No plans ... "at present"
Friday, October 17, 2008 Further to my post about Lord Laird last week, the good lord has received the following answers to his questions about smoking in "enclosed places where children are present" and "public open air spaces".
According to Lord Darzi of Denham (parliamentary under-secretary of state, Department of Health),
"There are no plans to make smoke-free regulations specific to enclosed places where children are present. The Health Act 2006 includes powers to make regulations for specific non-enclosed (open air) places to be smoke free if there is significant risk that persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke. At present, the Government do not intend to make any non-enclosed place smoke free. We are committed to review the smoke-free parts of the Act by July 2010."
Reader Comments (28)
'The Health Act 2006 includes powers to make regulations for specific non-enclosed (open air) places to be smoke free if there is significant risk that persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke'.
Some councils need to read this, before making bans in parks etc.
Quite clearly the Government realise that SHS, isn't such a big risk afterall...and that perhaps they understand now that smokers have been persecuted enough.
In the meantime...I'll happily pay someone to go round to Lord Laird's home, and work his big daft head round his toilet u-bend!
I hope they don't start on the obese for Lord Laird's sake. I'd hate for him to stop enjoying his food.
May we assume that Bonfire Night is safe - 'for the present' ?
Chris, you said
"Quite clearly the Government realise that SHS, isn't such a big risk afterall"
I think the decision makers who put it out to a free vote and broke their manifesto promise knew this all along. here is just one section from a House of Lords post ban document -
"78. Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated."
Labour will be voted out and the unions that did not stand up for their fellow workers might just find a back bone.
Labour The Peoples Party have become a joke.
Using a hammer to crack a nut.
As for Lord Darzi, spreading fear and divisive policies is what both d.o.h. and Gov. is in the business of now.
Smoking, drinking, eating, axle of evil, global warming, Terrorist threat, credit crunch, end of the world pushers, If these things don't kill D.O.H.& Gov.will make your life unbearable.
I'll just have a smoke and let the drama queens get on with it, until I get my chance to vote.
Timbone, thanks for that quote...I have copied and pasted for future reference.
This quote just shows, the ban was always about bringing down smoking prevalence in whatever way politicians saw fit, rather than it being a question of health.
This government has always wanted to show our goody-two-shoes PC credentials to the rest of europe, showing just how tough we can be...and everbody else should follow suit.
Chris, if it helps, the quote was from Caroline Flint - Health Minister at the time.
It's for this reason though that I have my doubts with the opposition. The Tories and the others knew that the perceived health risk in relation to passive smoking did not exist, but did nothing to challenge it.
It appears that all our current politicians are just too weak when it comes debating with the extremist anti-smoking lobby.
Lets hope that the high-profile complaints that are being pursued in the US will give them the kick up the backside that they need. It may at least start them scurrying around for a scape-goat, and they're going to need one when their anti-smoking empire starts to crumble, particularly with the amount of tax-payers cash that they have wasted in that direction. That's even before we start to mention the failed businesses, livelihoods, lost homes, broken communities, hatred, discrimination, death etc that this legislation has created.
It's going to be an interesting time ahead I think!
Yes Mary, I'm a afraid I agree entirely. We have such momentum now against smoking and smokers, that it would be a brave politician who would buck this trend, there aren't any brownie points in it for them.
I fear that open dissent may be the only way forward at some stage. Dave West at the Hey Jo club is still allowing smoking. I have written to the county coucillor resposible for his area, and have been told that the matter of continued smoking is still under investigation.
What does this mean...after all this time his licence has not been revoked...are they scared of something.
I'ts a pity that the hospitality industry don't have the same fighting spirit.
I'm waiting for the council to get back to me.
Here is the complete section from the House of Lords working group document concerning Health and Safety at Work. It includes the quote from Caroline Flint which is in paragraph 77
Passive Smoking
76. The recently introduced bill to ban smoking in public places illustrates a number of worrying features connected with the formulation and promotion of legislation[49]. The stated objective of the bill was to ban smoking at work and in enclosed public places, because passive smoking imposes a significant health risk on workers and others exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
77. In order to evaluate the operation of risk policy in this area, we considered a range of evidence, much of which cast doubt on the stated rationale of the legislation. In her evidence to us, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, commented that:
"it is clearly the case that, in relation to deaths from smoking and second-hand smoke, the most serious aspect of that is smoking in the home. Ninety-five percent of deaths are related to smoking in the home"[50].
Other evidence we received suggested that the health risks associated with passive smoking are relatively minor and the main harm, if there is one, concerns children who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, which is something the bill is not designed to address[51]. Sir Richard Peto did suggest that ex-smokers might be more at risk from ETS than those who had never smoked at all, but the general tenor of his evidence indicated that the risks are uncertain and unlikely to be large[52].
78. Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated.
79. If, however, it is accepted that policy on passive smoking has been genuinely concerned only with a reduction in smoking in public places, other issues about the formulation of policy in this area are raised, in addition to any concern that the ban on smoking may represent a disproportionate policy response. One of these issues is whether decision-making in this area has given sufficient attention to alternative policy responses, as required by the Treasury guidelines. For example, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), in their written evidence to us argued strongly that voluntary smoking bans are already in place in many areas and that business saw the legislation as further evidence of unnecessary intervention by government[53].
80. In the context of the passive smoking debate, we also took evidence from the Health and Safety Executive. When questioned about the impact of the smoking ban on consumers and workers in relevant establishments, and the possibility that people have the option of choosing not to visit or work in smoking environments if they are concerned about the possible health risks, the HSE dismissed the idea of relying on labour market forces to deal with the problem:
"we find rather repugnant the idea that people should have a choice between having that level of safety or alternatively being paid more and not have it, not least because it is a very difficult choice for people to make. Inherently it will appeal to those who are most vulnerable because they are most in need of money, but they then become exposed to this risk from which the rest of us are shielded…we certainly do not like the idea of trading off basic safety against money"[54].
81. In the case of the actual health risks associated with passive smoking, the HSE offered the view:
"…the evidence is pretty clear. The Chief Medical Officer regards this as an important health issue"[55].
82. In the light of these comments, we believe that the HSE, responsible for implementing risk guidelines on the ground, should give due consideration to both the evidence related to the health risks of passive smoking and to the possibility that personal choices and market forces might be used to deal with the problem. Our concern in particular is that the HSE response does not properly reflect either the spirit or the letter of existing government guidelines.
83. Another aspect of this issue that concerned us was the Government's attitude to the possible trade-offs between personal liberty and risk reduction inherent in many areas of legislation. In the case of the legislation to ban smoking in public places, we were concerned that the preliminary stages of policy formulation appear to have given little or no weight to this important factor. We note that government risk guidelines do not emphasise any requirement to assess the impact of legislation on personal freedoms or civil liberties. This is something that needs to be considered further.
84. The evidence we took on passive smoking leads us to doubt whether government guidelines on risk management have been properly implemented. In particular, the purpose of legislation should have been defined more clearly and greater attention should have been given to available scientific evidence, the relative merits of alternative policy options and the impact of legislation on personal freedom and choice. Failure to consider these matters properly has resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem. Lessons learned from the progress of this legislation should be used to ensure that future policy responses are transparent, evidence-based, and proportionate.
I just came across this on a Dutch website: the pub smoking ban in the German state of Bavaria will be amended after pub owners called upon people not to vote for the governing CSU party. The PM of Bavaria, Horst Seehofer, said that his predecessor by implementing the ban had “squandered the soul of the Bavarian people”.
Over here in Holland pubs keep flouting the ban. The owners seek publicity and challenge the authorities to fine them (which they hardly ever do). The national hospitality industry association are claiming huge losses in turnover and demand government do something about it.
These stories are all over the news nowadays, so I expect some debates will be held in our parliament shortly.
"These stories are all over the news nowadays, so I expect some debates will be held in our parliament shortly."
You are lucky. 50+ pubs a week closing, 90,000 unemployed, and it hardly gets a mention. If it does, it is blamed on a recession which started much later, and cheap supermarket booze which started long before the ban. The worse thing is that the directors of the big pub chains say the same thing!!!
"These stories are all over the news nowadays, so I expect some debates will be held in our parliament shortly."
I do hope so Anna. We all know about what's happening in Europe and the US, but our media seem pretty reluctant to let others know. (Great that they'll never control the internet or word of mouth, no matter how hard they try!). Seems to me that they're going to be in for a rough ride as well for not reporting it sooner.
We're only a small country, but we're big enough to cater for everyone.
Anyway, if they don't join the bandwagon soon, I think they're all in for a big surprise with the TICAP conference at the EU buildings in January. If I were in their shoes, I'd be going for the big scoop now with the tide that is already beginning to turn 'across the pond'
Chas said ''The Health Act 2006 includes powers to make regulations for specific non-enclosed (open air) places to be smoke free if there is significant risk that persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke'.
Some councils need to read this, before making bans in parks etc'
My concern is that they will implement some kind of open air ban, especially with so many of the antis whingeing and whining about having to pass through clouds of smoke to enter buildings!
However badly they might be doing in the polls, we cannot afford to underestimate this power crazy government. They could use another ruse at the moment to steer the focus off the credit crunch as much as possible, as well as a way for local governments to cash in on yet another way to boost their coffers so thay can find a few more idiotic ideas to waste it on!
