Inside out

Further to yesterday’s post …

One of the peers who put her name to amendment 258 at the report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was Baroness Northover.

Explaining why she supported a ban on smoking in licensed pavement areas, the Lib Dem peer told the House:

The public health case for this policy is extremely clear; there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Smoke-free pavement licensing would also help to protect hospitality workers. The smoking ban of 2007 protected workers from indoor exposure to tobacco smoke. The noble Earl [deputy leader of the Lords, Earl Howe], I remember well - helped to put this in place. It is time we took action to protect them from outdoor exposure as well.

"The outside," she blethered, "has now, in effect, become the new inside."

I'm sorry, but the risk to non-smokers from exposure to 'second-hand smoke' in pubs and clubs was always very small, whatever the anti-smoking lobby might say.

You’d have to be exposed day after day for many many years, and even then the evidence of risk is inconclusive.

Outside, however, the risk from exposure to tobacco smoke is somewhere between insignificant and non-existent.

But if there is evidence of significant risk, let's see it.

As far as I'm aware, there’s none. So how can the public health case for banning smoking outside pubs be “extremely clear”?

Despite this, politicians stand up in parliament and make claims that not only go uncontested, no-one bats an eyelid.

That's the real scandal.

As for there being “no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke”, if that is the basis on which we’re going to legislate in future, I can’t think of anything we’ll be allowed to do without being subject to regulation to avoid even minimal risk.

This, btw, is what I wrote about Baroness Northover in 2020 when she supported a similar amendment to the Business and Planning Bill:

In contrast to her sniping about Forest, Baroness Northover was so effusive in her praise for taxpayer-funded ASH ("that outstanding campaigning organisation") that she admitted it was ASH not her that drafted the amendment she put her name to.

Fancy that!

See: Lib Dem peer bidding to extend smoking ban to outside areas thanks ASH for its "assistance" (July 2020) and Lesson in hypocrisy (March 2022)

PS. A quick reminder that ASH yesterday acknowledged, in its Daily News bulletin, that ‘The amendment was not pushed to a vote and will not be included in the bill’.

Good news, for now, but with Labour supporting the amendment this issue is not going to go away.

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’.

What will they ban next?

Seven years ago I said that if more smokers were to switch to e-cigarettes the product had to be as simple as possible to use.

Drawing a comparison between the pipe and the cigarette, I wrote:

My gut feeling ... is that if hundreds of millions of smokers worldwide are to switch to vaping (e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn products) the device has to be as simple to use as a combustible cigarette.

I base this on the observation that the main reason cigarettes were so popular in the 20th century was convenience ...

Comparing the combustible cigarette to the far more cumbersome and time-consuming pipe, I added:

My guess is the majority of smokers will only switch to vaping if the device matches the convenience of cigarettes and offers a similar tobacco-related experience.

See 'Convenience and competition are key for emerging products' (March 19, 2016).

A year or two later the number of vapers in the UK began to stall at around three million but, as often happens, the market responded with the simple to use disposable vape.

I don't think it's a coincidence that we then saw a new surge in numbers, up to 4.5 million vapers in 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics, the overwhelming majority of whom are not children but adults.

Despite this, and barely a week after a Conservative spokesman said, "We are not anti-vaping. It is one of the most effective ways to help people quit smoking and our government encourages this switch", the Telegraph has reported that 'Disposable vapes will be banned to stop children becoming addicted to the devices under government proposals to be unveiled early next week'.

You couldn't make it up.

Yes, there are issues to be addressed – including the use of disposable vapes by children – but as the IEA’s Reem Ibrahim rightly tweeted last night:

It is already illegal to sell nicotine products to under-18s. How about the government take responsibility for the failures of law enforcement, rather than trying to enforce further bans that ultimately take away choices for adults?

Unfortunately it’s so much easier to ban something than be a genuine problem solver.

It’s a bit like a factory that is losing money. Rather than addressing the problems and trying to turn things around, it's often easier to close the factory immediately. (It may be easier but I call that poor management.)

