blonde poker forum

That the smoking ban that comes into place on July 1st does not apply to parliament.

So it's a case of "Do as I say" not "Do as I do"

I know some MPs were campaigning to have the House of Commons exempted, but I thought those plans had been thwarted?

Perhaps it was the Guy Fawkes lobby that secured the exemption...

MPs spend alot of time in Parliament, and i can see why they dont want to be standing out front having a snout with the media taking photos all day long...

I heard it on the radio Claw so I'm not absolutely sure.

I bet it's true though.

Not sure how accurate this is, but it suggests that smoking will only be allowed in designated smoking areas, outside

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question424824.html

If what you heard on the radio does turn out to be true, I'll have to volunteer to attend a few committee hearings :D

So?

yeah, true

I'm not sure what you mean by "So" James. I gather from the punctuation that you are questioning something, If you could be a bit more specific, I will try to answer.

I am, what is the point you are making with the OP?

If it is the case, then workers in the houses of parliament are working in conditions that are deemed unsuitable for the rest of the population.

Oh I see, sorry. No. I wasn't trying to make a point. I was just passing on information that I thought might interest someone.

theres such a big homeless problem in westminster that smoking outside would just lead to far too many requests of *can you spare a fag guv* for mps to enjoy a ciggie break.

Don't know why it would surprise you really mr Red...after all...all the freedom of information act stuff also doesn't apply to them...

I have to say it is rather nice to see someone, somehow, still amazed by the sheer selfishness and arrogance of the politicians in this country..I thought the last ten years would have put an end to that.

I'd guess it has more to do with some arcane convention than selfishness and arrogance.

I wonder what percentage of MPs smoke?

As I recall when the law was passed it was stated that smoking would still be allowed in the houses of parliament for the simple reason that any laws passed are not enforceable within any palace within the UK and the houses of parliament are in fact the palaces of westminster.

No it's selfishness and arrogance, my friend... unfortunatly. The houses of Parliament have a very nice seating area/bar for MP's and all the good scholarly folk that work there and rule the country and Lord knows it would be wrong to prevent them from havfing a cigar or two in there while they drink their heavily subsidized cognacs.

I'll go with LLevans' suggested reason.

I don't see how it is selfish or arrogant for a non smoking MP to approve an exemption to the smoking ban in their own workplace.

I'd also venture to suggest that whilst it may not be legally enforcable it is probable that there will be a de facto ban on smoking in the palaces anyway.

I know that the licencing laws don't apply in parliament and I strongly suspect neither do any libel laws.

Libel laws don't apply for any parliamentary debate.

From the records of parliament

"Houses of Parliament: Smoking
Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked the Chairman of Committees:

What is the timetable for the implementation of changes to the smoking policy on the parliamentary estate, in line with the smoke-free provisions of the Health Act 2006; and [HL2849]

Where on the parliamentary estate smoking will be permitted after 1 July 2007. [HL2850]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): The Administration and Works Committee published a report today recommending to the House that, except as permitted below, smoking should be prohibited in all parts of the parliamentary estate occupied by the House of Lords.



21 Mar 2007 : Column WA201


In the interests of smokers, the committee recommends that specified smoking areas should be provided in the following locations within the Lords estate:

Black Rod's Garden State Officer's Court Peers' Inner Court
The committee also recommends that smoking should be permitted in an area at the end of the Lords Terrace abutting the Commons Terrace. Given the usage of the Lords Terrace for the consumption of food and drink, this provision should be reviewed if excessive smoking creates a hazard or offence.

It is proposed that the new policy on smoking should come into operation on 1 July when the relevant provisions of the Health Act 2006 are commenced by the Secretary of State.

The committee recognises that such a significant change in smoking policy should be a matter for the whole House. Accordingly, it is expected that the report will be debated in the House in due course."

I apoligise to all crooks in PArliament, they can only smoke outside

"House of Commons Commission
SmokingAll Written Answers on 21 Jun 2007
 « Previous answer Next answer »

 Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source

To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission on what date the Commission last discussed implementation of the forthcoming ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces on the parliamentary estate; and if he will make a statement.

 Nick Harvey (North Devon, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source

As the minutes published on the internet http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/house_of_commons_commission_hccfm120307.cfm show, the Commission discussed smoking on 12 March 2007. The policy on the subject is set out in a written answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) on 20 March 2008, Official Report , column 757W.

The Health Act 2006 introduces a ban on smoking in workplaces and enclosed or substantially enclosed public places from 1 July 2007. While the Act does not formally apply on the parliamentary estate, the Commission, on the advice of the Administration Committee, has decided that the House should comply with the principles of the legislation, as it is not desirable that those who work on or visit the parliamentary estate should be treated differently in this respect than in other workplaces and public places. The Commission recognises, however, that many who work on the estate are unavoidably present for long periods, particularly when the House is sitting. It is therefore desirable to make reasonable provision for those who wish to smoke to do so, provided that the health and safety of other users of the estate is not adversely affected.

