Fact checking ASH

ASH recently added a briefing paper to their website.

Dated November 2024 but posted online this month, it’s entitled 'Briefing on the tobacco industry and their tactics' and includes the claim that:

The tobacco industry often works through proxy organisations who will represent industry interests. These organisations are frequently funded by the tobacco industry but will rarely declare this.

It adds:

Tobacco Tactics, an initiative run by the University of Bath, have compiled a list of front groups, lobby groups and think tanks that are associated with the tobacco industry, including the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs.

I'll come back to Tobacco Tactics, which I wrote about here shortly after its launch in 2012, but a small section of the ASH briefing paper is devoted exclusively to Forest.

The reason I mention it is because it's one of the laziest things I've ever read. According to ASH:

Forest is a ‘smokers rights’ group that regularly opposes tobacco policy and is often quoted in the media. Although they claim to speak for smokers they rely heavily on funding from the ‘big 4’ tobacco companies.

First, it's not true to say Forest gets funding from the ‘big 4’ tobacco companies.

We currently receive donations from two companies – JTI and Imperial Brands (formerly Imperial Tobacco).

We used to receive donations from a third company - British American Tobacco - but that stopped several years ago when BAT decided to go all in on next generation products and abandon smokers who don't want to quit.

Philip Morris, the other 'big 4' company alluded to but not named, hasn't donated a penny to Forest since 1997, almost 30 years ago, and it was £20k out of an annual budget of around £300k (at that time). So we certainly didn't 'rely heavily' on PM's contribution!

This may seem like splitting hairs but ASH would be the first to complain if we published information about their funding, including all those taxpayer-funded grants, that was not strictly accurate.

A phone call or an email to Forest and I would have happily set the record straight. But they couldn’t be bothered to fact check their own briefing.

What I can't get over though is just how dated all the 'information' is. It's as if they've cut and pasted something from 2010 or earlier:

In 2000, Simon Clark, the Director of Forest, when questioned by the Select Committee on health (sic) admitted that 96% of their budget came from industry.

Yes, this is factually correct, although the word ‘admitted’ is a bit misleading because it suggests they had to prise the information out of me, which was not the case. (We have always been very open about our primary source of funding.)

More important, why are they quoting something from a quarter of a century ago in a briefing paper written in 2024? And there’s more:

They have campaigned to repeal the 2007 indoor smoking ban even though the majority of smokers are supportive, along with 90% of non-smokers.

Again, not strictly true. We campaigned to amend the public smoking ban (and only in pubs and clubs), but our campaign effectively came to an end in 2011 when we had to put the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign on ice in order to fight plain packaging.

Furthermore, the link in the briefing paper takes readers to the results of an online poll conducted by market research firm Ciao Surveys, conveniently ignoring other polls that found that a majority of respondents supported designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs long after the ban was introduced.

But that wouldn’t fit ASH’s sly dig which is designed to make Forest appear out of touch with the public, including smokers, when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile:

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill returning to Parliament is the first step towards a smokefree future, creating a smokefree generation and taking vital powers to curb youth vaping. As the Bill progresses through Parliament it is likely that the tobacco industry will attempt to water down, disrupt or delay the Bill to buy more time in the UK market. Industry will always protect their profits - despite many company taglines portraying them as part of the ‘solution’.

This briefing provides a guide to the tactics and arguments we expect industry to use around this bill, along with the public health responses.

I can’t speak for the tobacco industry but it’s pretty clear what tactics the tobacco control industry is using – smear the opposition by employing old news that, in at least one instance, is factually incorrect.

It’s a small thing but it does make me question the accuracy of other information ASH has been using to brief parliamentarians and the media.

As for the Tobacco Tactics website, here's that 'list of front groups, lobby groups and think tanks that are associated with the tobacco industry'.

ASH describes Tobacco Tactics as 'an initiative run by the University of Bath'. What they don't say is that it is now 'part of STOP, a global tobacco industry watchdog' funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies whose founder is the three-time New York mayor (and billionaire) Mike Bloomberg.

Given how transparent they expect their opponents to be, this seems a rather unfortunate oversight.

Meanwhile, here’s part of my review of Tobacco Tactics, written shortly after its launch in 2012. (The Free Society referred to was a Forest affiliated initiative that ran from 2008 to 2015.)

