Falklands : Falklands Set To Go Smokeless
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 30.09.2006 (Article Archived on 14.10.2006)
Councillors have debated a smoking ban for Falklands Pubs at Legislative Council.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL: FRIDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2006
(Part 1 Includes the Smoking Ban Debate)
A meeting of Legislative Council took place at 1030hrs on Friday, 22 September 2006 in the Court and Council Chamber of the Town Hall. Councillors present were Clausen, Davies, Hansen, Rendell and Stevens. Other Councillors were away overseas. Also present were Ms. Claudette Anderson (Clerk of Councils), Mr David Lang QC (Attorney General), Mr Chris Simpkins (Chief Executive) and Commodore Ian Moncrieff (Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands).
After prayers, lead by the Reverend Kathy Biles, the confirmation of the record of the meeting of Legislative Council held on 28 July 2006 was signed by the Speaker Mr. Lewis Clifton, OBE. Papers were laid on the table by the Hon. the Chief Executive included:
Sexual Offences Ordinance 2005 (Correction Order) 2006
Census Order 2006
Census Forms Regulations 2006
Census Forms Regulations Order 2006
Motion No. 6/2006 by the Hon Dr Richard Davies (RD):
“This House believes that Tobacco Smoke in public places is a health risk and a nuisance to members of the public and employees. A ban on smoking in enclosed public places would be an appropriate way to deal with this problem. This House intends to consult interested parties and consider practical details with a view to the implementation of a ban on smoking in public places.”
Cllr Clifton then called for a recess until the noise coming from the room above died down.
The motion was seconded by the Hon Dr. Andrea Clausen.
Cllr Clifton allowed Dr. Davies to speak to the motion and said that according to standing orders he had 45 minutes to speak to the motion.
Cllr The Hon Dr Richard Davies:
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I will endeavour to be a little shorter than 45 minutes.
Tobacco smoke exhaled by smokers is not only unpleasant, it is highly toxic. Its immediate affects include cough, shortness of breath, irritation of the eyes and precipitation of asthma. In the longer term and more seriously, passive smokers, which means those who are exposed to other people’s smoke, whether the exhaled smoke or the side-stream smoke from the cigarette have a greater risk of smoking related diseases including lung cancer and heart disease and a wide range of other illnesses, which I won’t go into.
Tobacco smoke is a Class “A” carcinogen, which means it’s a substance known to cause Cancer in humans. And, other Class “A” carcinogens include mustard gas, arsenic and asbestos. We have known that tobacco smoke has been dangerous to smokers for a long time but over the last 10 years it has become widely accepted and, I would put it to you uncontroversial, that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous, too. And, I do not intend to dwell further on the medical affects of smoking now although I will endeavour to answer questions if you wish. But what I would like to do is discuss how our society should deal with this danger.
I believe that I should be able to go out into a public place, whether it be a shop, office, a pub or restaurant and breathe air which is clean and non-toxic. I also believe (in fact I am absolutely certain) that those who work in these places have a right to breathe clean air at work. And, I think it’s become apparent over the years that voluntary codes, better ventilation, education and courtesy of smokers have proved entirely ineffective in providing clean air or safe work places. Perhaps it is fair to say it has been effective in some areas but there are still many workplaces and indoor public areas where we get exposed to other people’s tobacco smoke.
The question is whether legislation is appropriate to deal with the health risk and the nuisance, which tobacco smoke causes to third parties. In my view the answer is clearly yes. Actions which harm and annoy others without justifiable cause should be controlled. And, if necessary, it should be controlled by legislation. I have absolutely no desire to see our lives being more and more regulated by well meaning politicians and the endless pursuit of a risk-free existence erodes our quality of life. The idea of a risk-free existence is an illusion. The state that dictates what is good, what is safe and which claims to understand my own interests better than I do myself, or worse still insists that I do what they think is good for me is a nanny state. And, I am sure that none of us wants that.
