What does Gillian Merron know about pubs?

Gillian Merron has certainly put her foot in it. I was in a meeting yesterday morning when someone arrived hot foot from the meeting in which the public health minister declared: “The pub trade does have challenges ... but it isn’t the case that the [smoking] ban has led to pub closures.”

According to Merron, the ban has been a “tremendous success” with a 95 per cent compliance rate and the support of 80 per cent of the public. (The Publican has the story HERE.)

Now, I can understand why the government might think that the ban has been a great "success" (see above), but to suggest that the ban is not responsible for any pub closures is unbelievable. I would have far more respect for her if she said, "We accept that the smoking ban has resulted in some pub closures but we believe that this is a small price to pay for the sake of the nation's health." Or words to that effect.

It would at least have a ring of truth to it. Instead, like so many politicians, she tries to brazen it out and ends up being, well, economical with the truth.

Additional reading:
The missing interview with Lincoln MP Gillian Merron (The Linc)
Progress on alcohol labelling 'disappointing' (BBC News)
Public health marketing campaigns will not be cut, says minister (Marketing Week)

Update on Friday, February 26, 2010 by Simon Clark

By coincidence, I hope to be in Lincoln (Gillian Merron's constituency) next week when I will be visiting Emma Chapman, licensee and sole proprietor of The Jolly Brewer. Emma is a supporter of our campaign to amend the smoking ban and last year she devoted a day of her annual music festival to promote this and other similar initiatives. Why would she (and other publicans) do that if the ban had been such a great "success"?

See also: Time called on city pub. According to the Lincolnshire Echo, "The credit crunch, cheap booze in supermarkets and the smoking ban have been all cited as causes of several pub closures in Lincoln in recent years."

PS. Gillian Merron has a majority of 4,613 ...

Update on Friday, February 26, 2010 by Simon Clark

11.20 ... Listening to a programme on Radio 4 called Last Orders. It's about the demise of the local pub. References to smoking ban, nanny state etc around 20 minutes in.

Landlord: "People aren't coming because of the smoking ban."

Landlady: "Final nail in the coffin, if you'll pardon the expression."

Two more soundbites:

Pubs closing at a rate of seven per day. And it is predicted that if closures continue at that rate the door will be closed on the last pub in the UK by 2028.

H/T Jacqui Delbaere

Defining liberalism

Interesting article in the Financial Times by Samuel Brittan. (In 1981, when 364 leading economists wrote a letter to The Times criticising Margaret Thatcher's economic policy, Brittan was one of the few economic commentators to openly defend her.)

On the subject of liberalism, Brittan writes:

Modern discussion of the subject begins with John Stuart Mill’s still controversial 1859 essay On Liberty. This states that “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection”, that is to “prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant".

"We need to move on from Mill, writes Brittan, "partly because there will always be argument about how to draw the line between self and self-regarding actions. Almost all conduct has some effect on other people." He continues:

I would myself favour an informal concept put forward by John Maynard Keynes in an essay in the 1920s, which distinguished between the agenda and non-agenda of government. This would not be fixed for all eternity but would vary over time. Kaeynes devised the idea to separate himself from those 19th century Liberals who saw little useful role for the state. But it could equally be applied in reverse to cordon off areas where the government has no business interferfing with citizens. It is the refusal to recognise any such limits tat is the real crime of New Labour and why some of us will find it hard to support it again.

Brittan concludes with three examples "that starkly expose anti-liberal ways of thinking". One is compulsory national service; another is rigid foreign exchange restrictions.

A final example is the smoking ban in public places - and I speak as a lifelong non-smoker. So long as there are designated areas to ensure non-smokers are protected from smoke pollution, what is the harm in providing a room where people can smoke at their own risk? Why is this worse than making smokers stand outside in the cold?

"However difficult it is to define a liberal," he concludes, "it is not hard to spot anti-liberals."

PS. I can't link to the article because the FT is now subscription only.

Sign up to save our pubs and clubs

If you haven't already done so you can sign up to support our new Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign HERE.

