healthscotland.com

Workplace Smoking Policies in Scotland

Contents:

Executive Summary Executive Summary 1. Background to study and method 1. Background to study and method 2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking 2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking 3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work 3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work 4. Smoking policies in the workplace 4. Smoking policies in the workplace 5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies 5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies 6. Views of current smoking policies 6. Views of current smoking policies 7. Cessation support 7. Cessation support 8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives 8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives Appendix A Appendix A Appendix B Appendix B Appendix C Appendix C Appendix D Appendix D

8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives

• The quantitative study explored awareness of various policy initiatives related to smoking policies in the workplace. Levels of support for future legislation were also measured. The qualitative study further explored employer and employee feelings about future legislation.
• Whilst the quantitative survey found that only around a third were aware of existing initiatives such as SHAW (28%), the Voluntary Charter (36% of those affected), or the Maxwell Bill (38%), legislation was one of the most widely accepted facilitators to policy implementation. Support was higher for legislation to restrict (82%) rather than ban (71%) smoking, but overall the majority was in favour of either approach. Support for legislation to ban smoking was lower among the leisure and hospitality, and transport and storage sectors but they were no less likely to support legislation to restrict smoking than other sectors.
• Only one in twenty respondents (5%) indicated that their organisation had no current policy restricting smoking and they were also opposed to legislation to restrict employee smoking. The greatest resistance to legislation is likely to be encountered in small retail outlets and smaller businesses in leisure and hospitality, for whom concerns about resourcing and loss of business are likely to be greatest.
• Two in ten respondents (20%) indicated both that their organisation did not ban and that they were opposed to such legislation. The opposition was greatest in workplaces with the highest proportion of smokers in the workplace.
• The qualitative research found that respondents' views about legislation were determined by a range of factors: their level of satisfaction about their present situation; their beliefs about the level of change required; their anticipation of the reaction of staff and customers to these changes; the effect on pubs and bars where they socialised; unsightly groups outside doorways; and resistance to a 'big brother' imposition of policy on businesses.
• When considering who should take the lead regarding legislation, respondents were keen that either the Scottish Executive or local authorities did so. Those who favoured the Scottish Executive focused on the need for consistency, while those suggesting local authorities wanted flexibility or believed that this approach would facilitate acceptance.
• Legislation was believed to have potential benefits in relation to both health and comfort. However, there were also serious worries for both businesses and individuals.

8.1 Quantitative Study

8.1.1 Scotland?s Health at Work (SHAW) scheme

Awareness of Scotland's Health at Work scheme (SHAW) was not particularly high, with less than three in ten (28%) having heard of the scheme (Table 8.1). Awareness was low across all of the business sectors and also varied little according to the size of the organisation and/or workplace. Given that SHAW is largely linked to the public sector, then these levels of awareness are perhaps not surprising.

Table 8.1: Awareness and use of the SHAW scheme (%)

Awareness of SHAW	All workplaces (1604)	SME workplaces (1066)	Workplaces in large organisations (538)
Aware of SHAW	28%	28%	29%
Involvement in SHAW
Base: All aware of SHAW	493	300	193
Applied for award	5%	3%	12%
Received award	2%	1%	10%
Base: All workplaces

Those who were aware were also unlikely to participate in the scheme, with only 5% having applied for an award and 2% having achieved one. Applications amongst those who were aware did vary according to the size of the organisation, with SME workplaces who had heard of the scheme less likely (3%) to have applied for an award than those from large organisations (12%). If SHAW is to be used as a facilitator to reduce smoking in the workplace in Scotland, then considerable work will be needed to raise awareness of, and participation in, the scheme.

8.1.2 Scottish Voluntary Charter

In May 2000, the four main bodies in the licensed trade, tourism and hospitality sectors came together to establish the Voluntary Charter. It was intended to extend the provision of smoke-free areas for customers of these sectors. In order to assess the impact of this Charter on organisations from this sector, respondents were first asked whether they considered their organisation to be from the licensed trade, tourism or hospitality sectors, the sectors affected by the Charter.

Two in ten workplaces (20%) defined themselves as belonging to these sectors. These were largely businesses in the leisure and hospitality sector, with others from retail and transport.