HMG knows that further bans would be hard to enforce. The pub ban only works because of the massive fine for the publican. Otherwise everyone would take their chance. Phone use is banned in cars isn't it?. The e-cigarette will cloud (pun intended) the issue further. Holding a smoking stick will not be proof of smoking.
Timbone and Mary, over the past 1,5 years I’ve been amazed at the passivity of the British media, especially the BBC. I remember that in the months before the UK smoking ban, the BBC website had lots of ‘Have Your Say’ debates about it. But as the mood turned ever more sour (and the comments reflected this), they stopped putting up these threads.
In the sixties and seventies many Dutch people considered the BBC a shining example of of thorough and critical journalism. I wonder what happened…
While we are sending out copies of 1984 the Tories are looking for campaign ideas, entries by the 31st October. What on earth could we suggest? Probably best to add ID cards, 42 days, jobsworth councils etc along with you know what.
http://www.conservatives.com/C....._here.aspx
huntj@parliament.uk <huntj@parliament.uk>
Mary mentions the:
'I think they're all in for a big surprise with the TICAP conference at the EU buildings in January'.
TV and the rest of the media have been informed of this conference and I am waiting to see if they mention it and what they say about it, if they do.
Your link hasn't come up properly Dave, could you tinyURL it please? :-)
The Conservatives campaign ideas as a Tiny URL.
http://tiny.cc/uw0yX
Dave, I visited the Conservatives website and asked if they would be looking at the smoking ban with a view to doing something about it...I have had no reply.
Cyril, if we keep hammering away it may help. We obviously run the risk that we are just wasting out time and it is yet another dialogue with the 3 wise monkeys. I too did not get a reply to an email I sent a couple of months ago. It is an issue they want swept under the carpet or do not want to be seen empathising with our cause.
If not the powers must be bored and irritated at worst.
Hi Dave A. Yes, they are all hoping it will all settle down and become fine within another couple of years. Like you say, we must just keep tap tapping away, pecking their heads, dripping like a Chinese toture.
Well all I can say is that if the opposition don't take issue over the lethal cigarette papers that ASH have pushed and are now being implemented, then we can assume that silence means agreement.
Afterall, this new cigarette paper that they're bringing in is an absolute killer - never tested on humans, and known to contain damaging substances. Are they trying to prove what has never been proved before or what? They can't prove that SHS smoke kills, but SHS through these papers is lethal, and extremely lethal to the active smoker.
Please - I no longer have any faith in a health arguement. If I (as a filthy, rotten, dirty, anti-social, murderous smoker) know this, then I'm sure that every MP does.
Sorry for the rant, but I no longer have any faith in weak MPs who are unable to even ask questions to an anti-smoking lobby. I've heard individuals do this who have made ASH concede on almost every point and then made ASH run away early. The truth is very painful to those who have joined this bandwagon. So painful that they are knowingly prepared to allow harmful substances to those they disapprove of and denormailse.
This weak government, and the weak oppositions know this. Never in my entire lifetime would I have thought that an extremist group could have such influence over our Government.
Dare we announce the headlines:
"UK Government approves the use of lethal substances to millions of its citizens"
My mind boggles at the apathy of our so-called MPs
Mary: Give us a link about the papers that you say ASH are pushing please.
Thanks Dave A, have sent an e-mail :-)
US: General Tobacco to produce low ignition propensity products
General Tobacco has announced that beginning January 2009 all its products will be manufactured with low ignition propensity paper which uses thin bands of less porous paper to slow down the burn of the product.
According to the company, this change is its proactive effort to meet state mandated low ignition propensity (LIP paper) requirements in advance of time limits, and even in advance of state laws.
Source: Datamonitor, 20 October 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/L8ZrR
'With more and more US States requiring fire-safe cigarettes using LIP paper + Canada and in future Australia, South Africa and the EU'
Martin - here is a couple of links, but if you google RIP cigarettes, you'll find quite a few horror stories, particularly in the comments:
Quote:
"There has been a dangerous cross-over as now many health departments across the globe are adopting RIP as fire-safe cigarette standards, unconcerned and unmindful of the fact that the initial concept of RIP was tested by the NY fire-safety department and the modification were also approved by the fire-safety department and not the health department. This crossing over of the concept from the fire safety departments to public health department is the biggest slip and manipulation ever in tobacco control."
See this link:
http://www.prlog.org/10036553-science-and-public-health-duped-on-rip-cigarettes-hemant-goswami.html
Also, just look at the current members of the EU RIP Cigarettes Alliance on this link:
http://www.epha.org/a/2556
There are dangerous, toxic substances in these cigarette papers. It is clearly obvious that prohibition and bans will never work (no matter how hard the antis try), so is this their final solution? One often wonders!
I may be wrong Martin, but I'm almost certain that these are coming our way sometime in 2009/2010.