TT lists contributors to The Free Society, some of whom have never written about tobacco.

It also names organisations that have co-hosted TFS events, ignoring the fact that many of them were on non-tobacco related issues and the word 'smoking' was never mentioned by the majority of speakers (who have been listed nevertheless).

Clearly, any association with Forest (even indirectly via The Free Society) is considered worthy of a mention.

I wonder what former Conservative party chairman David Davis MP, Matt Grist (senior researcher at Demos), Professor Terence Kealey (vice-chancellor at the University of Buckingham) and Toby Young (associate editor of The Spectator) will think of that.

When they agreed to take part in a discussion called 'Freedom, Education and the State' hosted by The Free Society and the Adam Smith Institute, I bet they weren't expecting their names to appear, a year or two later, on a website called Tobacco Tactics!

See: Tobacco Tactics - what do you think of it so far?

The Trump effect - America U-turns on menthol cigarette ban

It was reported late last week that the new Trump administration has withdrawn a plan by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban menthol cigarettes in the US.

Prohibited in EU member states since 2020, menthol cigarettes have been at centre of a rather different row in America where the race card has been played by both sides.

According to the BBC in 2021 (Why the proposed US ban on menthol cigarettes is controversial):

Public health and civil rights groups have lobbied vigorously for the ban, citing the disproportionate harms of menthol cigarettes on black Americans.

Conversely:

Opponents of the ban, including black leaders like Al Sharpton, have said banning a product that is most popular among African Americans is discriminatory.

When the FDA moved to ban menthol-flavoured cigarettes in 2021 it was described as a 'major blow to the tobacco industry'. Almost four years later it's the tobacco control industry that has suffered a major blow.

According to CNN:

“The Lung Association remains deeply disappointed that President Biden did not finalize the menthol cigarette and flavored cigar rules when he could,” said Erika Sward, the assistant vice president of national advocacy for the American Lung Association.

Yolonda C. Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids also said Friday that she was deeply disappointed that the ban did not happen in a timely manner under the past administration.

Meanwhile hopes are high that another FDA plan – to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively prohibiting almost every cigarette currently on the market in the US – could suffer a similar fate.

Although Trump can be a bit erratic when it comes to policy making, I would be surprised if, having rejected a ban on menthol cigarettes, he now endorsed a strict reduction in nicotine levels that would effectively ban the cigarettes he has just reprieved, and many more.

There are two other reasons why he might not support the policy.

One, like Biden's contentious pardons, it was announced at the fag end of his presidency (see 'Smoking bans: the fallback legacy for failed leaders'.

Two, and this may be complete coincidence, but it was also reported (last month) that the biggest corporate donor to Trump’s presidential campaign was RAI Services, a subsidiary of Reynolds American which 'owns the companies that control some of the most well-known tobacco brands, such as Newport, Camel, Pall Mall, Lucky Strike and Natural American Spirit'.

As I say, I'd be a fool to second guess Trump on anything, but …

Final word (from me) on The Traitors

I had a sharp spike in visitors to this blog on Friday – four times the usual average.

I can only think it was due to the headline that mentioned 'The Traitors'.

Visitors expecting some deep philosophical insight or, at the very least, an amusing review, will have left disappointed.

Numbers are now back to normal but if I want another temporary boost I know what to do.

PS. I think we can agree that the finale was a bit anticlimactic. Then again, it's unrealistic to think there will ever be an ending as dramatic as season 2.

The Traitors may have peaked but there's life in the format as long as they don't ruin it with unnecessary twists.

Every voice? Don't hold your breath!

I mentioned recently that the US-based TMA (formerly the Tobacco Merchants Association) is rebranding as the Nicotine Resource Centre.

Yes, you read that right. Founded in 1915, they're dropping the word 'tobacco' from their name.

I noted too that the CEO recently 'liked', on LinkedIn, a post by Global Action to End Smoking (formerly the Foundation for a Smoke Free World) that expressed support for the proposal by the US Food and Drug Administration to limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

If approved by the incoming Trump administration this would effectively prohibit the overwhelming majority of combustible tobacco products currently on the market in the USA.

I was surprised that the CEO of an organisation founded as the Tobacco Merchants Association would 'like' such a statement but he has now replied, putting me straight, for which I am grateful.

