Health and Sport Committee concealed evidence in petition hearing

Last Tuesday, 22 January, the Health and Sport committee took less than six minutes (180:45 minutes in) to dismiss a petition that took months to research and several exchanges of emails with helpful Petitions Committee admin staff in order to get the wording to maximum effect.

It is quite clear that the committee staff were reading off the Scottish Government script (the briefing written by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, which includes the best tobacco control fairy tales in its summary of the facts), including such beauties as the heart attack drops and similar miracles brought about excusively by smoking bans. This is what appears to have swayed them – the conviction that reducing the passive smoke exposure of workers has led to clear improvements in general public health, and the equally hard-to-believe scenario presented by Richard Simpson MSP that the argument as to whether air cleaning technology could ever be able to clean smoke from a room had been settled for all eternity in 2001.

Gil Paterson's position is patently ridiculous – admitting that ventilation improves 'every day', and yet it will never be safe to expose anyone to smoke. He also explains the government's position on passive smoke in terms of pointing out to the public that freedom doesn't mean being able to damage other people: a conclusion that is neither relevant nor illuminating in the circumstances. Claiming that smoke 'must pass by you before it gets out' is another indicator that Paterson has not noticed how far air cleaning technology has moved.

The fact is that second-hand smoke is a red herring in the air quality issue. No ventilation equipment can operate unless it meets criteria set out by OSHA and its member organisations in Europe. The criteria are based on the presence of measurable chemical compounds during eight-hour shifts, regardless of whether secondary smoke is present.

Such indoor air quality standards feature in studies by Professor Andrew Geens, who refers to recognised occupational exposure limits throughout his work. This work was submitted as evidence to the petition along with substantial additional material. This evidence was introduced at the meeting itself by Aileen McLeod MSP on behalf of F2C (Scotland) member Bill Gibson, but none of the committee wanted the opportunity to scrutinise this evidence.

They voted instead to close the petition, effectively burying the evidence.

TB as a smoking-related disease

Says the BBC. Ahead of either the National Health Service or the Center for Disease Control, they report this tenuous link as fact. Links come from Chris Snowdon, who correctly points out that tuberculosis is associated with infection. Risk factors include certain medical conditions and proximity to a source of infection. The disease is contagious, but does not spread rapidly.

A study has just come out linking mortality from tuberculosis and projecting 'extra' deaths in future years with increasing smoking rates in affected areas. Tobacco control appears to be the solution once again:

Tobacco smoking could substantially increase tuberculosis cases and deaths worldwide in coming years, undermining progress towards tuberculosis mortality targets. Aggressive tobacco control could avert millions of deaths from tuberculosis.

Astonishingly a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation commented thus:

"Concerted international efforts are now under way to try and turn the tide of TB, but this important research shows that all these efforts may be undermined by the tobacco industry's continuing aggressive promotion of smoking in many parts of the world."

Do these people never give up? As if it weren't enough trying to divert all health resources to the supposed scourge of tobacco, the global health crusade now attempts to give the impression that communicable disease control is also best managed by 'aggressive' action against tobacco companies. Is all disease control from now on to address lifestyle issues at the expense of all else?

(In certain indoor settings of course there are technological solutions available to prevent the spread of contagious disease, including TB. Although these systems have been in use in health care in the UK for many years, they are unlikely to satisfy anti-tobacco crusaders in the health service – these people deny that the air-cleaning systems could deal effectively with tobacco smoke, so how can they be expected to deal with mycobacterium tuberculosis?)

Can an air quality standard resolve secondary smoke issues?

Earlier this year we discovered an air quality standard that had been published by the European Commission in 2007. Shortly after we used it in this story it disappeared from its website, but we had saved it, and subsequently published it on the Freedom2Choose website.

This link again. A discussion has developed in the comments between supporters and opponents of air-cleaning equipment in pubs. Much of it has to do with the very idea that technology could render a smoking ban quite unnecessary: nothing, say opponents, beats elimination of a contamination source.

The notions that 'there is no safe level of secondary smoke' and 'ventilation doesn't work' run throughout anti-smoking campaigns. Both are nonsensical and they conspire to ensure that eliminating tobacco smoke remains the recommended option.

As far as I can see  technology has moved a long way since noisy and ancient fans offered the best ventilation available to pubs. The situation is different now, as companies have to deal with many air quality problems with a degree of urgency. Air quality in aviation is a case in point. The equipment is sophisticated and designed to remove contaminants for a sustained period (throughout long flights for example). But it already has other uses, and possible further applications are many.

