish Executive’s futurestrategy on tobacco control, at what markedthe end of the UK government’s three-yearstrategy on tobacco. On 13th January 2004,the resulting publication, ‘Reducing Smokingand Tobacco-Related Harm: a Key toTransforming Scotland’s Health’63 waslaunched. On the same day the ScottishExecutive published their Tobacco ControlAction Plan: ‘A Breath of Fresh Air forScotland.’ 64 The action plan responded to therecommendations in the ASH Scotland/NHSHealth Scotland report, and included acommitment from the Scottish Executive toconsult on extending smoke-free provision inpublic places, including restaurants andpubs.

17

”

””

”

”

””

”

4 NHS Health Scotland was established on 1st April 2003 from the merger of HEBS (Health Education BoardScotland) and PHIS (Public Health Institute of Scotland).

”



18

A week before these publications werelaunched, the First Minister Jack McConnellwas widely reported in the press as sayingthat he thought an outright ban would be‘impractical’. He hinted that he wasconsidering an alternative solution:

I think there are issues here about anoverall ban being impractical, but perhapshaving a designation of certain areas whichpeople can choose to use…Having thatsort of designation facility available, eithernationally or at local licensing authoritylevel – that has some potential. 65

Maureen Moore (ASH Scotland) responded;

The consultation has not even begun yetand already the First Minister hassignalled that he is not in favour of acomplete ban. I have been assured thatthat is his personal opinion, but I washoping for completely open minds on thisissue.

In an address to the CPG a few weeks later,Tom McCabe stated that health improvementin Scotland needed to be pushed forward,and that this was not happening quicklyenough. Tom McCabe was becomingsomething of a champion in terms of pushingthe agenda forward to the Cabinet, andlevering for change with a wide range ofpoliticians and external partners. The worktowards preparing the Tobacco ControlAction Plan for the Scottish Executive hadbeen very influential, and coupled with theMVA finding that seven in ten pubs stillallowed smoking throughout despite avoluntary approach, this helped to preparethe groundwork. In addition, the desire of thenew Scottish Parliament to show decisiveleadership was strong. There is no doubt thatTom McCabe was pivotal in moving thepolicy agenda forward at this time.

Following the Scottish Parliament electionsof 2003, Stewart Maxwell MSP (Scottish

National Party; West of Scotland, and amember of the CPG emerged as the mostengaged backbencher on the issue oftobacco control. On 4th February 2004,Maxwell launched his Private Member’s Billon Regulating Smoking in Public Places. Ifpassed, the Bill would prevent people frombeing exposed to SHS in certain publicplaces by prohibiting smoking where food issupplied and consumed. This announcementbrought with it increased lobbying on bothsides, and at this time the battle lines weredrawn on smoke-free legislation in Scotland.

‘Accommodation’ and ‘freedomof choice’

Tim Lord (TMA) argued that “businessesought to deliver what their customerswant…If that is a ban on smoking, thenfine but if customers want to smoke theyshould be allowed to.”66 Lord claimed thatindependent research showed little publicsupport for a New York style ban and themajority of the general public favouredpractical measures to reduce exposurerather than an outright ban.

On this issue, people in Scotland feelpretty much the same as most of theBritish public. They have a very practical,common-sense attitude to smoking inhospitality outlets, preferring toaccommodate smokers and non-smokerswhere possible. 67

Stewart Maxwell’s Bill: The Health Committee Call forEvidence

The Scottish Parliament’s Health Committeeissued a call for evidence on StewartMaxwell’s Bill, which ended in April 2004. TheBill continued to focus attention on the vitallyimportant issue of exposure to SHS.

”

”” ”

”



In 1982, a tobacco industry commissioned report demonstrated thatsmokers actually preferred smoking restrictions:

The first conclusion that resulted from the research weconducted is that a majority of adults want smoking restrictionsin public places…As an example, we asked smokers if they felt

smoking restriction should exist in restaurants. Of smokersliving in regulated areas, 79% agreed with this statement versus

only 36% of smokers living in non-regulated areas. 68

ASH Scotland was concerned though thatthe Bill was only partial, and would not applyto the majority of public places where SHSexposure causes harm. Even if the Billbecame law, many workers and members ofthe public would continue to be exposed toSHS. Comprehensive smoke-free laws hadalready been implemented successfully inparts of the US and in Canada, and were duefor introduction in the Republic of Ireland(March 2004), Norway (June 2004) and inNew Zealand (Dec 2004). The Scottish pro-health lobby continued to campaign forcomprehensive smoke-free legislation thatwould reflect best practice from other smoke-free countries. Compelling evidence of thiskind was now starting to emerge.

The tobacco industry and their allies werearguing against smoke-free public placesusing a number of different strategies,including the ‘Economic Impacts’ argument.Written and oral evidence submissionsto the Health and Finance Committeesdemonstrate this.

‘Economic Impacts’ argument

The Finance Committee called the SLTA toprovide oral evidence on the Bill on 1st June2004. Chairman Stuart Ross and SecretaryColin Wilkinson represented the SLTA. Theyargued here that ‘the Bill would incur costs of£85m on the licensed trade, as pubs wouldhave to carry out works in order to serve foodand permit smoking. 69 The Scottish Pub andBeer Association (SPBA) claimed that going

smoke-free would encourage their customersto stay at home and thereby have adetrimental impact on trade. They arguedthat licensed trade jobs would be lost andthat the tourist trade would be detrimentallyaffected.69 The TMA pointed to economicdisaster in Ireland, stating that the LicensedVinters’ Association (LVA) had recentlyreported a downturn in business of 12-15%there.69 Imperial Tobacco pointed to a declinein trade since the New York smoke-free acthad come into force.69

The tobacco industry and their allies routinelypredict that enactment of smoke-freelegislation will severely impact restaurant andbar sales, employment and even tourism.This strategy has been used in everyprovince, town and country that hasintroduced smoke-free legislation, and hasroutinely been discredited.

Contesting the scientificevidence

In their submissions to the HealthCommittee,72 the TMA, Imperial Tobacco, theSLTA and FOREST all contested thescientific evidence on SHS exposure:

The studies that have been undertakenare not conclusive proof that passivesmoking causes disease and are notsufficient in themselves to warrant a banon smoking in public places. (Tim Lord, TMA)

19

”

””

”



I find it interesting that, a couple of weeksago, the Royal College of Physicianspublished a report claiming that one bar worker dies a week as a result ofpassive smoking. My simple question is:where is the hard evidence for that? TheRCP has been quick to come up withestimates and calculations, but I am afraidthat it has produced no hard evidencewhatsoever. (Simon Clark, FOREST)

It is extremely difficult to achieve anyrational dialogue on the science, asregulators have adopted the position theywish to for political purposes from thehighly inconclusive data and do notengage on the statistical and ratheresoteric scientific issues.(Steve Stotesbury, Imperial Tobacco)

The tobacco industry has a long track recordof attempting to ‘maintain doubt’ on the issueof SHS exposure and associated healthhazards. Tobacco companies haveattempted on a number of occasions todiscredit public health authorities that haveproduced reports describing the dangersassociated with SHS. A 1994 Philip Morrisdocument states: “Smoking bans are thebiggest challenge we have ever faced.Quit rates go from 5% to 21% whensmokers work in non-smokingenvironments.” The document listsstrategies for engaging in a “pre-emptivestrike” on the issue, including the task of‘discrediting the EPA” (the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency, which in 1993 declaredthat SHS is a class A carcinogen).73

Other well documented examples includethe tobacco industry’s attempts tosubvert the International Agency forResearch on Cancer’s (IARC) 1998epidemiological study on lung cancer andSHS74 75; their strenuous campaigns to tryand discredit the 1998 SCOTH report76;and their attempts to subvert WorldHealth Organization (WHO) efforts tocontrol tobacco use.77 78 79

Whilst campaigns to discredit leading healthorganisations are devised at the highestlevels of tobacco companies, the role oftobacco industry officials in carrying outthese strategies is often concealed. In theircampaign against WHO, internal documentsreveal that tobacco companies concealedtheir activities behind a variety of ostensiblyindependent quasi-academic, public policy,and business organisations whose tobaccoindustry funding was not disclosed. Thedocuments also show that tobacco companystrategies to undermine WHO relied heavilyon international and scientific experts withhidden financial ties to the industry.77 78 79

Aims to counter the healthevidence on SHS

In their evidence to the Health Committee,the SLTA claimed:

We have strong evidence that relativelysimple ventilation can cut out ETS gasesand particles, including by extension anycarcinogens, by between 85% and 95%,thus greatly reducing exposure of staff

20

In California in 1987, a 100% smoke-free ordinance in Beverly Hills was rolled back, partly inresponse to claims that the ordinance was responsible for reducing restaurant revenues by30%, claims which later turned out to be unsubstantiated. 70 The truth is that no properlyconducted economic study shows a negative economic impact of smoke-free legislation.Some studies even show that a smoke-free measure improves business. Methodologicallysound studies use objective data such as tax and business receipts, collected by a neutralparty with no interest in the SHS issue. They collect and analyse data for several yearsbefore a law goes into effect so that underlying economic trends and seasonal/randomvariations can be accounted for. Of the reported studies that conclude a negative economicimpact, none has been funded by a source clearly independent of the tobacco industry. 71 ”

””

”

”



and customers. To support this we havecommissioned the University ofGlamorgan to carry out research in atypical Scottish pub and we currentlyawait their findings. Once completed, wewill be releasing the data and will forwarda copy to the Health Department. 60

The goal of “building IAQ (indoor airquality) industry and science withoutvisible tobacco industry presence” isdocumented in a 1987 Philip Morris internalcompany presentation.81 The tobaccoindustry often uses third parties and otherindustries as surrogates for carrying out itsactivities and research to undermine publichealth policies. This strategy means that thetobacco industry can disseminate its opinionswithout obvious industry fingerprints. To thisend, internal documents describe theextensive funding of opinion surveys, marketresearch, and scientific research onventilation and health effects of SHSexposure, to give legitimacy and credibility tothe tobacco industry’s arguments. Thetobacco industry uses consultants to create abody of conflicting research that reflects thetobacco industry’s viewpoint, and, as themedical journal The Lancet put it, to “seedthe medical literature with pro-tobaccomisinformation.”82. Perhaps the most wellknown example of this is Philip Morris’‘Whitecoat Project’, named after the whitecoats that scientists wear. This was a vastproject aimed at hiring scientific expertsaround the world to criticise the findings ofthe Surgeon General and the other publichealth authorities who had published reportswarning of the dangers of SHS. 83

Disputing the health risks

In oral evidence to the Health Committee theTMA and FOREST were the onlyorganisations to dispute that exposure toSHS is associated with significant healthrisks.84 FOREST’s written evidence to theHealth Committee clearly states, “FORESTdoes NOT accept that passive smoking isa significant risk to the health of the non-smoker.”85

Maureen Moore (ASH Scotland) responded:

A recent calculation of the possibleimpact of a smoking ban in workplaces inGlasgow alone suggested that up to 1,000fewer people a year would die of heartdisease, respiratory disease andcancer...There are rules for lots of thingsin society. When we have a productwhose use affects other people's health,we should take action to ensure thatpublic health is protected. We do that withspeed limits and we do it with seat belts.We do not allow other carcinogens in theworkplace and we certainly should not beallowing this carcinogen (SHS) in theworkplace. 84

