National Consultation 2004
Analysis of the key questions asked in the consultation document has been undertaken on 53,474 responses, which takes into account duplicate responses and petitions.
The full report on the analysis of responses, along with reports on all the other elements of the consultation process, including a final evidence report which will draw together the findings from all of these reports, will be published in early December.
Characteristics or respondents
There were 52,441 personal responses to the consultation and 1,033 responses from groups, organisations or businesses.
Of the personal responses, there was a fairly equal split in terms of gender (48% male, 50% female, 2% no reply).
Respondents covered a broad age range, with the majority (67%) in the 25-59 age group.
A large majority of the respondents (77%) were non-smokers (this is similar to the actual percentage of non-smokers in Scotland).
66% of responses were submitted by hard copy returned questionnaires, 31% on-line, 2% by letter/fax and 1% by e-mail.
There was a wide range of organisations and businesses who responded, including NHS Boards and other health organisations, local authorities, voluntary and community organisations, educational institutions, nursing homes, restaurants, cafes, pubs, hotels, transport bodies, retail, manufacturing, construction and agricultural sectors, and trade unions.
Top Line Results
Majority (82%) of respondents thought that further action needs to be taken to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke, 13% thought that no further action needs to be taken, 2% didn't know and 4% did not reply.
Majority (80%) of respondents would support a law that would make enclosed public places smoke-free, 18% would not support a law, 2% didn't know and 1% did not reply.
Majority (56%) of respondents did not think that there should be any exemptions if a law was introduced, 35% indicated that there should be, 5% didn't know and 4% did not reply. 24% of those who indicated that they would support a law were in favour of exemptions.
Whilst the general public and the hospitality sector tended to focus on pubs, clubs and restaurants in terms of exemptions, organisations also referred to long-stay care facilities, prisons and workplaces that are also homes of looked after individuals.
Additional Comments
The key issues to have emerged so far from the analysis of additional comments covered a number of distinct themes.
These included health issues, whether or not there is a need for legislation and the extent to which legislation should be introduced, the concept of freedom of choice, the impact of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places and whether or not there should be exemptions for specific types of location.
The most frequent comment from the general public and organisations focused on the health risks associated with passive smoking.
A small proportion of respondents commented that a ban could have a negative impact on certain types of business.
Some consultees had a preference for some form of compromise route with suggestions for banning smoking in specific types of places, but not in others; the most commonly mentioned locations where smoking should be allowed to continue was in pubs.
Another compromise route suggested by some consultees was for separate or designated smoking areas in all enclosed public places.
Those against exemptions tended to focus on needing a level playing field for all organisations and there were some concerns that exemptions could cause confusion. Levels of support amongst organisations for exemptions were lower.
There were, however, comments relating to enclosed public places such as care homes or prisons that are not defined purely as enclosed public places, but are also homes for some individuals and workplaces for others.
Some respondents commented that the introduction of a law prohibiting smoking is needed as voluntary schemes have proved ineffective to date.
A range of suggestions were made in relation to encouraging employers to become smoke free through (primarily) financial incentives.