In total, just over a third (36%) of respondents in the licensed trade, tourism and hospitality sectors had heard of the Charter, with a further 8% being aware of some plans. In total, this is similar to the level of awareness recorded in the 2003 survey of the Scottish Hospitality sector³ (45%). There was some variation here according to sector and organisation size. Those from the leisure and hospitality sector were more likely (47%) to be aware of the Charter than those affected in other sectors (such as retail and transport). SME workplaces were more than twice as likely (39%) to be aware of the Charter than workplaces of large organisations (17%).

Of those in the relevant sectors who had heard of the Charter (n=107), only a quarter (27%) had made any changes as a result of it. The changes made included introducing or changing signage relating to the smoking policy, introducing a smoking policy for the first time and introducing ventilation. As such a small number (n=35) had made changes, it is not possible to analyse these changes in any greater detail. The 2003 survey also noted a low level of active compliance with the key aspects of the Charter. Clearly, the Charter is still having limited impact on the implementation of workplace smoking policies.

At present, therefore, the Voluntary Charter is not acting as a strong facilitator to the implementation of smoking polices. Organisations from the sectors within the Charter are also least likely to have smoking restrictions in place and least receptive to implementing such policies in the future.

³ Cassels, J. (2003) Smoking in Public Places: A follow up survey of the Scottish leisure industry. Edinburgh, ASH Scotland and NHS Health Scotland.

8.1.3 Maxwell Bill

The Regulation of Smoking (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in 2004 by Stewart Maxwell MSP⁴. The bill was intended to prohibit smoking, by customer and employees alike, in areas where food is served and eaten in the same place. Following an explanation of the proposed contents of the bill, four in ten workplaces (38%) said they had heard of it, and a further one in ten (8%) was aware of some plans.

Around one in four (23%) workplaces was likely to be affected by the Bill, as they served food to their employees and/or the general public that was consumed on-site. Organisations from all business sectors were affected, although almost half (46%) were from the leisure and hospitality sector and one in five (20%) from the retail and wholesale sectors. Of those who were likely to be affected by the Bill's introduction, under half (44%) were aware of it, with a further one in ten (9%) being aware of some plans. Those likely to be affected by the Bill were asked to comment on what they saw as its potential benefits and negative consequences. Only responses mentioned by at least ten respondents are included in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Percentage of workplaces affected by the Maxwell Bill who mentioned each potential benefit of the Bill (%)

Potential benefit	All workplaces (462)	SME workplaces (272)	Workplaces in large organisations (190)
Protect health of non-smokers	21%	21%	22%
Increase productivity	6%	6%	6%
Fresher/cleaner smell	6%	6%	4%
Supports organisations in implementing their own restrictions	4%	5%	2%
Increase in custom	4%	4%	4%
Increase in customer satisfaction	3%	2%	4%
No benefits	52%	52%	53%
Base: All workplaces that would be affected by the Maxwell Bill

The answers given included many of the same things given as the perceived benefits of restricting smoking in the workplace in general: protecting the health of non-smokers (21%), increased productivity (6%) and creating a cleaner or fresher smell (6%). A minority (4%) felt that the Bill would help them by supporting them in implementing their own restrictions. This is an interesting insight into the role that legislation has to play in facilitating the implementation of smoking restrictions, an issue that will be explored further in Section 8.2. Over half of those affected (52%) could not, however, see any benefits of this proposed Bill. There were no differences between workplaces in SMEs and large organisations.

Those who would be affected by the Bill were also asked what they thought the negative consequences of the Bill's introduction would be. Again, only responses mentioned by at least ten respondents are included in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Percentage of workplaces affected by the Maxwell Bill who mentioned each potential negative consequence of the Bill (%)

Potential negative consequence	All workplaces (462)	SME workplaces (272)	Workplaces in large organisations (190)
Loss of custom/business	23%	25%	13%
Customer dissatisfaction	12%	14%	5%
Confrontation/ill feeling amongst employees	10%	10%	10%
Removal of civil liberties/freedom of choice	3%	3%	2%
No negative consequences	52%	49%	66%
Base: All workplaces that would be affected by the Maxwell Bill

The two most commonly mentioned consequences, loss of custom (23%) and customer dissatisfaction (12%), related to the impact the Bill would have on the organisation's bottom line. Indeed, this was a particular worry to SME workplaces, with a quarter (25%) mentioning loss of custom compared with 13% of those from large organisations. As was the case when considering the implementation of smoking restrictions in the workplace more generally, smaller organisations were especially worried about the financial impact of this legislation, and it is this barrier to change that will need to be addressed if SMEs are to make changes in the future.