He responded on LinkedIn but I hope he won't mind me publishing it here as well:

I like lots of things on LinkedIn because they’re important parts of the dialogue and will come up at our conferences. ATNF, GTNF and the Nicotine Resource Consortium are open and agnostic forums (the organization doesn’t lobby or take positions). Our forums’ purpose is to bring people together and raise the big ideas and concepts that proliferate across the stakeholder spectrum. Some of those are obviously in opposition to others. But an open and welcoming forum encouraging meaningful dialogue demands hearing out every voice.

I accept that the name Tobacco Merchants Association is a bit old-fashioned, hence the frequent abbreviation to TMA in recent years, but I'm sad that an organisation set up over 100 years ago to represent the tobacco trade now describes itself as an 'agnostic forum' that 'doesn't lobby or take positions', but that's the 21st century for you.

I will also take some convincing that the ATNF and GTNF are 'open' to 'every voice'. It used to be true of GTNF (aka the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum) but I'm not sure it still is.

For example, from its inception in 2008 to 2017 I was invited to take part – as a panellist or primary speaker – in every GTNF, from Bangalore to Brussels, Cape Town to New York.

The last time I was invited to speak – as part of a panel – was in Washington DC in 2022, but as I explained at the time I wasn't part of the main programme. We weren't even in the same hotel as the conference!

Since then invitations to speak at GTNF have been noticeable by their absence (see GTNF - making smokers history), and I would be surprised if we are asked to provide a speaker (or even a panelist) when GTNF convenes in Brussels later this year.

This, despite the existential threat to future generations of adults who might wish to smoke. (If that's not worth a session for debate I don't know what is.) Unfortunately, adults who want to smoke, and adults who don't want to quit smoking, have increasingly been abandoned by organisations that used to defend both their interests and their rights.

If I am wrong and GTNF is still open to 'every voice' I'll be the first to let you know. Don't hold your breath, though!

Tales from the Derbyshire Dales

Five years ago this week my mother left her home in the Peak District and moved to Chester.

She had lived in Thorpe, a tiny hamlet near Ashbourne, Derbyshire, for 40 years, having moved there with my father in 1980.

My father worked for Nestlé his entire working life. He started at the company’s chocolate factory in Hayes, Middlesex in the Fifties. Then, in 1965, he moved to the company’s UK head office in Croydon.

Prior to Ashbourne, where he was in charge of a factory that produced canned milk products, he managed factories in Dundee and Milnthorpe, near Kendall in Cumbria.

My parents moved to Derbyshire during my final year at university. Shortly after I graduated at Aberdeen I got a job in London so I never lived in Thorpe, but I always enjoyed visiting.

Their house had an uninterrupted view of Thorpe Cloud, a craggy limestone hill that attracted a lot of hikers. It was easy enough to climb (even I could do it!) and from the top, on a clear day, you could see five counties. Allegedly.

On the other side of Thorpe Cloud lies Dovedale, a popular beauty spot best known for the stepping stones that cross the River Dove.

Ashbourne, four miles away, is a small market town with lots of independent shops whose fortunes seem to fluctuate wildly according to the state of the economy.

I remember times when there were numerous up market boutiques and shoppers would come from far and wide (by which I mean Sheffield.) During a recession the same shops might close as quickly as they had opened.

Sheffield is 40 miles from Ashbourne but over an hour by car, which gives you an idea of the type of rural roads you’re driving on.

Derby, on the other hand, is half the distance (20 miles) and only 15 minutes from Ashbourne.

The city doesn't have a great deal to recommend it, if I’m honest, but in the Eighties, when visiting my parents, I would spend many a Saturday afternoon at the Baseball Ground watching Derby County.

The old wooden stands were extremely close to the pitch which was infamous in the Seventies for being little more than a mud bath in winter.

In the Eighties the grass was definitely greener but what I remember most was the atmosphere, which was brilliant, even in the old second and third divisions.

There was a family atmosphere too, which was unusual, with very little threat of violence (unless Leeds were the visitors!).

When I started watching Derby the ground was surrounded by narrow streets with two-up two-down Victorian terraced housing. Many of the original inhabitants would have worked at the Rolls Royce factory, a few hundred yards away.

Today the Baseball Ground no longer exists. In 1995 the club moved to a new stadium, Pride Park, and the old ground was subsequently demolished. Most of the Victorian terraced housing has gone too. The last time I looked it was an industrial estate.