The ‘Right to Breathe Clean Air’debate

In the same oral evidence sessions, whenasked whether people have a right to breatheclean air, Simon Clark (FOREST) replied:

I have no doubt about my answer to that -people do not have a right to breatheclean air… We live in an urban, industrialsociety. We are surrounded by car fumes;we are surrounded by chemicals fromfurnishings, carpets, wallpaper and paintwork…In a perfect world and a utopiansociety, of course we would all like tobreathe clean air, but that is not how theworld is. 84

Tobacco companies and their allies oftenseek to refocus the SHS debate ontosubjects such as outdoor air pollution, vehicleemissions, and individual civil rights andfreedoms. Philip Morris outlined this strategyin a 1987 ETS project plan produced forINFOTAB:

Objective 2: To position ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) as justone (and a very minor) factor in a complexatmospheric mix which also includespetrol/diesel fumes, dust, bacteria,particles of dead skin…solids of all kinds,

21

””

”

”

”

”

”

”



pollen, and in industrial situations anenormous variety of chemical fumes andsubstances 86

The ‘right to smoke-free air’ theme usedsuccessfully by anti-smokers should be re-positioned to refer principally to outdoorair, in such a way as to shift regulatory andmedia attention away from smoking and inthe direction of industrial emissions,vehicle emissions, the depleted ozonelayer, radioactivity, etc. 87

Another striking example of deflecting health-related discussions was provided by theSLTA in their 2005 evidence to the ScottishParliament’s Finance Committee. Theyclaimed that the plan for smoke-freelegislation:

fails to capture the cost of expensivegeriatric health care and attention iflongevity is achieved through the ban.Further, no attempt has been made tocalculate the cost to the country ofproviding pensions for smokers who livelonger as a result of the smoking ban. 89

Maureen Moore (ASH Scotland) responded:

To stand in front of the ScottishParliament and say that ending smokingin public places should be scrappedbecause people will live too long isappaling. 90

Pressure on Ministers to introduce smoke-free public places intensified as Scotland’sChief Medical Officer Dr Mac Armstrong lent

his weight to the proposal to go smoke-free(April 2004). The ‘Health in Scotland 2003’report stated that going smoke-free couldsave up to 1000 lives a year in Glasgowalone, and that comprehensive smoke-freelegislation was a “clear, obvious and logicalnext step” that would “satisfy the wishes ofthe vast majority or people in Scotland.”91

There were also reports in the media that the First Minister was retaining an open mind about the Executive’s consultation onsteps to create a smoke-free Scotland. He would be ‘using a forthcoming trip toIreland to see how the ban was operatingthere.’ 91

The Scottish ExecutiveConsultation Process

The Scottish Executive open publicconsultation process was launched on 7thJune, and ran until 30th September 2004.The consultation process included 12 publicforum meetings, and those held in the majorScottish cities had a panel of speakersincluding Ministers, and representation fromorganisations including ASH Scotland andthe SLTA. A written consultation process wasalso launched. With the importance of a solidevidence base for making policy decisions,Health Scotland commissioned research onbehalf of the Scottish Executive to supportthe consultation. This included research intopassive smoking and associated deaths inScotland , workplace smoking polices 93, andan international review of the health andeconomic impact of regulating smoking inpublic places. 94

22

Philip Morris documents also describe how the company needs the strategy to avoidgetting into health-related discussions, where it invariable loses:

Opponents of tobacco will always use the health argument for any and allrestrictions…When the tobacco industry involves itself in the health debate, itinvariably loses…Objectives: Force proponents of anti-tobacco legislation tojustify their positions on grounds other than health alone. (Only by bringing thedebate past health and into the social arena can we effectively attack suchmeasures) 88

”

”

”

””

”

”



The Scottish Executive hosted aninternational conference held in Edinburgh(September 9th 2004). The conferencefocussed on global evidence on public placeslegislation from Ireland, New York, Canadaand Australia, and the health risks associatedwith SHS exposure were also outlined byinternationally renowned speakers such asDr Peter Boyle, Dr Sinéad Jones and Dr RonBorland. The SLTA (Stuart Ross) and theVintners Federation of Ireland (VFI) werealso given a platform at this event. StuartRoss branded the conference “heavilyladen in favour of health propaganda”within the first few minutes of presenting, andoutlined research claiming that a 25%reduction in turnover was already beingreported in the Republic of Ireland. TadgO’Sullivan (Chief Executive, VFI) similarlylabelled the conference programme“Skewed towards the anti smokinglobbyists”, and spoke of “immediate andsevere” economic impacts post-legislation inNew York and the Republic of Ireland.95

ASH Scotland and Scotland CAN! submitteddetailed evidence-based responses 97 to theScottish Executive’s consultation, outliningthe scientific and medical evidence, re-iterating the weaknesses inherent in theVoluntary Charter; outlining numerous publicopinion polls that demonstrated a steadyincrease in public support for comprehensivesmoke-free legislation, and highlighting thesuccesses that other countries had seenwhere legislation had already been passed.The submissions also challenged the mythsregarding economic decline head on with

evidence to the contrary from New York andparts of Canada. In addition, ASH Scotlandcautioned the Scottish Parliament HealthCommittee, outlining increased concerns thata balanced public debate was being skewedby licensed trade campaigns to subvert thesmoke-free proposals. Organisations suchas the SLTA were increasingly trying tocentre discussions around pubs and licensedpremises only. The effect of this was to focuspublic discussions away from the healthevidence and a fuller discussion aboutenclosed public places, and onto allegedeconomic impacts for a narrow sector ofsociety only.

This reflects a tobacco industry tactic usedfrom the late 1980s onwards acrossEurope.98 By this time the industry hadidentified the decline of social acceptability ofsmoking in Europe as a major threat to itsviability. This recognition led to thedevelopment of a comprehensive strategy tofight the SHS issue. Courtesy, tolerance andeconomic decline were the key issues usedto divert the publics’ and policy makers’attention from the health issue.98

During the Scottish Executive’s consultationperiod, the Sunday Mail99 reported (15/08/04)that Tennants and Belhaven breweries hadrequested 200,000 extra consultation formsbetween them from the Scottish Executive.Belhaven were also reported to have askedfor a 2-month extension to the consultation(Sunday Mail, 15/08/04). The ChiefExecutive of Belhaven, Stuart Ross, was alsothe SLTA Chairman.

23

Another accusation that has surfaced many times is that of the ‘health fascist’, whichhas been rather ungraciously hurled at many of the key figures involved in Scotland’s

quest to become smoke-free. Whilst on the surface it may seem little more than apetty, childlike spat, tobacco industry documents frame it as part of a larger Europe-

wide strategy to portray efforts at smoking restriction proposals to the media as“extremist” and “indicative of intolerance and health fascism”. A 1992-1994

Philip Morris EEC (European Economic Community) Region 3 Year plan alsocontextualises this within the wider objective to “position PM as a reasonable voice

and position the antis as extremists.” 96



Those opposed to smoke-free legislationcontinued to speculate in the media that jobswould be lost if Scotland went smoke-free;that the ban in Ireland was causing hardshipand economic decline; and that there was alack of public support for the measure andinconclusive scientific evidence on SHS.ASH Scotland, Scotland CAN! andassociated health organisations keptreiterating in the media their demand for theFirst Minister to consider the scientific,medical and economic evidence, and to takea decisive stance and show leadership inpushing forward with action to reduceexposure to SHS in Scotland. In earlyAugust, the then Deputy First Minister JimWallace showed support for the legislation,saying that “the weight of argument infavour of a ban on smoking in publicplaces is increasingly compelling”, butadding that the Executive were awaiting theoutcome of the consultation process.100

In the run up to the Ministerial visit to Dublin,the Irish Office of Tobacco Control reportedthat 97% of bars were compliant with thesmoke-free legislation there.101 PaulWaterson (SLTA) claimed that the poll results“fly in the face of the public's opinion ona smoking ban in pubs and clubs.”102

The impending Ministerial visit to Dublin waschallenged and slated by smoke-freeopponents, including Brian Monteith MSP,who argued that the trip was

…meant to fool people into thinking he(The First Minister) is carefully weighing upthe results of Ireland's smoking ban, but itis little more than an empty gesture as hismind is already made up.

Monteith continued that no amount ofevidence showing economic decline in theIrish pub trade would:

stop him (The First Minister) using hisparliamentary majority to force through aban in Scottish restaurants, and probablypubs too. Even that will not satisfy theanti-tobacco extremists who will then

press for a complete ban in all publicspaces including parks and beaches. Ofcourse supporters of smoking bans willdeny their true agenda, but one onlyneeds to see how biased McConnell'sconsultation process is to know thatpublic opposition to a ban and thefinancial difficulties experienced inIreland will be completely ignored. 103

On return from Dublin, and on the back ofdiscussions with the Irish Health MinisterMichael Martin and health officials, JackMcConnell stated:

I am certainly more convinced now that atthe very least something approaching anall-out ban is enforceable, practical anddesirable in Scotland. 104

He stressed the importance of finishing andreporting on the public consultation in orderto make an informed judgement, andconfirmed that Ministers would make theirdecision before Christmas 2004. Hiscomments were criticised by the opponentsto smoke-free legislation, who claimed thatthey pre-empted the consultation outcomes:

This is the biggest issue they (theExecutive) have ever consulted on, but itappears everybody has made up theirminds already, before we have seen whatthe public think (SLTA)105

If the Executive is to make a radical breakand impose a smoking ban, then it needsto be more serious about gaining consentthan simply relying on a quick visit toDublin(The Scotsman Editorial, 01/09/04)106

It was clear from the SLTA’s consultationsubmission that they were developing newarguments. The SLTA argued that they withother organisations had met with ScottishExecutive representatives to ask them ‘tolegislate a five-point three year plan thatwould make a ‘major contribution toimproving health prospects in Scotland.’107

The 5 point-plan was to: ban smoking at the

24

”

””

””

””

”

”

”



bar counter in all licensed premises; bansmoking in any area where and when hotfood is served; ban smoking in any areasfrom which the public is excluded; allocate ayear-on increasing percentage of floor spaceto non-smoking (starting at 30% and rising to50% in year 3); and ensure that smokingpolicies are displayed at the entrance to thepremises. The SLTA said that this, combinedwith efficient ventilation systems, wouldcreate a smoke-free environment fordiners.108

The ‘Accommodation’ Argument

The SLTAs suggestion of ‘phasing in’ smoke-free public places provides a good exampleof the way in which the tobacco industry hasincreasingly focussed the smoke-free debatein the hospitality industry. The core messageused to recruit allies in the hospitality industryhas been ‘accommodation’ of smoking andnon-smoking patrons (without mentioningemployees). These proposals have had greatappeal in the past to policymakers who havefelt pressured to address smoking in publicplaces, since a phased approach gives theappearance of taking action without havingany protective health effects. Phasedapproaches are an industry tactic aimed onlyat delaying and weakening smoke-freelegislation. The irony is that the tobaccoindustry has convinced many in thehospitality industry to embrace expensiveventilation systems that don’t work, in orderto avoid non-existent losses in business ofgoing smoke-free. Once the investment ismade, hospitality businesses are even more

likely to oppose creation of smoke-freeenvironments. 109

Hospitality industries in other countries areoften used as a vehicle by the tobaccoindustry. A 1994 Philip Morris internalpresentation describes the company’s plansto use hospitality allies to fight regulations onSHS:

Build upon existing relationships with theInternational Hotel Association, EuropeanRestaurant Association and EuropeanChefs Association to target advocacy onEU policymakers… 110

In addition, a 1993 PM strategic plandescribes another strategy:

Develop allies in academic fields andpublic policy associations to helppromote a variety of messages includingsound science, tolerance, U.S extremism,economic impact of governmentregulation, etc 111

The SLTA proposed in their consultationresponse that their newly proposed ‘Charter2’ solution be supported by improvedventilation, and they argued that they hadevidence showing that ventilation couldactually produce cleaner air than that insmoke-free premises. They challenged theExecutive to carry out independent researchon ventilation “and not just rely on dubioustactics by anti-tobacco/anti-pub activists.”108

In addition, they questioned the healthgrounds for going smoke-free, spoke ofinevitable economic decline, and argued that

25

By the end of the Scottish Executive consultationperiod, over 53,000 written responses had been

received, the most for any Scottish Executiveconsultation ever held. Eighty two percent of

respondents thought that further action was needed toreduce exposure to SHS. Eighty percent of respondents

said they would support a law creating smoke-freeenclosed public places, with few exemptions.

