11/10/04

As he notes, the BMA estimates that 1,000 people die every year as a result of passive smoking. In addition, more than three million people are exposed to tobacco smoke in their workplaces, particularly those who work in restaurants or bars. Office of National Statistics research shows that 55 per cent of non smokers object to other people smoking near them. Those with conditions like asthma may feel unwell in smoky environments.

The Liberal Democrats have been pushing a health promotion agenda. At the 2004 Federal Spring Conference, a motion was passed calling for legislation for England and Wales to make all enclosed public places and all workplaces smoke free. It also called for the public sector to take a lead in making their own premises smoke free in advance of legislation coming into force. Last weekend, Scottish Liberal Democrats called for a similar ban on smoking in public places.

The Scottish Executive has consulted widely to judge views on smoking in public places. The general opinion to date has been that there should be a ban. With the legislative power to bring this into effect, it would be interesting if the Scottish Parliament, in which the Liberal Democrats are coalition partners, introduces a ban ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom. - Jacqueline Bell, PPC Liberal Democrats, Richmond.

REGIONAL ASSEMBLY

I'M getting furious at the Government's attempt to impose a regional assembly on the North-East.

Our elected MPs should feel ashamed to take taxpayers' money as 'party-hacks' if they allow this to happen. Being surplus to requirements, they should resign. - R Harbron, Norton.

I NOTE that the Conservative leadership has reiterated its opposition to an elected North-East assembly.

In 1998, the party leaders urged people to vote for an elected London assembly.

So they are quite happy for London to have the political clout that only an elected leadership can wield. But we in the provinces should turn the offer down.

I believe North-East people will not be so foolish. - Paul Tinnion, Whickham.

IRAQ

THE Government's dishonesty regarding Iraq is breathtaking. Tony Blair says he is sorry that information about WMD "turned out to be wrong". It was not the information which was wrong, but his editing and presentation of it.

The intelligence services told him that the information was unreliable, and that there was nothing to suggest that Iraq might supply WMD to terrorists. The JIC strongly warned that al Qaida remained "by far the greatest threat to Western interests" and the proposed invasion would actually increase that threat.

There was absolutely no link between Saddam and the al Qaida attacks of September 11, and yet Tony Blair continues to present the attack on Iraq as part of the "War on Terror". The truth is that the war has brought international terrorists to Iraq, where they were not previously active.

He says he will not apologise for removing Saddam. No-one is asking him to, but it was never a choice between attacking Iraq or doing nothing.

In defiance of the facts, he pretends he has made the world a safer place and says we have to confront and remove the threat of international terrorism "root and branch". But the roots have been left intact while, like the Hydra of Greek mythology, the branches re-grow faster than they can be removed. - Pete Winstanley, Durham.

THE recent US report which has suggested Saddam Hussein had no WMD makes a mockery of the New Labour Goverment.

Jack Straw defends the claims by claiming Saddam would have made WMD if given the chance.

Does this mean that anyone who fails to trade or agree with the West faces attack, or does it mean America and the UK want to save us all from the enemies that 'threaten our way of life'?

If the former is to be believed, how come America is staying away from the nuclear threat posed by North Korea? Maybe they don't want another Vietnam, one wonders.

If we are to believe these 'rogue states' pose a threat to us why is it that America funded Saddam in the 1990s against the Iranians? The answer: the intelligence you get is funded by the policy of these governments rather than the policy funded by the intelligence. - Darren Metcalfe, Darlington.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

WEDNESDAY'S advertisement by the County Councils Network (CCN) poses some very interesting questions for the district councils in County Durham.

The cost estimates they published, endorsed by local government expert Professor Michael Chisholm, show that one unitary council would save £14.6m each year compared with now, whereas three councils would actually cost the public £10m more each year.

That's £10m less that could be spent on schools and play facilities for children, on teachers and care workers. It's £10m less that could be spent on maintaining roads and towns and villages. In other words, £10m more per year just to stand still.

From the perspective of the average council tax payer, the difference in costs between one and three councils is a whopping £168 a year. The difference in council services is that one council would be able to maintain and improve services, whereas three councils would have to cut services and increase council taxes to make ends meet.

The district councils claim that three councils would cost the public less. They do not say by how much. They have not published any figures to support this claim.

Cost matters. So does quality of service. And county wide services provided by Durham County Council have been officially recognised as 'excellent' and among the best in the country.

In two weeks time people will get their ballot papers and the district councils have still to explain how three councils would be able to afford to run things better than a county wide council already does. - Ken Manton, Leader, Durham County Council.

HUNTING

THE answer to the question posed by F Gill (HAS, Oct 7) of "what's the difference between cats catching rats and mice in The House of Commons, and hounds catching foxes in the countryside?" is that no MPs have ever been found breeding rats and mice with the intention of setting cats on them to rip them to shreds like various hunts have with foxes over the years. - Norman Smith, Newton Aycliffe.