Many of our pleasures in life involve a degree of risk, whether it be mountain climbing, having a few drinks in a pub riding a motorcycle or horse or even having cream with my strawberries. An individual’s need to be free in a free society, is that he can be free to assess the risks of what they like doing and make up their own minds. But the freedom to participate in risk-taking sports and the freedom to consume legal substances does not include the freedom to harm others, which is precisely what exposing other people to your tobacco smoke does.
I think there is a valid distinction between protecting adults from the consequences of their own actions, which are freely carried out and protecting them from the actions of other people. There is no law that I am aware of (the Attorney General may correct me) that stops me banging my own head against a brick wall but there are plenty of – more than one law, I think – that stops me banging somebody else’s head against a brick wall.
The Legislation I propose, or that I would like to see, falls firmly in the second category. It is not an attack on the right of smokers but it is a defence of the right of non-smokers. A smoking ban does not ban smokers from restaurants and bars. It bans the smoke. Smokers may continue to smoke at home or in the open air. I have no wish to dictate whether they continue to smoke or not but I do wish to dictate that they do not harm others by their habit.
In fact, a ban would be beneficial to smokers although it is not its prime objective. Research suggests that around 70% of smokers would actually like to give up but cannot or find it very difficult to do so. Nicotine is an extremely addictive drug. And, I heard a professor of respiratory medicine say that it was more addictive than cocaine or heroin. A ban on smoking in public places will help smokers to quit and there is good evidence for that from other countries. So, those smokers who wish to stop smoking will be helped to do so. And, I believe that a ban would also limit the opportunities for younger people to take up smoking and become addicted.
I am aware of the concerns that publicans have on the affects on their businesses. All I can say is the experience in other countries is that the overall affect on the hospitality industry seems to be about neutral. A survey in the UK, however, showed that the main reason people gave for not going to pubs was dislike of tobacco smoke. And it is likely that a lot more non-smokers would go out if a ban was introduced. I can’t dismiss entirely the concerns of publicans here. They obviously know their business better than I do but their concerns seem very much to reflect the concerns of publicans in Ireland and America – Scotland and the concerns don’t seem to have been borne out in practice.
I do, however, remain very happy to discuss ways of mitigating the possible affects of a smoking ban on businesses but I do not think that the basic principle should be compromised. The basic principle is that non-smokers should be protected from the smoke of smokers. From a democratic viewpoint, the hospital recently sent out a questionnaire, which asked both smokers and non smokers about their views on a smoking ban and it showed strong support across the board for a ban. It was sent to all households so everyone had the chance to express their opinion. We had a public meeting a few days ago and all those that attended it were unanimous in their support of a ban.
Mr Speaker the banning of smoking in public places would make them pleasanter and safer for non-smokers. It would help smokers who wish to quit to do so and it would discourage young people from starting.
I ask Honourable Members to support the Motion.
Cllr. the Hon Dr. Andrea Clausen (AC):
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I would like to rise to second this Motion but I would like to take leave and refrain from speaking to the Motion at this point. But I wish to speak later.
The Speaker the Hon Mr. Lewis Clifton OBE (LC):
So granted. Does any other Honourable Member wish to speak to the Motion?
Cllr the Hon Mrs. Janet Robertson (JR):
It’s down to me to put forward some alternative arguments in this debate. Before I do so, I would just like to clarify something. Probably like a good number of people, I do feel remarkably indifferent personally about the issue that is being put forward so thoroughly today. This is probably because I am not a regular pub-goer and I don’t really feel terribly affected either way. I make that comment because I have heard from a few people that in filling in the questionnaire they did opt for or against when they actually would have preferred to put “indifferent.” This is not a big issue but I just wanted to clarify from which standpoint I am coming from.
There is, however, a deeper issue, which I would like to address. It’s about what we use legislation for. Yes, we use it to protect our community and to protect our environment and to protect our country. We use it to mitigate risk and to protect individuals against the harmful actions of others. But this is the key. You protect individuals against the harmful actions of others when those who would do harm deprive the victims of choice and free will. In this instance people do have a choice about whether or not to go to a pub. There is no force major, no obligation on them to do what makes them uncomfortable. What they would like, however, (and understandably) is the opportunity to enter a public establishments under their own terms.