Anyway, the Telegraph story broke online last night, together with another story (in The Sun), 'Smokers face BAN outside pubs and restaurants under major rule change demanded by officials', that includes a quote from me.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with this story because I wrote about it only last week ('Peer group still fighting to ban smoking in licensed pavement areas').

The relevant amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will be 'debated' in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wednesday). If it goes to a vote and gains the consent of the House (which I suspect it may), it will then go back to the Commons.

My hope is that the Government, supported by a large majority of Tory MPs, will reject the amendment, but the way they appear to have crumbled on disposable vapes is concerning.

I remember all too well when, a few months before the 2015 general election, David Cameron's government suddenly decided to introduce plain packaging, having previously kicked it into the long grass.

Labour and the anti-smoking lobby were pushing hard for plain packaging and it was said that Cameron didn't want it to be an election issue, hence the famous 'barnacles off the boat' strategy.

It wouldn't surprise me if Rishi Sunak adopted a similar tactic ahead of the next election, with the bonus that it would make the Government appear proactive, albeit not in a good way if you believe that government should butt out of our lives as much as possible.

Fingers crossed that won't happen, but I've lost faith in politicians and this Government has performed so many u-turns, what's another one to them?

It's worth noting, btw, that when anti-smoking peers tried to ban smoking in licensed pavement areas in 2020, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) said:

“We will not ban outdoor smoking. Since the existing ban was introduced, businesses have invested heavily in their outdoor areas and banning outdoor smoking would lead to significant closures and job losses. Businesses should look at ways they can accommodate both smokers and non-smokers, while smokers should exercise public responsibility and be considerate.

See: English councils call for smoking ban outside pubs and cafes (Guardian, July 18, 2020).

A year later I wrote this ('Happy anniversary to the Business and Planning Act 2020'), noting that the former Business Secretary Robert Jenrick had emailed Manchester City Council to point out that the Council's proposal to set a local smoke free condition on issuing pavement licences was “against the spirit of the emergency legislation passed by Parliament”.

Did that stop Manchester City Council making it a condition of a pavement licence? No, but since then only a handful (around ten) local councils have followed their example, and that's how it should stay – in the hands of local authorities, not central government.

You can read Forest's response to both stories here (Banning disposable vapes would be a "significant own goal") and here (Proposal to ban smoking outside pubs and restaurants "insane").

Meanwhile, here's a thought. What will the Conservatives (or Labour) ban next?

Automatic for the people

The big news last week was that Minis will no longer be built with manual transmissions. In future, they will all be automatic.

Funnily enough, my wife drives a Mini Cooper - which she loves - and it’s an automatic, which she didn’t want.

Her previous Mini, a manual, was written off in a freak incident last winter, and because she needs a car for work she had to get a replacement very quickly.

The Mini dealership in Peterborough was very helpful but the salesman had bad news.

My wife could have a (new) manual Mini, but it would have to be ordered specially and it would take several months to be delivered.

On the other hand, she could have a new automatic within two weeks.

My wife had never driven an automatic before and didn’t really want one but she swallowed the bullet and, guess what? She loves it as just as much as her previous Mini.

I had a similar experience when I switched from manual to automatic 15 years ago.

I was keen to buy a Mercedes C-class and was told that almost all Mercedes were automatic. Manuals were available but they weren’t popular and I might struggle to sell it for a good price.

So I bought an automatic and never regretted it, although the automatic gear lever was a bit clunky.

That was in 2008 and I have never been tempted to go back to a manual car, although I enjoy driving one when I get the opportunity.

My subsequent cars have both been BMWs and the automatic gear lever is more like a joystick. It’s incredibly easy and smooth to use.

For decades ‘keen drivers’ were dismissive of automatics on the grounds that a key decision - when to change gear - had been taken away from drivers.

You were also denied the instant acceleration you could get from manually changing down from fifth to third, for example, if you wanted to overtake another car as quickly as possible.

Some older automatics, it was said, also suffered from a perceptible time lag from the moment you hit the accelerator pedal to when the transmission changed to another gear.

Technology has moved on in recent decades and I can understand why there is significant demand for automatics today.

The irony is that they are said to be less fuel efficient than manual cars and, purchased new, they are also more expensive than the equivalent manual model.

