The unarguable case for separate smoking rooms
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 9:55 I can confirm that Baroness Gardner of Parkes (aka Australian-born Trixi Gardner) last night withdrew her amendment to the Localism Bill that would have given local authorities the power to ban smoking in outdoor areas (see previous post).
Here is the transcript of the short debate:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this amendment came to me because someone who lives near me in central London phoned me and said, "I don't know what to do. I can't open the windows on this swelteringly hot day because all the people who are working on the local building site are sitting along the garages below my residence, and the smoke is so intense that I can't open the window. I am going to die of the heat". She did not die of the heat; nevertheless, I rang the local council. It was not something I had ever thought about before. I said, "What can you do about it?". The council said, "We can do nothing. We get these issues all the time, particularly with restaurants and bars. Lots of people now congregate outside them because they can't smoke inside". If anyone happens to live within reach of the smoke, it is absolutely deadly for them. It would be helpful if the council could make this a planning issue.
Last month, I read in the paper that Australia proposes to bring in completely smoke-free streets. I did not hear anything about that while I was there; no one mentioned it. It is obviously of more interest to the press here than it is to people there. That is a bit extreme. My amendment is fairly short and simple but I have had the most intolerant e-mails and letters from people, saying that I am a fascist who is trying to ruin their lives and take away their right to a bit of healthy smoking whenever they feel like it. It is obviously a very emotive issue-quite unnecessarily so. I am not suggesting anything wholesale. However, I am suggesting that people should have the right to live in their homes and open their windows without finding themselves so adversely affected. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Opposition Spokesperson for Communities and Local Government and for Health): My Lords, again, one sympathises with the motivation behind this amendment. Quite apart from the particular case to which the noble Baroness referred, it is not a particularly attractive sight to see people hanging about smoking in the street. However, the only grounds on which orders could be made would relate to the impact of that smoking on health.
Enclosed areas are of course covered by the existing legislation, and, as I understand it, there is power to designate areas other than enclosed areas, if, in the authority's opinion, there is significant risk that without designation persons in the area would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke-areas where, although they are outdoors, there is a concentration of people or of prevailing structures around the area that might lead to people being exposed to the smoke. If that is indeed the case, as it appears to be under the Health Act 2006, there does not appear to be any need for the amendment. I would encourage local authorities to look at that Act. No doubt the Minister in replying will have more information about that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (Liberal Democrat, Government Deputy Chief Whip): My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Indeed, I have great sympathy for the amendment as it seems to me that the place immediately after the no-smoke zone ends is the problem territory, whether it is outside a public building, or wherever it may be.
The amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws designating areas as smoke-free. The Health Act 2006 makes provision for the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places and workspaces. It came into force in England on 1 July 2007. Section 4 of the Act provides regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State for Health to make further regulations-for England-designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under the Act. This could cover outdoor places. Therefore, if the evidence on the harms of exposure to second-hand smoke becomes more robust, and the Government's preference for voluntary local action to extend smoke-free places where there is a clear need is shown not to be working, the Government can consider using Section 4 of the Health Act 2006 at a later date. I would say that, at the moment, the Government do not intend to make use of these powers. However, I know that colleagues in the Department of Health welcome the debate on this important issue and will continue to monitor developments and the evidence.
While we are sympathetic to local authorities making by-laws that preserve public health, our preference is to see local authorities promote the benefits of environments free from second-hand smoke on a voluntary basis. Creating smoke-free areas through legislation gives rise to complex issues, which I know that colleagues at the Department of Health would want time to consider carefully, and I do not think this is something we should be dealing with at this late stage of this Bill. As such, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment and trust that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister and the spokesman from the Opposition for their very good and sound comments. I did not mention earlier that in the particular case I referred to one person left a cigarette burning which set fire to one of the garages so there is obviously a bit more of a risk in that regard too. However, I thought that was a red herring and should not be brought up.
This is a serious issue. I do not know what will happen in the future. I appreciate the points made about this being perhaps more of a health issue and therefore I am pleased to have aired it today-what a silly remark, to say "I have aired it" when we are talking about smoking. I have taken on board the comments that have been made and thank noble Lords very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner should be congratulated for presenting a very strong argument for separate smoking rooms which would reduce the number of people smoking outside pubs and restaurants!