”””

”



smoke-free legislation would mean smokerswould stay at home to drink and smoke,increasing children’s exposure to SHS. TheSLTA also warned that the high proportion of‘landlocked’ pubs’ in Scotland would forcesmokers on to the pavements of city centresleading to higher levels of aggression andstreet violence.108

The opposition were stepping up theircampaign again. Another indicator of this wasthe formation of AOB (Against an OutrightBan)113, which is run by Media House, a highprofile PR company specialising in crisismanagement. AOB was formed in Autumn2004 to represent independent licensees,pub groups and brewers in Scotland opposedto a complete ban on smoking in publicplaces.114 Members of AOB include the SLTA,Scottish Beer and Pub Association (SBPA),the Scottish Wholesalers Association andseveral multiple pub groups based in centralScotland. AOB claim they represent morethan 3,500 licensed trade retailers and thebulk of the brewing industry in Scotland.AOB’s website has only one news item, apress release outlining AIR Director OliverGriffiths’ view that going smoke-free inScotland would be a potential disaster.115

Another new opposition tactic came with thelaunch of the ‘Freedom2Choose’campaign116, which took place just a fewweeks before the end of the consultationprocess. The launch took place at theDoublet Bar in Glasgow (the proprietor - theSLTA’s President, Alistair Don). The founderof Freedom2Choose was Rod Bullough,managing director of Blackpool-based

tobacco vending machine supplierDuckworth. Freedom2Choose had a Scottishspokesman Liam Stratton, general managerof a wholesale tobacconist and vendingmachine operator in Glasgow.

Scotland CAN! and SCCOT held a strategymeeting on the 3rd November, as the work ofScotland CAN! would be foremost over thesubsequent 18 months in order to progressthe campaign for smoke-free legislation inScotland. A new structure was proposed forthe group and a short-life communicationsworking group was established, consisting ofexisting member organisations, and includingmembers with a press/PR remit. The aim ofthis group was to take forward thecommunications work of Scotland CAN!,which was steadily expanding as the publicplaces momentum grew. One of the earlytasks for the Communications group was toidentify specifically the range ofpredominantly Scottish opponents to smoke-free public places in Scotland, the mainspokespersons, their vested interests, andtheir connections to other hospitality alliesand the tobacco industry.

On 10th November 2004, Freedom2Choosehanded a petition with 14,000 signatures toDowning Street asking the government not toban smoking in public places. FOREST threwits weight behind Freedom2Choose,117 whoargued against smoke-free legislation onthree platforms – inevitable economicdecline, lack of public support and theeffectiveness of ventilation and separatesmoking areas. Little more was heard ofFreedom2Choose after the launch, although

26

The recently released report entitled “Tobacco Industry Involvement in Colarado”112

contains the findings of extensive research of internal tobacco industry documents.The research reveals a surreptitious industry campaign to fight restrictions on publicsmoking, most notable in the emerging resort and celebrity hub of Telluride. TheTobacco Institute recognised that Telluride had “significance far beyond its relativelysmall number of registered voters”, and strongly recommended that “industry put up a strong defense in Telluride and battle this challenge” (to restrict smoking in publicplaces). With extensive and expensive targeted lobbying, none of which was identifiedas originating directly with the tobacco industry, their efforts were successful, and theballot measure subsequently failed.



the online petition to pledge opposition to theban on smoking in public houses is stillavailable on their website today.118

NHS Health Scotland commissionedresearch from Aberdeen University (as partof the consultation process) was publishedon 10th November 2004. The researchestimated that ending smoking in publicplaces in Scotland would not harm theeconomy. The BMA had issued their ‘HumanCost of Tobacco Report the previous week.Cancer Research UK had launched a mediacampaign urging the Scottish Executive to‘lead the way’ on November 10th, with a listof over 20 health charities and voluntaryorganisations joined up to Scotland CAN!endorsing the ‘it’s about health – it’s abouttime’ slogan. The media was rife withspeculation in the weeks running up to thedecision– “will it be ‘Scotland the brave – orScotland the grave?”119

On 10th November 2004, First MinisterJack McConnell announced that therewould be, with the Parliaments’ support, acomprehensive end to smoking inenclosed public places in Scotland.

On Friday 17th December the ScottishExecutive introduced the draft Bill toParliament. This marked the beginning of aschedule that would lead to clean airlegislation being implemented in Scotland onMarch 26th 2006. The newly appointedMinister for Health and Community Care(following a cabinet reshuffle) Andy Kerr MSPdescribed the Bill as “the most importantpiece of public health legislation for ageneration.”120 Policy makers had beenpersuaded by the need for smoke-freeenclosed public places. They had made theirdecision on the basis of a wide rangingconsultation process that enabled them totake account of medical and scientificevidence, on international experience, andon true Scottish public opinion. They hadprioritised Scotland’s health and committedto make enclosed public places in Scotlandsmoke-free.

The TMA described the decision as “anextraordinary slap in the face.”120 AlistairDon (SLTA President) argued that the wholeconsultation had been “a sham”, adding that“as far as we are concerned, there is littleevidence that proves passive smoking isin fact bad for you”.121 Oliver Griffith,director of the AIR initiative described the Billas “political dogma overriding commonsense.”122

Maureen Moore (ASH Scotland) said:

I am delighted that the Scottish Executivehas acted decisively… Tobacco has doneso much damage to Scottishsociety…ASH Scotland stronglyendorses this move from the ScottishExecutive, it is a bold and radicalproposal to find a Scottish solution to aScottish problem. 123

Two weeks later, Brain Monteith MSP issuedan ultimatum to Jack McConnell to “producethe death certificates of victims of passivesmoking…or admit it does not kill.”Opposition politicians condemned theConservatives as “pariahs” of the ScottishParliament.124 The Cabinet had beenpresented with the findings of David Hole’sresearch on deaths associated with exposureto SHS in Scotland, which estimated thatbetween 1500 - 2000 deaths in Scotlandeach year are associated with exposure toSHS.125 Jack McConnell cited the figures asevidence that smoke-free legislation couldturn around Scotland’s reputation as the ‘sickman of Europe’. Brian Monteith MSPconcluded saying “there is absolutely noconclusive scientific evidence thatpassive smoking has ever killed anyonein Scotland.” A spokesman for ScottishLabour replied:

Brian Monteith is now one of the fewpeople who still believes there is a safelevel of tobacco smoke ... next week he’llbe trying to convince us the world is flat.124

The same newspaper article reported that

27

”

”

”

”



AOB had approached high-profile lawyerPeter Watson (who in the past representedfamilies of the Lockerbie victims), to mount acase against the smoke-free legislation. Thetobacco industry frequently uses the threat oflitigation to challenge smoke-free laws.Usually, the industry seeks an injunction toprevent implementation of the law during thecourse of a lawsuit, as this can take monthsor even years. These legal challenges almostalways fail.126

The SLTA Pub Smoking Seminar

The SLTA held a Pub Smoking Seminar on13th January 2005 in Edinburgh. A similarevent has since been held in Cardiff, Wales.No doubt England and Northern Ireland willbe future hosts, if this is not already in thepipeline.

The Scottish seminar was intended toexplore the issues that would face licenseeswhen the smoke-free legislation is introducedin March 2006. Steve Stotesbury, IndustryAffairs Manager (EU) and senior scientistfrom Imperial Tobacco, presented on the‘science of SHS’. Stotesbury focussed hisdiscussion on issues such as difficulties ofstatistical interpretation, understandingrelative risk values and putting the risk incontext. Stotesbury also critiqued a numberof key publications including the David Holeand SCOTH reports.127

Tadg O’Sullivan (LVA) commented on theeffects of Ireland’s smoke-free legislation.128

His predictions were dire and in sharpcontrast to the 1-year outcomes that wouldbe reported a few months later by the Officeof Tobacco Control.5 O’Sullivan’s predictionswere in line, however, with the 30% decline insales that was predicted and claimed bytobacco industry affiliates in the United

States and in Canada, both before and afterlegislations were introduced there.

Dr Andrew Geens (University of Glamorgan)claimed to have investigated “the real effectof ventilation in pubs.” Geens’ research wassponsored by the SLTA, and commissionedby Corporate Responsibility Consulting, whoalso managed the TMA funded AIRinitiative.129 The study, which remainsunpublished in a peer-reviewed journal,concluded that simple low cost ventilationsystems could reduce SHS dramatically, andin some areas air quality could be made asgood as in a non-smoking pub. The studyalso concluded that particles and gases werekept well within occupational limits even atpeak times in busy pubs with no smokingrestrictions.

Dr Geens’ presentation of research130

suggested that there was no significantdifference in particulate matter (PM 2.5)averages between a smoke-free pub (ThePhoenix in Glasgow), and a pub wheresmoking is permitted, when the ventilation isswitched on (this latter pub was the DoubletBar in Glasgow, of which the SLTA’s AlistairDon is proprietor). Graphs representing bothsets of PM 2.5 averages were used todemonstrate that ventilation was therefore aneffective solution. The graphs used differentaxis scales to plot the same points, and indoing so, particulate matter averages in thetwo pubs appeared to be similar. When thegraphs were reworked, the data showedthat particulate matter averages werebetween 3 and 10 times higher for theventilated Doublet pub, when comparedto the smoke-free pub. 6

The SLTA seminar highlighted the close linksbetween sectors of the hospitality industry andthe tobacco industry. The only MSP attendingthe SLTA event was Brian Monteith MSP.

