How Parliament works
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 16:06 The Smoke-Free Private Vehicles Bill is still alive, just.
We didn't think there would be time for it to progress on Friday because there were several bills ahead of it.
We were under the impression too that one MP was planning to talk for rather a long time in response to another bill. Unfortunately he had to leave early!
Instead the Smoke-Free Private Vehicles Bill sneaked in at 2.21, nine minutes before the end of the session. This allowed proposer Alex Cunningham MP to get the ball rolling before the debate was adjourned until February.
I say 'debate' but this is Parliament so there was nothing of the sort. In fact Cunningham gave way just once when he allowed Labour's David Hamilton to interject:
I am amazed when I see a mother pick up her children—and also, perhaps, those of other families—in her car on what is called the mother’s run, and the first thing she does is smoke a cigarette even though there are perhaps four or five children in that car. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Funnily enough, he did.
In contrast, when Conservative MP James Duddridge tried to comment Cunningham barked:
I am not going to give way, as I have very limited time.
Hansard records what then happened as the clock approached 2.30:
Alex Cunningham:
... I know that I am rapidly running out of time, so I shall end my remarks to give the House an opportunity to make a determination on this matter.
2.29 pm
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab):
I—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans):
Order. It is 2.30. One of your best speeches, Mr Ruane.
2.30pm
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 1 February 2013.
Democracy. Don't you just love it!
Update: see Smoke-free Private Vehicles Bill (BBC)
Reader Comments (14)
I do not lend my vote to an MP so that they can use parliament to impose new "social norms" based on the fake science they bought and lobbied themselves with, at our expense, in order to further the contagion of their nasty little class-based prejudices.
Sorry, don't know enough about political procedure to know this, but does this mean that the second reading (i.e. this one), has been adjourned until February, or that the bill has now passed its second reading and that the next (third?) reading will take place in February? If the former, then is there any possibility that we can entreat a rather more reliable MP to oppose it and strangle it at birth? Someone like Dick Puddlecote's "mascot" MP, Philip Davies, or maybe the MP whom you mentioned in your last post, Simon, as having written a supportive e-mail to one of your blog readers??
"The primary goal of legislation is to build awareness and social norms..."
Is it? So criminal law is passed in order to build awareness that murder, theft and so on is, um, wrong? Bizarre.
He says that opposition is largely based on libertarian grounds. We don't stand a chance - the libertarian argument will never trump protection of others. Why isn't opposition on the grounds that there is no evidence that smoking in a car poses a real danger to the health of others?
Being allowed to get away with the passive smoking nonsense will continue to allow TC to bring in anything they want, including smoking in a home with children. It will end with the self-righteous and malicious alleging child abuse and reporting parents to social services.
So now we have it. The proverbial cat is, at last, well and truly out on the nasty parliamentary bag.
'The primary aim of legislation is to build awareness and social norms.'
Is it?
I thought it was to ensure obvious wrongdoers were legally punished.
No so, apparently.
In moving from things that all civilised society abhors - murder,rape,muggings,burgary,arson etc
to things of which some disapprove
smoking, drinking, tweeting, demonstrasting, gambling
we engage a slippery legislative slope.
It all seems to have started in 2007.
Laws that only work if they are 'self enforced' are bad laws.
However they are dressed up.
Another thought occurs too. If the Government feels the need to intervene on the child's behalf, (because children are helpless), to ensure their right to clean air, then will they be equally vigilant in legislating for the odious cancerous effects of diesel fumes? Surely, there is no safe level of this carcinogenic material for our precious children ? Ban all cars now I say !!!
banning smoking in all cars will indeed bethe 'next logical step', then on into the private home..
Is ANYONE outside of us lot even aware of this, or are we talking to ourselves ?
Side point .. Having more kids in the car than seatbelts ...? Is that not illegal, or are we talking 'people carriers'? does that fit with the stereotypical smoker (poor, working/under class) ?I think not !
"I am amazed when I see a mother pick up her children—and also, perhaps, those of other families—in her car on what is called the mother’s run, and the first thing she does is smoke a cigarette even though there are perhaps four or five children in that car."
I would love to know where David Hamilton has actually seen this. It strikes me that he is painting a worst case scenario of his own, it never actually happens, except in his own imagination. He cannot even get his facts right, I have never heard it called a 'mothers run', does he not mean the 'school run'?
Cunningham and co have been getting away with sloppy language for ages. But we have said before, again and again, that to challenge the sloppy language takes ten times longer than it takes to speak the sloppy language.
His 'evidence' of harm to children from smoking in cars does not exist. There is none. Concentrations of smoke in cars does not equate to harm. If he actually believes what he says (as quoted above), then he has no right to be an MP since he cannot possibly have a sensible concept of risk. If his concept of risk is correct, then we ought not to have defended our shores in WW2 since capitulation to Hitler would have saved lives - both British and German.
