Smokefree Ideology - available now!
Monday, September 21, 2020 at 9:50 
A new Forest report, ‘Smokefree Ideology: How local authorities are waging war on choice and personal freedom’, is published today.
Based on data gathered via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to 372 local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland (283 of whom replied), it includes an analysis of the policies that regulate smoking throughout the UK.
Written and researched by civil liberties campaigner Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club, the key findings were:
- There is a new wave of restriction on smoking, occurring not through parliamentary legislation but via local authority policies, many of which are not subjected to democratic scrutiny
- 192 councils (68% of those that responded) have a policy restricting or banning smoking at work while almost a third now restrict smoking in open-air public spaces, including children’s play areas, parks, beaches, council campuses or open-air public events: some of these bans are enforced with fixed penalty notices
- Smoking is no longer seen merely as a health risk to the consumer but as a moral offence to be kept ‘out of sight, out of mind’
- Councils are increasingly keen to distance themselves from any association with the act of smoking, with one council even requiring people to not smoke near council vehicles
- 49 councils ban cigarette breaks entirely, even if workers clock off, while a further 87 councils require workers to clock off or to obtain permission from a manager
- In total, 113 councils currently ban smoking outside council buildings with some requiring employees to leave the site entirely or stand up to 50 metres from a council building to light up
- Some councils are also targeting social housing residents to persuade them to change their smoking behaviour. Social inequality is being recast as the consequence of a lifestyle habit and the restriction of that habit is the answer to social inequality
The Telegraph yesterday published a report that focussed on our discovery that Hammersmith and Fulham's policy on smoking included the direction that "any part of a private dwelling used solely for work purposes will be required to be smoke-free" (Council banned staff from smoking at their desks at home):
The guidance was issued in 2015 in a joint "bi-borough corporate health and safety "document setting out the council's no smoking policy with Royal Kensington and Chelsea.
A spokesman for Kensington and Chelsea, which had told its staff that "home workers should not smoke at their workstation during office hours", dropped the smoking ban on home workers when it issued new guidance in February this year.
The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham declined to comment. However a council source said the advice, while still technically in force, was being replaced.
Josie conducted her research between March and August 2020. Curiously, Kensington and Chelsea did not send her the "new guidance" (issued, allegedly, in February) so we were reliant on the joint "bi-borough corporate health and safety" document supplied by Hammersmith and Fulham.
Nor did Hammersmith and Fulham give any indication that the rule on (not) smoking whilst working at home was being replaced.
It must be pure coincidence then that, having been put in the spotlight by our report, both councils appear to have disowned the policy.
Anyway, had it not been for Kensington and Chelsea telling the Telegraph that it had changed its policy in February, the story might have appeared on the front page. Instead it was relegated to page nine (where it was nevertheless the lead story on that page).
Nevertheless, as a result of the Telegraph report the Hammersmith and Fulham policy was also reported online by the Mail (Labour-run Hammersmith and Fulham council bans all staff from smoking at their desks while working from HOME) and The Sun ('WAGING WAR' Labour-run council in west London bans staff from smoking at their desks while working from home).
The reports also generated a lot of reaction on Twitter that was overwhelmingly negative (ie most comments opposed the council's policy).
I was interested to see that one of the many people who tweeted the Telegraph report was government minister Greg Hands, MP for Chelsea and Fulham.
Other than tweeting the story Hands made no further comment but as of this morning the his tweet had attracted 296 retweets and 239 comments.
You can download the report here.
PS. Yesterday evening I discussed the Hammersmith and Fulham issue on LBC with presenter Ian Payne and Dr Sarah Jarvis, a rather gobby GP who appears regularly on programmes such as The One Show (BBC1) and Jeremy Vine on Channel 5. It got quite heated and Jarvis ended up asking me “How do you sleep at night?” which you don't expect to hear from a doctor.
I'm not sure what got her goat but it may have been my suggestion that not all GPs are "paragons of virtue" and many of us are sick of being told how to live our lives.
Off air the producer told me, "That was great radio." Perhaps Jarvis and I should become a double act. What do you say, Jeremy Vine?
Reader Comments (8)
That is the sort of GP that chases smokers away from healthcare because we do not like medics who treat us as smokers instead of patients. Neither do we expect to put our lives into the hands of bullying and clearly abusive smokerphobic GPs like Jarvis.
GPs like that have been creating health inequalities for smokers over several decades. My question to her and others like her is - How do you sleep at night knowing you are discriminating against some of your patients that you clearly have prejudicial opinions of.
Those kind of GPs who cannot show compassion nor are able to treat patients equally are the sort that our NHS does not need if it truly is a healthcare system for all and not just those who live GP approved lifestyles.
Well done on outing bullying councils. It is for this reason that Government passed the buck of persecution to them. That way it cannot be blamed nor lose votes from people fed up at being singled out for discrimination on purely moralistic grounds.
Does anyone remember the time when gay people were discriminated against on the same moral grounds? How easy we appear to forget that tolerance, fair play and equality for all is a vitally important part of British life - or used to be. We are going socially backwards in looking for people to treat as inhuman and undeserving.
GPs like Jarvis are taking us there and then they have the cheek to call such regressive behaviour "progression". War is peace, freedom is slavery etc, etc...
I'm puzzled on this. What authority do (or did) Hammersmith and Fulham base this 'instruction' on? What Law or bylaw is the basis of it? I cannot see how they could possibly 'instruct' any behaviour inside a person's home that is legal. Neither can I see any terms of employment applying to any legal conduct within the confines of your own home.