But back to Thorpe and the Derbyshire Dales, which are part of the Peak District.

According to the 2011 census Thorpe had a population of 183. Ten years later (2021 census) this had dwindled to 139.

Surrounded by farms, the village has a small Norman church and an even smaller village hall, but the sub post office is long gone.

My parents’ house, built from local stone, was one of four houses built on farmland in the early Seventies creating a small cul-de-sac. To the best of my knowledge, they were the last houses to be built in the village.

A regular walk took us to one end of the village and down a narrow track to the bottom of a valley where an old stone bridge crosses the Dove before climbing up the other side.

This is the old coaching road that would have been used by stagecoaches in the 18th century, and walking along it you really do feel a sense of history. I imagine the views of the hills and valley are much as they were 300 years ago.

Thirty minutes from Thorpe, heading north, is the spa town of Buxton. The A515 from Ashbourne to Buxton is said to follow the course of an old Roman road.

It’s an enjoyable drive (although I remember one hair-raising journey at night in thick fog) and if your destination is Stockport or Manchester I would recommend a detour via the scenic A5004 that eventually joins the A6 via Whaley Bridge.

Chatsworth House, 20 miles and 40 minutes away, is possibly my favourite stately home. I regret however that we have never been to the famous Christmas market. (This year, perhaps, with an overnight stay at the Beeley Inn or Cavendish Hotel on the Chatsworth estate.)

Another stately home worth visiting is Haddon Hall near Bakewell.

And then there's Hassop Hall, also near Bakewell. Built in the 17th century as a country house, it was converted into a hotel in 1975 but was sold in 2019 and is now a private house again.

In 2010 we celebrated my father's 80th birthday at Hassop Hall, staying overnight.

Reviews damned the hotel with faint praise. According to one, the ‘stuffy Edwardian country house menus seldom troubled the food guides’ but my parents liked it (and my mother was a cordon bleu cook!).

We liked it too. The food wasn't outstanding, it's true, but the service, and old-fashioned surroundings, evoked a certain nostalgia.

My father died four years later, in 2014, but my mother stayed in Thorpe until it became clear that living in such a rural location, with the nearest shops several miles away, was neither advisable nor feasible.

She sold the house and moved to Chester in January 2020, two months before the first Covid lockdown. Had she not done so, goodness knows how she would have managed on her own.

To this day my mother has never had wifi. She got her first smartphone a few months ago but uses it only to make the occasional phone call. She has never had a computer of any sort which means she has never ordered a single thing online.

Anyway, I took the photos below on my final visit to Thorpe, on the same day she left.

She’s 94 now and living, independently, within walking distance of the centre of Chester. My sister lives a few miles away and I visit whenever I can.

I do miss the Derbyshire Dales, though.

PS. A distant relative, Ernest Townsend, who painted the portrait of Winston Churchill that hangs (or used to hang) in the National Liberal Club in London, was born and lived in Derby. That, I think, is my only family connection with Derbyshire.

Instead a significant part of the family came from Sheffield, including my father who was born in India but grew up in the city before moving away after he went to university.

Ironically it was in Sheffield that he had his heart transplant at the age of 67 because the Northern General was not only one of the few hospitals that specialised in such operations, it was also the nearest to where he lived.

Sheffield, of course, is in South Yorkshire not Derbyshire but the two counties share a border so it’s not a million miles away.

Also, and this perhaps explains my affection for the county that pre-dates my parents moving there, but one of my favourite series of books as a child was the Jennings’ novels written by Anthony Buckeridge.

If you’re familiar with the books (25 were written over 44 years), the eponymous hero’s best ‘chum’ was a boy called … Darbishire. Fancy that!

Below: Thorpe in Derbyshire. Population (2021 census): 183

The Traitors - spoiler alert!

My daughter has been watching The Traitors.

A few days ago she was several episodes behind when I inadvertently let slip something that had happened in an episode she hadn’t seen.

(I can’t remember what it was. I probably revealed the name of a contestant who had been murdered or banished.)

Following last night’s episode she sent me a text:

So I caught up on all the traitors episodes - watching tonight’s now. The phoney Welsh girl has been very good.

To which I replied:

I wanted Minah to win but she wasn’t ruthless enough. Freddie was unlucky - he was only a traitor for two minutes!