Therein lies the illogicality of is argument.
The answer to Cunningham is this:
"Tindisputablesputible evidence to show that parents who smoke in cars in the presence of their children do their children no harm whatsoever. This evidence abundant - we see it all around us. It consists of living people. It requires no epidemiology. It is clear and precise. If there exists a child which has suffered harm as a result of its parents smoking in their car, in the presence of that child, then the harm would be specific to that child and be identifiable as such. As far as I know, there is no such evidence at all. Therefore Cunningham is lying TO THE HOUSE. He is making statements WHICH ARE LIES."
It is the likes of Cunningham and Williams who are making a mockery of our democracy (among others suwretchedhe wreched Milton MP). For heaven's sake! How on earth was she ever considered to be fit to be a Minister!! Were the bosses of the Con party exercising 'gender equality'?
Whatever. Our Democracy stinks; and it stinks largely because 10 vociferous special interest persons have greater weight than 10,000 persons who are not bothered. That is why we have the smoking bans. Our democracy stinks.
Is there a solution? Perhaps. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know. But, certainly, a Minister ought to respond to Cunningham and say, "PROVE WHAT YOU SAY"
Dear Sir, (Alex Cunningham)
Firstly I apologise that I am not an actual constituent-praise the Lord for that.
I see from reports that you managed to sneak the smoking ban in cars bill into parliament viz: Smoke-Free Private Vehicles Bill at 2.21 pm. Being a non smoker I can just about see where you are coming from but in proposing this bill you are iobviously totally unconcerned that you are trampling all over private property rights-or does that not bother you one iota?
I also picked up on an odious statement from yourself: "the primary goal of legislation is to build awareness and social norms"
So, by your standards we are building awareness that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, burglary is wrong, fraud is wrong, subjecting children to SHS is wrong, subjecting children to highly toxic & odorous diesel fumes is wrong, subjecting children to Bonfire nights is wrong-or are you only set against those who choose to smoke?
As a non smoker I look forward to your response to my simple questions.
Your sincerely
Phil Johnson
From my understanding of procedure it is a continuation of the second reading. There has been no vote. The question wasn't put as they ran out of time. It still only needs one to vote against. I feel Cunningham did this purposely to give himself more time for machinations, more 'surveys' the usual gunge, instead of having it finished there and then. Still, from acorns etc.
Considering that, according to the tobacco companies, there are approx 10 people in this country and 100 worldwide who are important and active anti campaigners, zealots is not the word to describe them. Anyone so obsessed can, legitimately, be described as a head case, seriously in need of treatment. Why MP's and the MSM hang on to their every word defeats me. Critical analysis is, evidently, a lost art.
I can't read all of your post Simon for fear of being sick.
As far as opposition - it's not opposed mostly on libertarian grounds as much as opposed on grounds that people like Cunningham are bigots who have a prejudicial view about adult tobacco consumers who must be attacked daily or he will never realise the Tobacco Control Industry wet dream of criminalised smokers who are friendless, jobless, and homeless.
Cunningham doesn't give a toss about my family's children - who he's never met nor will meet - but only that he can use and exploit them to promote his own vile prejudices. His aim, is to create hatred, fear and phobia about a consumer group he personally dislikes.
I really wish funding could be made available to research and treat Smokerphobia which is a very serious problem. Something must be done to help those poor souls who are addicted to kicking smokers where ever and whenever the opportunity arises.
How did such a vile excuse for a "Parliamentarian" get into Govt. He should be head of a playgroup.
Hands Off Our Kids - they do not belong to creeps like Cunningham who can only teach them how to hate, fear and abuse.
Oh and thanks to Cunningham, this historic child smoker has now been criminalised. My car, my home, my life - butt out. This is my line. Do your worst. I will not comply!
Response from AC (my, my, that was quick!)
Thank you for getting in touch.
The answer to your single question is simple. What bothers me is the rights and care of children who are subjected to second hand smoke in cars and I will continue to campaign for them.
Yours sincerely
Alex Cunningham
and we have sent Mr Cunningham a serious question:-
Thank you for your speedy response.
In view of your response I have to ask when you propose to campaign against vehicle exhaust fumes which clog all tiny lungs up from the minute they are first 'taken out shopping'. Are you aware that one single blast (start up engine) from a vehicle at curbside is the equivalent of 1,000,000 cigarettes being smoked at the same time? Why are you not protecting 1 week old, 2 week old babies etc from the serious lung damage that is caused by the carcinogen known as exhaust fumes?
Yours sincerely
Phil J