Half of respondents (52%) saw no negative consequences if this Bill were to be introduced, although this was only the case for 28% of those in the leisure and hospitality sector. Fears in this sector about loss of custom and customer dissatisfaction also pose a barrier to policy implementation.

The finding that half of those affected could not see any benefits or negative consequences of the Bill probably reflects the lack of awareness of the Bill prior to the survey. Whilst an explanation of the proposed contents of the Bill was given to respondents, many respondents would not have had enough time to think through the potential implications.

⁴ Since the research was conducted, the Regulation of Smoking (Scotland) Bill has been suspended pending consideration of Scottish Executive legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places.

8.1.4 Future legislation

In addition to their views on the Bill proposed by Stewart Maxwell MSP, respondents were also asked whether or not they believed legislation was necessary before organisations would start to implement smoking restrictions. Seven in ten respondents (72%) agreed that legislation was necessary. This indicates that workplaces view legislation as a potential facilitator in implementing smoking restrictions in the workplace, or that some would not be willing to introduce such policies unless there was legislation. There was a general acceptance that legislation would be necessary, regardless of organisation size or business sector.

In exploring the barriers and facilitators to smoking policies, the discussion in Chapter 3 suggested that there might be more resistance to implementing a total ban than to smoking restrictions. Attitudes to legislation for both types of policy were explored.

Figure 8.1: Whether respondents would support legislation to ban smoking in the workplace or to restrict smoking in the workplace (%)

The majority of respondents were receptive, in principle at least, to legislation that would either ban or restrict smoking by employees in the workplace, with slightly higher support for restrictions than for a ban (Figure 8.1). There were, however, a couple of factors that might affect organisations' willingness to accept such legislation and, therefore, might act as barriers to their implementation of smoking restrictions in the workplace.

First, organisations with a high proportion of smokers were less likely to support either type of legislation, although this was strongly mitigated by legislation that would restrict rather than ban smoking, as shown in Table 8.4.

Table 8.4: Percentage of respondents who would support legislation to ban or restrict smoking in the workplace, by estimated number of employees who smoke (%)

No. of employees who smoke in workplace	% who support ban	% who support restrictions
All/nearly all (131)	45%	70%
Half or more (156)	57%	82%
Under half (322)	70%	88%
Just a few (604)	70%	82%
None (362)	84%	87%
Base: All respondents

Clearly, work will need to be done to convince those with high proportions of smokers that this need not be a barrier to their implementation of smoking restrictions, especially if a full ban were to be enforced. For instance, greater communication of the support that cessation services can offer could help allay the fears of those with high numbers of smokers amongst their workforce.

There were also varying levels of support across the business sectors, with those in the leisure and hospitality sector least likely (58%) to support an employee smoking ban. These workplaces were, however, more receptive to legislation that would impose smoking restrictions, with 78% supporting this course of action. There was a similar pattern in the transport and storage sector, with 61% in favour of legislation for a ban, rising to 90% in favour of legislating for a restriction.

There was a similar pattern (albeit less extreme) across all sectors, reflected in the overall findings illustrated in Figure 8.1, with support for restricting smoking being greater than support for a full ban on employee smoking. It seems, therefore, that legislation that would restrict smoking by employees would be the greatest facilitator in implementing widespread acceptance of smoking restrictions in the workplace.

Whilst there are potential barriers to the implementation of smoking restrictions, in particular to the implementation of a complete ban, those who are currently without a policy are willing to accept legislation that would force them to adopt a policy. Indeed, six in ten (62%) of those without a policy would support legislation banning smoking in the workplace whilst just fewer than eight in ten (79%) would support legislation restricting smoking in the workplace. The qualitative study indicated that most of those who did not have a formal policy did have rules about where and when staff could smoke, and that their practices were not always very different to those of workplaces with a formal policy.