To which she replied:

I haven’t watched today’s episode yet … as I said in my first message. That’s twice you’ve done that now.

Oops. 🤣🤣🤣

Blue on blue differences on tobacco and vapes highlight Tory divisions

The ninth sitting of the Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee took place yesterday.

I’ve just read the transcript on Hansard and, as ever, I’m beginning to lose the will to live - and I’m not alone. Here is Andrew Gwynne, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is also on the Committee:

Andrew Gwynne (Labour)
I am grateful to hon. Members for their questions on these clauses, which are entirely technical and appertain to the treatment of the Crown in relation to the measures in the Bill. They follow a general Crown application, being broadly similar to, and mirroring pretty closely, the way other Acts of Parliament deal with the Crown. I am not sure whether the fact we have spent more than half an hour debating them shows Parliament at its best or at its niggliest, but we are having the debate none the less.

Gregory Stafford (Conservative)
I take the Minister’s point that the clauses are technical, but if we are not here to ensure that legislation is drafted correctly and appropriately, what are we here for?

Andrew Gwynne
We are here to ensure that the Bill gets on the statute book. I was under the impression—perhaps the misapprehension—that at least the two Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham, were supportive of the measures in the Bill. If so, we seem to have spent an extraordinary amount of time discussing matters that do not really affect the Bill, except in relation to the Crown.

Dr Caroline Johnson (Conservative)
Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish. The measures are standard practice for any Bill, but Members have put some questions to me, so I will reassure them about some of the issues they have raised. But before doing so, I will give way to the shadow Minister, who has had plenty of time to talk about this matter.

Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.

Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely do with that. The point I am making is that we have just over another week to deal with these matters. If we get to the end of next week not having considered important chunks of the Bill because we have wasted time on silly little matters that appertain not only to the whole of this legislation, but to other legislation as well, and on fairly standard clauses relating to how legislation deals with the Crown, that will be on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

Aside from that, an interesting aspect of the committee stage has been the obvious divergence of opinion within Conservative ranks.

Last week, for example, I noticed that an amendment to raise the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 25 had been defeated by 14 votes to two. The only MPs who voted for the amendment - which would have replaced the generational ban - were Jack Rankin and Sarah Bool, two of the four Conservative MPs on the Committee.

To be clear, the amendment was proposed by a Lib Dem MP who was not on the Committee and I am guessing the reason Rankin and Bool voted for it was because it was the only alternative to a generational ban. It did however indicate their opposition to the latter.

Numerous amendments have gone to a vote and each time (as far as I can tell) Dr Johnson, the shadow public health minister, has voted with the Labour and Lib Dem members of the Committee.

Sometimes she has been joined by fellow Tory, Gregory Stafford, but generally the two other Conservatives on the Committee, Sarah Bool and Jack Rankin, have voted the other way (ie against her).

Here's one of many exchanges between Johnson and Rankin:

Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case that we should not be advertising vapes, or their pricing and products, to children. What she is not doing is making a case for banning the display of products or prices of vapes to adults. Does she think it is incongruous to treat tobacco products and vaping products in the same way in this clause?

Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Part of me wants to say, “Well, what do you do when the child goes into the newsagent? Put a blindfold on them?” If the displays are visible to adults, they will be visible to the children who are walking beside them. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we can ensure that, when walking into an average newsagent, children cannot see something that grown-ups can.

In contrast to those Tory divisions, Labour MPs on the Committee have been united on every vote. Similarly the two Lib Dem MPs on the Committee.

It therefore begs the question: what is the Conservative position on the Bill, especially the generational ban? And the answer is: I don’t know. Literally, not a clue.

In opposition, and with only 121 MPs, you might think that every Tory MP would be singing from the same hymn sheet. Instead, the divisions are all too obvious, to the extent that Labour’s Andrew Gwynne couldn’t resist having a pop:

That is a decision for future Governments; it is not what we intend in this Bill, which is clear on what the penalty regime will be. I cannot guarantee that some future Government will not decide to alter the penalty regime. That may be a Liberal Democrat Government, a future Labour Government or even a future Conservative Government, when the Conservatives get their act in order, although the differences in the Committee [my italics] suggest that may be way after the next generation are affected by the Bill to a considerable extent.