Yesterday's launch (see HERE) was attended by Antony Worrall Thompson, Greg Knight MP (Conservative) and David Clelland MP (Labour), with a message of support from John Hemming MP (Lib Dem), and it's important that we get the message out and encourage as many people as possible to the support the campaign.

Note: the campaign website is best viewed in Safari, Firefox or Internet Explorer 8. If you a problem viewing the site on any other browser please let us know.

Update on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 by Simon Clark

Please support Greg Knight's position against anti-smoking comments HERE. See also the Beverley Guardian report HERE.

Adventures in a Yorkshire landscape*

I had a meeting in Brighouse, near Bradford, yesterday morning. Barnsley is only 18 miles away so I decided to drive over and meet landlady Kerry Fenton (see previous post).

It was lunchtime when I arrived. Two television outside broadcast vans were in the car park. A reporter from the Daily Express was outside, scribbling notes. The pub was shut but Kerry came to the door and invited me in.

Kerry is as nice as her photograph suggests but she was struggling to deal with the interest in her "smoking research centre". (Google "kerry fenton, smoking" and you'll see what I mean.) On Tuesday night, she told me, she had less than two hours' sleep.

In the large public bar a TV crew were packing away their equipment. Kerry gave me a tour of the premises, including the room that has attracted worldwide attention. What she told me was deeply depressing.

She and her husband are tenants. They work 18 hours a day but some nights they are lucky if there are ten customers. Business is so bad they they don't employ any staff. There is no direct phone line - or internet connection. They can't afford it.

They have four children. If they lose the business they lose their livelihood and they will be homeless.

The smoking ban is not the only reason for their difficulties but it has to be a factor. James Martin, a customer, suggested there might be a loophole in the law. Desperate to keep her ailing business afloat, Kerry jumped at the idea.

The "smoking research centre" opened last Friday. The number of customers quadrupled. Regulars say the idea is "fantastic", the atmosphere "feels more relaxed", and the Cutting Edge "smells like a real pub again".

Last night I spoke to James. He believes that another 50 pubs in south Yorkshire are ready to follow Kerry's example. Tonight he will address a meeting of publicans in Bingley, near Leeds, and he hopes to win even more converts to the cause.

Believe me, I would love this initiative to succeed. But there isn't a loophole. The law is clear. Yes, there is an exemption under the Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007 for research and development facilities. But the exemption is quite prescriptive and leaves very little room for interpretation.

I worry about vulnerable landlords being encouraged to risk substantial fines on our behalf. (The maximum fine for failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place is currently £2500.) Ultimately it's their choice, but I question the advice they may be getting.

On a more positive note, the reaction to the story shows that the smoking ban remains a live issue for the media and a serious subject for a great many people, customers as well as landlords. If we are to amend the ban, however, initiatives like this must be accompanied by unremitting hard graft behind the scenes - letters to the press, to local councillors and members of parliament.

Sadly, it may be too late to save Kerry Fenton's business but if this story can kick start a wave of protest, her loss may not be in vain.

Updates: Pub smoking bid to be stubbed out,
Second pub becomes 'smoking research centre'

There is also an interview with James Martin HERE.

PS. Headline courtesy Be Bop Deluxe. See featured video, right.

Kerry Fenton lights up Barnsley

It's five o'clock in the morning and I have to be in Yorkshire for a meeting at ten, but before I hit the road I wanted to bring to your attention this delightful story in today's Daily Mail: "The pub (or smoking research centre) where you can legally light up".

The paper reports that:

With her pub struggling to survive, landlady Kerry Fenton needed a way to bring in business - fast. So when one of her regulars claimed he had found a 'legal loophole' to get round the smoking ban, she decided to act on his advice. Just five days later, customer numbers have quadrupled as word has spread about the 'smoking research centre' in the Cutting Edge pub in Barnsley.

James Martin, 40, studied the fine print of The Smoke-Free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007 to come up with a solution to his local pub's problems in the non-smoking era. He worked out that a 'smoking research centre' could be introduced if the building has a separate room and no through bar. Customers would be allowed to smoke in the room after filling in a research questionnaire about their smoking habits.