28

5 The Office of Tobacco Control’s ‘One Year On’ report (http://www.otc.ie/Uploads/1_Year_Report_FA.pdf) noted that bar saleshad been declining in volume since 2001, due to a number of factors including high prices, changing lifestyles and shiftingdemographic patterns. The report also outlined an increase in numbers employed in the hospitality sector at the end of 2004,exceeding those employed in 2002 by 0.6% In addition. Central Statistics Office data on tourism and travel showed a 3.2%increase in visitors to Ireland in 2004 when compared to 2003.6The re-worked graph is shown on page 17 of ASH Scotland’s written evidence submission to the Health Committee, which isavailable online at:http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/ASH%20Scotland%20Smoking%20Health%20and%20Social%20Care%20Bill%20Written%20Evidence.doc [Accessed 05 Sep 2005)



29

Whilst the evidence from countries such asthe Republic of Ireland shows that smoke-free laws work, are popular and do notdamage national economies, no amount ofevidence seems to convince the intransigentelements of the pub trade. Nevertheless, theevidence base, properly communicated,does impact on government, on industry andon public opinion. The sectors of the licensedtrade that openly cooperate with the tobaccoindustry continue to be vociferous in theiropposition to smoke-free public places inScotland. But this is a double-edged sword.The more that the licensed trade relies onthe tobacco industry for assistance intheir campaign, the slicker theircampaigning becomes. However, thisassociation between the two industriesonly serves to undermine the legitimacyof the licensed trade’s opposition.

2005 onwards

Early 2005 and the lobbying continued onboth sides. Members of the CPG continuedto champion the Public Places Bill tomembers of their own parties. ASH Scotlandworked with the CPG to provide briefings forMSPs targeting certain opposition argumentsas and when they arose. Scotland CAN!communications group invited ConsolidatedCommunications onto the group – they hadbeen appointed by the Scottish Executive toassist the Executive Press Office in targetinga wider public audience with messages tosupport the legislation. Scotland CAN!communications campaign grids were drawnup so that member organisations could feedeffectively into each other’s events to assistin improving public awareness of the Bill.

Media reports suggested that AOB haddrawn up a battle plan to fight the Executive’saim of outlawing smoking in public places.Beermats with ‘freedom to choose’ and theright to choose’ were being distributed topubs.131 AOB and other opposition groupswere also stepping up their use of adverts inthe local and national press, and their use oflocal ‘champions’; letters opposing the banfrom individuals who were made to look like

everyday members of the public. This tacticcan be effective in influencing public opinion.Around this time, FOREST appointed aScottish spokesperson, Neil Rafferty, ‘to helpcombat the threat of a total ban on smokingnorth of the border.132 In addition, thePublican Party was formed, fielding DonLawson (an Inverness Publican) ascandidate for the Inverness East andLochaber seat.133

The Scottish Parliament HealthCommittee’s Call for Evidence

ASH Scotland and Scotland CAN! preparedsubmissions134 for the Health Committee’scall for evidence on the Smoking, Health andSocial Care (Scotland) Bill which were senton 11th Feb 2005. The call for writtenevidence gave an opportunity to showcasethe scientific evidence that had beenpublished since the end of the ScottishExecutive’s consultation process (Sept2004), including the new SCOTH report andthe WHO’s IARC Monograph. There was also increasing evidence on the benefits ofgoing smoke free, and further examples ofcountries that had taken the decision to gosmoke-free (New Zealand and Italy). ASHScotland used best practice evidence tooutline it’s position on enforcement andcompliance issues, and described theproblems encountered in other countries thathad taken a stepped approach to goingsmoke-free (the SLTAs stepped approachwas still being touted at this stage). Thesubmission also recommended minimalexemptions, highlighted the success of thisapproach in the Republic of Ireland, anddrew on the evidence-base to argue againstproposed exemptions such as private clubs.

The IARC Monograph Working Group onTobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smokingwas a scientific working group of 29experts from 12 countries convened bythe World Health Organization. Thisworking group published a 1,500 pagereview of all published evidence related toSHS and cancer in 2004, concluding thatSHS is carcinogenic to humans.135



In November 2004, SCOTH published anreport summarising SHS research thathas been published since their 1998publication. The Committee concludedthat SHS exposure increases the risk oflung cancer by 24%; and that it increasesthe risk of ischaemic heart disease by25%. The Committee also concluded thatsmoking in the presence of children is acause of serious respiratory illness andasthma attacks in children. Theyconcluded that sudden infant deathsyndrome is also associated withexposure to SHS. In addition, theCommittee stated that SHS is acontrollable and preventable form ofindoor air pollution that no infant, adult orchild should be exposed to.136

Presentations from the SLTA hosted pubsmoking seminar (January 2005) formed thebasis for the speaker-organisationsresponses to the Health Committee’s call forwritten evidence. On this basis, ASHScotland obtained independent statisticaladvice from one of Scotland’s leading andmost respected statisticians, in order toeffectively counter the multiple layers ofSteve Stotesbury’s (Imperial Tobacco)argument that “science and statistics havebeen exaggerated to fit the anti-smokingcase”.127 ASH Scotland researched thebackground to work conducted at theOakridge National Laboratory of Tennessee,which suggested that exposure to SHS maybe lower than previously indicated forbartenders, waiters and waitresses. 134 TadjO’ Sullivan (LVA) had used this research toback up his argument of there being “a vastarray of evidence to prove that the issue (ofthe association between passive smokingand ill health) is grossly exaggerated”.128

ASH Scotland discovered that Oakridgeresearchers, although part of the U.SDepartment of Energy’s researchestablishment, are also commerciallyavailable to private companies. RogerJenkins, the lead author of the studyO’Sullivan cited, has conducted several otherpieces of research commissioned by the

tobacco industry, that typically attempt toshow that exposure to SHS is not asignificant health hazard. Jenkin’s findings,and Jenkins himself, frequently appear inhearings to oppose local smoke-freemeasures. As an expert witness for thedefence in a lawsuit bought by flightattendants against the tobacco industry overthe lung cancer and other diseases theycontracted at work, Jenkin’s evidence wasexcluded by the judge because of his pro-tobacco industry bias.137

Without exception, the ‘evidence’ presentedby hospitality groups and the tobaccoindustry to the Health Committee was flawed,weak, and lacking in scientific credibility. ASHScotland reiterated that the issue ofwhether exposure to SHS causes ill-health had already been resolvedscientifically. It was, and still is today, onlyhospitality groups and the tobacco industrythat continue the ‘debate’.134

The Parliamentary Debates

The Stage One parliamentary debate on theSmoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland)Bill was held on the 28th April (2005). At thisdebate MSPs voted on the general principlesof the Bill. Three weeks before the StageOne debate, AOB published a poster in theSun newspaper, with the slogan ‘Jack you’renot listening’ and ‘Freedom to Choose’printed on it. They urged readers to contacttheir local MSP and provided the ScottishParliament’s public information phonenumber. On the same date, a letter appearedin the press signed by fourteen leadinghealth organisations reiterating the case forsmoke-free public places in Scotland.Despite another attempt by the opposition tosubvert the public places campaign, MSPsvoted 83-15 in favour of the Bill. Only theConservatives directly opposed the measure.

The pro-health lobby was already lookingahead to the Stage 2 debate, where the finerdetail of the Bill would be discussed. Thenext few months that followed were crucial.

30



The proposals for regulations under powerscontained within the Bill were open forconsultation until 26th May 2005, and theevidence base was crucial to informing theScottish Executive’s decision making on thefiner details of the smoke-free legislation.This was an ongoing opportunity to influence.The draft Bill in itself was commendable, butthere were a number of finer issues to beaddressed.

To assist in moving this next stage forward, anumber of high profile meetings wereorganised. Firstly, SCOT and Scotland CAN!invited Stewart Maxwell MSP to attend ameeting of the group in March 2005. Maxwellhighlighted that in his own Bill, smoking hadbeen carefully defined to include the use ofany lit product, or any product capable ofbeing lit. In the Executive’s draft Bill, smokingwas more narrowly defined to refer only totobacco use. ASH Scotland reviewed theevidence-base and supported StewartMaxwell’s view that the definition shouldencompass the use of non-tobacco products.Scotland CAN! supported this stance. Thethreat from SHS comes from levels of tar,carbon monoxide and respirable particulatematter. These substances are also present innon-nicotine cigarettes with at least similarlevels to tobacco cigarettes.138 Greater clarityin the wording of the bill to cover non-tobaccoproducts would also ensure ease ofimplementation. ASH Scotland produced anevidence-based briefing to support wideningthe draft definition to include non-tobaccoproducts. This briefing was distributed toCPG members and MSPs, and it was sent toAndy Kerr MSP, with an accompanying lettervoicing ASH Scotland’s concerns.

Members of Scotland CAN! were alsoconcerned that the term ‘enclosed’ publicplaces’ would render many partially enclosedpremises used by the public (i.e. sportsstadia, railway platforms, and a number ofScottish tourist attractions) exempt fromlegislation. Scotland CAN! and ASH Scotlanddecided to take this issue on in responses tothe proposals for regulations contained in theBill.139 In discussion with colleagues in the

Republic of Ireland, we agreed torecommend adopting the Republic ofIreland’s 50% or more enclosed approach,which was proving to be a resoundingsuccess there.

On the 27th April, Andy Kerr MSP, Ministerfor Health and Community Care accepted aninvitation to a meeting of the SCOT/ScotlandCAN! coalition. This marked a realachievement for the coalition, not leastbecause Andy Kerr committed to working inconsultation with the coalition, andcommended it’s achievements to date. Heraised the issue of herbal cigarettes at thismeeting, stating that this was a difficult issue,and “one I have yet to make up my mindon.”140

At this meeting, the coalition raised its viewthat there should be a general presumptionwithin the Bill in favour of smoke-freeenvironments. The wording of the proposedexemptions presumed that types of premisescovered would be mainly smoking premises,with designated non-smoking areas. Thecoalition wanted this changed so that theexempt premises would be mainly smoke-free, with designated smoking areas. Kerrresponded that he was “certainly open tolistening to arguments”.140 The coalitionalso raised the issue of partially enclosedpublic places, which the Ministeracknowledged as a “difficult question”.140

He continued:

I am disappointed that you could sit in alarge sporting venue and have peoplesmoking on all sides…but we havestruggled in terms of definitions ofenclosed spaces. I’d suggest we need tofocus on getting this legislation throughand then revisit these issues at a laterdate. 140

Before the close of the meeting, Andy Kerrencouraged the coalition to increase the locallevel campaigning it had been discussing inprevious months. Following discussions inthe Scotland CAN! Communications Group,the Scotland CAN! ‘Support smoke-free

31

”

”



public places’ postcard campaign was born.The aim of the campaign was to give peoplethe opportunity to let their MSPs know thatthey supported the smoke-free legislation, soin this respect it was also in direct responseto AOBs ‘Jack you’re not listening’ campaignof the previous month. Scotland CANscampaign was launched on 31st May 2005,at the Scottish Parliament. Scottish rugbystars Gavin and Scott Hastings attended thelaunch along with a number of schoolchildren and members of the coalition, whopresented a giant version of the postcard toAndy Kerr. Twenty five thousand postcardswere produced and distributed withinScotland CAN! networks, designed to show ameasure of public support for smoke-freelegislation in the run up to the Stage 2debate.