So then it does come down to free will of preference – the preference of those who want to be in a pub without smoke conflicting with those who wish to smoke in a pub. Whose free will has a greater right than the other?
There is also the preference of the pub owners to run their businesses in a manner which they believe to be most profitable. And, there is public opinion. I understand this to be a slight majority of people who wish to tell the pub owners and their clientele what they may or may not do because they don’t like it. Legislation, I believe, must not be used to force people into doing things that we simply don’t think they should or that we don’t approve of. On that basis, we should be banning drinking in pubs to prevent the nastiness of being confronted by drunkards whilst we are there or to prevent them from fighting or we can legislate against parents who feed their children too many sweeties, which rots their teeth or we can legislate against obesity because we think it simply won’t do.
Once legislation is used to feed the preferences, sometimes even the prejudices of the moral majority then democracy is being abused and the principles of individual liberty are obscured.
On the other hand, would a majority, albeit small, like to see smoke-free pubs? It would appear from the survey that they would. And, they are quite right to have this preference. What can they do then to achieve what they are quite entitled to want? I would argue not legislation, not the democratic version of strong-arm tactics but rather the power of lobbying, the power of protest, the power of something that over 50% of the population has on its side in terms of a marketable niche. When I talk about lobbying I don’t mean lobbying your politicians necessarily although that is certainly an option. I must say at this point that no one has lobbied me. I mean lobbying your local landlords and ladies, letting them know how you feel, letting them know how much of your custom they are losing by not moving in your direction.
This is democracy and a liberal society in action. This is the other side of the face of democracy – the grass roots action. Just look in the last year. Three establishments have responded to public preference with no legislation involved. Our only nightclub and most of our restaurants are smoke-free by choice of the owners and as a result of public pressure. Let’s have a pub make the same choice and let’s see people use their voice and exercise their initiative to help it come about. Let us see some other avenues being explored before drafting the bills.
Let, as Christopher Meyer asked rather poetically on “Question Time,” last night, a thousand hecklers bloom and let that be the agent of change.
Cllr the Hon Mr Michael Rendell (MR):
Honourable Members, I have got nothing to bear but I am only reacting to the statements that have been made already and I would like to react to the statement that the Honourable Janet Robertson made. And, a lot of work has gone into that preparation, I am sure. It was a very eloquent statement of your beliefs.
The grassroots democracy proposal you made seems to me to be rather unworkable. I cannot see, in the Falkland Islands that by talking to a publican, you are going to persuade him, even though there is a group of you, that that pub in particular, that that outlet is going to be persuaded to, on their own, ban smoking. I think the only reason it’s worked at the Malvina and at the Brasserie is because they are in direct competition with each other effectively. And they are not real pubs either. The same goes for the other outlet, the Trough that banned smoking some time ago. And, I don’t think there is a great deal of realistic comparison being made in relation to this point.
I would also like to make the point that the whole issue of banning smoking in public places seems to be getting around to the view that the Falkland Islands are different from anywhere else in the world. Smoking has been banned in many places throughout the world and smoke in the Falklands is the same as the smoke anywhere else so that the arguments that you raised in relation to our situation, I think, will have been answered in fine detail everywhere else. And, at the end of the day, the legislators have realised that the only way to do it is by legislating. It will not work by personal choice.
I also would just finally like to say that I remember well a motion that was passed in Council about 10 years ago in relation to the setting up of the town council, which was raised at the first meeting of the new Council and failed dismally because Members had not got their act together and had not fully thought out what they were trying to do and how they were trying to do it. And, I am most pleased that we are not falling into that same trap and are working towards achieving our aims in a democratic and thorough way.
I support the Motion.
Cllr the Hon Mrs Janet Robertson:
Can I just respond? I would agree with the Honourable Mike Rendell that this is certainly proceeding this in a democratic fashion, in a well prepared fashion and I think it fantastic that this sort of event occurs and that we are seeing the debate happen because I think that that is very important and is probably something that has been lacking in recent years.
With regard to your comment about the fact that it won’t work if people lobby their landlords, I am not exactly sure – not entirely sure- that it’s been tried. I have not heard of any instances of people getting together and forming a lobby group. My understanding of this debate is that is originated from Councillors rather than from the public. That’s no bad thing. Legislation, of course, originate from the top downwards rather than the other way up. But it’s just that I would like to have seen some expression of this majority and their views. I have not, frankly, seen it. The only comment I remember was leading up to the election there was a question asked at the Chamber of Commerce. There were also questions asked about applying tarmac to the MPA Road and said a lot of things which we have not returned to since. So I have not really seen examples of this lobbying.
And the other little point, I would like to disagree with you on one thing. I think the Falkland Islands are different, obviously not in terms of whether smoking is a great thing or not. Clearly, it’s not. But in terms of how we can react, in terms of the immediacy of the democratic process, the immediacy of the electorate to the Councillors but also to each other, in a small place like this I think that it is easier or it should certainly be easier to use that community approach to things rather than legislation. In bigger countries that is not necessarily the case.
That’s my response.
Cllr the Hon Michael Rendell:
A very quick response to your last point, we haven’t passed any legislation yet. We don’t know exactly how we are going to take this forward. So, I hope that we would be able to take into account the smallness of our community and the way in which we operate.
Cllr the Hon Mr Richard Stevens (RS):
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I just think it’s right for a responsible government to look at the issues of something like smoking and the third party and their rights. I think for many, many years the Government response has been to add tax to tobacco products and with a packet of 20 cigarettes being over £5.00, you would have thought that would have been slightly off-putting and probably, to a percentage of the population it has been and it has helped individuals make that decision not to smoke. We are bombarded through various media in the way of educating people to give up and sowing people the damage that you are doing. If you smoke, you think instantly of the pathologist pulling out blackened organs and demonstrating the damage that’s done by smoking, and the Alien that’s meant to come from another planet not quite sure where all the smoking things come from. Probably the most graphic of all in my mind is people sitting in a room and grease being produced and it’s so graphic. In real life, of course, it’s very hard for people to understand the dangers. If there were four teenagers standing around smoking and one dropped dead perhaps you would see just how dangerous smoking was. In fact, it happens over a number of years and when you are young, you are indestructible and you don’t think about seven years later when the smoking catches up with some of your major organs and you start having problems. Of course we all know the person that smoked like a chimney and lived to a ripe old age. But I think statistics prove that smoking isn’t very good for you.
I do feel some amount of sympathy for the long-term smoker because they are obviously an addict and, as my colleague, Councillor Richard Davies has said probably a proportion of those would like to give up smoking. Equally there is a proportion that are quite happy to have 60 years of enjoyable smoking rather than 80 years of misery. And, that’s another thing.
I will support this motion because I think it’s another step of a responsible government, trying to break the smoking culture. And, we do seem to have a culture. The education processes don’t seem to work especially with the younger and newer smokers who, I think as a responsible government we should be targeting and helping.
Sir, I support the Motion.
Cllr the Hon Dr Andrea Clausen:
Mr Speaker, Honourable Members, I think I’d like to start by just responding to some of the points that have been raised before I state why I support this motion, which I do by seconding it, of course.
To come back on a few of the things that the Hon Janet Robertson mentioned, it’s with regard to legislation being there to protect people. I actually think this is a classic case of why legislation should be used to protect people. It’s not to protect the smoker – that’s not the aim. The aim is to protect the non-smoker, whether it be a worker or a client in a public place – an enclosed public place. I would like to re-define that. So, I think this is an appropriate use of legislation.
With regard to the fact that we don’t know if the public actually support our public support of a ban, whilst I know we haven’t had a referendum as such we do have some information. Everybody was entitled to fill in a health questionnaire. On that questionnaire 76% of the people who filled it in supported a ban of smoking in public places. I think that’s a reasonable statistic and I think we should use it.
With regard to the argument that alcohol and fatty foods are exactly the same as smoke, I would like to disagree with that. Fatty foods and alcohol don’t always affect other people who don’t consume alcohol and fatty foods around them. We know that smoking second-hand smoke does affect other people. So people who don’t smoke are affected by that. And, of course we are not be legislating for what a person does that doesn’t affect necessarily anybody else. I can’t say that 100% but particularly I refer to alcohol and fatty foods. So I don’t think it’s fair to put them in the same class.