The equipment under discussion is described in the video:



Taking the video entirely at face value (which states that tests are going well and orders are being placed for the system), it would seem that all contaminants within a given air space can be removed. I would expect that systems can be purpose-built for specific buildings (businesses, operating theatres, workshops) according to their size and the kind of activity going on, and that a range of off-the-shelf models will be available to suit a range of needs. I see no reason why it should not work to clear pubs of smoke.

I've supported an air quality standard for as long as I have been aware there was such a thing. It has always made sense to me that people should not be exposed to bad air when they are working – especially when doing hard physical work, when more of it would be inhaled. I simply haven't accepted that smoke does pose a significant risk – the dose makes the poison, and toxins in smoke are extremely weak. But in principle there should be a standard for air, just as there are basic safety standards of other kinds.

So much for the standard. As for the equipment, I really can't see how it is possible to conclude that ventilation engineers will look at the issue of secondary smoke extraction, shake their heads and say, 'No can do'. Can they?

Air quality standard eliminates need for smoking ban

Bill Gibson of TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition) attended last month's meeting at Westminster supporting an amendment to the smoking ban. His response is published below (Annandale Herald, 7 July):

 

 There is indeed a European-approved air quality standard (EN 13779) as stated in this letter. This standard acknowledges that smoking is an important factor in air quality but simply handles smoky air differently from air in a non-smoking environment. 

It doesn't state that it's impossible to remove smoke from the air, in spite of what the EU published two years after this standard appeared. 'There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and notions such as a threshold value for toxicity from second-hand smoke should be rejected, as they are contradicted by scientific evidence.' Eh? The air quality standard (EN 13779) doesn't even argue that smoke isn't toxic – in fact it  specifies tobacco smoke as an air quality issue that must be resolved in order to achieve good indoor air. The idea that tobacco smoke is the only pollutant that cannot be dealt with effectively by technology is laughable. 

Air Manager is an officially approved air cleaning system. Question 7 of its Frequently Asked Questions reads 'Does Air Manager remove harmful chemicals?' The answer: 'Yes. AirManager is scientifically proven to remove chemicals, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), tobacco smoke etc in excess of 99.999% in a single pass.' I can only repeat, Air Manager is an officially approved system (UK Accreditation Service). Why do they go to the trouble of approving this technology, only to then allow another government department to convince the public that it doesn't really work?

Bill Gibson does right to draw attention to EN 13779 (air quality standard) document and show its relevance in the smoking ban impasse.

Update 9 August: The EC has carelessly lost track of the link to the key document, EN 13779. Courtesy of Freedom2Choose we now have an alternative link to the original document.

NHS Grampian smoking ban hits rocks

It's a great pleasure to share this story, not least because Freedom to Choose (Scotland) helped to publicise the issues back in the summer. You can review older blog reports on this story here. It seems to have been clear to everyone involved that a complete ban would have been ineffective and resented (see this story, for example).

A hospital spokesman said: “We are still proceeding with the aims and objectives of our existing tobacco policy. The aim is to ensure that all NHS Grampian premises become smoke-free within a very few years but, in moving towards this objective, a limited number of designated smoking areas will be permitted as an interim measure.

“NHS Grampian also remains committed to promoting healthy living and non-smoking as its normal culture. It will do this by establishing a smoke-free environment for all who wish it, while being sensitive to the needs of those who smoke, and offering support to those who wish to give up.”

I wonder how long this interim will be and what the bill for dismantling the smoking shelters will amount to? To an extent I can sympathise with Margaret Watt, of the [non-smoking] Patients' Association at the sheer lunacy of putting up smoking shelters to the tune of £150,000, only to tear them down again (one presumes) when the madness returns 'within a very few years': when they decide again that 'being sensitive to the needs of those who smoke' is against Trust policy.

It may be facile to say it, but none of this expenditure would have been proposed if the smoking ban had not created a huge problem (not to speak of extra costs: read about a PFI contractor charging an extra £2,600 a year for cleaning after removing smoking shelters from a hospital site). I would be interested to know whether a £150,000 shelter will be sufficiently attractive to lure people from doorways. If it's not made attractive enough I would sack the Trustees for wasting money.

The better way would be not to have made the whole hospital a no-smoking zone in the first place. A smoking room here and there, comfortable and inviting (non-smoking lounges also of course) would resolve the problem permanently and much more cheaply. Air can be cleaned.