Miss Fenton, 36, gave the smoking room the go ahead and is delighted with the results. She said: "Before our research centre opened we were lucky to get 10 people in at a weekend and we were struggling to survive. It's certainly given business a shot in the arm and it's all in the name of research, legal and above board. On Friday we had 29, on Saturday 31 and on Sunday 46 customers in the tap room."

The questionnaires ask customers if their smoking habits have changed since the introduction of the new law and details of their age and how many cigarettes they smoke. She said: "I am collecting all the questionnaires and keeping them safely. I hope they can be used by academics in universities and colleges who are interested in studying the effects of this law. I am a non-smoker but I believe in the freedom of the individual. There is no good reason why people should not be allowed to smoke."

The authorities will undoubtedly stub out Kerry Fenton's "research centre" but I love her chutzpah. Now there's a woman I could vote for.

Full story HERE.

Nevada to ease smoking ban?

The BBC reports that Nevada could become "the first of 24 US states where smoking is banned in bars and restaurants to relax the law". Full story HERE.

Frank Skinner on the smoking ban

Chris Snowdon, whose book Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking will be published next month, has drawn my attention to the Radio 4 programme Heresy "which challenges established ideas and questions received wisdom".

This week's programme included some debate about the smoking ban. Panellists included comedians Frank Skinner and Arthur Smith so it was quite entertaining. You can listen to it for another four days HERE. It starts approximately 11 minutes 50 seconds in.

Smoking ban: New Labour in denial

New Labour's favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has today published a report entitled Pubs and Places: the social value of community pubs.

Supported by the likes of CAMRA and Alcohol Concern, the report found that the main factors contributing to the rise in pub closures include:

• Competition from shops and supermarkets where alcohol is much cheaper, which has led to more people drinking at home
• The current recession which has reduced pub incomes
• Increases in tax on beer
• The prices that some pub tenants have to pay the large pub companies for their beer
• A fall in beer drinking and a growth in wine drinking
• Increased regulation which small community pubs find the hardest to deal with

To prevent further pub closures, the IPPR calls for business rate relief, eligibility for third sector finance, reform of planning law (to provide greater protection for community pubs), and a change in the relationship between large pubcos and their tenants.

Other recommendations include no further increases in beer duty and a minimum price per unit of alcohol to prevent irresponsible promotions and close the gap between the on and the off trades.

I've only read the advance blurb but I can't find a single reference to the smoking ban. It's as if it never happened.

The report also calls on pubs to "diversify" to keep up with consumer tastes and demand. Er, thanks for that advice.

Here's an idea that would allow them to diversify to keep up with consumer tastes and demand. How about amending the law so that a percentage of well-ventilated pubs are allowed to cater for those who wish to smoke indoors alongside their tolerant, non-smoking friends?

Not interested? You surprise me.

Freedom party? Don't make me laugh

Andreas Mlzer is a member of the European parliament. He's also a member of Austria's far right Freedom Party and last month he submitted a written question to the European Commission, part of which reads:

In accordance with the new law on smoking, since the beginning of 2009 a more stringent smoking ban has been in force in Austria. Under the new law, pubs and restaurants with a floor area of less than 50 square metres must be run either as non-smoking establishments or as smoking clubs, and those with a floor area of more than 50 square metres must physically separate their smoking and non-smoking areas.

Many pub and restaurant owners are complaining of a massive decline in turnover, since smokers are simply choosing establishments where they can smoke [my italics]. The physical separation of smoking and non-smoking areas calls for substantial investments which are hardly realistic in the current economic and financial climate. However, even if conditions were more favourable, fitting partitions, ventilation systems, etc would be beyond the means of many owners ...

Herr Mlzer goes on to ask what plans the EU has "to introduce an EU-wide smoking ban along the lines of those in force in Italy or Ireland". The implication is that what the hospitality industry needs in is a "level-playing field" (ie a comprehensive ban) otherwise people will continue to choose - at the expense of non-smoking bars and restaurants - an "establishment where they can smoke".

So much for the free market. So much for the "Freedom" Party.

If it's true, this government really does stink

An early topic of conversation last night was the story that the government is to lift the smoking ban at the at the Excel Exhibition Centre in London next month. According to reports, visiting G20 dignitaries will be allowed to use specialist smoking rooms.