With regard to publicans who we have consulted and we have heard their views, I would like to make two points. Firstly, our publicans don’t actually know for a fact that banning smoking in their establishments would damage their businesses because no one has tried it. Yes, the Malvina recently banned smoking in their bar but as one of the Honourable Members has said previously – the Hon Mike Rendell – said the Malvina isn’t strictly a public house. It is a restaurant and a bar. So it will be interesting to see what results they have. And, also the Brasserie, of course. But of our purely public houses none of them have actually trialled, not even for a night, as far as I am aware, just to see if non-smokers come out.
With regard to lobbying – I think that’s great. Quite often I think people will lobby but I think – certainly when I think about some hot topics that are out and about at the moment, it’s usually a few loud people who lobby and it’s not usually the greater masses who lobby. The greater masses are quite quiet and conservative in the Falklands and I think that’s something that is a fact. I think they would rather stay at home and not go out than go badger the publicans until they are blue in the face. So, I think it’s just one of those things and we elected Members have the responsibility to address issues where there is damage caused to others – or potential damage caused to others. I think that’s all I will say in regards to Honourable Members’ comments.
The reason I support this motion is because I believe it is the right of all individuals to access clean air – bottom line – wherever they are. I do not believe that a non-smoking worker or client should be subjected to unclean air when they are at work or socialising in an enclosed public space. Who is it that can say that the rights of a smoker are more important than those of a non-smoker or visa versa. We are in a quandary. A smoker would not be prevented from smoking by the proposed ban. They would be merely not permitted to smoke in an enclosed public place – much like when we travel by air. Smokers can manage to go for 10 or more hours on a plane. Nobody has to step outside – in fact, I think that would be a bit dangerous. So, it can be done. In fact, public transport around the world is probably moving towards banning smoking. And, why, because it is a very enclosed public space. However, a non smoker who wishes to go out to a smoky enclosed public place must run the risk of passive smoking related illnesses in order to socialise.
And, let’s not forget the rights of the workers. I suspect that we might have had a reason for banning smoking in all enclosed Government workplaces. Why would we think that the private sector employees should be subjected to passive smoking related illnesses when we don’t think Government employees should? Furthermore, there is a discrimination when we employ people where smoking in public places is allowed because we are asking a potential non-smoking employee to sacrifice their health to work in a smoky environment. And, personally I don’t think that’s moral.
Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I support the motion.
Cllr the Hon Mr. Ian Hansen (IH):
In rising to speak to this Motion I shall be brief as fellow Councillors have covered all the aspects, I believe. I would just like to say initially that I think it is a great shame that four Councillors aren’t here to take part in this debate as it is an important issue. I am not going to try and make any long justification as to why I should support this Motion. I guess I can say that as a non-smoker I am doing it for purely selfish reasons.
I am asthmatic as are others and to be in the company of someone smoking for any length of time is pretty uncomfortable.
I have also seen in the past friends and relatives suffered terribly from smoking related diseases. I think I would prefer or it would be preferable to see others follow the example of the Brasserie, Malvina and the Trough. But realistically I doubt, unless a smoking ban is compulsory, we shall ever see one.
As the Honourable Michael Rendell pointed out, the fact that other countries taking this step and successfully, it must give us some direction.
Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Cllr the Hon Mrs Janet Robertson:
I was just wondering if I could ask the Hon. Richard Davies his view. At the beginning he was saying – and I certainly don’t dispute it – that nicotine is a Class “A” (carcinogen) poison similar to mustard gas, I think you said, and asbestos. If that is the case, why is this drug not banned all together, when we ban probably less toxic drugs such as marijuana and, by the sounds of it, cocaine and heroin?
Cllr the Hon Dr Richard Davies:
Thank you. A Class “A” carcinogen basically means a substance which is known to cause cancer in humans and it includes a wide range of substances. <
|
