Further to my previous post, the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill continued its tortuous path through Parliament yesterday.
It was the 14th and final day of the committee stage in the House of Lords and the fact that the three smoking-related amendments were numbered 458, 459, and 461 indicates just how many amendments there were in total.
Some, in my view, have little to do with the main purpose of the Bill but have been tabled simply to advance the personal obsessions of various parliamentarians.
For example, the aim of the three amendments tabled by Lord Young of Cookham and listed above is to either restrict or ban smoking in licensed pavement areas.
What this has to do with levelling-up or regeneration I’ve no idea but, as I mentioned yesterday, the concept is so vague it’s open to a multitude of interpretations by parliamentarians and campaigners with an axe to grind.
In recent years the anti-smoking lobby has generally had the floor to itself in parliamentary 'debates'. Yesterday however there was a particularly robust response from two peers, former Boris Johnson advisor Lord Moylan, and Baroness Fox, better known to readers of this blog as Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas.
Here are some quotes from their speeches. First, Lord Moylan:
“I cannot sit down without referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. No chance goes by in your Lordships’ House for him to propose something restrictive of smoking without him dashing at it very much like a ferret up a trouser leg. Here we are again with yet another restrictive amendment proposed on smoking, and it is purely vindictive and entirely punitive ...
“One of the problems with these vindictive approaches is that the people who make them simply do not understand smokers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who I think said that she “loathed smoking”, possibly does not want to understand them; she just wants to give vent to the loathing. I do not know ...
“I very much hope that the Minister who, in the course of this Committee, has developed a great deftness at turning away suggestions made by Members of your Lordships’ House, maintains that deftness in respect of this amendment and finds a way of saying that this is not an appropriate place for the Government to pursue yet more vindictive legislation against smokers.”
Claire's speech included these passages:
“One of the advantages of this spilling out of café society on to pavements is that it has allowed smokers and vapers to have a coffee or a drink alongside a cigarette, which I consider—shock, horror—to be all very civilised. It is certainly better than huddling outside in doorways ...
“Amendment 459 goes the full hog and states: ‘Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited’. It seems that an attempt is being made to use this Bill as a backdoor route to banning smoking in public places per se ...
“Tobacco smoke in outdoor areas is highly diluted and dissipates quickly in atmospheric conditions. I worry about moves towards such punitive restrictions on people smoking outside, when all they are doing is indulging in a legal, personal activity. Do we need to over-regulate in such a fashion?
“This Bill has been packaged as empowering local decision-making. Can we note that local authorities already have the powers at their discretion to regulate smoking in licensed premises and on pavements outside pubs, bars and restaurants with exterior tables and seating?
“How can we justify using this Bill to bring in central government legislation that threatens that if pubs and cafés do not ban smoking outside, no licence will be given to them? This seems wholly disproportionate ...
“It goes against the spirit of a levelling-up Bill when you have an imposition from the top of a kind of ‘we know best approach’ to local matters and individual matters such as smoking, and it will grate with many people.”
For now the Government is (quite rightly) refusing to change the existing policy that was adopted as part of the Business and Planning Bill in 2020. According to deputy leader of the House of Lords, The Rt Hon Earl Howe:
"With respect to Amendment 458, we are aware anecdotally of conditions which would, for example, require that licensed furniture be removed when not in use, and conditions which go further than our national smoke-free condition. We consider that local authorities have local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions should they consider it necessary. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions for these issues, as there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate.”
“I turn next to Amendment 459 tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The streamlined pavement licence provisions under debate may be granted, as he will know, subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in Section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. As he rightly mentioned, we are aware that a number of councils across the country, including Manchester and Newcastle, have put in place local conditions that ban smoking in pavement licence areas. We believe it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them, using local knowledge and the powers that they already have to impose conditions.
“But that is not all. Any licences granted under temporary pavement licence provisions will be subject to a smoke-free condition whereby the premises will need to make reasonable provision for seating outdoors where smoking is not permitted. This condition ensures that customers have greater choice so that smokers and non-smokers are able to sit outside. As I have indicated, local authorities are also able to consider setting their own local conditions where appropriate and where local decision-makers believe that it is reasonable to do so.
