Skip to main content

Smoking Rooms - a Liberal Alternative (2)

I link to the debate in which I spoke for a short time (having been requested by the Speaker to keep it short).

The key facts are:
a) Smoking generally is going down
b) The Evidence from Ireland is:
- i) as a result of the ban smoking went down by an additional one off about 5%
- ii) people now smoke outside pubs or at home more than they used to
c) Secondary smoke is dangerous although not as dangerous as primary smoking.
d) 95% of deaths attribted to secondary smoke arise from smoke in the home.

The House of Commons has accepted that workers may be exposed to the level of smoke they encounter in outdoor areas.

The effect of the ban (which I voted for) is that smoking will move into homes and onto the streets. That which moves into homes will cause more deaths from passive smoking in the home and at least of the order of deaths that are reduced as a result of smoke-free bars.

If, and this does need to be proven, a ventilated smoking room can have a concentration of smoke of the order of a garden - which is feasible. Then the logic remains to allow ventilated smoking rooms. Fewer people would die as a result of secondary smoke and people would keep the option of a fag and a pint.


Jock Coats said…
Ah, the "lounge bar" and "smoke room". How novel! I never really did understand why this almost ubiquitous example from the past was not an option. So many of the "theme pub" renovations in the eighties and nineties destroyed these concepts in the odd notion of "classlessness" but they also I believe helped with the separation of trouble makers (who almost inevitably seemed to gravitate towards the smoke room with its less salubrious surroundings and slightly cheaper beer).
TonyF said…
Then the logic remains to allow ventilated smoking rooms. Fewer people would die as a result.

So, I take it, you voted against the total ban?
I was very saddened indeed to hear that several MPs (including John Hemming) who stand under an umbrella that describes itself as "liberal" decided that adults will no longer be allowed to form an association with like-minded individuals, the purpose of which is to gather together to enjoy a pint and a fag together.

It is even more disturbing to discover that evidence regarding changes in peoples' smoking habits that have occurred in the Republic of Ireland since they banned smoking in public bars, etc. has apparently been misrepresented.
Bob Piper said…
One of the problems of 'smoking rooms' is that the litigatious (no, not you this time John) have used them to argue that by being put in a room with other smokers - and ventilation is apparently not a solution - their health us put at a bigger risk because they are having to inhale other people's smoke as well. I know it might sound daft, but bear in mind people have sued the cigarette companies for 'making' them inhale nicotine.
PoliticalHack said…
Why do the rights of a minority of smokers take precedence over the rights of employees to work in a safe environment? As I have pointed out before, this is about health and safety.

The idea of smoking rooms is a non-starter, as employees would still be required to enter the room and the evidence is that affordable extraction systems would not work effectively to remove the toxins from the air.
TonyF said…
Incidently John, you brought up the subject of smoking rooms so why haven't you got one at Osmond House?

Lib Dem members who smoke come in there to do their printing but their not allowed to have a fag in there.
john said…
There is an office on the first floor of Osmond House which is smoking.

The issue on smoking rooms is one of ventilation. I have said to the lobbyists that they need prove the level of smoke is about the same with ventilation as it is in a pub garden.
Earnest said…
Excellent work on this personal blog. I am going to tell my family about this personal blog. More than likely you will want to take a look at my personal blog and give me an idea how to improve it.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…