On the same day as the postcard launch,Lord Nimmo Smith issued his long–awaitedjudgment on the McTear vs Imperial Tobaccocase, ruling that Imperial Tobacco was notresponsible for the death of Alfred McTear.Margaret McTear, his widow, had sought forjustice against Imperial Tobacco for the past12 years, and the judgment was a blow foreveryone that wanted to see the tobaccoindustry held accountable for their failure toadequately warn customers about thedangers of their products. The ruling alsoserved as a reminder that in Scotland, it isthrough building up legislation andregulations that we can effectively tackle thetobacco industry and their products.

In the run up to the Stage 2 debate (14thJune 2005), a number of amendments wereproposed to the Smoking, Health and SocialCare (Scotland) Bill. ASH Scotland produceda briefing for MSPs that outlined all theproposed amendments, and evidence-basesupporting or refuting them. Some of theproposed amendments were positive in thatthey would allow for better operation of thelegislation, permit smoother enforcement,and close potential loopholes that theopposition could seek to exploit. StewartMaxwell MSP had proposed an amendmentto widen the definition of smoking products

developed under the Bill so as to includenon-nicotine cigarettes. A majority on theHealth Committee were supportive of thisproposal. Brian Monteith MSP and otherConservative Party members proposed alarge number of amendments, the effects ofwhich would be to undermine the legislation.This included proposing exemptions forliquor-licensed premises, for specialist cigarbars and other tobacco retailers, and fortheatres and performance venues.Conservative Party members also proposedamendments that would permit only tobacco-related products to be captured bylegislation, and that would serve to restrictthe definition of ‘enclosed’ public places onlyto premises that are wholly enclosed.7 TheConservative Party’s amendments werewithdrawn at the Stage 2 debate, and anumber of them resurfaced at the Stage 3debate on 30th June 2005.

The Stage 3 ParliamentaryDebate

In preparation for the Stage 3 debate, theCross Party Group on Tobacco Controlarranged to meet with Andy Kerr. Thisprovided a useful opportunity to readdressconcerns about any amendments that mightresurface at Stage 3, and to re-inforce theCPGs position on them. ASH Scotland sent anupdated evidence-based briefing to all MSPsoutlining the possible amendments to come.

On 30th June 2005, the Scottish Executivevoted 97 to 17 (with 1 abstension) infavour of smoke-free legislation inScotland. It was agreed to extend thedefinition of smoking to encapsulate herbaland non-tobacco smoking products. TheScottish Executive also extended the‘enclosed’ definition of public places toinclude ‘substantially enclosed public places.It has since been suggested that theRepublic of Ireland’s 50% or more model willbe adopted in Scotland. Where exemptionsapply, the emphasis will be on smoke-freepremises with designated smoking areas,rather than the other way around.141

32



At the Stage 3 vote, a majority on the HealthCommittee agreed to give ministers newpowers to change the law on tobacco sales.In effect, this means that the minimum legalage for buying tobacco in Scotland could beset to change, although inherent in thesepowers is the clause that the minimum legalage can only ever be increased. TheMinisterial Working Group will discuss thispossible change in policy over the comingmonths. International experience and theexisting evidence-base will form a centralrole in their decision-making.

The Smoking, Health and Social Care(Scotland) Act142 comes into force onMarch 26th 2006. From this date, allenclosed and substantially enclosedpublic places in Scotland will be requiredto be smoke-free by law.

Scotland has shown world-class leadershipin acting decisively to remove SHS from ourpublic places and workplaces. The MSPswho supported this legislation, the Scottish

Executive, member organisations ofScotland CAN!, ASH Scotland and others arerightly proud of the legislation. We havedefeated the expensive lobbying strategies ofthe tobacco companies and their allies, andwon a victory for Scotland’s health, so thatfuture generations are protected from theclass A carcinogen that is SHS.

We are proud, but we are under no illusionsas we move into the pre-implementationphase of going smoke-free. The journeydoesn’t stop here. In many ways this is justthe beginning. There is already talk of legalaction from sectors of the hospitality industry,and we know from experiences in othercountries that we will face further oppositionin various shapes, forms and guises. Thereare many tobacco industry battles to come, inScotland, in the UK and internationally. Ourtale of victory isn’t sufficient in itself to forcethe tobacco industry to concede. But asStanton Glantz once said, “this is a war ofattrition”.143 The tobacco industry knows thatit is slowly losing this war.

33

7 A full list of proposed Stage 2 amendments is available online at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBiulletin/bb-05/bb-06-10g.htrm [Accessed 05 Sep 05).



The US Surgeon General publishes ‘The Health Consequences ofInvoluntary Smoking’. The report concludes that involuntary smokingis a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers.

The report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health ispublished. The Committee concludes that exposure to environmentaltobacco smoke (ETS) increases the risk of lung cancer and ischemicheart disease. In infants exposure to ETS increases the risk ofsudden infant death and respiratory disease. One of therecommendations is for restrictions on smoking in public places, tobe varied according to different categories of public places.

The Department of Environment, working in conjunction with othergovernment departments, publishes a Code of Practice on smokingin public places, marking the beginning of voluntary regulation.Research carried out in 1995 revealed that the government wasfailing to reach its targets in all categories of public buildings.

Alfred McTear of Beith, North Ayrshire, a 60-a-day smoker who wasdying from lung cancer, started legal action against Imperial Tobaccofor failing to put warnings on its cigarette packets in the 1960s. Theclaim for £500,000 damages from Imperial is the first action of its kindin Scotland. The Court of Session heard the case betweenNovember 2003 and March 2004 and the judgment was issued inMay 2005.

ASH Scotland convenes an expert working group to look at smokingpolicies in public places. Members of this group were ASH Scotland,COSLA, BMA, UNISON, the Scottish Office and HEBS wereobservers.

The Scotland Act achieved Royal Assent in November 1998 leading1st July 1999 to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. TheScottish Parliament held its first meeting in May 1999 and assumedits full powers upon inauguration on 1 July 1999.

The Department of Health publishes ‘Smoking Kills: A White PaperOn Tobacco’. This White Paper describes a range of tobacco controlmeasures for the United Kingdom including details of a Charteragreed by the licensed hospitality trade for increasing the provisionof facilities for non-smokers. The measures contained in the WhitePaper were subsequently endorsed by the Scottish Executive whoagreed it should be implemented in a Scottish context. To guide thatprocess the Scottish Executive sets up the Scottish Tobacco ControlStrategy Group in 1999.

34

Chronology

1986

March 1988

December 1991

January 1993

Summer 1998

November 1998

10th December 1998



35

ASH Scotland publishes a policy paper on smoking in public places.The paper calls for legislation to be introduced to effectively restrictsmoking in public places.

Following the publication of research that found passive smokingincreases the risk of stroke by 80%. Hugh Henry MSP calls forlegislation to restrict smoking in public places.

As an outcome of the 1998 White Paper ‘Smoking Kills’ the Healthand Safety Commission begin a consultation on an Approved Codeof Practice to improve the protection of the welfare of all employeesby defining the kind of smoking policies employers should have tocomply with Health and Safety legislation. The consultation runs untilOctober 1999.

The Public Places Charter on Smoking launched in England by theMinister for Public Health, after being outlined in Smoking Kills. TheCharter is a voluntary code agreed between the hospitality industryand the Department of Health. Signatories were the Association ofMultiple Retailers, Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association,British Holiday and Home Parks Association, British HospitalityAssociation, British Institute of Innkeeping and the RestaurantAssociation.

The Scottish Cancer Coalition on Tobacco (SCOTT) is launchedduring Europe Against Cancer Week. SCOTT is an alliance of ASHScotland and the leading Scottish cancer charities. The coalitionraises awareness of the links between cancer and tobacco use andprovides a forum to advise and inform the Scottish Parliament.

On behalf of the Scottish Tobacco Control Strategy Group, ASHScotland and the Health Education Board for Scotland (HEBS)commission MVA to carry out a survey of smoking policies in theScottish leisure industry. The aim of this survey, funded by theExecutive, was to provide baseline data from which to monitor theforthcoming Scottish Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public Places.A follow-up survey was conducted by MVA in January 2003.

The Cross Party Group on Tobacco Control is founded by SCCOT.The purpose of the cross party group is to take forward an effectivetobacco control agenda and monitor the implementation of the UKWhite Paper on tobacco in Scotland. Kenneth Gibson MSP is electedas the group’s first Convenor in 2000 February, Irene Oldfather iselected Vice-Convenor, ASH Scotland provides the secretariat.

March 1999

August 1999

July 1999

14th September 1999

October 1999

October 1999

December 1999



36

Hugh Henry MSP is the guest speaker at ASH Scotland’s AGM andcalls for the ‘silent majority’ to speak out on the health risks of passivesmoking and the need to protect public health through restrictions onsmoking in public places.

The first action of the Cross Party Group is to tackle underage salesof tobacco. The Lord Advocate was resistant to allow test purchasingof age-restricted goods. SCOTT successfully lobbies the LordAdvocate who announces a review of policy on underage sales oftobacco in October 2000.

ASH Scotland and HEBS publish the findings of the smoking in publicplaces survey by MVA. The survey found that 58% of businessessurveyed allowed the public to smoke.

The Scottish Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public Places islaunched by Health Minister Susan Deacon. The British HospitalityAssociation, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, the ScottishLicensed Trade Association, the Scottish Tourism Forum and theScottish Executive all agreed the charter. The launch took place atthe Scottish Licensed Trade Association’s annual conference inDundee.

Scotland CAN! (Cleaner Air Now) is launched. Scotland CAN!campaigns for legislation to restrict smoking in public places.Members are ASH Scotland, British Medical Association, NationalAsthma Campaign Scotland, Children in Scotland, British LungFoundation and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The launchwas supported by Hugh Henry MSP and TV actor Richard Wilson.

A new consultation on an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) isannounced on smoking in the workplace.

To mark the first anniversary of Scotland CAN! Hugh Henry MSPtables a motion calling for a national public information campaign onthe health risks of passive smoking. In August Health Minister SusanDeacon announced plans to develop a passive smoking campaignby HEBS.

January 2000

February 2000

11th May 2000

23rd May 2000

31st May 2000

September 2000

31st May 2001

Kenneth Gibson MSP proposes to introduce a Bill to regulatesmoking in enclosed public places where food is sold and consumed.A Member led consultation on The Regulation of Smoking Bill tookplace between November 2001 and February 2002 to assist in theformation of the Bill. The Bill was to be introduced to the ScottishParliament after the Scottish Parliament election in May 2003 butGibson was not re-elected. The Bill was picked up later in 2003 byStewart Maxwell MSP.

ASH Scotland and Scotland CAN! make the case to Scotland’spolitical parties for legislation to restrict smoking in public places byholding fringe events at the Liberal Democrat, Conservative andScottish National Party conferences.

The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 introducing acomprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and promotion receivesRoyal Assent.

ASH Scotland and HEBS commission MVA to carry out a follow-upsurvey ‘Smoking In Public Places: A Follow Up Survey Of TheScottish Leisure Industry’ for the Scottish Executive.

Tobacco advertising on billboards and in print media is prohibitedunder the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.

The Smoke-Free Air Act takes effect in New York City endingsmoking in public places.