Given the laws already in place to ‘protect’ non-smokers, you might think that would be an end to it. Not a bit of it. Worse, the disturbing level of misinformation in parliament has to be heard to be believed and will no doubt be repeated at the report stage, if these amendments proceed.
Take, for example, the contribution yesterday of Lib Dem peer Baroness Northover, about whom I have written before. (See Lesson in hypocrisy, and Lib Dem peer bidding to extend smoking ban to outside areas thanks ASH for its "assistance".)
Bearing in mind we are talking about smoking in the open air, for which there is little if any evidence of harm to non-smokers, I have highlighted, in italics, some of her more outrageous statements. (Where's BBC Verify when you need it?)
Here’s her speech in full:
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 459, led by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I have attached my name. As noble Lords will know, this amendment has strong cross-party support, and countering smoking has long had cross-party support in this House. The amendment seeks to ensure that all pavement licences are smoke free. I hear what noble Lords have said about such licences, and this amendment would apply if a pavement licence is granted. It seeks to ensure that the rules inside a bar, restaurant or café apply equally to their outdoor area.
These outdoor areas were expanded in the pandemic so that there was more space between people; outdoors thus became an extension of indoors. The same smoke-free rules that apply inside should apply outside, for exactly the same reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the Local Government Association agrees. That makes these areas more family friendly, and I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that the LGA argues that it makes it easier to implement if this is applied nationally.
The Government have had several opportunities to make pavement licences 100% smoke free over the last three years and have opted not to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has specified those instances. This is despite the clear evidence of the health harms of second-hand smoke, strong public support for smoke-free pavement licences and examples from various councils, including Manchester, of this measure being introduced successfully.
The public health case for this policy is very clear. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Associated health effects include stroke, lung cancer and coronary heart disease. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has just spoken, probably gave up to protect his health. We are seeking to protect others’ as well.
If we continue to allow smoking in pavement seating, passers-by, customers, staff and above all children will keep being exposed to significant amounts of tobacco smoke. The risk is particularly acute for staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, specified, who have no choice but to be exposed to people smoking when they work. Of course, children are particularly susceptible to harm from second-hand smoke; we all know that. In Canada, where most provinces have had laws to implement smoke-free patios outside hospitality venues for years, these laws have been popular, easy to enforce and had a positive impact on health. Where smoke-free patios were introduced, second-hand smoke exposure went down by almost a quarter.
Fortunately, the world is changing, as others have said, and smoking is no longer the norm. In the United Kingdom, this House over the last 20 years or so has led the way by helping to reduce smoking — for example, by banning smoking in public in settings, and the noble Earl played his part in that. In 2019, the Government set themselves the worthy ambition of seeking to reduce the number of smokers to below 5% of the population by 2030. While the Government have announced some measures to help deliver this ambition, we are still waiting for the comprehensive strategy needed. Expanding the number of outdoor spaces that are smoke free helps to deliver what the Government say they wish to do.
It’s hard to know where to begin with this but here are a few thoughts:
One, the pandemic is over so, even if there was an argument for banning smoking outside pubs, cafes and restaurants during Covid so that the outdoors became an extension of the indoors, there is no such argument now because if you want to avoid exposure to any level of tobacco smoke it’s very simple - stay inside and leave the smokers to light up in peace outside where they are harming no-one except, possibly, themselves.
Two, arguing that ‘The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke’ is a ludicrous bar to set because it’s very difficult to prove there’s a risk-free level of exposure to almost anything. Instead, turn it round and show us the evidence that there’s an ‘acute’ risk to staff (or even children) exposed to tobacco smoke outdoors. Prove it and you’ll have my attention but you’ll struggle because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no significant evidence of harm caused by smoking outside.
Three, why should a ban on smoking outside cafes, bars and restaurants be imposed nationally when every location is different? This is a local not a national issue. Let local authorities (and businesses) decide.
Four, why should the hospitality industry be burdened with helping the Government achieve its foolish ‘Smokefree 2030’ target? The only reason for government to ban smoking outside is if there is clear and consistent evidence of harm to non-smokers and there isn’t.
I could go on.
Hansard has a transcript of the session here. You can also watch Claire's contribution here and Daniel Moylan's here.