8.1.5 Segmentation of workplaces by acceptance/resistance to smoking policies

In order to provide a fuller picture of the strength of resistance to smoking policies and legislation, it is possible to break down workplaces according to whether they currently have any smoking restrictions in place, and whether they are in favour of legislation for smoking restrictions. Workplaces with no restrictions in place, and which are opposed to legislation, will form the real hardcore resistance. It is important to assess the scale of this problem (see Figure 8.2).

Two in three (64%) need no further persuasion concerning smoking policies and legislation. They have a policy in place to restrict or ban smoking, and are in favour of legislation to restrict smoking. A further two in ten (19%) have no restrictions in place, but are in favour of legislation. The majority of these workplaces have few or no smokers, which probably explains the lack of current policy, leaving them generally accepting of the principle. One in ten (12%) respondents was not in favour of legislation, but nevertheless their organisations had an existing policy, indicating that their objections to the legislation might be more about not wanting to be told to do something, rather than having an objection to a policy per se.

Figure 8.2: Acceptance/resistance to smoking restriction policy/legislation (%)

This leaves only 5% who have no restrictive policy and are against any legislation. These are the hard-core opponents and are all SME workplaces, most with under 5 employees, with the greatest proportion in leisure and hospitality, or retail and wholesale. They are likely to include small shops and cafes, and would need to be the focus to remove resistance to smoking restrictions.

Figure 8.3: Acceptance/resistance to smoking ban policy/legislation (%)

If the decision were to be taken to legislate for a total ban rather than a restriction, opposition would be higher. One in five workplaces (20%) does not ban smoking currently and would be opposed to legislation to impose a ban on employee smoking (Figure 8.3). The profile of these workplaces is very similar to that of all workplaces interviewed. They span all sectors, and have the same size profile as the population of all non-commercial businesses with employees. The one key difference is that, in 39% of these workplaces, the majority of employees smoke, compared with 19% across all workplaces.

8.2 Qualitative Study

8.2.1 Current initiatives

As might be expected in the small sample of businesses involved in the qualitative case studies, there was little awareness of Scotland's Health at Work (SHAW) scheme, the Voluntary Charter or the Maxwell Bill. Only one of the bars or other leisure and hospitality businesses included in the case studies reported that they were aware of the Voluntary Charter. They viewed it as the licensed trade's way of trying to prevent the government banning smoking. The staff had been aware of a drive to persuade bars, hotels and other businesses to join the Charter and put up posters about it, so that the trade could demonstrate that there was no need for legislation.

Despite the lack of awareness of specific initiatives, respondents were often aware of there being a debate around the issue of banning smoking. They also tended to mention the bans on smoking in the United States and Ireland. The bans in these countries were generally agreed to have demonstrated that such legislation could be effective and not cause great disruption.

"I went to Los Angeles and the bars and restaurants were packed even though they are all non-smoking." (Non-smoker, 50-250 employees, leisure and hospitality).

In particular, the ban in Ireland was felt to indicate that even a country which respondents associated with smoky pubs could implement a ban without significant problems. There were also some reports of bans in parts of the UK or in specific businesses. Respondents mentioned that Pizza Hut was totally non-smoking and that they thought that Edinburgh or Brighton was planning to introduce a ban. These examples were given as a reinforcement of the idea that bans on smoking were a growing part of life and that it was possible to enforce them.

"There's one sort of council that's bringing it in before anyone else, I think its Brighton. And once it starts, as soon as somebody sees it's done there, it just spreads doesn't it? That's how all the policy works, that's how they speed things up, isn't it?" (Smoker, 2-4 employees, retail).

8.2.2 Future legislation

In the interviews with staff and managers, three main views of possible legislation were discussed:

• being against any form of legislation about smoking in the workplace

• being in favour of legislation banning smoking in the workplace or in all public places

• being against legislation banning smoking but in favour of legislation saying that all businesses have to have a smoking policy (for example a designated area).

It was clear that there were smokers and non-smokers, staff and managers, holding all three of these views. There was agreement, however, that it was vital that consultation was involved in any decision by the government. Respondents were keen for local authorities, MSPs, employer and employee organisations to be included.

A number of factors seemed to influence which view respondents adopted. There did not appear to be close links between respondents' views of the health risks of smoking or which policy they wished their own employer to adopt. Instead, their personal view of smoking and of the role of government and their feelings about the current situation in their business seemed to be central.

