I suppose I ought to write about the outcome of a consultation conducted last year by Birmingham Children's Hospital (BCH).
You may remember it. I wrote about it here (Action alert – hospital wants to extend smoking ban to nearby streets) and here (Why 'smoke-free' consultation should be declared null and void) and invited readers to submit a response.
The consultation report has been sitting in my inbox for a few weeks. I'd like to say the outcome was a victory for those who opposed extending the hospital's 'smokefree' zone to neighbouring streets but I can't because there was a majority in favour.
That said, it was hardly a great win for BCH. I say that because it took a Freedom of Information request to get the hospital to reveal the existence of the report which wasn't on its website.
Nor had the results of the consultation been reported by the local media, which suggested two things. Either they hadn't been released or the results were insufficiently robust to merit any coverage.
Anyway, after submitting an FOI request in August I was sent a copy of the report (Proposal for a smoke-free zone around BCH: consultation responses) plus this brief summary:
The 19-page report, dated November 8, 2016, is slightly more interesting. Here are three things I noted. One:
More smokers were strongly against the zone than were for it. Previous smokers were more evenly split between supporting and being against the zone. The majority of support came from non-smokers.
I'm sure this won't won't surprise anyone. It is however another example of what I call the 'tyranny of the majority' and it's a problem for smokers because non-smokers now outnumber smokers five to one and those who express an opinion in surveys like this are invariably anti-smoking.
My guess is that most non-smokers don't feel strongly about people smoking in the street, regardless of whether it's near a hospital, but that also means they're unlikely to be motivated to take part in a consultation on the subject.
Inevitably therefore what we're up against is a hardcore of anti-smokers plus members of staff who I imagine were encouraged to submit a response that, lo and behold, supported their employers' proposed policy.
Two, people are generally reluctant to ask smokers to move on not because they think they are interfering in someone else's business and it has nothing to do with them but because they are frightened to do so.
Indeed the most extraordinary comment in the entire report reads:
Having been a police officer for 30 years I feel it would be dangerous to get into conflict with people who are smoking.
Goodness, if an experienced police officer is intimidated by the thought of asking someone to stub out a cigarette or move further away from the hospital to smoke you wouldn't back them to protect you from a knife-wielding terrorist, would you?
Three, the hospital wants to ban smoking and vaping in nearby streets. This is based on responses to the question 'Should the zone apply to e-cigarettes?' and the following key points:
What I deduce from this is that respondents opposed to the zone were largely against it applying to e-cigarettes (I know I was) but very few (if any) vapers bothered to submit a response, presumably because it was promoted as a consultation about smoking. (Forest gets a mention in the report but there's no reference to any vaping-related organisations.)
In other words, by declining to engage in a consultation on a "proposal for a smoke-free zone around BCH", the vaping advocacy community has effectively given the green light to a policy which, if implemented, will prohibit both smoking and vaping in neighbouring streets.
Here are the full recommendations:
1. Given the strong support from the significant majority of the public, families and staff who regularly use the area around the hospital, BCH strongly believes that the introduction of a smoke-free zone around the hospital site is a positive step.
2. BCH believes it will improve the experience of visitors, whilst also offering an opportunity to communicate a consistent and important public health message.
3. Based on consultation feedback, BCH believes that the zone should include vaping and e-cigarettes, maintaining consistency with the hospital site itself.
4. BCH will initially pursue the introduction of a voluntary zone, supported through signage that highlights the importance of the zone to children and families visiting the hospital.
5. BCH recognises the views of a number of people that they would like to see a more formal, enforceable zone introduced. BCH will ensure that any implementation of zone is appropriately monitored, and will support exploration of a stronger approach if a voluntary zone fails to address sufficiently the level of concern that the consultation has highlighted.
The good news is that nothing much appears to have happened since the report was produced in November last year.
According to the hospital, in response to my FOI, "any changes to ask people not to smoke around the hospital would need to be developed as a proposal with the local authority. At this stage, no formal proposal has been made."
It's hardly a positive result but in the circumstances it'll do.