Business and Planning Bill – amendment to ban smoking in outside pavement areas withdrawn as Government backs choice
Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 11:04 I was on Sky News yesterday talking about the proposal to prohibit smoking in new al fresco pavement areas outside pubs, cafes and restaurants.
Although the Government had already announced that it was opposed to an outdoor smoking ban (see previous post) – and had tabled an amendment to the Business and Planning Bill that it hoped would get the support of peers in preference to amendments put forward by Labour and a cross-party group of anti-smoking peers – it’s wise never to take anything for granted until Bills like this are signed, sealed and delivered.
And so, at around 4.00pm yesterday, I sat down to watch peers discuss the pros and cons of banning smoking in the new Continental style pavement areas that are designed to resuscitate the hospitality industry after lockdown by attracting thousands of new or returning customers.
The first thing to mention is that Forest was referenced three times in the debate, twice by Baroness Northover (who tabled the amendment that sought to prohibit smoking in new pavement areas) and once by Lord Clement-Jones, another less than liberal Lib Dem.
Clement-Jones in particular seemed to be harbouring a rather long-standing grudge:
"I remember only too well that Forest was the principal opponent obstructing my tobacco advertising and sponsorship Bill [in 2001], and I am sorry that it has been given any credence by this Government."
The interesting thing, to me if no-one else, was that neither Northover nor Clement-Jones felt the need to explain who or what Forest is, or what the acronym stands for. They seemed to assume that everyone knew, which was quite gratifying because, even if we’re not the most successful campaigning group (and we’re not!), it highlighted that we do have a reasonable profile within parliament.
In contrast to her sniping about Forest, Baroness Northover was so effusive in her praise for taxpayer-funded ASH ("that outstanding campaigning organisation") that she admitted it was ASH not her that drafted the amendment she put her name to:
I strongly commend Amendment 15, which I may vote on. It was drawn up not by me but by that outstanding campaigning organisation, ASH, working with local government, and it is the right thing to do.
Altogether, 22 peers contributed to the discussion on 'smoke free areas', most of whom supported the Northover amendment.
The good news is that, having withdrawn its own amendment to that part of the Bill, Labour (represented by Baroness Wilcox) made it clear it would not support the Northover amendment.
That meant that Amendment 15 (the amendment tabled by Northover and her anti-smoking chums) had little chance of winning if it was put to a vote and so, at around 6.00pm, she withdrew it (with a rather graceless swipe at the Labour front bench who, I believe, have done the right thing).
Few people will be aware of this development however because, having given the issue plenty of coverage last week and over the weekend (when the Local Government Association threw its weight behind the proposal to ban smoking in outdoor pavement areas), the national media has been almost completely silent on the withdrawal of Baroness Northover's amendment.
The Mirror Online ran a short piece on a rolling news page but you’d be hard pressed to find it. Instead, if you want to read the Press Association report on which it was probably based, there's only one place you’ll find it (at the time of writing) and it’s on obscure website called London South East.
The report (UK bid to ban outdoor smoking at pubs and restaurants gets stubbed out) is worth reading because it’s an accurate summary of what happened yesterday.
It’s worth noting too that the only mainstream title that initially reported the Government’s plan - announced on Sunday night - was the much maligned Independent (Government ‘will not ban smoking outside restaurants’ despite pressure from Lords and councils).
In other words, if you get your news from the mainstream media it is highly likely that you will be under the impression that smoking is about to be banned in new pavement areas outside pubs. Furthermore, if you rely solely on headlines, you could even be forgiven for thinking that smoking will soon be prohibited in all outdoor spaces outside cafes, pubs and restaurants.
That, after all, has been the narrative for the past week.
In fact, under the Government’s plan (New plans to ensure pubs, restaurants and cafes offer both smoking and non-smoking outdoor options), proprietors can provide a smoking area in the new pavement seating area, and existing licensed areas outside pubs, cafes and restaurants are not affected by the new legislation so, if you were allowed to smoke there before, there is no reason for the policy to change.
As far as I know, the Business and Planning Bill has still to be passed by Parliament so I won’t be lulled into any premature celebration.
That said, I’m not sure there’s much to celebrate. In the House of Lords yesterday Forest was said by Baroness Northover to support the Government’s amendment but, as readers know, any ‘support’ was based on the fact that, given the political reality, the Government’s plan was probably the best we could hope for.
