DoH - ETS in the Home

Email Trail

Sent 22 May
Dear Sir/Madam I understand that there has been considerable alarm about the number of people adversely affected by Environmental Tobacco Smoke and the proposed legislation is intended to alleviate this.   I found this recent study http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban which suggests that there will be more smoking in the home.  Since only 5% are affected in the Workplace and 95% are affected in the home.any increase will result in more rather than less overall exposure.   There is also more evidence from Ireland  ttp://tc.bmjjournals.com/preprint/tc13649.pdf  that attempted to show the many benefits of the ban but “Inconsistent with the speculation that reductions of smoking in public venues might lead to greater levels of smoking in private venues, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of Irish homes where smoking was allowed (from 85% to 80%, p = 0.002), similar to the decrease in the UK (from 82% to 76%, p = 0.003). There was no significant change in reported smoking in cars in Ireland (42% to 45%,  p = 0.33), whereas there was a decrease in the UK (from 38% to 30%, p = 0.005).”. The comparison to the decrease in the UK suggests the decrease had little to do with the ban and information/education policies, such as those the UK had relied on, are just as efficient.   There is more evidence coming to light about the harm bans do especially on those of lower socio-economic groups. The rise in smoking prevalence in Ireland is one such example.   I believe, directly due to the proposed ban on smoking in public places, these effects will be increased and the ban will probably cause more deaths/illness than it claims to prevent. Please respond directly to these specific points.   Yours faithfully

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 June 2006     Dear Mr/Ms Broscomb,   Thank you for your email of 22 May to the Department of Health about smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces.  Your letter has been passed to me for reply.  
As you may be aware, the Government introduced the Health Bill into Parliament on 27 October last year.  The measures in this Bill will make smoke-free places the norm and deliver real benefits as part of the Government's commitment to reduce smoking and to cut the number of smoking related deaths. 
Following the introduction of the Bill, the Government listened to many different views inside and outside Parliament on restricting smoking in public places, especially in relation to pubs and membership clubs.  As a result of taking into account people’s views, the Government put forward revised proposals amending the Bill to a free vote of the House of Commons on 14 February.  
The Commons agreed by a very large majority to end smoking in virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces, as well as private membership clubs.  This means every pub, club, café, restaurant, shopping centre, council office, hospital, factory and more will be smoke-free from the summer of 2007.  This measure will protect millions of workers, consumers, shoppers and travellers from other people's second-hand smoke.
The Bill is a huge step forward for public health and will help to reduce deaths from cancer, heart disease and other smoking related diseases.  Not only will we be protecting non-smokers; we will also provide smokers with an environment where it is easier to give up. 
You can find the Bill at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/076/2006076.htm   By bringing forward the implementation of the ban to 2007, the Government is ensuring that the benefits will reach the public sooner.  The impact will be monitored from the outset, with a full review completed at the end of three years. 
The Government hopes the Bill will be recognised as a major step forward in protecting people from second-hand smoke and improving the health of the nation. 
For more information about secondhand smoke, you may wish to visit our website: www.dh.gov.uk (enter 'secondhand smoke' into the home page search bar).
Finally, in response to the points that you raise in relation to smoking in the home, it may be helpful if I explain that the evidence from other parts of the world where smoke-free legislation has been introduced, is that this results in a reduction in smoking in the home and in private cars, thereby greater protection for children.  However, we will not be legislating to restrict smoking in private homes because of the implications for human rights. 

Thank you again for writing.  
Yours sincerely,    
Hazel Mendonca
Customer Service Directorate
Department of Health

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sent 2 June
Dear Hazel Mendonca  
Many thanks for your reply.  
I had already received the majority of your reply from a previous query to the department and assume there is a standard response to all queries.
It was interesting however to read your assurance that you will not be legislating to restrict smoking in private homes because of the implications for human rights.  
Your response to my specific points failed to be specific ----- "Finally, in response to the points that you raise in relation to smoking in the home, it may be helpful if I explain that the evidence from other parts of the world where smoke-free legislation has been introduced, is that this results in a reduction in smoking in the home and in private cars, thereby greater protection for children."  
Specifically WHAT EVIDENCE from other parts of the world?
So far I have found no quoted source that provides proof.   
Typical of much quoted reports is the WHO report International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and Child Health, 11-14 January 1999, World Health Organisation, Tobacco Free Initiative Consultation Report, Geneva, Switzerland. [online] 1999, states ---- "Legislation is of limited value in reducing exposure in private homes. Educational strategies, including education about the risks to children from ETS exposure and steps to eliminate exposure, are likely to be more effective in these settings. Another well quoted report the Ministry of Health, New Zealand publication. The smoke is clearing: anniversary report 2005. [online] Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2005.---- “In New Zealand, the percentage of people reporting second-hand smoke exposure in their home has reduced since the Amendment came into effect by over 5 percent (from 20 percent to 14.7 percent) (Waa and Gillespie 2005)." The next sentence seems to be ignored ----- "Other factors may have influenced this result – in particular, the Health Sponsorship Council and Quit Group’s Smoke-free Homes: Take the Smoke Outside media campaign that ran during 2005.”
The example from Ireland clearly supports these conclusions since a greater fall in ETS exposure in the home and in vehicles was evidenced in Britain where there was no ban.  
The Health Committee Report clearly shows that any evidence not published by the DoH, their direct or indirect employees, DoH supported groups or any suggesting non-health related considerations was dismissed.  
Both the DoH and Government are under considerable scrutiny due to well-publicised problems and, as a member of the public, I wish to know that evidence is sound, not tainted by subsidised self-interest groups and is peer evaluated by professionals not employed by or in anyway funded by the DoH.  
I look forward to receiving a list of clear unequivocal evidence and, unlike your colleague Mr Clarke who has failed to answer my mailing of May 12, hope my request is dealt with promptly.  
Yours Faithfully

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Watch this space - you may get tired eyes