Given that Kemi Badenoch voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill at second reading it’s clear where the leader of the party stands, but her shadow public health minister appears to be pursuing her own agenda.

I know Conservative MPs have been given a free vote on the Bill, and it probably doesn’t make sense, politically, to invite rebellion by imposing the whip on MPs when – given Labour’s massive majority – the Bill is almost certain to become law, but the bigger issue (for the Conservatives) is this:

What does the party stand for and what do they believe in?

Listening to Caroline Johnson it’s that clear she, like many of her colleagues (including Bob Blackman, co-chair of the APPG on Smoking and Health and recently elected chairman of the influential 1922 Committee), supports the type of nanny state policies that are anathema to Jack Rankin, Sarah Bool and others.

How, then, are they in the same party because this is a fundamental difference, not just in policy but political philosophy.

I’m a big supporter of Kemi Badenoch and I have no time for the impatient naysayers and critics (she’s only been in the job for a few months, give her time!), but I do hope that what emerges from the current period of reflection is a Conservative Party that reaffirms its neglected commitment to individual freedom and personal responsibility, and reins in MPs who don’t share those values.

Furthermore, the party needs a new generation of candidates who are prepared to fight for and defend a less intrusive style of government that doesn’t try to control our behaviour to the nth degree.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill – update on amendments

The Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee is meeting again today.

Members are discussing amendments to the Bill, including several that are potentially of interest or concern to consumers.

One, for example, would 'prohibit the manufacture, design and retail sale of high-capacity count vaping devices'.

Another would ban the 'manufacture and sales of high-strength nicotine pouches'.

A third would ban 'the supply of cigarette filters which contain plastic or cigarettes containing cigarette filters which contain plastic'.

You may not be too fussed about those amendments, but what about the amendment that 'requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft which are regulated under other legislation. The prohibition currently only applies to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under 18s'.

If adopted, this amendment could ban smoking in all private cars.

Meanwhile another amendment 'would extend the power to designate areas as smoke-free to certain local authorities, by making byelaws'.

In other words, 'certain local authorities' might be given the power to ban smoking in just about any designated area that takes their fancy – including beer gardens.

Interestingly, the latter was the subject of a written question tabled recently by Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP for Thursk and Malton, who asked the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 'with reference to page 99 of the English Devolution White Paper, CP 1218, whether councils will be able to ban smoking in public places under the new byelaw powers'.

I'm not sure why he asked that question but, in response, Jim McMahon, the minister for local government and English devolution, replied:

The government will work with councils to determine how byelaws should be made and whether byelaw making powers should be extended to Strategic Authorities, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will extend smoke-free designation to outdoor places including outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals but not to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces like beaches. The proposed reforms under the Bill will be subject to a full consultation, and we want to hear the views of people from across the country on this to ensure we get it right. As drafted, the Bill does not give any additional powers to local authorities.

Last year Hollinrake was strongly opposed to a ban on smoking in beer gardens and outdoor terraces, so his question suggests that he too is worried that the smoking ban could be extended to designated outdoor areas via local authorities if not central government.

That, of course, is the debate that took place when the previous (Conservative) government introduced its Business and Planning Bill in July 2020, following the first Covid lockdown.

That Bill was designed to reduce red tape in order to help businesses recover more quickly from the impact of the pandemic, but anti-smoking peers saw an opportunity to ban smoking in the new licensed pavement areas that had sprung up all over the country.

Robert Jenrick, the then business secretary, stood reasonably firm on the issue. Nevertheless, he was forced to compromise and give local authorities the power to deny licences to businesses that wanted to allow smoking in new licensed pavement areas.

Thanks to Jenrick a national ban was averted, and to date fewer than a dozen local authorities in England have taken advantage of the power that was given them, but it remains a threat, not least because Labour supported a ban on smoking in new licensed pavement areas.

We knew then that the issue wouldn’t go away, which is why we are monitoring the progress of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, and amendments like this.

Giving local authorities the power to extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas wouldn’t be the end of the world, but I am reminded of what happened when it was suggested, 20 years ago, that instead of a national ban, local authorities should be given the power to ban smoking in pubs.

Driven by the big pub companies, the pub industry argued that a national ban would be easier for them to implement - less admin, I suppose, dealing with central government rather than negotiating with numerous local authorities – and the same could happen again.

As soon as I discover the fate of these amendments I'll let you know.