In the circumstances the Government played an awkward situation quite well. Ministers backed the concept of choice (for customers and proprietors alike) and declared unambiguously that it would not ban smoking outdoors. I'm not sure we could have asked for anything more.
Don’t expect me to cheer too hard, however. The truth is that the Government’s amendment makes non-smoking areas in seated outdoor pavement areas almost mandatory so where space is limited there’s every chance that designated smoking areas may be hard to find.
However, let's end with my favourite speech of the afternoon, courtesy of Lord Blencathra. Short and to the point, here is his response to Baroness Northover's amendment:
My Lords, despite his eloquence, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, since I am opposed to Amendment 15.
The Government have repeatedly underlined the point that this is emergency and temporary legislation. It should not be used as a Trojan horse to ban smoking outdoors for the anti-smoking fanatics ...
At the moment, smokers use outside tables perfectly correctly, since they are banned from being inside. There is no danger whatever from passive smoking outside. Those who confess to being worried about the public health impacts of smoke inhalation should ban toxic diesel buses, which are far more dangerous than someone having a fag at a pavement table.
There are legitimate arguments for and against smoking outside but, if extremists and ASH want to bring forward a ban on smoking outdoors, there must be proper consultation, proper debate and subsequent legislation — not this sneaky back-door attempt.
For the full debate, as published in Hansard, click here. The discussion about smoking begins shortly after 4.00pm when Deputy Speaker Baroness Henig (Labour) says, "My Lords, that brings us to the group beginning with Amendment 11."
Update: Late last night the Bill was read a third time and passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Hopefully, with a Commons majority of almost 80 and Labour disinclined to vote against, the amendments will be accepted and it will go through without any further changes.
The Bristol Post now has the PA story here – Bid to ban smoking outside pubs fails in House of Lords. The same story, and headline, has also appeared in one or two other local papers online.
However this headline – Government asks pubs to ensure non-smokers catered for - from the Morning Advertiser is equally valid so it shows the tightrope the Government has had to tread to keep everyone happy.
Below: Me on Sky News yesterday, as seen from the floor of the Telegraph newsroom. Thanks to the journalist who sent me the photo.
Reader Comments (7)
Having read your link to Hansard, some of them seem very keen to pursue their devious bit of of social engineering.
Previously in the Lords
Smoking Ban is Based on Bad Science - 2006
"The Government takes more notice of scare stories than of evidence, a Lords committee has said
THE ban on smoking in pubs was an over-reaction to the threat posed by passive smoking and symptomatic of MPs’ failure to understand the concept of risk, a House of Lords committee has said.
The Lords Economic Affairs Committee accused the Government of kneejerk reactions to scare stories about health, saying it did not weigh the risks. Ministers placed insufficient weight on available scientific evidence and relied instead on “unsubstantiated reports” when formulating policy."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/article1883798.ece
But the New Labour government had already quietly signed us up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2004, so reason, civil liberties and good science didn't matter any more.
[Article 8]
24. This creates an obligation to provide universal protection by ensuring that all indoor public places, all indoor workplaces, all public transport and possibly other (outdoor or quasi-outdoor) public places are free from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments.
If exemptions must be considered on the basis of other arguments, these should be minimal. In addition, if a Party is unable to achieve universal coverage immediately,
Article 8 creates a continuing obligation to move as quickly as possible to remove any exemptions and make the protection universal.”
http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf
It seems to me that thanks to Government where space outdoors is limited, smokers will be refused service in favour of non smokers. Ultimately, the extremists at ASH got what they wanted - a foot in the door and a it more discrimination and exclusion for smokers. They are already busy no doubt on making up junk studies to show "no safe level" of outdoor smoking.
It is not a win for smokers but yet another loss. ASH knew it would not get a full ban. It always asks for all but gets a little, then a bit more in response to more demands, and then even eventually it gets it all.
You might think this is a good move by Government but I think it shows weakness. With the majority we helped to give them, they should have just said no without giving ASH the foot in the door to ensure that smokers are turfed out of some smaller outdoor places but they didn't. Northover withdrew because stage one was done.
