The IEA has published an excellent report by Chris Snowdon.
Closing Time: Who's killing the British pub? doesn't hide the fact that the number of pubs has been in long term decline since the late nineteenth century.
Between 1905 and 1969 the number of licensed premises fell from an estimated 99,000 to 75,000. By 2003 the figure was below 60,000 and in recent years "the trickle of pub closures has become a flood".
In fact, between 2006 and 2013 the number of pubs fell from 58,200 to 48,000, a drop of 18 per cent in just seven years.
Closing Time looks at why this has happened and addresses a number of issues including cultural change, economic factors, the pubco beer tie, and the smoking ban.
Uncomfortably for government, Snowdon concludes that excessive taxation and regulation have played a significant part in the demise of many pubs. He therefore proposes a number of measures including a reduction in alcohol duty and a reduction in VAT and a lower rate for cooked food.
Echoing Forest's long-held position, he also supports an amendment to the smoking ban:
The Labour Party's 2005 manifesto contained a pledge to ban smoking in pubs that sold food while promising that 'other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking to be smoke-free' (Labour Party, 2005). After intense lobbying from anti-smoking groups, this pledge was abandoned and the UK was given one of the most uncompromising smoking bans in the world. This has been devastating for many pubs and there is clearly a market for indoor venues that allow smoking in one or more rooms. The UK should follow the lead of the many European countries that allow the hospitality industry to accommodate smokers.
Not everyone agrees, of course, and today's Eastern Daily Press features comments from two Norfolk publicans who believe the impact of the ban is small compared to "more traditional reasons" and don't want it changed (Impact of smoking ban on pubs less than claimed, say Norwich publicans).
But they would say that, wouldn't they? After all, they're still in business and may have profited from the closure of rival pubs.
No amendment would force publicans to allow smoking on their premises. It would merely give them the option to introduce separate, strictly regulated smoking rooms. You would only want to deny others that option if you feared competition, right?
Truth is, many people in the hospitality industry are in denial. As this 2010 report demonstrated, there is incontrovertible evidence the ban had a huge impact on pubs – and not in a good way.
Snowdon's IEA report has been covered by the Daily Mail. The Telegraph's deputy editor Allister Health has also written a very good piece here – The real reasons for the tragic demise of the British pub industry.
The BBC has of course ignored it, though I'm willing to be corrected. (An interview with Snowdon on BBC Radio Cornwall doesn't count!)
Meanwhile you can download it here. As with all of Chris's work it's full of interesting facts but it's also very easy to read.
Warmly recommended.
PS. One of the reasons I enjoy reading Snowdon's reports is he's not afraid to have a dig at those he disagrees with. In Closing Time, for example, he has a pop at both CAMRA and the IPPR, a left-wing think tank that supports state aid for "community pubs" without addressing the underlying reasons why fewer people want to go to their local.
You can tell too what he thinks of Professor Linda Bauld's 2011 report for the Department of Health – Impact of Smokefree Legislation in England: Evidence Review – which produced an unexpected but superbly written response from Imperial Tobacco, The Bauld Truth.
Ironically Prof Bauld is now "one of us" because she supports light touch regulation on e-cigarettes.
There is nothing light touch about the smoking ban which can be easily extended to include e-cigarettes. Reap what you sow and all that.