With these principles in mind, the Commission has decided that smoking should cease to be permitted from 1 July 2007 in all internal areas of the House of Commons estate, including in bars and private offices. From that date smoking will, however, be permitted in four designated external areas: the Terrace, Commons Court (North West corner), North Terrace (between Portcullis House and Norman Shaw South), and in a designated area on the west side of Canon Row courtyard. Cigarette receptacles will be provided in these areas. "No Smoking" signs will be displayed at entrances to the buildings"

FYP

true...I wasn't having a pop at Labour more the sheer callousness of politicians these days..the same goes for the Tories and the Lib Dems..they all really don't give a toss about the voters.

Why do you hate politicians so much Boldie?

They stole his hair.

Because I was raised to respect them. My dad was a member of the Dutch Labour party and I had a neighbour who was a member of the VVD (Dutch Conservatives I guess you'd call them) and we always had the old school politicians at home. Generally for the VVD these were people who had worked hard for a long time, had made their money and now wanted to do something good for the country. The old school Labour guys were all union men who truly wanted the best for the working classes.
I didn't always agree with them but they always had the Nations interest at heart.

These days politicians in every country only seem to care about grabbing votes, making loads of money and the principles (in most cases) go straight out the window when their own, or their party's, self-interest is at stake. They don't even get the sack if they mess up very badly anymore..and the public (whose fault it all is for voting them in, you could argue doesn't have an alternative to choose from as they all seem to be the same)..it sickens me how a profession that could be so noble is being soo terribly and utterly abused.

lol must have done!

follicle tax

yeah..didn't really know it'd be 100% though :(

Bit too much information there squire!! ;)

can you not get a rebate?

yeah but I had to marry it ;)

this is one of the reasons I hate politicians.

The floods that are happening at the moment are of course bad..even more so when you consider that they could (or should) have been prevented.

Taken from Private eye, which puts it better than I could;

"Down on the Farm.

The scandal of the shambles DEFRA made over failing to pay farmers their EU subisdies rolls inexorably on and we are now beginning to see some of it's nastier repercussions.

Readers (of Private eye) may well recall that one upshot of the greatest single act of maladministration by any government department since foot-and-mouth was that the EU imposed a succession of fines on the British government so far totalling £350 million. Brussels can scarcely have believed its luck at such a windfall. But a furious Gordon Brown told DEFRA there was no way he was going to bail it out for a disaster entirely of its own making. It would have to pay the bill out of its own departmental budget, making enough cuts to cover the deficit.
Being DEFRA it did not, of course, suggest cuts in its own army of penpushers. Instead it looked round the more inoffensive and useful outlying parts of its mighty empire, to see where it could slice off a few million here and a few million there in the hope no one would notice.

One place where its feral gaze alighted was the responsibility of the Envornmental Agency for Britain's flood defences. who would notice a cut of £15m off that budget (apart from all those people whose homes may be flooded as a result?) Anothar target was the British Waterways Board, responsible for our 2400 mile-long canal system, which in recent years has become a reasonable success story, providing recreation for ever more millions of people seeking a peaceful escape from the horrors of Blair's Britain as they drift down the canals in barges or walk their dogs along the towpath.

The BWB was told that, to pay for dEFRA's incompettence over those non-payments to farmers, its spending over the next five years would be cut by £50mill. this hit BWB in the solar plexus, because it alreayd had a very tight budget. It was immediatly obvious that this would mean postponing all sorts of desirable and necessary items in its programme, such as repairing crumbling canalbanks to stop water pouring out over the country side. but as the months went by it became obvious that even worse was to come. the BWB has had to lay off 180 of its staff, most of whom, unlike their masters at DEFRA, were actually doing usefull work.
It has now been reported that the board is having to postpone its most ambitious current project, the reconstruction of the Cotswold Canals joining the Thames in the east of England wuth the Severn in the west. This is a particularly painful blow, since the BWB had already raised £18m in funding from other bodies, including £11.9m pledged by the National Lottery fund which it may now lose thanks to the project being put on ice.
Worst of all there is now talk that DEFRA plans to sell off the entire canal system to raise a further £1BN. Canal users view this as a total disaster, since it would almost certainly be sold off piecemeal to assorted developers, few of whom would have much interest in retaining a working canalsystem.
Altogether the price other people are now having to pay for DEFRA's sgameful incompetence is beginning to look alarming"


btw After the floods in 2000 there were loads if investigations and pledges.
also from eye but not literally quoted as I'm lazy

In 2003 ministers pledged to implement the conclusions of the "flood and coastal defense funding review" seeking new funding to maintain and improve protection to built-up areas.
In 2004 a report on future flooding by the DTI's "horizon scanning2 centre Foresight pointed out that if flood management policies remained unchanged "the damage could be very costly".
they said funding plans fell £700mill" short over the next ten years. (damage from the 2000 floods were estimated at 750mill)

The National Audit office produced a report last week taht the Environment Agency had not met its target to keep just 63% of England's flood defence system up to scratch. the Agency says it needs another 150£mill a year from the government to bring everything up to its target standards.

The aganecy's regional flood defence committees have made several budget cutbacks. A major improvement scheme was called of in York due to lack of funds...much of York is now under water.



and people wonder why I don't like politicians