Is the Government reconsidering a ban on smoking outside pubs?

Ministers are said to be ‘backing away from a ban on smoking in pub gardens, saying they will not impose one unless voters want it’.

According to The Times, smoking outside hospitals, schools, and in children’s play areas will almost certainly go ahead, but smoking outside pubs, cafes, and restaurants could be spared following opposition from publicans and ‘many customers’.

While this is good news, it’s far too soon to be complacent. The anti-smoking lobby will do their best to argue that the general public supports a ban on smoking outside pubs, citing YouGov polls (commissioned by ASH), so this could be a ruse to make it look as if the Government is listening to the public rather than imposing its own agenda on the hospitality industry and customers.

That said, I suspect the Government may be a little rattled by the reaction to its plan to extend the smoking ban to pub gardens, with even Guardian columnists responding negatively.

Since the plan was leaked to The Sun three-and-a-half weeks ago landlords and members of the public have been making their views known, and the reaction has been largely negative. Publicans, in particular, have been overwhelmingly critical.

Funnily enough, The Times’ report (Wes Streeting wants ‘national conversation’ before outdoor smoking ban) was published hours after the Morning Advertiser, the pub trade magazine, reported that ‘a version of the smoking ban in pub gardens “will happen”’ and the only question is “what that policy looks like, whether it's absolute or if they include the right level of exceptions”.

‘Right level'? FFS. There is no right level of exemptions because smoking in the open air is not a public health issue. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that it poses a significant risk to others, including children, which is why ministers quickly changed their tune concerning the threat of passive smoking in the open air to arguing that the policy would ‘encourage’ smokers to quit.

Either way, smoking outside pubs, clubs, cafes and so shouldn’t be a matter for government at all. The only issue should be what’s best for the business, and if some proprietors think a smoking ban is the best option, good luck to them. That’s their choice.

Others however see it differently and want to accommodate smokers and they should be free to do so. Unfortunately the hospitality industry has a poor record when it comes to fighting smoking bans.

When Forest campaigned against the workplace smoking ban 20 years ago we got very little support from the many trade bodies (I think there were 15 or 17 at the time). The two exceptions were the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) and the relatively small Association of Licenced Multiple Retailers (ALMR).

The ALMR later merged with the British Hospitality Association in 2018 to create UKHospitality, which is now the leading voice for the hospitality industry.

I mention this because the chief executive of UKHospitality is Kate Nichols who previously worked for the ALMR alongside Nick Bish, who established the ALMR and ran it for 22 years before stepping down in 2013.

Under Nick Bish the ALMR did its best to fight the smoking ban and we were grateful for their support.

The same, alas, cannot be said of other trade bodies, notably the British Beer and Pub Association whose main concern was ensuring a level playing field for their members.

What this meant was, if a ban was to be introduced it had to be nationwide, not localised, and there could be no exemptions for private members’ clubs, including working men’s clubs.

In practice there never was a level playing field because pubs that didn’t have an outdoor space - many urban inner city pubs, for example - were at a huge disadvantage, which is why many of them closed.

The point is, exemptions should be a last resort, not an initial bargaining tool, and it worries me that the hospitality industry may be privately conceding too much too soon in discussions with ministers.

Despite Labour's enormous majority, there's a huge opportunity to push back on this because, as The Times’ makes clear, there have been many reports of a backlash against the policy.

Granted, the opposition is a bit ragged and uncoordinated at the moment, but that’s no bad thing because the lack of organisation shows how organic it is.

Furthermore, this battle has only just begun and you don't win a war by compromising at the first available opportunity.

I’m pretty sure too that a significant number of Labour MPs will be opposed to the policy, in the same way that many were said to be unhappy with the removal of the winter heating allowance for pensioners.

Unfortunately that didn't translate into votes in the House (only one Labour MP voted against) because it's just too early for Labour MPs to rebel en masse against their own government.

Nevertheless, they will be making their concern known in other ways because all MPs read their local paper and they must be aware of public opinion.

Our job is to reinforce that message. Watch this space.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

I suspect like the previous government, the only voices heard in any conversation about smoking will be the ones government wants to hear to imply majority support for it's extremist measures.

As for a level playing field, there hasn't been one for years. When the very consumers, and their representatives and services, who are mostly affected by extremist anti smoker policies are excluded from having any say under the guise of "vested interests".

A true level playing field would mean we all have a choice to socialise how we want and where we want instead of banning smokers from one place to shove them under the feet of those who hate them in another place leading to yet more calls for bans.

Bans outside hospitals for example will likely lead to smokers in the street - and how soon thereafter will there be calls to ban them from there too.

The answer to keep both smokers and smoke haters happy is to have choice and to allow smokers their own vell ventilated indoor meeting places and shelters where no one who hates smoke would want to go. If we were off the streets and inside again then no kids could see us and no sneering anti smoker could be offended by our presence.

The only level playing field is to live and let live. When did that become such a problematic issue.