Reader Comments (12)
Oh dear, if the health act 2006 already provides for voluntary smoke free outside areas - my council will enforce this "voluntary" stance if they can.
As for the Baroness saying that smoking is an "unnecessary" emotive issue, I would say maybe she should try being a smoker today who is dismissed, outcast, excluded, persecuted, lied about, misrepresented, slandered, punished, marginalised and stigmatised and then maybe she might see it differently.
Emotive? every single day my life is made worse by these people, families are divided and she dismisses the emotion behind this issue?
She should go back to her Utopia in Austrailia and leave us alone. That is all we want. Why is that so hard to understand?
Enforcing your ideology and eradicating culture is fascist. Perhaps she should take a look in the mirror.
'If anyone happens to live within reach of the smoke, it is absolutely deadly for them.'
The woman's clearly barmy, as is this one...
'the smoke is so intense that I can't open the window. I am going to die of the heat'.
We are all going to die of something or other David - By the sound of this woman, I reckon she will probably die of a lack of brain cells.
or fright!
""Creating smoke-free areas through legislation gives rise to complex issues.....""
Indeed.
I have read the Health Act several times. I says that the Secretary of State for Health can designate other areas which are not enclosed to be smokefree. Only the Sec of State can do so. But it is very important to understand that it is the Sec of State for Health who must make the decision. Thus, any such decision must be purely on health grounds and must have general application and must be justified by evidence.
It is good new that this topic has been 'aired' - I would imagine that it has been well and truly scuppered.
But it is still bloody annoying that all the speakers still kowtow to the imaginary harm of SHS - bloody annoying.
I still won't allow myself to become complacent. As I said before, it is only ever a question of time and propaganda to push through junk studies as "truth" and "evidence"..
People who fear the very whiff of a cigarette already believe the scam of THS . That reminds of the early days of SHS. They've never proved it any more now than then - but through propaganda and fear creating hysteria, they have managed to con those who make laws to believe their scam pushed on by public fear they have inspired and created. And still they get cash to fund this misinformation while smokers are not even recognised as a group with much to add to the health debate on the whole smoking issue. We know far more about our subject than they do. We are the biological as opposed to the mathimatical "experts".
This outdoor issue will come back and soon. THS has been invented to ensure that it will eventually. They just have to wait until they have the required number of smokerphobic useful idiots like the Baroness to become the majority view.
That will happen - certainly within 5 years - if nothing is done to redress truth and fairness on this very emotive and political issue. My fear is that because Bully Lansley aims to force our numbers down further, he can only do so by introducing yet more exclusion, villification, and stigmatisation. An outdoor ban will be very useful in that regard. If the evidence isn't there. Lansley will allow them to make it up as Govt ministers from labour did before him. he hates smokers and smoking and has his own personal interest in eradicating it in future by fair means or foul.
I'll believe the Tories are serious about not being Labour when they move Lansley and his Nanny Milton from the health dept.
Til then they deserve no smoker's vote!
"... what a silly remark, to say "I have aired it" when we are talking about smoking ..."
Oh, what a hilarious wag she is, that Baroness! To paraphrase the great Blackadder: " 'Tis lucky I was wearing my corset, ma'am, for fear my sides would otherwise split."
I'd be willing to bet €100 that the story of the woman above the garage who couldn't open her window for the smoke, and the subsequent combustion of said garage are complete fabrication, dreamed up purely for the purpose of giving weight to her submission of the amendment. She just doesn't like smoking or smokers, and that's the beginning and the end of it.
Where do they get this rubbish from???? -
"Health and Social Care Bill - Second Reading (Continued) (11 Oct 2011)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-10-11a.1528.8&s=smoking#g1664.0
the Earl of Listowel: ...the way that mental health in adults is so
often overlooked and services for them are underdeveloped. I know that
the Minister was very concerned when he recognised that 40 per cent of
adults who *smoke* have a mental disorder and that there is a strong
association between mental ill health and such pernicious self-harming
behaviour."
FWIW, my 2 bits.
replica omega seamaster replica tory burch handbagsMan symbol of status, the woman taste symbol. Do reflected here.bvlgari replica hermes kelly replica
In my office in viagra online had two separate room to the people who smoke, one more to the people ho smoke pot !