Smoking should be banned in council housing, public health chief says

[LurkingHusband]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/smoking-banned-council-housing-faculty-of-public-health-a7722726.html

Smoking should be banned in all new council houses to protect children from harmful second-hand smoke, a public health chief has said.

Anti-smoking campaigners consider smoke-free housing to be the next major frontier in reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.

In 2015, the Government introduced a ban on smoking in all vehicles carrying children.

“Housing associations and councils are looking at smoke-free housing buildings. Where children are involved I think there is a real case for it,” Dr John Middleton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, told The Sunday Times.

Dr Middleton said he believed housing association residents should sign contracts which would make non-smoking a condition of their tenancy.

“You wouldn’t evict a load of tenants for smoking. Where you have got new premises, you could have smoke-free agreements from the start," he said.

In the United States, the Obama administration passed a federal law which banned smoking in all public housing - the equivalent to UK social housing - in November last year.

The legislation, which will come into effect in August 2018, will affect more than million homes. In New York alone, which has the largest public housing agency in the country, 400,000 people will be bound by non-smoking agreements.

Pro-smoking campaign Forest said the proposed policy “would penalise unfairly those who can’t afford to buy their own homes”.

if actually enforced this could prise lots of people out of social housing into the low rent domain of slum lords, the streets, friends' sofas etc. That's slightly dramatic, realistically they could step outside for a fag.

They wouldn't just be evicted they would presumably be prosecuted.

Well, that would even better, Insta.

Sorry, bad x post. I meant even better if it was actually law, not just a contract clause.

No one needs to be evicted. All they need is to stop smoking in their accommodation.

realistically they could step outside for a fag.

Yes, super easy.

Because of course, social housing always has an easily accessible outdoor space.
There's no such things as multi-story blocks.

There's no such things as multi-story blocks. well we all know there are, however this is about new build housing, which won't be multi storey blocks

You are so naive as to the vulnerabity of many social housing tenants. Included in that mix are sections of society that can't cope with day to day living. You expect them to comply with these rules? They have support to help them with the basics and even then that fails constantly.

Prisoners are allowed to smoke, being exempt from the smoking in the workplace law. Yet you're proposing social housing tenants of the future have less rights in their own home than a prisoner?

I'm so glad that people with your views will never be involved in making such policies.

New housing is still high rise. I don't understand why you think it wouldn't be?

I was a smoker and do still have a cigarette if I'm out for drinks or a social occasion and I don't think it's discriminatory. I couldn't smoke in any of the privately rented flats and houses I've lived in, I had to go outside, it isn't much bother to go outside to smoke. It's not my property so I accept I can't smoke inside or decorate because these things will affect future tenants, smoke soaks into walls and furniture and seeps out chemicals which are harmful for a long time after the smoker has left. I wouldn't want to move into a smoky flat, especially with a new baby and non smoking council tenants won't risk losing a chance at a home for rejecting a property offered that had a smoker as a previous tenant because they don't want to live in a smoky place for their child's health. We know the harm caused by second and third hand smoke so why not try to protect children from it with legislation like with smoking in cars? If you own your own home then yes you can do what you want, but if you are renting privately or through a housing association then you have to abide by the rules of the tenancy. There is a reason the majority of private rentals are non smoking, why not council houses too? You can't police homeowners in the same way, which may seem unfair but I don't think it is denying someone liberty or damaging their rights to disallow smoking in any rented accommodation. We are lucky in this country that there is social housing, albeit not enough, but making it all non smoking will quite possibly reduce the number of smokers and keep houses nicer for longer and suitable for all people who need it.

Because, for the millionth time, council and housing associations don't want their properties to be non smoking.

After a smoker has lived in a house you have to rebuild from the foundations up because of the childrenz

I wonder if on the back of this it might persuade the tories to vote for the bill that required all rental property to be fit for human habitation, because they filibustered the idea last time, so no smoking but inhale as much black mould as you want

Of course not! The black mound isn't the poor people's fault is it?

But we don't have proof that the councils don't want properties to be non smoking, that is just an assumption based on the fact that up until now smoking has been allowed.

Having a council property on a long tenancy with affordable rent is a privilege not afforded to those in private tenancies, many people in private rentals are paying crippling amounts to their landlords and have to abide by many more rules no smoking, no pets, no decorating etc.

Yes it might be a pain in the ass to go out of a high rise to smoke, but it is a choice to do it, a choice motivated by addiction but a choice on the less.

Equally if it is only applying to new properties those already in a council tenancy who smoke won't be affected unless they want to move into a newer property. Keeping those properties suitable for everyone who might need them is sensible and protecting children from adults selfish choices.

