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The good news is that, having withdrawn its own amendment to that part of the Bill, Labour (represented by Baroness Wilcox) made it clear it would not support the Northover amendment.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.