To be honest, when I first read the report in The Whip, the Sun's political gossip column, yesterday morning, I scarcely believed it. It seemed too far-fetched. How could they? What sort of government bans ordinary people from lighting up in every pub and club in the country and then - faced with a bunch of angry foreign VIPs gasping for a fag - calmly authorises a warm, comfortable room where they can puff away to their hearts' content?

It's a great story but we still don't know whether it's true because the authorities have yet to confirm or deny it. That in itself is suspicious but until it's confirmed I'm reluctant to really put the boot in.

There's another reason. Someone posted a comment on this blog (yesterday?) suggesting that Forest should go to court and get an injunction to stop it. Why would we do that?! Think about it. The government's behaviour is outrageous. However, too much criticism now and the smoking room could be shut down.

And that's the last thing we want. If a smoking room has been authorised by a senior member of the government it becomes a precedent for future concessions - that, and a permanent stick with which to beat this appalling, pathetic government.

Moreover, if the smoking room exists when the conference begins next month, I am sorely tempted to commission a full page advertisement. (The New Statesman has just rung me on this very subject.) It could feature a picture of British smokers (those poor, huddled masses forced to stand outside, cold and wet) with the headline: CAN WE HAVE A SMOKING ROOM TOO, MR BROWN?

PS. Dave Atherton has kindly sent me the following information (which I confess I didn't know). According to the 2006 Health Act exemptions to the smoking ban can be granted with the permission of the "appropriate national authority (eg Secretary of State)". Needless to say, pubs and club needn't apply.

In the meantime I would love to know who, if anyone, authorised the G20 smoking room. I think we should be told.

Publican: smoking made my clothes stink

I didn't expect much from yesterday's Pubwatch meeting and it lived down to my expectations. Everyone was friendly enough but for every publican who wanted an amendment to the smoking ban there was another who said there was no going back. "Smoking made my clothes stink," complained one. "I support the ban."

Another was concerned about the reaction of his staff, especially those who started work after the ban was introduced and have never worked in an environment where people are allowed to smoke. What would happen if they fell ill? Could they sue him?

Interesting question. Until now the evidence concerning the effects of secondhand smoke has made it very difficult for plaintiffs to win such cases in court. Nevertheless, that wouldn't stop some people trying to win an out-of-court settlement - knowing that some defendants would pay up rather than risk an even more expensive court case - so you can see why some publicans might be worried.

What they seemed to ignore however was the point I made at the very start of my presentation. If they want their pub to be smoke-free that is their choice. Good luck to them. I don't have a problem with that. But just because they don't want people lighting up on their premises doesn't mean that every other pub and club should be the same.

Truth is, those publicans who don't want people to smoke on their premises aren't interested in choice because they know damn well that if there isn't a "level playing field" they risk losing some of their customers to the pub or club down the road that would allow smoking (if it could).

Such self-interest is understandable. Everyone feels threatened by competition. I just wish they'd be a bit more open and honest about it.

Yesterday's meeting wasn't a complete waste of time. There was some support for our Save Our Pubs & Clubs initiative but what it really taught me is how careful we have to be when we talk about changing ("amending") the legislation.

Many (most?) people see this issue in black and white. You're either for the ban, or you're against it. In their eyes, campaigning against the ban is the same as arguing for a return to tens of thousands of smoke-filled pubs and clubs. The notion of a halfway house - well-ventilated separate smoking rooms, for example - doesn't seem to register.

Somehow we have to overcome this perception. Starting now.

Smoking ban: message slowly getting through

Members of the All Party Parliamentary Beer Group, a group of MPs who support the pub industry yesterday joined members of CAMRA and the British Beer and Pub Association to discuss the crisis currently facing the industry. (The BBPA estimates that pubs are now closing at the rate of 36 a week.)

To date most 'Save Our Pub' campaigns have focussed on beer tax and the "problem" of supermarkets selling cheap beer. The smoking ban is mentioned, but only in passing. Our job - over the next 12 months - is to put the ban higher up the agenda so that it becomes, if not an election issue, an issue that has to be addressed by the new government.

