The government has consulted on an approved code of practice on passive smoking at work (ACOP). Karl Brookes, formerly of the anti-smoking health charity, ASH answers questions on what this will mean for workplace smoking
What will the approved code of practice (ACOP) mean for employers?
The ACOP simply clarifies the existing 1974 Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act and explains how this legislation applies to passive smoking. It is not in itself a new law.

The code will require employers to take all reasonable and practical steps to ensure that their workers can work in a smoke-free environment. It does not necessarily mean a ban on smoking in all workplaces, although it may mean this in some circumstances. It will not allow employers to take the 'do nothing and ignore it' option.

For indoor workplaces that the public does not visit (for example offices or factories) and places that the public must visit, but usually for a short time (such as shops), it will mean a de facto ban on smoking (although employers can provide smoking rooms).

For places where the public must visit, often for an extended time (for example, airports) smoking could be permitted in some areas, but employers must take steps to reduce employee exposure.

For workplaces that the public chooses to visit (including the hospitality industry — hotels, restaurants, bars and so on) employers may continue to allow smoking for perceived business reasons.

However, measures would have to be taken to do all that is practicable and reasonable to reduce employee exposure.

Finally, for those workplaces where people live (such as residential care homes), continued smoking would be allowed, but this might be confined to defined common or private areas.

If employers take these measures it will help to guard businesses against:

  • personal injury claims from staff working in a smoky environment
  • employment and contract law disputes at industrial and employment tribunals
  • prosecution under the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974).

What laws already exist on this?
The Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) obliges 'every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all his employees'.

This law extends to passive smoke, as the government's scientific advisory committee (the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health) has stated without equivocation that passive smoking causes cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness.

Is this fair on smokers?
Courts have consistently supported the right to work in a smoke-free and safe environment over the right to smoke. For example, an employment tribunal ruled that an employer was not in breach of contract for introducing a no smoking policy, having properly consulted the workforce and given due warning [Dryden vs Glasgow City Council 1992].

Is there really clear evidence that passive smoking is harmful?
In 1998 the UK Government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) produced clear evidence that passive smoke is a serious public health threat in the long term — causing 600 cases of lung cancer a year and thousands of cases of heart disease.

As well as the long-term health effects of passive smoke, it can be irritating to the eyes and throat and can bring on asthma attacks in sufferers. There are also many unpleasant side effects of passive smoke which are not linked to health — for example, the fact that it makes clothes and hair smell unpleasant.

There are many studies that show the damage done to people's health from passive smoking in the workplace. A University of Hong Kong study found that passive smoking in the workplace caused 150 deaths of Hong Kong employees per year.

Another recent study showed that passive smoking reduced the lung capacity of staff by up to 10 per cent. Lung capacity is a measure of how easy you find it to breathe.

These findings are on the record and could come back to haunt your business in a future tribunal case because you failed to tackle passive smoking at work.

What are the costs for the business community?
The preferred option is to ban smoking in the workplace if this is reasonable and practical. There are very few costs associated with this.

There will, inevitably, be costs for business in introducing ventilation if employers decide to allow smoking to continue in a controlled way. There may also be losses if smokers have to leave their workstation to take a cigarette break.

However, there will also be savings. Studies have shown that employees who smoke are more likely to give up the habit if they work in smoke-free environments, meaning fewer days off due to smoking related illness, and less time spent away from their work by smoking employees taking cigarette breaks during the working day. Smoke-free offices also need less redecoration. The Canadian Department of Health discovered that smoking employees cost employers over £1,000 more — due to increased cleaning costs, fire insurance, sickness than their non-smoking colleagues.