Official In Scotland Too: The smoking ban did it

Press reports abound yesterday and today of the 737 pubs that have closed in Scotland since the smoking ban was implemented on 26 March 2006. For once the story (in the form of a report for the Save our Pubs and Clubs Campaign) says that the smoking ban is to blame for these closures.

Predictably the response has come that the story has much to do with supermarket prices, property prices, changing habits and anything else but the smoking ban. (Actually I think it fair to say that the legislation was brought in because in spite of a 30-year decline in smoking rates, change was not happening fast enough for those who wanted to bring smoking rates down.)

Of course the trading situation is difficult for the pubs, but the point is that the smoking ban changed pubs from an ideal meeting place for people who wanted to meet friends, colleagues and family for a drink and a chat, to an irrelevance. Smokers made up a larger proportion of pub customers than of the general population. An attack on smokers was bound to hurt the trade (and a significant proportion of cafeterias). The people who wrote the report have been accused of being apologists for the tobacco industry, but it doesn't take tobacco funding to tell you that a smoking ban will put smokers off. In areas and among groups of friends where almost everyone smokes (and some pubs will tell you that nine-tenths of their customers smoke) it just seems more trouble than it's worth to have to keep going outside to smoke.

THE SOLUTION?

Freedom to Choose (Scotland) Chairman Eddie Douthwaite was quoted in the STV version of the story as follows:

Eddie Douthwaite of Freedom to Choose (Scotland) believes that modern air filtration methods mean that the smoking ban should be amended.

He said: "Modern air filtration technology is a far cry from the 'ventilation' considered unable to extract toxins or particulate matter from the air when the introduction of a smoking ban was debated in 2005.  

"These air filtration products are currently fitted in aircraft and in hospitals, where they can remove particulate contamination together with airborne viruses, spores, and bacteria. Their use in the hospitality industry as an alternative to smoking bans is surely a step in the right direction especially as the indoor air quality would be far better than the air outdoors.

 "The Scottish Government should accept that new technology has provided a solution that could eliminate any need for this socially divisive and economically disastrous smoking ban."

HISTORY OF THE CAMPAIGN
Freedom to Choose (Scotland) submitted a petition in 2007 to the Scottish Parliament calling for a review of the smoking ban, and the introduction of Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standards. Such a standard would require the use of air-cleaning equipment if air quality did not meet specific standards, and would cover airborne pollution from any source.

In essence the Scottish Parliament agreed to close the petition and to bring its concerns to any future post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation. (The petition was considered jointly with another petition on the smoking ban from the CISWO (Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) club in Glenrothes, calling for designated smoking rooms to be allowed – their evidence included trading figures from licensed clubs in the area.)

These are the terms in which the case was effectively dismissed by the Health & Sport Committee.

Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1037 and PE1042)

Dr Simpson: ...I have just one comment on air pollution. It is interesting that when Kenny Gibson and I made the original proposal for a bill to ban smoking in pubs and restaurants, which was rejected by the health minister at the time, the alternative to such a ban was the installation in premises of air filtration and anti-pollution systems. We now know from information that was provided as a result of freedom of information requests to the tobacco companies in America that such systems do not filter carcinogens from the air. I put on record the fact that, as we tackle smoking problems in the future, we will again face one of the most powerful global industries, so we should be extremely careful not to be duped into taking voluntary measures to curtail smoking that could subsequently be circumvented by the tobacco industry.

Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab): It is important to consider all the issues in detail. That is why I agree that when post-legislative scrutiny of the 2005 act is undertaken, consideration of the issues that the petitions raise should be right up there with consideration of the other impacts of the smoking ban. It is right and proper for consideration of such matters to feed into that scrutiny.

The Convener: Without prejudging the post-legislative scrutiny, I think that it would be appropriate for the issues that the petitions raise to be considered along with other issues, such as the impact of the ban on businesses. Are members content with that approach? [my emphasis]

THERE HAS BEEN NO POST LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY TO DATE ON THIS SUBJECT. In the meantime the Scottish Government has steam-rollered on with more jewels from the tobacco control agenda, such as the tobacco display ban. 

An example of suitable equipment for tackling irritants in smoke is Air Manager, a link obtained from a government web site. It can take out particles down to 0.01 micron and 99.9 per cent of bacteria, spores and viruses. It takes out not only smoke but the rest of the muck too. 

Thankfully at least STV has been able to recognise that people should know that there is a viable alternative to the smoking ban.