The message does seem to be getting through, albeit slowly. Yesterday Geoffrey Cox, MP for Torridge and West Devon, said:

"Local pubs in Torridge and West Devon are a vital part of our social fabric and community life. While big pub chains may be making money out of Labour’s new drinking laws, small everyday pubs in our villages and market towns are suffering from the combined onslaught of higher beer taxes, a weakening economy, supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price and the smoking ban.

"Whatever people’s views on the smoking ban, it has had a major impact on many pubs. Yet the Government seems determined not to help. Only a few months ago, the Government’s own tax inspectors admitted that pubs may be eligible for refunds on their business rates, but pub owners are still being kept in the dark about this U-turn ...

"We have already lost many of our Post Offices thanks to the Government’s neglect and lack of interest in the countryside. It is vital that our pubs do not go the same way. Pubs are some of our area’s most loved small businesses. It is about time that the Government actually did something to help them survive."

Cox stops short of calling for an amendment to the smoking ban to help local pubs but the fact that the ban is being talked about in political circles is encouraging. If the government - and Her Majesty's Opposition - thought this issue would go away, they were severely mistaken.

Smoking ban HAS harmed pub trade

The Norwich Evening News recently launched a Love Your Local campaign. Readers are invited to "visit your local at least once a week ... write to your local MP ... join Camra’s Save our Pubs campaign" etc etc.

Until now there has been very little mention of the smoking ban. On Saturday, however, a well written letter appeared in the paper under the headline "Smoking ban has harmed pub trade". I can't find it online but it highlights the fact that while the smoking ban may not be the only reason for the decline and fall of many pubs, "it is the single act [that] stopped nearly all of our friends getting together in the pub in the way they always used to".

"It wasn't the cheap supermarket beer - it was already there. It wasn't the excessive duty on a pint - it was already there. It was the fact that this hugely arrogant Labour government decided that they could remove personal choice and micro-manage the health and social life of the individual."

Thanks to this letter the paper is now asking the question, "Should the ban on smoking in pubs be overturned? Write, email, text ... You tell us". Email eveningnewsLetters@archant.co.uk (please include your name and address).

PS. If you are writing to the Norwich Evening News, please copy your comment to this blog. It will be useful for the launch of our own Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign to get as much feedback in advance as possible.

Update on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 by Simon Clark

The BBC News website has an article called "Our pub's about to shut?!?" HERE. Worth commenting.

Driver fined for smoking outside his cab

A taxi driver has just rung Forest to say that, this morning, he was smoking a cigarette outside his black cab when a taxi inspector walked up and gave him a fixed penalty notice. His "crime"? Smoking "too close to the cab".

The cab door was open but it seems incredibly petty to fine someone £50 (or more) without having a quiet word first.

I'm not even sure the driver has committed an offence. We'll find out soon enough because I've been in touch with the local paper. Next stop, the council. Who do these tinpot dictators think they are?

Ssshhh ... don't mention "amendments"

Addressing a meeting of around 40 licensees this week, LibDem MP Adrian Sanders said that none of the three leading parties would ever amend the smoking ban. "There is no desire at all in this Government or the other parties to bring any alterations to the smoking ban."

He added: "Even mentioning amendments so members at private clubs can decide to bring any change on their premises has become unacceptable."

Let me get this straight. A member of parliament believes it is now "unacceptable" to even mention amendments to the smoking ban?! Did I miss something? When did that happen? So much for free speech.

Meanwhile, at the same meeting, police Inspector Adrian Leisk confirmed that "despite police having to deal with the hundreds of pub goers and clubbers being forced to stand outside on the pavement, there would not be any U-turn".

He said: "Having to deal with 100 people standing outside for a cigarette is a real challenge for us in term of policing. There is no way out of that."

Wrong. There is a way out of that, and it involves the police giving a full account of the problems - not telling the government what it wants to hear (ie the ban has been a huge success) - so that MPs can, in turn, amend the ban to allow, for example, indoor smoking rooms.

As for U-turns, that's a matter for parliament not the police (or am I living in a different country?).

Full article HERE.