Letter to (350) MPs who signed - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BILL

July 6

Dear .............. MP,

I am quite sure that the majority of MPs will vote in favour of the Health Bill when it makes its final visit to the house and you will have received lobbying from the DoH and many health groups.

I however am extremely concerned about many potential social problems and the further erosion of community something that the Health Committee failed to consider. Caroline Flint gave evidence regarding the one-size-fits-all solution that is proposed yet her caution was summarily dismissed.

I actually think her evidence, despite a hostile reception, raised many valid concerns and would have sounded warning bells had the Committee been formed from members with social or economic interests rather than a DoH health bias.

1. The totally Health-led Bill failed to accept any caution from non-health sources and took more note of the 35 years of government funded anti-tobacco zeal of ASH. The consultation failed to get much further than ‘friends’ of the health lobby and certainly made little no attempt to gain opinion from the individuals and their communities comprising the 25% of the electorate adversely affected by the Bill. The fact that a single funded health group can provide almost one half of the opinion supporting a ban should indicate serious bias.
2. Neither the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment nor any other document shows any real concern regarding the welfare, disadvantage, isolation or exclusion of around 14 Million law-abiding smokers. The statement “We do not consider that these measures will disadvantage any group” can be found under “Equity and fairness, including race equality”. This confirms that they do not consider the tobacco addicted 25% of the population or their friends as having any specific needs. They do however highlight opportunities for smoking cessation but fail to mention that around 90% of all quitters fail.
3. News of community business closures are ignored in favour of success stories from city centre bars. Gastro-pubs and child friendly venues run by large companies. It is suggested that up to half of Scotland’s Bingo Halls will close.Five have already closed thus increasing social isolation for many hundreds of smokers and non-smokers in the community.
4. The Bill did not look into the underlying causes of smoking and although the Committee acknowledge higher smoking prevalence in lower socio-economic groups they ignored the risk of a further deterioration of such communities. The Government’s response claimed that “Smoker’s suffering has been relatively trivial”.
5. Smoking continues to become less of a norm and the continued steady decline alone could achieve the Government’s new targets for 2010. Cherry-picked evidence promoting a ban was accepted from sources suggesting that education and health promotion was more effective than legislation.
6. There will be a reaction from smokers. The venom in many official and health group statements has unduly empowered an extreme view in society. Smokers will become an ‘oppressed’ minority and yet a ban draws considerable attention to smoking. The Committee dismissed important evidence from official Irish sources that their smoking prevalence is on the rise. Other claimed ‘gains’ of ETS exposure are less than in the UK where there is no ban (yet).
7. Most smoking could have been contained in the adult environment of smoke-friendly bars. The result of bans is that smokers, smoking and associated camaraderie is transferred to the street or other less-controlled venues in full view of children.
8. Many DoH and NHS initiatives are perceived to be less than successful in achieving their declared aims. There is no reason to assume that this will be any more successful but is likely to create confrontation and more expensive bureaucracy.

The above highlights the Lord’s Committee statement “Failure to consider these matters properly has resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem”.

Despite your own opinion of the habit, I would ask that you consider the above and the suggestion below.

The best solution could and should be to build upon current good practice with no legislation but with:

1.      a continued investment in effective education and health promotion,

2.      improving existing community links and better use of community to value the individual, reduce deprivation, provide hope, increase ambition and thus remove some major causes of smoking within lower socio-economic areas.

3.      increased choice through inducements for hospitality venues to go smoke-free,

4.      encouragement for distancing smokers and non-smokers in smoke-friendly establishments

5.      and clear smoke-friendly/smoke-free signage outside premises.

This I feel would be a workable, proportionate and broadly popular compromise that respects the whole of society and especially community life.

The Health Bill is unlikely to achieve its stated aims without creating many more social problems resulting in even more unnecessary legislation and regulation. Where will Health stop and living begin?

You may have gathered that I am a smoker but certainly not pro-smoking and favour evolution over revolution. I have never promoted smoking but recognise that it will not disappear simply because a Government attempts to exclude it from view.

I hope you appreciate the above points and accept that they provide an opportunity for a broader, more acceptable solution to the favoured all out ban. I really do believe it is possible to take all the people with you.

Yours faithfully

Replies

"Thank you for your email.  I have noted your views."

Letter from Bob Russell "............ Thank you for urging me to vote for the Health Bill...................."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????

"Thanks. I disagree but it is not possible to answer fully letters from non-constituents. See my website on the health benefits of SNUS -smokeless tobacco."

"I very much agree with you, I voted against the ban on smoking in public places 4 times, including against the Health Bill in its entirety.
However we lost the vote by 200 and I am afraid that it is now too late to undo those votes.  The anti-smoking lobby had won the day before their opponents had put their boots on I am afraid."

"Please let me know if you are one of my constituents. I have read your E mail"

"I've read your comments with interest as I was the Lib Dem Public Health Spokesman when the Health Bill went through the House of  Commons.  The objective of the new law is not to "remove from view" smoking  or smokers but to remove the harmful effects of second hand smoke from the air breathed by all people in public places."

  "Thank you for your recent email which I read with interest.  Unfortunately there is a strict parliamentary protocol which prohibits MPs from responding at length to people contacting them from beyond their own constituency.  Can I suggest therefore that you contact your own MP, who is Andrew George."

"Sorry, but I don't accept your arguments on smoking at all"

"Thank you for your communication which I have read."

"Please let me know if you are one of my constituents. I have read your E mail. "

"Diolch i chi am eich e-bost. 
Dichon eich bod yn gwybod fod fy swyddfa yn derbyn llawer o e-bostiadau bob dydd, ac yr wyf yn ceisio eu hateb cyn gynted ag y bo hynny'n bosibl. 
Os yw'r mater yn un brys, a wnewch chi gysylltu â naill fy swyddfa etholaeth ar 01970 615880, neu fy swyddfa yn Llundain ar 020 7219 8469" --- it just says they'll get round to it.

Long Letter from Julia Goldsworthy saying she supports the provision - all based on Medical & 'the workplace' - very 'Party Line'