A home is not a public place. I'm lost.
Frank J
It is from Article 8 of the FCTC.
"At its second session in July 2007, the Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted guidelines for implementation of Article 8 of the WHO FCTC on protection from exposure to tobacco smoke" (decision FCTC/COP2(7)).
WHO Framework Convention On Tobacco Control
Guidelines for implementation of Article 8
24. This creates an obligation to provide universal protection by ensuring that all indoor public places, all indoor workplaces, all public transport and possibly other (outdoor or quasi-outdoor) public places are free from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments.
If exemptions must be considered on the basis of other arguments, these should be minimal. In addition, if a Party is unable to achieve universal coverage immediately, Article 8 creates a continuing obligation to move as quickly as possible to remove any exemptions and make the protection universal. Each Party should strive to provide universal protection within five years of the WHO Framework Convention’s entry into force for that Party.
25. No safe levels of exposure to second-hand smoke exist, and, as previously acknowledged by the Conference of the Parties in decision FCTC/COP1(15), engineering approaches, such as ventilation, air exchange and the use of designated smoking areas, do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke".
https://www.who.int/fctc/treaty_instruments/adopted/Guidelines_Article_8_English.pdf
DECEMBER 16, 2004
Britain ratifies anti-tobacco treaty
"The British Department of Health has issued a statement saying that the United Kingdom has become the latest country to ratify the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - the first global health treaty. This commits the government to enact strict tobacco control measures. The convention will become interantional law on February 28 2005. The treaty binds the nations involved to enact comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, ban the use of misleading terms such as "light" and "mild" and to increase tobacco taxation. Campaigners are already asking the Secretary of State for Health what planning mechanisms will be put in place to ensure the UK complies with the requirements. The announcement was hidden away in a statement about a reduction in the number of smokers in the UK."
https://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14008.html
The oppression of smokers and denial of democratic process, liberties, and natural rights promulgated by these local councils must end. These totalitarian actions must be exposed as severe deprivations of human rights.
The FCTC that promotes these abuses and provides legal cover for the antismoker activists that advocate these abuses must be abandoned. The manipulated data justifying smoking bans and the suppression of dissenting data must be exposed. Smoking bans must be amended to restore balance and accommodation for smokers indoors and out.
The right to smoke must be afforded to all adults that chose to do so.
Thank you, Rose
I'm no Lawyer but I still cannot see the basis. If the council were paying to hire the room used in a private dwelling then maybe (only maybe) they could have a claim. If they are not paying to hire then it is no business of theirs. Their only interest should be in the work to be conducted.
Like most things to do with smoking, I cannot see it standing up to the simplest analysis. No surprise they are having second thoughts. It is a ludricous overreach and, unfortunately, typical of many councils.
Frank J
It was put into British law under the Health Act 2006 which is how what had always been considered private places got turned into public places and gave the council access to check for offences.
Health Act 2006
CHAPTER 28
Smoke-free premises, etc.
2 Smoke-free premises
(1)Premises are smoke-free if they are open to the public.
But unless the premises also fall within subsection (2), they are smoke-free only when open to the public.
(2)Premises are smoke-free if they are used as a place of work—
(a)by more than one person (even if the persons who work there do so at different times, or only intermittently), or
(b)where members of the public might attend for the purpose of seekingor receiving goods or services from the person or persons workingthere (even if members of the public are not always present).
They are smoke-free all the time.
(3)If only part of the premises is open to the public or (as the case may be) used as a place of work mentioned in subsection (2), the premises are smoke-free only to that extent.
(4)In any case, premises are smoke-free only in those areas which are enclosed or substantially enclosed.
(5)The appropriate national authority may specify in regulations what “enclosed”and “substantially enclosed” mean.
(6)Section 3 provides for some premises, or areas of premises, not to be smoke-free despite this section.
(7)Premises are “open to the public” if the public or a section of the public has access to them, whether by invitation or not, and whether on payment or not.
(8)“Work”, in subsection (2), includes voluntary work."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/28/pdfs/ukpga_20060028_en.pdf
Complete with the requirement to plaster everywhere with their beloved "no smoking" signs as a sign of subjugation.
All this of course applied to non smokers too.
In 2012 the uglification of Britain with offensive signs was somewhat moderated by the new government.
Change to no-smoking signs regulations
8 October 2012
"The duty to display no-smoking signs in smoke-free premises and vehicles in England is being made simpler.
Since 1 October 2012, at least 1 legible no-smoking sign must still be displayed but owners and managers are now free to decide the size, design and location of the signs.
No action is needed for anyone who is already complying with the current regulations. But the new smoke-free signs regulations, give owners and managers the freedom to move, change or remove multiple signs.
Supplementary guidance for businesses and local authority regulatory officers about the new rules has been issued: ’Implementation of smoke-free legislation in England’. Both this and the existing smoke-free legislation guidance can be found on the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health website."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/change-to-no-smoking-signs-regulations
But 2 years later council workers were still trying to issue on the spot fines to landlords.
Licensee successfully challenges smoking sign fine
09-Sep-2014
"A licensee has warned fellow publicans to make sure they know their rights after a council wrongly threatened him with a £200 fine for not displaying the correct ‘no smoking’ sign."
https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2014/09/09/Licensee-successfully-challenges-smoking-sign-fine
Again, thanks, Rose
I feel the Council was attenpting to use 2(a) and 2(b). Shot full of holes and, certainly, not surprised they are 'rethinking'.