Minister: “I believe in personal choice”

Fancy that!

Sixteen months after declining to back an amendment to the Business and Planning Bill that would have banned smoking in licensed pavement areas outside pubs and restaurants, it seems that Labour has decided to return to the issue.

On Wednesday Baroness Merron, Labour spokesperson for Health and Social Care, put this question to the Government:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce rules on smoke-free pavements outside pubs and restaurants.

Bearing in mind that we already have rules - albeit temporary - on smoking in licensed pavement areas, it’s clear that Labour is aligning itself with yet another attack on outdoor smoking when the Government seeks to make the current pavement licensing rules permanent.

That battle will be fought next year or sooner if the Department of Health insists on a ban being included in the forthcoming Tobacco Control Plan. For the moment let’s take some consolation from the spirited response of Government minister Lord Greenhalgh to several peers including Lord Smith of Hindhead who reacted to Baroness Merron’s question by asking:

Does the Minister agree that now is not the right time to be discussing more red tape and restrictions for an industry that helps to drive economic growth, social cohesion and job creation?

Lord Greenhalgh:

I agree entirely with my noble friend: we need to see the revival of that industry. We believe that that can be done by taking a proportionate approach of keeping those people who do not wish to smoke in outside pavement space segregated from those who do. In that way we can provide an environment that enables people to exercise their personal choice and enables those areas where smoking rates are higher, which are typically in the north of England, to get back on their feet, which is vital.

Equally notable was his response to Claire Fox (Baroness Fox of Buckley) who asked, only slightly tongue-in-cheek:

My Lords, is there anywhere in the public square where smokers will be left in peace and permitted to indulge in a legal, if anti-social, habit that they as adults freely choose to indulge in and even enjoy? Does the Minister consider that the rather grungy lean-to behind the bike sheds that noble Lords who smoke have been banished to is suitably far away from any restaurants or bars to be safe from overzealous public health regulators in here, or might we be driven into the Thames? I am asking for a friend or two.

Lord Greenhalgh:

My Lords, I have to say that because alcohol is served in that grungy location, it attracts even me and I am a non-smoker. I believe in personal choice and I recognise what is legal and illegal today.

Meanwhile, something that only anoraks like me may have noticed was a comment by Lib Dem peer Baroness Northover who asked the minister:

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that these areas are an extension of inside that is outside and that surveys show that smoke-free areas, inside and outside, are popular, healthier and child friendly? I am glad that he says that he will now work, this time, closely with the Department of Health. Will he ensure that he identifies, sees through and rebuts material that comes from other lobbies? [my emphasis]

If the name Baroness Northover rings a bell with readers it’s because it was she who tabled the amendment to the Business and Planning Bill that sought to prohibit smoking in new pavement areas.

I wrote about it here and noted that she had mentioned Forest not once but twice when addressing the House. Clearly she seemed to think the Government had been influenced by Forest (as if!), and she wasn’t alone.

As I also noted, another Lib Dem peer, Lord Clement-Jones, complained that:

“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 reason I mention Northover’s comment urging the Government to identify, see through and rebut material “that comes from other lobbies” (ie Forest) is because of the remarks she made during the second reading of the Business and Planning Bill last year:

“If smoking is not prohibited, these pavement areas will not be family-friendly spaces. Not only customers and staff but neighbouring premises, particularly in crammed urban areas, will be exposed to second-hand smoke.”

Tellingly she added:

“I want to take up the issue of smoking in these new spill-out areas, and I thank ASH for its assistance on this.”

I mentioned it here (Lib Dem peer bidding to extend smoking ban to outside areas thanks ASH for its “assistance”) and I’m writing about it again because I love the fact that while it’s OK for Baroness Northover to receive “assistance” from a high profile campaign group like ASH she’s less than happy at thought of government being lobbied by other groups that oppose her/their position.

To date Lord Greenhalgh seems less inclined than some to give in to the prohibitionist lobby and I would like to think the Government will treat any “material” that comes from either side impartially and on its merits.

For the moment it’s good to see the minister upholding the important principle of choice and I applaud him for doing so.

Governments however have a horrible habit of succumbing to pressure from relentless lobbyists like ASH so how long that resistance will last remains to be seen.