Policing it would be the same as in a private tenancy, if it smells of smoke or there is evidence of smoking inside then the tenancy can be terminated or charges will be taken from the deposit. People can decide for themselves if they want to risk their home for the convenience of smoking inside.

It's not bashing the poor, lots of people work and have council tenancies and will be better off than their equivalent earner in a private rental, and they do have to abide by the rules set by the landlord. Smoking is so expensive now, 20 cigarettes is upwards of £10 and truly poor people don't have this to spend a day without sacrificing other necessities. If it is discouraged it can only be a good thing.

Do you realise how many people this will make homeless if enforced? We already have a housing crisis that's going to get much worse as universal credit comes in.

But yet again, jealous small minded people whining that its not fair that poor people get social housing and seeking to penalise and police any small benefit a poor person gets.

I know councils/ HAs don't want to ban smoking because I have a lot of industry experience.

Also, common sense tells you they would ban it if they wanted by simply entering a clause into the rental agreement the same way private landlords do.

The reason they won't is social purpose. The purpose of social housing is to create a more equal, not marginalised society. Having one group of rules for social housing tenants which does not apply to the population at large is marginalising them.

Now of course you'll say that private tenants have such clauses and are therefore marginalised. And you're right. But two wrongs don't make a right.

And thankfully, the clause is simply a civil matter and to some degree the law supports these tenants against their landlords unreasonable clauses (not enough, admittedly)

However if this were law, that protection wouldn't be there for anyone and you would simply have a much larger, marginalised, criminalised group.

Times are changing.

People are much more aware of the dangers of smoking and passing on secondary smoke.

It is no longer allowed in indoor public places, outdoors public spaces often have designated smoking areas.

It isn't allowed in a lot of private rentals, so why should it be allowed in social/council housing?

It ruins houses, stains walls and ceilings, the smell sinks into everything and is very hard to get rid of.

It would be impossible to police a total ban of smoking inside any house or houses with children (I.e home owners in their own home) but it should be up to the landlord or housing association whether they allow smoking in their homes just as it is upto homeowners whether they allow smoking in their home. The bottom line is is is detrimental to the state of the house, so it is upto the person or organisation that owns it.

It's a disgusting habit, that everyone now knows is a killer. I think anything that stops people being so inconsiderate to others living with them (children) is a positive thing.

katkitkat

"but it should be up to the landlord or housing association whether they allow smoking in their homes"

It IS up to them. And they allow it.

Do people on here actually bother to read the posts?

I'm with silkpyjamasallday and katkitkat.

I would happily see a ban on smoking in properties (be they owner-occupied or rented) in which children live, or indeed altogether. It would simply be easier to enforce in a rented property. (Although once people trying to sell their homes started running into trouble from buyers seeking legally assurances that a property had not been smoked in during their occupancy, I would imagine it might practically enforce itself).

Gah. Legally enforceable assurances.

Let's remove children from homes in which alcohol is drunk too then. Oh no wait, homes in which cheap alcohol is drunk, because we can trust the middle classes to be perfect parents can't we?

Of course all smokers are so stupid and feckless they have no idea how to parent their children, so we have to nanny these parents in their own homes. Unless they are rich enough to own their own property and that's OK then.

Of course all smokers are so stupid and feckless they have no idea how to parent their children

• Parents who smoke so close to their children and in their living space that it is detrimental to their health are stupid and feckless.

Yep. And loads do it.

Look, think about it. We don't like smoking. Blimey, i don't like smoking. Smoking around children is grim.

But people can smoke around children because they have rights and smoking is legal. They also have responsibility for their children and the right to decide whether they are round smoke.

Society doesn't like parents who smoke around their children. But we can't stop them... can we?

Well hold on- we do have control over one group. They're low earners, they're a very large group. They don't so well with pressure groups or lobbying. They're pretty compliant. and society controls their housing! Therefore let's use this opportunity to control their lives, and control something we know they're legally entitled to do.

But we don't like it, and we can control them. Thats all that matters

Private landlords generally have no-smoking clauses because their insurers require it (or offer cheaper insurance if they do), and because it reduces the amount of work needed when the place is redecorated, especially if it's offered furnished.

I can see a housing association or council clocking that their insurance would be lower if they banned smoking inside their properties - saving council tax payers money. Though with high-rise blocks you'd probably end up with a fug of smoke in the stairwells and hastily-discarded fag ends being more of a fire risk than people smoking in the flats, so probably wouldn't work there until there's more of a culture change and hardly anyone smokes indoors.