Peer group still fighting to ban smoking in licensed pavement areas

I'm currently watching the House of Lords on Parliament TV where peers are due to discuss amendments to the Government's Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

(At the moment they're discussing the Online Safety Bill.)

I've been following the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill for several months because a couple of amendments are of interest to Forest, and possibly you as well.

More on them in a minute.

The Bill is now at the report stage in the Lords, following which it will go back to the House of Commons where amendments introduced by peers may be accepted or rejected.

Judging by the number of amendments tabled (316), there must be a suspicion that the Bill is being used to introduce regulations that were never intended by the Government.

Take, for example, the two amendments I'm interested in (256 and 258) which may be considered this afternoon or, if not today, on Monday (September 13).

At stake is the issue of whether smoking should be permitted in outdoor licensed areas, specifically the new seated pavement areas that have sprung up since Covid.

Also at stake is the ability of small businesses, including cafes, pubs and bars, to choose policies that work best for them and their customers without unnecessary government intervention.

Amendment 256 (tabled by Lord Holmes) '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) goes even further. Quite simply, its purpose 'is to ensure that all pavement licences are smoke free'.

It's worth stressing that neither amendment is required because local authorities already have the power to ban smoking in licensed pavement areas, but the tobacco control lobby wants to by-pass local councils and impose a national ban, taking the matter out of the hands of local people, and businesses.

The tactics are similar to those employed by anti-smoking peers (with the help of ASH) when the Government introduced the Business and Planning Bill in July 2021.

Although the aim of the Business and Planning Bill was to reduce red tape for businesses reopening after the first Covid lockdown, a small group of anti-smoking peers saw an opportunity to effectively hijack the Bill by introducing an amendment that would have prohibited smoking in the new outdoor licensed areas that were appearing on pavements up and down the country.

Keen to avoid a complete ban – and thereby deny businesses (and customers) choice – the Government introduced its own amendment that ensured that pubs, restaurants and cafes have been able to offer both smoking and non-smoking outdoor options at the discretion of the proprietor/landlord.

That remains the policy today and although local authorities have the power to ban smoking in the new outdoor licensed areas, very few have done so, suggesting there is very little demand for prohibition.

The current policy seems to be working well and there is absolutely no reason to change it because there is still no evidence that smoking outside, in the open air, is a health risk to anyone other than the smoker.

Despite this, a small but determined group of anti-smoking peers see the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill as an opportunity to re-introduce a policy that was rejected by the Government when it was proposed as an amendment to the Business and Planning Bill.

Based on the voting on other amendments, my suspicion is that amendments 256 and 258 may pass in the Lords. Ultimately, though, MPs will make the final decision, so let's hope the Government doesn't back down and MPs support local democracy by voting against the amendments.