1. “General RIA Training” 6–8 July 2009 EuropeAid/125317/D/SER/TR Session 13 Case Study Results, Based on UK Smokefree RIA

2. Define the problem and its causes. What are the government objectives? The health risks from secondhand smoke: –reduced lung function –lung cancer –ischaemic heart disease –asthma attacks –childhood respiratory disease and sudden infant death syndrome Because of smoking in public places

3. Define the problem and its causes. What are the government objectives? The Government’s objective is to: reduce the risk to health from exposure to secondhand smoke recognise a person’s right to be protected from harm and to enjoy smokefree air increase the benefits of smokefree enclosed public places and workplaces for people trying to give up smoking so that they can succeed in an environment where social pressures to smoke are reduced and, as a result, save thousands of lives over the next decade by reducing overall smoking rates

4. Hospitality industry will slightly expand non-smoking areas Risk of failure of voluntary agreement in case non- compliant businesses gain competitive advantage Risk to health from exposure to secondhand smoke will slightly reduce Insignificant fall in smoke rates However, the level of exposure to secondhand smoke will remain high What will happen if government does not intervene?

5. Option 1 ‘Do nothing option’ – Continue with a voluntary approach: –Awareness campaigns of the health risks from secondhand smoke –Voluntary agreement with hospitality industry – Public Places Charter Option 2 – National legislation to make all indoor public places and workplaces completely smokefree Option 3 - Legislation giving local authorities new powers to control secondhand smoke in indoor public places and workplaces Option 4 - National legislation to make all indoor public places and workplaces completely smokefree (with exemptions) What alternative approaches should be considered? (UK RIA)

6. Smokers Secondhand smokers Hospitality industry (restaurants, bars) Tobacco industry Tobacco re-sellers Enforcement agencies Hospitals Treasury Other regulators NGOs Experts Who are the likely major stakeholders to be included in the consultation?

7. 1.Deaths from smoking and secondhand smoking 2.Health care expenditure 3.Sickness absence costs 4.Productivity gains 5.Safety problems (damage, fire, injuries etc) 6.Cleaning and maintenance costs 7.Implementation, enforcement and education/communication costs 8.Revenues to Exchequer 9.Tobacco industry and retailers earnings 10.Production losses (smoking breaks) What are the data needs for the RIA?

8. OptionsBenefitsCosts Option 1: ‘Do nothing’ 1.Averted deaths from Secondhand Smoke + 2.Averted deaths from smokers giving up + 3.Health care expenditure saved + 4.Reduced sickness absence + 1.Implementation 0 2.Enforcement 0 3.Education/communication 0 4.Revenue losses to Exchequer – Option 2: National legislation to make all indoor public places and workplaces completely smokefree 1.Averted deaths from Secondhand Smoke +++ 2.Averted deaths from smokers giving up ++ 3.Health care expenditure saved +++ 4.Reduced sickness absence +++ 1.Implementation 0 2.Enforcement – 3.Education/communication – 4.Revenue losses to Exchequer – – Cost-Benefits Analysis –Comparison of Options

9. OptionsBenefitsCosts Option 1: ‘Do nothing’ 1.Productivity gains + 2.Safety Benefits (damage, fire, injuries etc) + 3.Reduced cleaning and maintenance costs + 1.Losses to the tobacco industry and retailers – 2.Unintended Consequences 0 3.Production losses (smoking breaks) – Option 2: National legislation to make all indoor public places and workplaces completely smokefree 1.Productivity gains +++ 2.Safety Benefits (damage, fire, injuries etc) +++ 3.Reduced cleaning and maintenance costs +++ 1.Losses to the tobacco industry and retailers – – 2.Unintended Consequences 0 3.Production losses (smoking breaks) – – Cost-Benefits Analysis – Comparison of Options

10. Option 2 has higher benefits that Option 1 Option 2 has higher costs than Option 1 More evidence would allow for better comparison between benefits and costs Option 2 is recommended as benefits justify the costs and it generates more benefits at lower cost per unit of benefit than Option 1 Cost-Benefits Analysis – Comparison of Options