Advocates of a total ban

Those respondents who wanted to see legislation banning smoking in the workplace or in public places were generally smokers who wanted to quit and non-smokers. They tended to have one of three views about the current smoking situation in their workplace:

• they were actively unhappy with the current situation in their workplace, generally because smokers smoked inside and near non-smokers

• they were managers or owners who wanted to ban smoking in their workplace but were afraid of the reaction of staff or customers and believed that legislation would make it easier for them to do so

• they were happy with the current situation in their workplace and did not think that it would have to change under a ban (usually because they could only smoke outside at the moment).

Advocates of some legislation restricting smoking but not of a ban

This group again included both smokers and non-smokers. These people did not tend to be actively unhappy with the situation in their own workplace. In some cases, this was because there was no smoking inside at the moment, whether or not they had a formal policy. However, there was sometimes a desire for this to be made more formal or for greater clarity about the policy. Others felt that it would be nicer if there were less or no smoke in workplaces, or acknowledged that it would be a good idea if more workplaces were non-smoking for the health and comfort of non-smokers and smokers. However, they were not in favour of legislation banning smoking, for a number of reasons relating to managing a business, socialising, aesthetics and beliefs about the place of government:

• they worried that it would affect their business (in the leisure and hospitality sector) and that they would lose customers, even if the ban affected their competitors as well, because some customers would go out less

• they were concerned about the implementation of the ban stirring up trouble among their staff which they would find difficult to manage

• they focused on the effect on the bars and pubs in which they socialised (rather than on their own workplace) and felt that it would affect the atmosphere and experience there

• they felt having lots of groups of people standing outside doorways would be unsightly and would leave behind lots of butts which would also be unpleasant

• they believed (often very strongly) that the government should not be imposing one policy on all businesses, that businesses had the right to make decisions about their workplace themselves, and that flexibility was necessary to meet the needs of different companies.

In addition, those in the leisure and hospitality sector also worried about the work that would be caused in having to ensure that customers did not wander around outside with drinks and in cleaning up outside when groups of smokers had been there.

Workers in residential homes also pointed out that they could ban staff from smoking, but were not sure if they could prevent residents from doing so as it was their home.

Those who resisted all legislation

The final group also included both smokers and non-smokers. They tended to be happy with the current situation in their workplace, whether their employers allowed smoking inside or outside. They also generally held strong views about the government 'forcing' policies on to all workplaces or smokers, and believed that different organisations had different needs in relation to the working environment.

"I don't believe in a dictated state. I think people respond better when they're empowered to make choices which might be better for them." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, social and personal services).

"I can't see why the government should tell a company to have a smoking policy...If they want to ban smoking in public places, that's grand because they're looking after the public, because the government look after the public, the company will look after the employees." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, leisure and hospitality).

8.2.3 The effects of legislation

The benefits of the introduction of some form of legislation were generally seen in terms of health and comfort by both staff and managers. Respondents believed that it would reduce the exposure of non-smokers to smoke and encourage smokers to smoke less. They also commented that it would lead to working environments being cleaner and more pleasant to be in and to clothes and furniture being easier to clean and lasting longer. While some felt that there could be an effect on sickness and absenteeism, they did not expect any effect to be very great, particularly in the short term.

However, there were a number of recurring worries about the effect on both individuals and businesses. The main concerns for businesses were:

• having to provide somewhere decent to smoke, either inside or outside. Some small businesses did not know how they could make such provision but felt it was unreasonable to expect staff to stand outside in all weathers

• disgruntlement among staff and conflict with them

• loss of business in bars and pubs (as discussed above)

• big groups standing outside doorways dropping butts, which was felt to look unsightly and create work clearing up.

As was clear from the surveys, there were differing views as to the likely effect of legislation on productivity, with some arguing that productivity would increase, while others believed it would decrease. Those, who believed that it would increase, tended to expect that smokers would take fewer breaks if they had to go outside or to another place to smoke, and that smokers might smoke less. Others, however, believed that productivity would decrease because of the loss of concentration and motivation in a worker who was unable to smoke, or because of the additional time needed to smoke further away from where the individual worked.

