Pub closures hit village life, says report
Saturday, September 18, 2010 The BBC reports that village life in Britain is "dying out" because rural pubs are closing at a record rate. We told them that a year ago but they didn't listen, probably because we argued that the smoking ban was one of the main causes.
A couple of weeks we produced evidence to show that the smoking ban was the main cause of pub closures in recent years. The report was picked up in Scotland but in England the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media didn't want to know.
According to this latest report, co-authored by the National Housing Federation and the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), there are "too few new homes" and affordable local housing is the key to saving traditional village life. Not being cynical, but the National Housing Federation would say that, wouldn't they?
The BBPA meanwhile have nothing to say other than the blindingly obvious. According to my old friend, chief executive Brigid Simmonds, "Along with local shops, post offices and schools, village pubs are pivotal to the life of local communities across Britain.
"Pubs act as much more than a social venue. They are a focal point for sports teams, local groups and meetings. In addition they provide a range of community services like post offices and shops. We need a climate that allows these community businesses to thrive."
What sort of climate would that be, Brigid? A warm, Mediterranean climate where smokers can stand outside without feeling cold and miserable?
Look, there are plenty of reasons why rural pubs (and shops) are suffering and it won't take a quick fix like new housing or even an amendment to the smoking ban to dramatically reverse a trend that has been happening for decades.
Television and the car are the biggest factors in the decline of village life and they can't be uninvented. Television - and more recently the computer - has encouraged people to stay at home for much of their entertainment, while the car has made it easy to shop in supermarkets five miles away or to socialise further afield.
Amending the smoking ban isn't going to change that but it will, I think, help many pubs that are on the brink of closure and will help make pubs a more sociable place to be.
As my colleague Oliver Griffiths of CR Consulting pointed out last week, "“With smokers being moved outside, the price of drinking in pubs can no longer be justified by many so more people drink at home. This has a cumulative effect. As fewer people use the pub it becomes less of a social draw.”
Simon Clark
There is no evidence that the smoking ban in Scotland has led to the closure of pubs says, er, ASH.
ASH Scotland refuted claims from the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, which argued that the 2005 change had sounded a death knell for bars across the Lothians and the rest of the country. ASH's chief executive Sheila Duffy said there was no proof to back this up, and a number of other factors were, in fact, to blame.
If you say so, dear.
Full story, Edinburgh Evening News, September 17.
Reader Comments (4)
Unfortunately for the naysayers, we have proof that lifting the smoking ban would have immediate and dramatic effects on the trade. Remember that handful of pubs that set themselves up as "Smoking Research Facilities" a year or so after the ban came in? In the week they allowed smoking (before the angry fist of the State came crashing down on them) their trade increased fivefold.
500%. In one week.
BBC? ASH? MPs? Any response?
"Sheila Duffy said there was no proof to back this up." Damn I thought she was talking about "SHS/ETS" for a second... Must have daydreamed between a nip and a fag (at home, not outside the pub Sheila) chin, chin!
The beauty of amending the ban to a Spanish-type model would be that it would permit the opening of viable smallish bars. It may well be true that a lot of traditional pubs, those which catered for horses and carriages and overnight guests, are simply too big and expensive for modern times.
Amending the Ban to save our pubs? Well, there's ONE way to find out ! And the evidence (one way or the other) would be INCONTROVERTIBLE .....