Hove MP Mike Weatherley is expected to meet Health Secretary Andrew Lansley this week for a meeting that could settle the fate of thousands of corner shops.
Mr Weatherley has been lobbying ministers over their future which traders say is threatened by the proposed tobacco display ban.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties opposed the ban when it was pushed through Parliament by the Labour government as part of the Health Act 2009.
And they promised to scrap the ban in both their manifestos.
But, as Mr Weatherley has found, unless ministers act quickly, the ban will impose big costs on the smallest shops as many will be required to undergo costly refits.
The ban will mean cigarettes and tobacco cannot be on open display.
Shopkeepers also fear a rise in thefts as they will be unable to see whether anyone is stealing while they unlock the tobacco store to serve customers under the new law.
Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable is believed to be keen to lift the ban which is due to come into force for supermarkets next year and for small shops in 2013.
And a cabinet committee on reducing regulation has discussed whether the detailed rules governing the tobacco display ban should be drafted by civil servants.
A decision is imminent hence Mr Weatherley’s urgent need to persuade Mr Lansley, a fellow Tory, to honour a manifesto commitment.
One trade body for independent shopkeepers, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN), said: “Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were hugely supportive of small retailers when in opposition and promised to scrap the ban if in government.
“Retailers would be very supportive of any follow-through on this commitment.”
A spokesman said that with all the austerity and tax measures in the pipeline, deregulation should, when possible, be a priority.
Mr Weatherley has already asked a parliamentary question on the subject and found that the government has no evidence about the effects of a ban on retailers.
The NFRN said that a similar ban in Canada led to the closure of more than 2,000 small shops yet the number of people smoking rose.
Other countries have had a similar experience.
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien