Taking Liberties

Health minister Dawn Primarolo has given the following written answer to a question from Richard Benyon, Conservative MP for Newbury. Richard asked whether the Department of Health "has collated the number of cases of illnesses caused by the effects of passive smoking since the implementation of the smoking ban in 2007".

The answer is, of course, "No" because it has always has been impossible to list with any accuracy "the number of cases of illnesses caused by the effects of passive smoking" (if indeed they exist). But this government doesn't do straight answers. (Have you heard Gordon Brown on PMQs?) Instead, Primarolo (or one of her minions) writes:

We have commissioned research on the health impacts of smokefree legislation in England. However, early assessments are that this legislation is proving to be effective in significantly reducing levels of second hand smoke in enclosed public places and workplaces.

Research from Scotland has reported a range of benefits since smokefree legislation was introduced there, including dramatic improvements in air quality in pubs, improved health, reduced tobacco consumption and no increase in the amount of smoking in the home.

No-one doubts (do they?) that the level of "secondhand smoke" in enclosed public places is less than it was before the ban. Or that the air quality in poorly ventilated smoking rooms has improved. It hardly takes a genius to work that one out.

But where is the evidence that SHS is a significant risk to most people's health in the first place? Or that there is any risk at all in a controlled (ie well-ventilated) environment?

As for "research from Scotland" reporting "improved health", she couldn't, by any chance, be referring to the study discussed HERE by Tessa Mayes in The Spectator? Now that would make me laugh.