KHALID AZIZ: Another red tape (From Hampshire Chronicle)

KHALID AZIZ: Another red tape

10:30am Thursday 24th May 2007 in News

I HATE cigarette smoking with a vengeance. Having been brought up a compulsory passive smoker and recently lost both my mother and mother-in-law to smoking related diseases, you can perhaps understand my point of view.

So you would think I would welcome the forthcoming ban on smoking in enclosed public places with open arms.

Well I do, but only up to a point. I can raise only two cheers for the ban because of the stupid overkill the government has attached to it.

The new law insists that ridiculous No Smoking' signs have to be put up at the entrance to all "qualifying" buildings.

Apparently this includes religious buildings such as churches and cathedrals. This has already led the Dean of Southwark Cathedral to muse on the radio the other day about the prospect of our next monarch having to take note of the No Smoking strictures as he crosses the threshold of Westminster Abbey for his coronation.

And how would our own Dean feel about No Smoking signs plastered all over the West door of our beloved cathedral in Winchester?

To most people it would be unthinkable to light up in church, so why enforce something that's already happening anyway?

So what's behind this overzealousness? Well, a lot of it is down to lawyers.

How can you, they no doubt argued when the legislation was drawn up, prosecute someone for smoking if there are no clear signs telling them not to?

It's all designed to stop those stupid test cases which get far too far in the judicial system, because members of the awkward squad decide they want to kick against authority.

You know the cases; where highly paid barristers try to argue that black is white masquerading as "points of law" when it is obvious to the man on the park n' ride where the truth lies.

What is most insidious is the way the legislation puts the onus on business to enforce the ban.

I, along with other employers, have just received a weighty information pack from the government outlining my duties under the act.

Each pack must have cost several pounds to produce and mail out to goodness knows how many employers.

No doubt the government is planning to recoup the costs from the hefty fines meted out for businesses which fail to display the signs at the entrance to their premises - anything from £1,000 up to £2,500 for "failing to prevent smoking in a smokefree place".

Our office development has been No Smoking for over two years; it's in the terms of the lease. You are not even permitted to smoke in the car park. Everyone already obeys, so why the need for signs?

Like litter louts, what really counts is catching and educating persistent offenders, not tying up already overburdened businesses with even more red tape and threats of fines.