Hi All, I am currently doing some work experience with a small manufacturing company and they have asked me to source some information regarding their obligation to install a smoking shelter. The company in question is based in Wales and their staff have asked for a smoking shelter to be installed. I thought it best to suggest that any money set aside for a smoking shelter might be better served helping them kick their habit which might be better in the long term, however I was told that this would be a real long shot and that this decision would rest solely with the smokers. My question(s) 1. Does the company have an obligation to provide a smoking shelter? (I don't think they do) 2. If they agree to other measures to help them kick their habit and not build a smoking shelter but at a later stage decide that they do want one, will the company still have to build one? 3. If the smoking shelter is given the go ahead, does anyone know what are the legal obligations that the company will have to abide by regarding measurements, distance from work area etc etc. There seems to be contrasting opinions online. 4. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what could be offered to the smokers who do want to kick the habit? Many thanks,

As SNS has said, no you are not legally obliged to provide a shelter and many companies don't. At the same time many do. It depends what suits your situation. The last place I worked for had a shelter, and were in the process of installing a new shelter so the smokers would be further away from the building and the vapers could have a shelter as well. You could always look at getting involved in the likes of Stoptober, or have a health and wellbeing day/week where you could get in someone to advise ways to give up smoking. All I would say though is don't forget you can only take the horse to water..... Good luck in your quest!

As a non smoker I tend to avoid giving my personal thoughts about smoking shelters, smoking breaks etc. At the end of the day if the company wants to provide a smoking shelter then why try to prevent it? Yes, in an ideal world we'd rather they didnt smoke and there be no need for a shelter but we dont and as such employers are expected to provide adequate facilities for them to do so without it having an impact on the non-smokers. Currently shelters are pretty much the only way to go in that respect. by all means I'd back your attempt to introduce a campaign to help them quit but I'd see that as an addition rather than a replacement to the shelter. In terms of legal requirements for the shelter it needs to be 50% open. You might find this document of interest from Walsall Council cms.walsall.gov.uk/fact_sheet_-_smoking_shelters-2.doc

See FAQs from Wrexham Council http://www.wrexham.gov.u...smoking/faq_shelters.htm http://ashwales.org.uk/e...qM1reH58cCFUFmGwoda4cKhg

No stop eating!

Don't stand on the scales.

The fire safety argument is often a compelling one. Supply a shelter and you can enforce its use. Provide nothing and you'll have illicit smoking here, there and everywhere - with the attendant fire risk.

Methinks the approach Ray describes at #6 is an eminently sensible one. At my former work base, a local authority office complex with many employees, smokers were supposed to note the total time they spent outside (no shelters provided to pamper them - if the weather was inclement they used the external nooks and crannies of the buildings to get some sort of shelter!) on smoking breaks each day and then deduct it from their electronic time sheets. However, it was widely believed that few, if any, of the smokers either did any deducting or made accurate deductions. This seemed to irritate a few non-smokers. Very occasionally, this matter was raised with me in the wholly mistaken view that it came within the remit of OS&H. My consistent reply was that it was a supervisory/management matter. Furthermore, non-smokers probably had equivalent or longer breaks from work for the reasons mentioned by Ray plus chattering to colleagues and others about non-work matters. In addition, many employees who used computers for their work were allowed to use them for non-work purposes during lunch breaks, etc. However, it was likely that some or many employees also used the computers for non-work purposes (for varying lengths of time) when they should have been working! This no doubt explained why our employer imposed a permanent block on access to social media websites from work computers. Unfortunately, this measure would have had no effect on employees (mostly younger ones) with mobile phones who seemed to spend inordinate amounts of time receiving and sending text messages. On a general note, with extensive ownership of smartphones nowadays, I guess that far more working hours in the UK are wasted by employees using them to access the internet, exchange e-mails and play games, etc., than by employees who take smoking or vaping breaks! While on this topic, some people seem to be addicted to playing games on their smartphones - Remember the furore last December when media sources revealed clandestine filming of an MP playing a game on his smartphone while taking part in a parliamentary committee meeting. It prompted speculation as to how many other MPs used smartphones for prolonged periods at wholly inappropriate times! Rant over for now!