MHRA disagrees with new smoking regulations

Dr Mario Spiteri, director of the Health Promotion department, last week referred to the MHRA's comments on the new smoking regulations as "pathetic". The MHRA considers it disgraceful, irresponsible and highly unethical for a public official to write in such a manner.

Dr Spiteri has taken a very arrogant approach with the new smoking regulations. The fact remains that the regulations were drawn up without any consultation with the constituted bodies, despite promises to the contrary from government.

The regulations are designed to be the most stringent in Europe and will be introduced before any other country in Europe, with the exception of Ireland who plan to introduce them in March after the initial introduction planned for January had to be dropped due to the problems encountered.

Dr Spiteri is also using market research data in a very selective way to try to back his argument. In another letter in the local media Dr Spiteri stated that 78 per cent of MHRA members were in principle in favour of the regulations without stating that 73 per cent of the same members are against the total ban as being proposed.

As a public official, Dr Spiteri should know better and has a duty to be honest and forthright in his comments when quoting surveys.

Furthermore the MHRA was surprised at Health Minister Louis Deguara's comments that the MHRA never requested a meeting with him. Normally on national issues it is the minister concerned who invites constituted bodies for their views and consultation, and not the other way round!

Does the MHRA have to ask for such a meeting? Should it not come from government to ask for such a meeting to discuss such important issues, which have such far-reaching effects on the industry before such an Act is drawn up?

Dr Deguara has also publicly stated on more than one occasion that the proposed regulations will not be changed and hence the MHRA sees no value in meeting a minister who is not prepared to listen genuinely to solid, reasonable arguments.

What is the point of meeting to discuss an issue when the minister concerned has stated that he will not change his position? Such an attitude from a 'public' figure is most unacceptable and is the opposite of the "open dialogue attitude" that the Government claims to be one that is practised.

Moreover, the MHRA reminds Dr Deguara that a meeting was in fact requested by the MHRA and this was subsequently held with Dr Spiteri on January 20. MHRA officials who attended the meeting put forward the association's position. However, it was made abundantly clear by Dr Spiteri that there was no room for discussion on the matter.

Due to the high level of media attention, the MHRA once again would like to make public its position on the matter.

1. There is no binding legislation on smoking at a European level - all that exists is a Council Recommendation that is not a binding legal document. This Recommendation of December 2, 2002, on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control, is to be considered as a document that encourages or invites member states to legislate in certain areas but does not enforce them to do so in any way.

2. The MHRA in principle is in agreement with the regulations that discourage smoking in public places. In fact in a recent survey among all MHRA members 78 per cent of members said that they agree with the law "in principle". However 73 per cent are against a total ban and feel that the law would be more effective if introduced progressively.

3. The MHRA is in favour of a total ban in public areas that are not demand dependent. It therefore agrees wholeheartedly with a total ban in offices and workplaces not frequented by clients, in educational institutions, government departments, on public transportation and all other such areas covered by the new law.

4. The MHRA feels that the educational campaign backing the introduction of the law is very weak. Eighty-two per cent of MHRA members feel that there is not enough educational material on the way the law is going to effect our Island.

5. The majority of the other European countries are not implementing the law to the same extent as we are in Malta. The MHRA has conducted a detailed analysis of what the law of different European countries state. With the exception of Ireland and Norway all other European countries have implemented laws which are much less far reaching and much more reasonable and workable than is being proposed locally.

6. The MHRA feels that being one of only three jurisdictions in the Western World to have such a ban, the excessiveness of the proposal in our case will place the attractiveness of Malta as a tourist destination at a serious disadvantage. Additionally, since our core markets, on which we depend for tourists to our Island, do not have such far reaching laws on smoking in public places, the tourism demand to our island could be negatively effected when word gets out that we have such stringent laws on this area. In fact, 67 per cent of MHRA members feel that demand for their establishments will be negatively affected once the new regulations are introduced.

7. The MHRA feels that in arriving at the decision government did not give sufficient consideration to the advances in technology that can reduce the environmental tobacco smoke levels by up to 90 per cent.

8. The MHRA is totally against the way the penalties for this law have been designed. Such penalties should be focused on the individual smoker and not on the establishment concerned.

9. The MHRA recommends that, until such time as a similar ban applies in all EU states, and so as not to harm the hospitality and tourism industry:

a. At least 50 per cent of each area of a hotel and restaurant should be clearly designated as a no smoking area immediately;

b. Establishments can voluntarily choose to be totally no smoking establishments if they wish to;

c. Bar counters and service counter areas where there is a concentration of staff should be strictly no smoking; and

d. Hotel bedroom literature and restaurant table top literature will be used to outline effectively the dangers of smoking and the harm caused by passive smoking.