Make no mistake, ASH will be back for stage two next summer and we all know the government is too cowardly to say no. Slice by slice, piece by piece, they will get smokers excluded from everywhere. That is their mission.
From the debate.
Column 1961
"On 15 July, the Welsh Government committed to bringing in new laws to ban smoking in hospital grounds and schools under the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, to “protect the public from second-hand smoke and de-normalise smoking in the eyes of young people.”
De-normalise is a unusual word to use about people, here is what it really means.
"The term “denormalisation” has gained recent currency as a way of summarising how the tobacco industry has become anything but an unremarkable and normal industry.
However, internationally, the term is also used to encompass efforts challenging notions that smoking ought to be regarded as routine or normal, particularly in public settings.13 Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.14
Several authors15–17 have suggested that Erving Goffman’s18 classic analysis of stigma and its resultant “spoiled identity” is consonant with how the meaning of smoking has changed in societies with widespread tobacco control.
Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one”, writing that “Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity”.
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full
It's an ugly thing to do to anyone deliberately and they should be ashamed to admit it.
So ASH drafted the proposed bill. That is unethical and illegal. I seem to recall that using government funds to lobby the government is prohibited. This kind of inside influence is a form of graft and corruption that undermines democracy. That is an even greater affront than the persecution of smokers.
ASH should be sanctioned and de-funded!
Forest is a lone voice in opposition to this antidemocratic, illiberal onslaught. I hope Forest expands its efforts and works toward amending he smoking ban to allow indoor smoking again.
Simon,
This whole episode has been raised at the demand of ash, who using their useful idiots are carrying out an illegal act as they are using taxpayers money via grants from the government to lobby the government, as I have said countless times (Follow the money), any fraud investigator will always advise this especially as in this case it seems the government is allowing this illegality to be committed carte blanche.
David, I’m not keen on accusations of ‘fraud’ or illegality being made on this blog. I’m as incensed as anyone about ASH’s role in this but, in fairness, I don’t believe there is anything illegal or fraudulent about it.
Nor has ASH acted clandestinely. Baroness Northover has been at pains to acknowledge publicly the “assistance” she received from ASH and ASH’s role in drafting her amendment.
ASH’s argument has always been that any grants received from government are spent exclusively on the specific campaigns for which those grants have been applied.
In other words, their lobbying work is quite separate and funded from non-government sources.
Personally I think there is an inevitable blurring of lines when a lobby group such as ASH commits itself to ‘educational’ campaigns alongside its lobbying work and I would argue strongly that a group that spends so much of its time lobbying politicians should not be in receipt of taxpayers’ money, even if the money is spent on non-lobbying activities.
Without evidence or legal advice however I would never accuse anyone of fraud or illegal behaviour and I would advise anyone to be very careful before doing just that.
I’ve never quite been able to understand why the Government watchdogs (or whoever monitors these things) have always been so keen to accept the old argument that “Yes, we do undertake political lobbying, but we didn’t use the amount of £xxx that we got from the Government to do it.” If you are an organisation that has a big pot of money, some of which has come from the Government, then how can you prove which bit of that pot was used for which particular part of your work? Surely it all, effectively, comes out of the same big bank account, no?
And even if, by indicating that “The £xxx we got from the Government was used for the poster campaign that just happened to cost precisely that amount,” the moment that any organisation actually undertakes any political lobbying (or indeed any politically-associated activity of any kind), then surely that means that the money has been used for political lobbying, albeit indirectly, because it would have left enough in the account, even after the “poster campaign,” for other things, which may (and probably will) include political lobbying. So that even if those funds are not directly paying for political lobbying, they are in essence enabling it. In my view, receipt of Government funds should be conditional upon an organisation not undertaking any political activity at all, simply to safeguard campaign groups from becoming overly-influential in Government policy, all courtesy of the taxpayer – as has indeed happened in ASH’s case.
ASH are probably the worst culprits in this respect, but I am sure that there are many others who pull the same stunt when they are in receipt of public funds – “We only used this money for this project, which is why we applied for it.” Yeah, but that meant that you had lots left for “other” activities, didn’t it? The whole “funding” set up really does need a major overhaul by someone with a shedload of integrity and a real passion for democracy and genuine fairness and justice in our political system. Shame there seems to be such a shortage of those in any positions of power or influence these days ...