"I can only see advantages, well maybe disadvantages where it would cost money for people to go away from anybody else and smoke..." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

The view taken seemed to depend on a number of factors:

• where smokers would have to go to smoke and how far away this would be from their usual workplace

• how heavily staff smoked

• how staff were likely to react, for example, whether they would start taking unofficial breaks and going away to smoke or start smoking in the toilets, or whether they would become resentful and un-cooperative

• work patterns, for example, businesses, where staff needed to take breaks where they could easily go back to work if more customers came, or where they worked on a production line, were particularly concerned

While most managers or owners said that they would enforce a ban or other legislation, one or two did say that they would probably continue as they currently did. This meant allowing smoking in areas not meant to be used for it, including the kitchen in one case. They argued that the inspection regime for the legislation was unlikely to be stricter than the health and safety one, and that it would therefore be easy to avoid being caught.

"So, from my point of view, I don't think it really is, it's not a huge problem, which is wrong...if it was maybe like an offence and it goes against you then...or if a business is licensed or something like that and...then it was...totted up and you got a huge fine when you reached seven..." (Non-smoker, 2-4 employees, retail).

They felt that the disruption that would be caused by attempting to enforce a ban on staff would not be worth the benefits gained.

Those individuals who were most worried were generally heavy smokers who were used to being able to smoke at work. They argued that there would be serious physical and psychological effects on them; some even wondered if they would be able to do their job. An example of this was a manual based, manufacturing company where the boss and the majority of his workers smoked. He himself felt that not being able to smoke would drive him 'crazy' and knew that many of his employees would feel the same. He considered staff rebellion the likely result of a ban, and thought that some staff might even leave work. However, he understood that, if the government brought in legislation, he would have to deal with it.

8.2.4 Support required if legislation were introduced

Businesses did not appear to think spontaneously that the government could provide much help in managing the difficulties of provision for smokers or conflict with staff. The suggestions of both staff and managers generally focused on support for staff that had to smoke less or give up as a result of legislation.

"Just recognition that it is an addiction...it's not quite as easy [to stop] as some people think...I'm not suggesting an employer should pay for that bill for you but, you know, having some kind of incentive and assistance for them might help." (Smoker, 10-49 employees, social and personal services).

They discussed the provision and publicising of a helpline, advisors, classes and leaflets. It was expected that this kind of support would be provided for free, if legislation were introduced.

8.2.5 Who should bring in any legislation

Respondents were asked about their views of who should introduce any legislation. As they knew that the research was being carried out on behalf of NHS Health Scotland, several commented spontaneously that the Scottish Executive should take responsibility for any ban or other legislation. They felt strongly that any attempt to have it introduced or announced by NHS Health Scotland would be an abdication of responsibility and an attempt to 'soft pedal' it. The key discussion, however, was whether local authorities or the Scottish Executive should introduce it.

Views about this did not appear to depend on whether respondents wanted legislation introduced or not. Rather they tended to split as to whether respondents worried more about inconsistency or about inflexibility.

Those who favoured the introduction of legislation by the Scottish Executive believed that this would ensure that it was consistent across the whole of Scotland. They worried that policies introduced by local authorities would be confusing or unfair, as they might lead to different rules in different areas. There was also a line of argument, which rested on a desire to see the Scottish Executive take responsibility for making these kinds of changes if they were to be brought in, and a sense that delegating it to local authorities would be a retreat from this responsibility. However, there were those who argued that the Scottish Executive should be responsible for the policy, but that local authorities should be consulted and involved in the implementation of it.

There were two main arguments advanced for local authorities taking the lead in introducing any legislation or new policies. The first focused on the idea of flexibility. These respondents believed that local authorities had a better understanding of local conditions than the national government. They assumed that rules introduced by the local authority would be able to be adapted to the needs of different areas and believed that this would lead to a better outcome. The second argument was presented by those who were in favour of a ban or of fairly strong legislation, but worried about the reaction of other workers or of the public. They believed that new rules were more likely to be accepted if they were introduced by local authorities, in part, because of the belief that local authorities understood local needs and were 'closer to home' than the Scottish Parliament or Executive.

"Every local authority has its own licensing board and...I think those are the people that need to work and view every city independently, as opposed to the Government...You've got to look at each place individually...and see what they've got in place." (Smoker, 10-49 employees, leisure and hospitality).

Those without a real opinion about this question generally assumed that any legislation would be introduced by the Scottish Executive, but did not mind this was the case or whether local authorities took the lead.