Anyway, a couples of anecdotes circa 1980/81.

A colleague I shared an office with went on holiday and said I could use his car while he was away.

It was a 1275cc red Mini, not the larger model we know today.

What he didn’t tell me was that it was an automatic, which must have been quite unusual at the time, and I had never driven an automatic before.

I worked out that D meant ‘drive’ but I think there may have been three settings - D1, D2, and D3 - and for some reason I was stuck in D1.

All I know is, the car never got out of first gear as I drove home with the engine revving furiously as I pushed the accelerator to the floor.

I parked it outside my flat and didn’t drive it again until he returned from holiday and I had to take it back to the office a week or two later.

The other story concerns my first car, an old Ford Capri GT, that I bought privately in 1981.

It cost me £400 (£1,350 today) and driving home, having picked it up from the seller, two things happened.

First, the glass on the driver’s side fell into the door cavity when I tried to wind the window down.

Second, the gear lever came off in my hand as I drove round Marble Arch. I could even see the tarmac through the hole where the gear lever had been.

Six months later I sold the car for £300. Manual or automatic, I was delighted to get rid of it and pocket the cash!

One year on, three days I won't forget

Today is the first anniversary of the death of the Queen. Hard to believe it’s only a year. It feels longer.

Nevertheless, for many of us, the announcement will always be a ‘Where were you?’ moment.

I was in a hotel room in Glasgow. As I explained here, I had arrived a few hours earlier, having been booked to appear live on Scotland Tonight, STV’s weekly current affairs programme.

As I was driving north there were reports that the Queen was unwell. We’d heard similar stories before but this time they were followed by news that Charles and other members of the Royal family were travelling to be with her at Balmoral, which sounded ominous.

At 4.00pm I spoke to someone at STV who told me the BBC’s presenters were already wearing black ties.

She said they would contact me if there was any more news because, if the Queen died, all scheduled programmes would be cancelled.

We now know the Queen died at ten minutes past three, but her death wasn’t announced until 6.30 when Huw Edwards appeared on screen to make the announcement on the BBC.

A few minutes later I got a call confirming that STV had cancelled Scotland Tonight as all broadcasters scrambled to ‘automated’ mode (ie programming that had been planned and rehearsed years in advance for this very moment).

I’ve written about my subsequent drive to Balmoral, via Aberdeen, two days later, so I won’t repeat that story here, but in hindsight what I remember most is how calm and peaceful everything was.

Deeside looked spectacular in the autumn sunshine and in a strange way it was an idyllic few days. Everything seemed to stop, or at least pause, for reflection while we absorbed the enormity of an historic moment, and that alone was a lovely legacy.

Sadly the tranquility didn’t last, but that’s another story.

Below: Old Aberdeen on the morning of Saturday September 10, 2022. Beautifully quiet and serene. Next stop, Balmoral.

Consumer vaping groups, this is your moment! Where are you?!

A few days ago it was reported that the Scottish Government may ban disposable vapes.

Naturally, there will be a public consultation first, but we all know how that works, and how it usually ends, regardless of the level of opposition.

The chance to be the first nation within the UK to ban disposable vapes will be irresistible to a Scottish Executive (sorry, Government) that has completely lost its way and needs to make a ‘statement’.

Anyway, I’ve had several requests for interviews on this issue and although Forest is strongly against a ban I’ve turned them down and suggested the broadcasters concerned contact the UK Vaping Industry (UKVIA), whose director-general John Dunne is better informed than me to talk about it.

(I listened to him yesterday on BBC Radio Scotland, where he was interviewed alongside our old friend Prof Linda Bauld, and I think I made the right decision.)

That said, it pains me to turn down interviews, and I can’t think of many instances when I have.

Smoking and pregnancy is a subject I’m reluctant to talk about because I think it’s primarily an issue for women, consumers at least. I grant that male doctors may have a valid opinion.

On the question of disposable vapes, I would happily go on air if a well qualified spokesman like John Dunne was unavailable, but what’s really missing from this debate is the voice of the vaper.

