Labour supports ban on smoking outside pubs, Government "not persuaded yet"

On Monday evening it was reported by The Sun that:

'Smokers face BAN outside pubs and restaurants under major rule change demanded by officials'

According to the paper:

Smoking would be banned from all pavement seating outside pubs and restaurants under a crackdown demanded by councillors.

Ministers are being urged to make the spaces cigarette-free to help existing smokers kick the habit and stop kids taking it up.

Overnight, after I complained about the one-sided nature of the report, The Sun added this response:

Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest, said: "There is absolutely no justification for the government to ban smoking outside pubs and restaurants because there is no evidence that smoking in the open air poses a significant risk to non-smokers.

He added: “At stake is the ability of small businesses, including cafes, pubs and bars, to choose policies that work best for them and their customers.

“Government should be reducing red tape, not adding to it with arbitrary regulations that can only hurt the hospitality industry.”

The timing of The Sun's report, which was picked up by the Mirror and attracted quite a lot of attention on social media on Tuesday, was no coincidence.

As I wrote last week, anti-smoking peers had tabled two amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill which has been progressing (very slowly) through parliament for months.

Yesterday (Wednesday) was day seven of the report stage in the House of Lords and among the amendments up for 'debate' were the following, as I explained last week:

Amendment 256 (tabled by Lord Holmes of Richmond) 'would allow a local authority to require that furniture is removed from the highway when it is not in use, as well as imposing a condition to require the licensee to prevent smoke-drift affecting those in the vicinity'.

Amendment 258 (tabled by Lord Young of Cookham) goes even further. Quite simply, its purpose 'is to ensure that all pavement licences are smoke free'.

I noted that very similar amendments had been tabled in July 2020 when the Government was trying to pass an emergency Business and Planning Bill that was intended to reduce unnecessary red tape and therefore assist businesses recover from the effects of the first lockdown.

Inevitably, this was seen by the anti-smoking lobby not as an opportunity to reduce red tape but to impose even more restrictions on pubs, cafes and restaurants.

Thankfully, as I recorded at the time, after a fightback by Forest and others the Government stood reasonably firm and refused to introduce a comprehensive national ban on smoking in licensed pavement areas.

Instead, the power to refuse a pavement licence unless the seating area is completely 'smoke free' was given to local authorities, only ten of which have chosen to impose it on local businesses.

And so to last night and some good news. Despite pressure from the usual suspects, the Government continues to resist demands to ban smoking in licensed pavement areas outside pubs and restaurants.

In the words of Earl Howe, deputy leader of the House of Lords, "I can only say that we are not persuaded yet [my emphasis] that this move would be the right one, having consulted extensively with all stakeholders involved."

You can read his full response here (scroll down to near the end) but here's a flavour:

Of course I understand very well the strength of feeling expressed by my noble friend and a number of noble Lords on the nuisance caused by the smoking of tobacco ... the Government fully recognise the importance of this issue for public health, but we also recognise the need to do what is reasonable and proportionate ... Our guidance already makes it clear that pavement licences require businesses to make reasonable provision for seating for non-smokers to ensure choice for customers.

It is also clear that ways of meeting this requirement could include clear “No Smoking” signs, the removal of ashtrays in smoke-free areas and a minimum 2-metre distance between smoking and non-smoking areas, wherever possible. Local authorities are also able to consider setting their own conditions, where appropriate, and where local decision-makers believe it is reasonable to do so ...

As my noble friend Lord Naseby rightly said, it is perfectly possible for councils to do this, and we think it is better for decisions of this sort to be taken locally so that individual circumstances are taken into account.

More important, perhaps, given that we will most likely have a new government following the next election, where does the Labour party stand on this issue?

In 2020 the party grudgingly supported the Government's position, but that has clearly changed and it's hardly a surprise. Labour, after all, is the party that introduced the indoor smoking ban in Scotland, England, and Wales.

Last night, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, shadow Lords spokesperson for Levelling Up, Housing, Communities and Transport, told the House:

Amendment 258 would ensure that smoking and vaping does not impact on others. At the moment, pavement cafés are often marred for non-smokers, who find them difficult to use because smokers tend to see them as their own territory ...

Going into a pub garden, for example, on a warm summer evening is often a great feature of our life in this country — that is, when it is not marred by rain. But it can also be marred by clouds of cigarette smoke or vape smoke, so we have to think differently about that.

There is also the issue of the cigarette ends that smokers leave. I have never understood why smokers do not think of cigarette ends as litter. The area outside a pub is often absolutely covered in cigarette ends. So there is the question of having smoke-free areas where there are cafés, pubs and restaurants.

So there you have it. Labour supports not only a ban on smoking in licensed pavement areas but, judging from Baroness Taylor's remarks, an outdoor ban might also be extended to beer gardens and include vaping.

Either way, it's very clear – as I predicted in 2020 – that this issue won't go away.

Indeed, Lord Young was asking Earl Howe only last night to "say whether primary legislation is required if, in the future, the House wants to revisit this issue if we do not achieve this progressive measure this evening?".

Primary legislation? With the state of the economy and everything else that's going on domestically and internationally? Seriously, have they nothing better to do?

Thankfully, Forest is not alone in opposing such measures (see below), so I foresee quite a struggle over the next few years. If so, we're certainly up for it.

Banning smoking outside pubs is another step on the road to misery Britain (Joseph Dunnage, CapX), and The sad side of “smokefree” (Ben Sixsmith, The Critic)

Update: ASH reports that ‘The amendment was not pushed to a vote and will not be included in the bill’.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

"...we think it is better for decisions of this sort to be taken locally so that individual circumstances are taken into account." .. In other words, let's pass the buck so the electorate won't blame us if it all goes wrong.

Labour should beware. The party has never won a national election since the imposition of the indoor smoking ban which only anti smokers say is the best thing the party has ever done. People who were forced out of society, those who lost their businesses, and the staff put on the dole due to the ban and their pubs being forced out of business don't thank Labour for it either.

If they impose another smoking ban it shows that not only is Labour completely out of ideas, but that they are following a dangerous road which the electorate, and not the twitter mob or the top down astroturfers, will ever forgive them for.

Meanwhile, if such a ban is imposed, smokers will just have a drink and then move away from beer gardens or outdoor areas to the streets where no doubt they will be forced into annoying some other intolerant people who seem to think they have some God given right not to put up with anything they dislike even if no harm is being done to them or their health.

Cue - ASH and another fake study to create that "smokescreen" that cons gullible politicians and swivel eyed smoker haters.

Levelling up means creating a level playing field and giving smokers the same facilities as non smokers by creating well ventilated indoor pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants for smokers only instead of dumbing down and taking away yet more facilities to ensure that smoke haters are treated more equally than others.

Levelling up when used in this way is nothing more than a scam from people who use it for more social exclusion, public hate campaigning to create fear and loathing of targeted groups, and for politicians devoid of ideas on how to truly create more equal societies for all and not just the intolerant privileged few.