ASH Scotland hosts a public meeting where guest speaker ProfessorStanton Glantz presented ‘Smoke-free public places: what Scotlandcan learn from America’. Over the coming months ASH Scotlandmakes legislation on smoking in public places ASH Scotland’scampaign major goal.

Under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 direct mailand other promotions are prohibited.

“A Partnership Agreement for a Better Scotland” is published. Thisagreement between Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs sets out thepolicies for the Scottish Executive over the next 4 years. Thisincludes a commitment to consult on how to achieve considerablymore smoke-free bars and restaurants and to consult transportoperators on further measures to improve enforcement of restrictionson smoking in public transport.

6th July 2001

Autumn 2002

November 2002

January 2003

14th February 2003

30th March 2003

11th April 2003

May 2003

15 May 2003



37

Sir Liam Donaldson, England’s Chief Medical Officer, calls for a banon smoking in public places in his annual report.

MVA follow-up survey ‘Smoking in Public Places: A Follow Up Surveyof the Scottish Leisure Industry’ is published. The survey, funded bythe Scottish Executive, found that after nearly 3 years more than 7 in10 Scottish pubs and bars permit smoking throughout.

The Scottish Executive publish ‘Improving Health in Scotland: theChallenge’ aimed at bringing about a more rapid rate of healthimprovement in Scotland and to narrow the gap between the healthof our poorer and better off communitites. The Challenge describesa series of actions to tackle key risk factors. The Challenge containsa commitment to review tobacco policy in conjunction with keyinterests and to set out a new plan for action to build on theachievements made. To inform that process the Executive invitesASH Scotland and NHS Health Scotland to undertake a review ofnational tobacco control policy which would: examine currentsmoking trends; summarise the most up to date evidence; considercurrent prevention, control and treatment strategies in Scotland; andto make recommendations about what further action might be takenin Scotland.

The report resulting from that review of tobacco policy ‘ReducingSmoking and Tobacco-Related Harm a Key to TransformingScotland’s Health’ is jointly published by ASH Scotland and NHSHealth Scotland. This document makes recommendations to theScottish Executive for further action on tobacco control.

On the same day the Scottish Executive publish the first ever actionplan designed specifically for Scotland ‘A Breath of Fresh Air forScotland’. This action plan builds upon and responds to therecommendations made in the ASH Scotland and NHS HealthScotland’s report ‘Reducing Smoking and Tobacco Related Harm’and offers a program of action covering prevention and education,protection and controls and the expansion of cessation services. Italso addresses the issue of second-hand smoke including acommitment to consult on smoking in public places. As one of theaction points the Scottish Tobacco Control Strategy Group isupgraded and becomes the Scottish Ministerial Working Group toguide the implementation of this action plan and shape the futuredirection of national tobacco control policy.

July 2003

23rd September 2003

February 2003

13th January 2004



38

Stewart Maxwell MSP introduces the Prohibition of Smoking inRegulated Areas (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament. The Billproposes to prevent people from being exposed to passive smokingin certain public places by prohibiting smoking where food is suppliedand consumed.

The new Scottish Ministerial Working Group on Tobacco Controlmeets for the first time. The broad based membership includesauthorative figures in the tobacco control and related areas inScotland including the Chief Executive of ASH Scotland, healthprofessionals, academics, young peoples’ representatives, andretailing interests.

Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer Dr Mac Armstrong publishes hisannual report ‘Health in Scotland 2003’. Dr Armstrong describedsmoking as the biggest cause of preventable death and ill-health inScotland.

Pioneering legislation to prohibit smoking in all workplaces comes into force in the Republic of Ireland under the Public Health (Tobacco)(Amendment) Act 2004.

Legislation ending smoking in places where food and/or drink isserved is implemented in Norway. Prior to this hospitality industryworkers were the only group of workers not covered by legislation.

Scottish Executive public consultation on smoking in public places.30th September 2004. The widespread and inclusive consultationprocess included a series of public forums and the Scottish Executivehosted conference in Edinburgh which looked at the ways othercountries were reducing exposure to passive smoking and the healthrisks of secondhand smoke.

First Minister Jack McConnell also visited Ireland to see how smoke-free legislation is working there.

Health Scotland commissioned research on behalf of the ScottishExecutive to support the consultation. This includes research intopassive smoking and associated deaths in Scotland, workplacesmoking polices and an international review of the health andeconomic impact of the regulating smoking in public places. Over53,000 consultation responses are received, the most for anyScottish Executive consultation.

3rd February 2004

28 March 2004

7th April 2004

29th April 2004

1st June 2004

7th June 2004



39

Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer Dr Mac Armstrong addresses ASHScotland’s AGM underlining the deadly nature of environmentaltobacco smoke (ETS), and the particular risks to children andvulnerable people. He told the meeting we need to act to protectthose who cannot choose, and to send a clear signal that smoking isno longer normal in Scotland. Jim Devine, UNISON , also a guestspeaker , said that clear tobacco control policies backed up by lawwere demonstrably good for employers and employees. He pointedout that negative and vitriolic opposition in advance of the bans inNew York and Ireland had proved to be groundless.

Following a Cabinet reshuffle Andy Kerr MSP is appointed Ministerfor Health and Community Care and Rhona Brankin MSP isappointed Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care.

SCCOT is reformed under the wider coalition Scottish Coalition onTobacco (SCOT). Scotland CAN! now comes under this umbrella.

The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health publish‘Secondhand Smoke: Review of the Evidence since 1998. Update ofEvidence on the Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke’. TheCommittee concludes that no infant, adult or child should be exposedto secondhand smoke and that secondhand smoke represents asubstantial public health hazard.

The High Court rules in favour of the Department of Health over thetobacco industry challenge of the point of sale regulations.

First Minister Jack McConnell announces to the Scottish Parliamentthat the Scottish Executive will propose legislation for acomprehensive ban on smoking in public places.

The Scotland CAN! Press and Communications Subcommittee isformed as a short-life working group to make recommendations andtake forward the communications work of Scotland CAN!

Licensed premises and other indoor workplaces become smoke-freein New Zealand following an amendment to the Smoke-FreeEnvironments Act 1990.

The Scottish Executive publishes the full research and finding fromthe smoking in public places consultation used to inform theirdecision on smoking in public places.

24th June 2004

4th October 2004

November 2004

5th November 2004

10th November 2004

December 2004

10th December 2004

13th December 2004



40

UK government ratifies the World Health Organization FrameworkConvention on Tobacco Control. The Convention contains a host ofmeasures designed to reduce the devastating health and economicimpact of tobacco on a global level.

The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill is introduced tothe Scottish Parliament. Health Minister Andy Kerr describes it as the“most important piece of public health legislation for a generation”.

Point of Sale (Scotland) Regulations come into force under theTobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. The regulations governtobacco advertising in shops and on vending machines.

Legislation prohibiting smoking in offices, bars, restaurants, hotels,theatres, discos and cafés comes into force in Italy.

The Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee publishes its Stage 1report on the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland)Bill.

Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer says that legislation to end smokingin enclosed public places will bring a “priceless benefit”.

The Lord Advocate announces his decision to revise his prosecutionpolicy to allow test purchasing of age-restricted goods by childrenand young people younger than 18, in circumstances where thepurchaser is not committing a separate offence. In practice, this willallow the test purchasing of tobacco, fireworks and other age-restricted goods but not alcohol.

The World Health Organization Framework Convention on TobaccoControl enters into force and becomes part of international law.

A study published in the British Medical Journal finds that passivesmoking kills more than 11,000 in the UK each year and that 600people die each year from passive smoking in the workplace.

Cancer Research UK and ASH Scotland host a drop-in smokingcessation clinic and No Smoking Day exhibit at the ScottishParliament.

Andy Kerr, Minister for Health and Community Care attends aSCOT/Scotland CAN! Meeting.

16th December 2004

17th December 2004

21st December 2004

10th January 2005

11th January 2005

8th February 2005

25th February 2005

27th February 2005

2nd March 2005

9th March 2005

27th April 2005



41

The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill is approved atstage 1 after MSPs vote in favour of the general principles of the Bill.

Scotland CAN! launches the ‘Support smoke-free public places’postcard campaign at the Scottish Parliament. Scotland rugby starsGavin and Scott Hastings and school children attend the event. Theaim of the campaign is to give people the opportunity to let theirMSPs know they support smoke-free enclosed public places.

On the same day, Lord Nimmo Smith issues his judgment on theMcTear vs Imperial Tobacco case and rules that Imperial Tobaccowas not responsible for the death of Alfred McTear.

All restaurants, cafes, bars and nightclubs in Sweden becomesmoke-free under an amendment to the Tobacco Act.

A seminar, organized by Health Scotland and the Scottish Executive,on the health and economic impacts of the proposed smoke-freelegislation for Scotland is held.

Lewis Macdonald MSP is appointed Deputy Minister for Health andCommunity Care.

The Scottish Parliament votes 97 to 17 (1 abstention) in favour of theSmoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill.

The Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill iswithdrawn.

Tobacco industry sponsorship of sport is prohibited under theTobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Brandsharingregulations also come into force.

The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act receives RoyalAssent.

Expected implementation date of the Smoking, Health and SocialCare (Scotland) Act 2005.

28th April 2005

31st May 2005

1st June 2005

8th June 2005

27th June 2005

30th June 2005

21st July 2005

31st July 2005

5th August 2005

26th March 2006



42

43



44

ASH Scotland

Asthma UK Scotland

British Heart Foundation

British Lung Foundation

British Medical Association

Cancer Research UK Scotland

Children in Scotland

Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)

Scotland’s Health at Work (now part of the Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives)

Centre for Tobacco Control Research, Institute for Social Marketing, Stirling University

Macmillan Cancer Relief

Marie Curie Cancer Care

NHS Health Scotland

Professor Alan Rodger, Medical Director of the Beatson Oncology Centre

Royal College of Nursing (RCN)

The Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS)

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation

Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh

Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh

Smoking Concerns, NHS Greater Glasgow

Scottish Tobacco Control Alliance (STCA)

Scotland's Trade Union Centre (STUC)

UNISON

West Lothian Drug and Alcohol Service (WLDAS)

Appendix 1: Scotland CAN! Member Organisations

45



46

1 EEC: (Philip Morris) EEC Corporate Affairs Department. “ETS Communication Plan910000”. Dec 1990. Bates No: 2026097517-2026097541. http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2026097517-7541.html [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].2 US Department of Health and Human Services, 1986. The health consequences ofinvoluntary smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. US Department of Health and HumanServices, Rockville, Maryland.3 National Research Council Committee on Passive Smoking, 1986. Environmental tobaccosmoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects. National Research Council:Washington.4 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1986. IARC monographs on the evaluation ofthe carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans: tobacco smoking (volume 38). IARC: Lyon.5 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, 1987. Effects of passive smokingon health: report of the NHMRC Working Party on the effects of passive smoking on health.Australia Government Publishing Service: Canberra.6 Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, 1998. Report of the Scientific Committee onTobacco and Health. London: The Stationery Office7 Turner A. Council Tobacco Advisory. Managing the ETS Issue - report by ETS IssueManagement Group. 18 Jun 1987. Brown and Williamson. Bates No. 620805325/5353.http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/azt21f00 [Accessed 28 Jul 2005].8 Minutes of the 11th meeting of the Public Relations Subcommittee of T.A.C. held at GlenHouse, Stag Place, London, SW1, on Tuesday, 790508. 8 May 1979 (est.). Philip Morris.Bates No. 2501159474/9481A. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iwt22e00 [Accessed 28 Jul2005].9 Milson S. Forest Payments. 24 Jun 2000. British American Tobacco. Bates no. 322055568.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/utz23a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].10 United Kingdom Three Year Plan 890000 - 910000. 1989 (est.). Philip Morris. Bates No.2501317368/7388. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hjt22e00. (est.). (Accessed 28 Jul 2005)11 Eyres Stephen. FOREST: Director's Report.303667474-303667499.12 Eyres S. [Letter from PM Steele to Martin regarding his last meeting with FOREST]. 18 Jan1985. British American Tobacco. Bates No. 303667637/640.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fkq00a99 (Accessed 8 Sep 2005).13 Eyres S. System Three survey smoking in Scottish restaurants FHW complaints, no supportfor ban. British American Tobacco. Bates no. 303667568/570.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vjq00a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].14 Monteith, B. 2000. FOREST – Dedicated to Tolerance. Holyrood Magazine, June 19th. 15 Herald., 2000. Editorial: No smoke without fire. Herald, 15 June. 16 Edinburgh Evening News., 2000. MSP attacked in smoker row. Edinburgh Evening News,15 June.17 The Scotsman., 2000. Aggressive marketing if an addictive product. 27 June. 18 Marketing strategy for ETS populist booklets 'Out and About', 'On the Move', 'Nine to Five'.10 May 1990. British American Tobacco. Bates No. 300541243/267.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ibj00a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].