Over the last decade we’ve seen various international pro-vaping consumer organisations pop up, including the World Vapers Alliance (WVA) and the International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO).

Specifically, in the UK, there’s the New Nicotine Alliance but, media wise, where are all these groups and their spokesmen?

The silence this week is baffling, especially when a ban on disposable vapes in Scotland could quickly escalate across the UK.

As I tweeted yesterday:

I don't like doing it, but I've declined several requests for interviews on this story and have forwarded them to the @Vaping_Industry. Consumer vaping groups, this is your moment! Where are you?!

Interestingly, it was ‘liked’ by the UKVIA.

Perhaps these groups will make a submission to the consultation in Scotland.

But you’ve got to try and win the public debate too, and that means being proactive and engaging with the media whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Yes, it’s me, with hair!

A friend sent me this photo last week.

He was ‘poking around among old photos’ when he found it. (Yes, it’s me, with hair!)

I don’t remember seeing it before so it took me a while to pinpoint exactly when it might have been taken.

On closer inspection I’m wearing an Aberdeen Students’ Charities Campaign t-shirt so that narrows it down because I was a member of the campaign team for three of my four years at university (1976-1980).

I joined the campaign not for any altruistic reason but because, in my first year, I was living in digs and it was a way to meet people.

Anyway, I’m guessing the photo was taken in 1979, when I was 19 or 20.

At that time, the Aberdeen Students’ Charities Campaign was one of the most successful student charity campaigns in Scotland, second only to Edinburgh, I think.

I may be making this up but I seem to remember that in 1977 we raised around £45,000, which would be £250,000 in today’s money.

I can't remember how we raised most of the money, but the most successful event was probably the annual parade featuring brightly coloured floats built on the backs of trailers supplied by local transport companies.

The floats, representing all manner of student societies, would be driven through the city centre and a team of students with collecting cans would stalk the streets taking money from passers-by.

Some of the floats and costumes worn by the students were quite impressive, but one year we (the Charities Campaign) ran out of time to dress our own float and I remember standing on the back of a plain, poorly decorated trailer with a can of beer and feeling rather foolish.

But at least the parade raised money. A less successful event, in financial terms, was an excursion, by train, from Aberdeen to Kyle of Lochalsh.

If you are unfamiliar with Scotland, Kyle of Lochalsh overlooks the Isle of Skye on the west coast.

The Charities Campaign would charter a British Rail train and sell tickets to students, with the aim of making a profit that would help raise funds.

The Skye train was already an annual event when I arrived in Aberdeen in September 1976. Two years later it had been erased from the calendar. Let me explain why.

In January 1977 my first Skye train experience was nothing short of disastrous. But as a member of the Charities Campaign, at least I had a front row seat as the day unfolded.

The journey from Aberdeen to Kyle of Lochalsh takes almost six hours by rail. That’s plenty of drinking time for several hundred thirsty students, so by the time we arrived at our destination a significant number were (how can I put it?) drunk.

Two incidents on that outward journey have stayed with me.

First, a young lady sitting next to me in one of those old-style carriages with separate compartments and a corridor down one side, threw up. Over me.

Second, a bearded gentleman (he was probably no more than 20, although he owned a Saab), lost the tip of his finger when it got caught in a (manual) sliding door. Thankfully, the alcohol worked as an anaesthetic so he didn’t know too much about it, but he had to leave the train and go to hospital.

If I remember, we arrived at Kyle of Lochalsh around 2.00pm, having left Aberdeen at 8.00am. The plan (recollections may vary) was to stay there for two hours, then return to Aberdeen, arriving back around 10.00pm. I wish!

The current population of the village is 590 but it may have been less in the Seventies. Either way, picture the scene as several hundred students, many of them inebriated, arrived en masse in a quiet rural location where there was nothing to do other than continue drinking.

In those days the Skye Bridge hadn’t been built (it was opened in 1995 by my old boss Michael Forsyth, then Secretary of State for Scotland), so the only way to get to Skye was by ferry.

There were two ferries, and the main one just happened to be at Kyle of Lochalsh. Cue a desperate attempt by a drunken student to throw himself at a departing ferry, only to miss his footing and fall into the freezing water.

