Speaking up for smokers ... Breckland Council replies

Further to Monday's post about Breckland Council banning smoking and possibly vaping on council premises, the Eastern Daily Press yesterday published a follow up report that led with Forest's reaction:

"The council's policy is based on the fallacy that smoking outside poses a health risk to non-smokers.

“There is not a shred of evidence that smoking in the open air is harmful to by-standers.

"Everyone is entitled to a work break and if staff choose to use that time to light up or vape outside that's a matter for them not their employer.

“Banning vaping as well makes no sense and shows this is not about health, but about controlling people's behaviour.”

The EDP's initial report on Monday (Norfolk council agrees to go smoke free at headquarters) had ignored our response whilst giving prominence to ASH’s reaction.

To get our comments published I therefore had to make a bit of a nuisance of myself. It's not something I like doing but the lack of an opposing voice in so many smoking-related stories does annoy me and sometimes my frustration boils over.

According to Council leader Sam Chapman-Allen the smoke free policy had been raised not by councillors but by council staff, with 89 per cent supporting the move in a consultation.

We have since written to the Council via email and Twitter requesting the following information:

1. How many members of staff participated in the Dereham HQ consultation?

2. How many members of staff does the Council employ in its Dereham HQ (where the ban will be implemented)?

I may be wrong but I suspect that the 89 per cent figure refers to respondents to the consultation not the entire workforce.

My suspicion is enhanced by the fact that on Tuesday the Council said they would send the information “shortly” but 48 hours later I’m still waiting.

The Council is also spinning the policy as helping smokers who want to quit.

This line is increasingly common. Ban smoking in beer gardens and other outdoor areas, it is argued, and it will "empower" smokers to stop. Likewise it will remove temptation from ex-smokers.

This is how tobacco control intends to by-pass the uncomfortable truth that smoking in the open air presents no threat at all to the health of non-smokers, including children, in beer gardens, council premises or anywhere else.

It's interesting though that anti-smoking campaigners are not averse to inferring, without explicitly stating, that smoking in the open air is a risk to non-smokers. According to Breckland's new 'smoke free' policy, for example:

We recognise that smoking is the primary cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK, accounting for approximately 79,000 deaths a year in England alone. In addition [my emphasis] the harmful health effects of second hand tobacco smoke are now established beyond reasonable dispute. To address this public health issue the Council is introducing this policy to make our sites completely smoke free.

Local authorities can make this inference with complete impunity because any challenge will be brushed away or ignored.

Smokers meanwhile have been browbeaten into submission for so long it's no wonder they're unwilling to say anything or risk their employer's disapproval.

Instead it's left to Forest to speak up on their behalf because no-one else will.

See: Campaign group slams smoking ban at council headquarters (EDP).

Update: Shortly after publishing this post Forest received the following reply from Breckland Council:

As you are aware, Breckland Council has recently adopted a new smokefree policy for its head office ...

The Council has always taken its role in supporting the health and wellbeing of its staff and residents very seriously and, while we fully recognise that people have a right to choose to smoke, as a local authority we have an important role in promoting positive physical and mental health. Equally, we are proud to be responding to the overwhelming majority of our staff who support this move, including our Staff Forum who originally suggested the idea to us.

This matter has been discussed with staff a number of times in recent years. The most recent anonymous survey, which saw 174 take part (from a total of 215 staff), found that around 90% of those who responded are in favour of becoming a smoke-free site.

Having now adopted this new policy, which applies to our head office site, we have also committed to reviewing it going forward, particularly with regards to NICE’s upcoming guidance on vaping.

I’ve made clear our views, which you can also read here, so I won’t repeat them, but it does interest me that while the Council recognises ‘that people have a right to smoke’ the new smoke free policy doesn’t respect their right to smoke anywhere on council premises.

Likewise the Council says it wants to promote 'positive physical and mental health'. But what about the mental health of those for whom the occasional cigarette during working hours may offer a brief and possibly pleasurable respite from the stress or even tedium of work?

Imagine moreover working in an environment where a significant majority of your colleagues have ganged up on you (anonymously) to deny you the right to nip outside, even during a legitimate work break, to have a quick smoke outside the very building where you work.

Sure, you can go off the premises to smoke but the message is clear. We, the majority, are in charge and we will decide when and where you can light up.

Forget the right to choose. In this brave new smoke free world that right exists in name only. The majority has spoken. Some might call that bullying.