References


19 UK handover UK industry. British American Tobacco. Bates No. 325123768/770.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bds62a99. [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].20 Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR). [AIR website]. Available at: http://www.airinitiative.com[accessed 02 Sep 2005].21 O’Brien S. The 'Courtesy of Choice' programme 1996-1997 activity and budget forecast. 28Jul 1995. British American Tobacco. Bates No. 800125967/981.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wqp72a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005]22 Turner C. Extending the Courtesy of 'Choice Programme' into the UK. 19 Oct 1994. BritishAmerican Tobacco. Bates No. 500893195. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wog00a99 [Accessed05 Sep 2005].23 The Courtesy of Choice' in the United Kingdom. 16 May 1995. British American Tobacco.Bates No. 800125930/960. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vqp72a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].24 The Courtesy of Choice. British American Tobacco. Bates No. 500888642/647.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qgj30a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].25 Monthly Status Report - May 1998. May 1998 (est). British American Tobacco. Bates No.321311043/046. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kuy23a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].26 Conference transcripts speeches from Edinburgh and Darlington 1998 smoking in pubs theissues. 1998 (est). British American Tobacco. Bates No. 321333735/779.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qwy23a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].27 Activity report TMA monthly review. 09 Sep 1999. British American Tobacco. Bates No.321310456. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyq03a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].28 Activity report TMA monthly review - hospitality sector activity. 16 Nov 2000. BritishAmerican Tobacco. Bates no. 325133106.29 Great Britain Department of Health. Smoking Kills: A White Paper on Tobacco. 10thDecember 1998. The Stationary Office. 30 ASH Scotland Press Release (10/12/1998). ’Response to the White Paper on TobaccoControl.http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?pContentID=3679&p_service=Content.show&p_applic=CCC& [Accessed 08 Sep 2005].31 Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR). Clean air benefits. Available fromhttp://www.airinitiative.com/cleanairbenefits.asp [accessed 02 Sep 2005].32 Health and Safety Commission, Proposal for an Approved Code of Practice on PassiveSmoking at Work. 29 July 1999. 33 ASH Scotland Press Release (29/07/99). ‘Health and Safety Code comment’.http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?p_applic=CCC&pContentID=3600&p_service=Content.show& [Accessed 08 Sep 2005].34 Milson S. Information Update. 01 Dec 1998. British American Tobacco. Bates No.325094118/119. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fzr62a99 [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].35 Repace, J., 2003. A killer on the loose: an Action on Smoking and Health specialinvestigation into the threat of passive smoking to the UK workforce. London: ASH (Action onSmoking and Health).36 Milson S. TMA. 10 Jun 1999. British American Tobacco. Bates No. 321423567.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cxv61a99 [Accessed 5 Sep 2005].

47



37 Dalgety,S., 1999. Will smoking ban damage Labour’s good health?Edinburgh Evening News, 28 Aug.38 News of the World., 1999. Stub it out! Readers back bid to curb smoking. News of the World, 29 Aug, p2. 39 Macdonnell, H., 1999. MSPs united in battle for total ban on smoking in public places.Daily Mail, 18 Aug.40 Clark, S., 1999. Letters. Scotsman, 20 Aug.41 Smith, A.,1999. Court threat to smokers. Daily Record, 20 Aug, p8.42 Smith, A., 1999. Court threat to smokers. Daily Record, 20 Aug, p8.43 Macdonnell, H., 1999. MSPs united in battle for total ban on smoking in public places. Daily Mail, 18 Aug.44 Farquharson, K., 1999. Tobacco firms lobby MSPs to fight smoking curbs. Sunday Times. 05 Sep. 45 TMA campaign groups minutes of meeting held on 9th September 1999. 13 Sep 1999.British American Tobacco. Bates No. 321310498/501. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/khz13a99[Accessed 05 Sep 2005].46 TMA draft budget and priorities 2000/01. 2 Mar 2000. British American Tobacco. Bates No.325133555/561. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ues62a99. [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].47 Tobacco Manufacturers' Association financial summary nine month period ended 31December 2000. 2001 (est.). British American Tobacco. Bates No. 325132796/811.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pes62a99. [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].48 ASH Scotland/HEBS (2001). Smoking Policies in Public Places – Survey of Public Houseand Restaurant Customers. ASH Scotland, Edinburgh.49 Veitch, J. (2000). ‘Clear the air…or see smoking stubbed out.’ Edinburgh Evening News, 23 May. 50 Ball, M., 1999. [Letters]. Scotsman, 16 Sept.51 Sinclair,K., 2000. Licensed trade encouraged to provide no-smoking areas. Herald, 25 April.52 Pubs, bars and smoking solving a growing problem. 19 Feb 1993. British AmericanTobacco. Bates No. 800125840/858. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kqp72a99 [Accessed 7 Sep2005]53 British American Tobacco. Extract from Minutes of the BATCo Management Board Meetingheld on 25th October, 1995. Bates No.600108536.http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/data/m/n/v/mnv60a99/mnv60a99.pdf [Accessed 7 Sep 2005]54 Archived Parliamentary Questions and Answers on Passive Smoking (30 November 2000).http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show&pContentID=4204& [Accessed 07 Sep 2005].55 The Herald, 2000. Row ignites over smoking zones in pubs, 01 June. 56 O’Reilly D. Scientific Partnership Meeting. 22 May 2000. British American Tobacco. BatesNo. 325304870/871. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/frj82a99. [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].57 Social Reporting Issues & Process - March 2001. British American Tobacco. Bates No.325106223/251. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hfc53a99. [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].58 Scotland CAN.! 2002. Minutes of a meeting of Scotland CAN! held on 15 November at theBMA in Scotland, 14 Queen Street, Edinburgh.

48


59 Archived Parliamentary Questions and Answers on Smoking in Public Places (03 July 2003). http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?pContentID=4219&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show& [Accessed 07 Sep 2005].60 Cassels, J. Smoking in Public Places: A follow-up survey of the Scottish Leisure Industry.MVA 2003. Online at: http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/issues/mvafollowup.pdf[Accessed 08/07/04]61 ASH Scotland Press Release (11/05/2000). ‘Major Scottish Survey on Smoking in PublicPlaces.’http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?pContentID=3684&p_service=Content.show&p_applic=CCC& [Accessed 08 Sep 2005].62 BBC News., 2003. Passive smoke strategy has failed. BBC News online. 23 Sep. Availablefrom http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3130652.stm [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].63 NHS Health Scotland and ASH Scotland [2003]. Reducing Smoking and Tobacco-RelatedHarm a Key to Transforming Scotland’s Health. Published by Health Scotland.http://www.hebs.com/services/pubs/pdf/TobaccoReport.pdf [Accessed 07 Sep 2005]64 The Scottish Executive [2004]. A Breath of Fresh Air for Scotland. Improving Scotland’sHealth: The Challenge. Tobacco Control Action Plan.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/01/18736/31541 [Accessed 07 Sep 2005].65 Edinburgh Evening News., 2004. McConnell rejects total smoke ban. Edinburgh EveningNews. 08 Jan. 66 Lyons,W., Battle lines drawn over smoking ban. Scotsman, 07 Feb.67 Smith,G., Dundee on the road to being smoke-free. Herald, 05 Feb, p10.68 Fackelman, E.J. Smoking Attitudes Study. 1982. Bates number: 505745699-505745830.http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/502771897-1974.html69 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee., 2004. Report on the financial memorandum of theProhibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill. Available at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/finance/reports-04/fir04-finmemo-ps-01.htm [Accessed 05 Sep 2005].70 Samuels, B. and Glantz, S., 1991. The politics of local tobacco control. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 266, 2100-7.71 Scollo, M. et al., 2003. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, 12,13-20.72 Scottish Parliament Health Committee. Official Report 15th Meeting Health Committee2004, Session 2. 8 Jun. Available from: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/health/or-04/he04-1502.htm#Col946[Accessed 05 Sep 2005].73 Philip Morris. “ETS World Conference,” April 1994, Bates No: 2054893642-3656.http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyg12a00 [Accessed Nov 5 2004].74 Blot, W., McLaughlin, J.K., 1998. Passive smoking and lung cancer risk: what is the storynow?. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90, 1416-17.75 Ong,E.K., Glantz, S.A., 2000. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency forResearch on Cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet, 355, 1253-59.