We dried him out, covered him with blankets, and hoped for the best.

The start of the return journey was delayed and by the time we were up and running our passengers had devised a new game - Pull the Communication Chord.

To cut a long story short, the driver eventually pulled the train into a siding outside Inverness, I think it was, and refused to continue. (The train was also said to be low on fuel because of the constant stopping and starting, but that was never confirmed.)

Anyway, that’s where we stayed overnight (with no heating because the engine and therefore the power had been turned off), until we finally continued our journey, in disgrace, the following morning.

I say ‘disgrace’ and I’m not exaggerating. The local paper, the Aberdeen Press & Journal, featured a report about student ‘louts’ causing carnage and terrorising the local community. Or something like that.

Remarkably, we weren’t banned by British Rail so the following year we set off on another adventure, but this time the outcome was completely different.

To begin with, it was snowing, and this seemed to have a calming effect on our passengers. Also, having arrived in Kyle of Lochalsh without incident, and with a six-hour return journey ahead of us, the driver was keen to get going before the snow got too heavy and we were snowed in.

What follows is a tale of heroism as a team of plucky students not only dug our stalled locomotive out of several snow drifts, but supplied hot soup and tea for elderly passengers on another train that had also got stuck travelling in the other direction.

Later still our locomotive was commandeered to help yet another train that was stuck further north, but somehow we got home.

This time the local press not only praised our behaviour but featured a picture of me and my friend Dougie shovelling snow off the front of the train.

In truth, all the work was done by others. Dougie and I did no shovelling at all. It was just for the camera, but don’t let that get in the way of an iconic picture.

Sadly, that was the last Skye train. Despite our heroics, someone (possibly Dougie, who became chairman of the Charities Campaign the following year) worked out that the event wasn’t making money and almost certainly lost money.

While I'm on the subject, two other Aberdeen Students' Charities stories come to mind.

First, the year that Dougie was chairman (1978/79) I took over his previous job editing the Aberdeen Student Charities’ joke book.

Dougie explained the drill. Each year the editor would sift through thousands of jokes and cartoons from other joke books, and select the ‘best’.

Effectively, the same jokes were in a perpetual cycle, some probably dating back several decades.

Most were excruciatingly bad and to modern sensitivities … well, I won’t even go there. It did however sell quite well so there was obviously a market for it.

I don’t believe there was a single new joke in the book, so the cover had to stand out. I commissioned artwork from Bill Smith, an art teacher friend in Ellon, just up the road from Aberdeen, who designed an eye-catching cover that featured a Superman style cartoon hero on a bright yellow background.

Bill later designed the covers for the national version of Campus, a student magazine that was founded in Aberdeen in 1977 and went national (to almost 50 universities) for a couple of years in the Eighties.

(Bill is a very interesting guy, btw. See ‘Scots teacher, 78, turns polar explorer in retirement’.)

That year I was also one of three people, I think, who were responsible for choosing the recipients of the money we had raised. (They were mostly local charities.)

I took this incredibly seriously and would read the applications for donations very carefully before putting them on one of two piles - one to receive a donation, the other for rejected applications.

Believe me, it was incredibly difficult to decide because there were hundreds to go through and the overwhelming majority made a very good case.

Eventually, however, I got into the swing of it and became quite ruthless, so apologies to those I rejected. (This would have been in 1978/79, the same time the photo above was taken, which probably explains why I was looking so serious.)

Anyway, it’s almost 12 months to the day since I last visited Aberdeen, following a gap of 15 or 20 years.

I didn’t intend to go but I was in Scotland when the Queen died (on Thursday September 8, 2022) and everything I was going to do - a live TV interview in Glasgow, followed by a football match in Dundee - got cancelled, so I had some time on my hands.

It was a lovely sunny day, so ...

Full story: The road to Balmoral (via Aberdeen)

As for the Aberdeen Students’ Charities Campaign, it appears to have been renamed the Aberdeen University Students’ Association Raising And Giving Campaign (or RAG for short), and the parade of floats is now called the Torcher Parade.

No sign of a joke book, though. I wonder why.

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.