49



76 Dacam P. [Project New Orleans]. 17 Jun 1998. British American Tobacco. Bates No.321959980. http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wmg23a99. [Accessed 05 Sep 2004].77 Excerpted from a 264-page report entitled Tobacco Company Strategies to UndermineTobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization, a Report of the Committee ofExperts on Tobacco Industry Documents created for the World Health Organization andpublished in July 2000. 78 Drope, J., and Chapman, S., 2001. Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientificknowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents. JEpidemiol Community Health, 55(8), 588-94.79 Rampton, S. and Stauber, J., 2000. How big tobacco helped create "the Junkman". PRWatch.80 SLTA’s written evidence to the Health Committee: The Prohibition of Smoking in RegulatedAreas (Scotland) Bill. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/health/inquiries/ros/he04-smo-147.htm[Accessed 09 Sep 2005].81 Philip Morris International. ETS Plan, Nordic Area 870000. 1987 (est.). Philip Morris. BatesNo. 2501189885/9898. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xyo32e00. (est.). [Accessed 28 Jul2005].82 Lancet., 2000. Resisting smoke and spin. Lancet; 355 (9211), 1197.83 Philip Morris. Proposal for the Organisation of the Whitecoat Project. 01 Feb 1998. BatesNo 2501254705-4708 http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/27471.html [Accessed 06 Sep2005].84 Scottish Parliament Health Committee, 2005.1st Report 2005 Stage 1 report on theProhibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill. Available at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/health/reports-05/her05-01-00.htm[Accessed 3 Aug 2005].85 The Scottish Parliament Finance Committee 1st Report 2005 (Session 2). Stage 1 Reporton the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill. Annex C: Oral Evidence andAssociated Written Evidence. 8 June 2004. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/health/reports-05/her05-01-05.htm#forest [Accessed 06 Sep 2005].86 Edelman, D.J., INFOTAB ETS Project The Overall Plan I. 12 Mar 1987. Philip Morris. BatesNo. 2022934011/4024. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cjj24e00. [Accessed 28 Jul 2005].87 ETS Strategy in the Philip Morris EEC Region. 9 Aug 1988 (est.). Philip Morris. Bates No.2028364722/4728. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jyg56e00. (est.). [Accessed 28 Jul 2005]88 Philip Morris European Economic Community Philip Morris International. Philip Morris EECRegion Three Year Plan 920000 - 940000. 1992 (est.). Philip Morris. Bates No.2500064227/4367. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qef42e00. (est.). (Accessed 28 Jul 2005)89 Scottish Licensed Trade Association. 2005. [Submission to the Finance Committee forevidence for the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill]. Available at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/finance/papers-05/fip05-05.pdf[Accessed 05 Sept 2005]

50


90 ASH Scotland Press Release [08/02/2005/. ‘ASH Scotland condemns inhumanelicensed trade evidence. http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?pContentID=4012&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show& [Accessed 09 Sep 2005].91 Harris G. 2004. Health chief ups pressure for Scots smoking ban. Times, 08 Apr. Availableonline at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14709-1140012,00.html [Accessed 05 Sep2005]92 Hole, D.J., 2005. Passive smoking and associated causes of death in adults in Scotland.Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland. Available at:http://www.healthscotland.com/researchcentre/pdf/mortalitystudy.pdf [Accessed 05 Sep 2005]93 Malam, S., et al., 2005. Workplace smoking policies in Scotland. Edinburgh: NHS HealthScotland. Available at:http://www.healthscotland.com/researchcentre/pdf/workplacesmokingpoliciesscotland.pdf[Accessed 05 Sep 2005]94 Ludbrooke, A., Bird, S., van Teijlingen, E. 2005. International Review of the Health andEcononmic Impact of the Regulation of Smoking in Public Places. Edinburgh: NHS HealthScotland. Available at:http://www.healthscotland.com/researchcentre/pdf.internationalreviewfullreport.pdf. [Accessed05 Sep 2005]95 Scottish Executive., 2004. Towards a smoke-free environment: Lessons from home andabroad – Report of a National Conference, 9th September 2004 Edinburgh. Summary ofPresentations. Available at: http://www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/library5/health/smipp07-02.asp [Accessed 05 Sep 2005] 96 Philip Morris. Philip Morris Corporate Affairs Europe Smoking Restrictions 3 year plan940000-960000. Nov 1993 (est.). Philip Morris. Bates No. 2025497317/7351.http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hmd34e00. [Accessed 28 Jul 2005]97 ASH Scotland’s response to the Scottish Executive’s smoking in public places consultation(September 2004). Available online at:http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/ASH%20Scotland%20Public%20Places%20Consultation%20response.doc [Accessed 05 Sep 2005]98 Lee, C. and Glantz, S. (2001). The Tobacco Industry's Successful Efforts to ControlTobacco Policy Making in Switzerland. Published online at:http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmi/Swiss2001/ [Accessed 05 Sep 2005]99 McGarvie, L., 2004. Pubs in cig ban attack. Sunday Mail, 15 Aug.100 Barnes, E., 2004. Wallace clears the air by backing smoke ban. Scotland on Sunday, 01Aug, p6.101 Office of Tobacco Control, Ireland. Excerpt from a Press Release (31/05/04) ‘Office ofTobacco Control finds 97% compliance with smoke-free workplace legislation. http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/html/policyaction/hotissues/bansmoking/downloads/tobacco_control%20_Ireland.pdf [Accessed 07 Sep 2005].102 McGarvie,L. 2004. Most Scots back cig ban. Sunday Mail. 29 Aug, p2.

51



103 FOREST., 2004. Smokers groups question validity of First Minister's Dublin visit. Availableonline at: http://www.forestonline.org/output/page272.asp [Accessed 05 Sep 2005]104 Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee., 2004. Welsh health minister says UK willfollow Irish smoking ban. PSNC News. Available online at:http://www.psnc.org.uk/index.php?type=more_news&id=1353&k=12 [Accessed 06 Sep 2005]105 MacDonnell, H. 2004. In 18 months' time this might be the law in every public place inScotland. Scotsman, 01 Sep.106 Scotsman, 2004. McConnell's Dublin conversion. Scotsman, 01 Sep.107 Waterson, P. (2005). The Licensed Trade in Scotland. Presentation at the Pub SmokingSeminar, 13th January 2005. 108 Scottish Licensed Trade Association. 2004., [Response to the Scottish Executive’sConsultation on smoking in public places]. Available at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/26800/0012799.pdf [Accessed 06 Sep 2005]109 Dearlove, J.V., Bialous, S.A., and Glantz, S.A., 2002. Tobacco industry manipulation of thehospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places. Tobacco Control, 11, 94-104. 110 Fabriques de Tabac Reunies SAPM. Consumer freedoms: overview EU and NationalSupport. 4 Jul 1994. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2028381353/1365.http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nlj56e00. [Accessed 28 Jul 2005]111 Philip Morris. Philip Morris Corporate Affairs Europe Smoking Restrictions 3 year plan940000-960000. Nov 1993 (est.). Philip Morris. Bates No. 2025497317/7351.http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hmd34e00. [Accessed 28 Jul 2005]112 Landman, A. and Bialick, R. "Tobacco Industry Involvement in Colorado" (June 30, 2004).Tobacco Control. Reports on Industry Activity. Paper CO2004. Available online at:http://repositories.cdlib.org/tc/reports/CO2004 [Accessed 02 Sep 2005).113 Against an Outright Ban., 2005. Who we are. Available at:http://www.againstanoutrightban.com [Accessed 06 Sep 2005] 114 Media House., 2005. Press release: Parliamentary committee questions smoking ban. 02Mar. Available at: http://www.mediahouse.co.uk/news/items/news_207.html [Accessed 06 Sep2005]115 Against An Outright Ban (AOB) website – News Page.http://www.againstanoutrightban.com/news.asp (Date observed 06/08/05).116 Freedom2Choose website: http://www.freedom2choose.org.uk/ (Date observed 06/08/05).117 FOREST., 2005. Campaign News. Available at:http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page258.asp [Accessed 6 Sep 2005]118 Freedom 2 Choose., (n.d.) Oppose the ban! Don’t let smoking in public houses become acrime: sign the petition. Available at: http://www.freedom2choose.org.uk/sign.htm [Accessed06 Sep 2005]119 Bale, B. 2004. A boom or a bit of a drag? The Press and Journal, 10 Nov. 120 BBC News., 2004. Minister unveils smoke ban bill. BBC News online. Available at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4103451.stm [Accessed 06 Sep 2005]121 Sinclair, P., Smoking gun. Daily Record, 18 Dec.

52


122 Atmosphere Improves Results (AIR)., 2004. Press release: Scots smoking ban a potentialdisaster says AIR. Available at: http://www.airinitiative.com/press.asp?id=121 [Accessed 06Sep 2005]123 ASH Scotland Press Release. [10/11/04]. ’Scotland to end smoking in enclosedpublic places.http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp?pContentID=4003&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show& [Accessed 09 Sep 2005].124 Hutcheon, P., 2004. Leading Tory challenges McConnell to prove passive smoking kills.Sunday Herald, 21 Nov.125 Hole, D.J., 2005. Passive smoking and associated causes of death in adults in Scotland.Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland. Available at:http://www.healthscotland.com/researchcentre/pdf/mortalitystudy.pdf [Accessed 05 Sep 2005]126 Americans for Nonsmokers Rights. What to expect from the Tobacco Industry. November2004. Available at: http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=271 (Accessed 07/09/2005).127 Stotesbury, S. (2005). Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Paper presented at the PubSmoking Seminar, 13th January. 128 O’Sullivan, T. (2005). Scottish Licensed Trade Association Pub Seminar Conference,Edinburgh, 13th January 2005.129 Dearlove, J.V., and Glantz, S.A., 2002. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitalityindustry to maintain smoking in public places. Tobacco Control, 11, 94-104 and AtmosphereImproves Results (AIR)., Press release: Clean air research gives smoking charter boost. 01Jul. Available at: http://www.airinitiative.com/press.asp?id=109 [Accessed 6 Sep 2005].130 Geens, A. (2005). Ventilation/Clearing the Smoke. Paper presented at the Pub SmokingSeminar, 13th January. 131 McGarvie, L., 2005. Smoke fight on the mats. Sunday Mail. 30 Jan, p12.132 FOREST, 2005. News release: RCP report "usual jumble of estimates, calculations andconjecture" says FOREST. 12 Jul. Available at:http://www.forestonline.org/output/page275.asp [Accessed 06 Sep 2005]133 Shields, B., 2005. Publicans fire up smoking ban debate. Daily Record. 28 Feb p2.134 ASH Scotland’s written submission to the Health Committee on the Smoking, Health andSocial Care (Scotland) Bill. (February 2005). Available online at:http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/ASH%20Scotland%20Smoking%20Health%20and%20Social%20Care%20Bill%20Written%20Evidence.doc [Accessed 06 Sep 2005]135 Vineis, P. et al. (2005). Second-hand smoke and risk of respiratory cancer and chronicobstructive pulmonary disease in former smokers and never smokers in the EPIC prospectivestudy. British Medical Journal Online First. Full paper available online at:http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/january/PassiveSmoking.pdf [Accessed 06 Sep 2005] 136 Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). November 2004. SecondhandSmoke: Review of the Evidence since 1998. Update of Evidence on Health Effects ofSecondhand Smoke. Department of Health. Available online at:http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf [Accessed 06 Sep 2005]137 Tobacco Scam., 2002. Hired guns: Roger Jenkins and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Available at: http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/vent/vent_hg_internal_4.cfm [Accessed 06Sep 2005]

53



138 Gourlay SG and McNeill JJ. 1990. Anti-smoking products, Medical Journal of Australia.153:pp.699-707139 ASH Scotland's response to the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005(Prohibition of smoking in certain premises). Regulations. May 2005.http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/ASHScotlandresponsetodraftregulations.doc[Accessed 06 Sep 2005].140 SCOT/Scotland CAN! Minutes of a Meeting with Andy Kerr MSP, Minister for Health &Community Care, 27th April 2005. ASH Scotland.141 The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill: Regulations.http://www.clearingtheair.com/ 142 Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill.http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/pdfs/b33bs2-aspassed.pdf [Accessed 06 Sep2005).143 Robinson, M. (1996). ‘Tilting at Tobacco.’ Stanford Magazine.http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/novdec/articles/tobacco.html [Accessed06 Sep 2005].

54

ISBN: 0-9520673-4-X