10th Anniversary of Ban on Smoking – By Paul Chase

14th July 2017

We’ve just had the tenth anniversary of the ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, and much has been written about its effect on pubs. Also, in a couple of weeks’ time, the UK’s Supreme Court will consider the legality of the proposed introduction of minimum unit pricing (MUP) in Scotland. Here’s my take on both:

Firstly, as a lifelong non-smoker I personally much prefer smoke-free pubs. And if I were going to die in a ditch defending the right of individuals to make free choices, the right to set fire to a paper tube containing tobacco and inhale the smoke wouldn’t be my starting point. But it is nevertheless the case an awful lot of hypocrisy is attached to the reasons given for the smoking ban. This was never really about protecting people against second-hand smoke, and the statistical case for the ill-health effects of second-hand smoke was always pretty dubious in any event. This was about stopping people from smoking by criminalising their behaviour if they did so in certain circumstances. The alleged ill-health effects of second-hand smoke on the rest of us were never more than a fig leaf.

Has the smoking ban been bad for pubs? Most commentators agree it has. If they are correct then I am forced to conclude the ban was introduced on the basis of a false prospectus when the real reason for it was to force smokers to quit, and the impact that has had on the pub trade is regarded by anti-smokers as acceptable collateral damage. The fact the template for pursuing the smoking ban has now been replicated by those who are similarly opposed to alcohol leads me to suspect the two groups of people have much in common.

There was no decline in smoking after the smoking ban in 2007 and I would suggest the drop in smoking prevalence since 2012 is mostly attributable to vaping. The “public health” community is very divided on the issue of vaping because it finds it hard to accept a private sector solution to a public health problem – one that involves enabling people to enjoy nicotine in a safer way is preferable to simply banning something.

I think there are many reasons why pubs have closed over the past ten years – supermarket pricing, the shift towards home drinking and the growth of home entertainment, a fall in the number of young people who drink alcohol – to name but a few. Some have called for a review of the smoking ban and the reintroduction of ventilated smoking rooms in pubs. I think it would be a mistake to refight yesterday’s battles, particularly when there are plenty of battles we need to fight today. Reversing the smoking ban is a lost cause and we need to reserve our powder and shot for more immediate problems.

One such problem is the possibility of MUP being declared “legal” by the UK’s Supreme Court. The Court is due to consider this matter on 24-25 July, with a decision published probably in the autumn. I’ve written more on the subject of MUP than any other single issue, at least in part because its introduction has become such a totemic issue for the neo-temperance crackpots of so-called “public health”. I’m opposed to MUP because I believe it’s a bad policy that will penalise responsible drinkers, and will not impact on problem drinkers who are overwhelmingly located in in the moneyed middle classes, not because I think it is unlawful. If it turns out it does offend against EU competition law then as far as I’m concerned that would be very helpful.

A minimum price for a unit of alcohol was introduced in legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2012. Since then it has been the subject of legal challenge by the Scotch Whisky Association and others who argue the measure acts as the equivalent of a quantitative restriction on EU trade, for example, by penalising efficient wine producers who are able to reflect their efficiencies in the price charged for their product. It would appear the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and indeed the Scottish courts accept this is the case, but argue for a “public health” exemption. The ECJ has stated it is ultimately for the domestic courts of any member state to decide whether MUP is a proportionate measure, the health benefits of which couldn’t be achieved by some other, less trade-restrictive measure, such as duty rises.

The Scottish inner Court of Sessions concluded it was a proportionate measure and it met the test set by the ECJ, and it is that decision that is now being appealed and the UK’s Supreme Court will rule on. My gut instinct is the appeal will fail and this will open the door for MUP in Scotland, where it is already law. Wales and Northern Ireland also want to introduce this measure and if they do it would be very difficult for England not to follow suit. I fear this is another anniversary we may be marking in the future, and not one that should be a cause for celebration by the trade.

Article written by Paul Chase is a director of CPL Training and a leading commentator on on-trade health and alcohol policy

To receive emails from us and keep up to date with the latest jobs and industry news, please complete the short form below.  We will never share your email with any third parties.

(*) required fields

1. Providing Visitors with Anonymous Access

You can access our Web site home page and browse our site without disclosing your personal data.

2. The services and links of our Web site

2.1 Our Web site does not enable our visitors to communicate with other visitors or to post information to be accessed by others.

2.2 Our Web site does not include links to third party Web service providers.

3. Automatic Collection of Information

3.1 We do not automatically log personal data.

3.2 We do not link information automatically logged by other means with personal data about specific individuals.

3.3 We use cookies to store personal data or we link information stored in cookies with personal data about specific individuals. We do so for the following purposes: * Technical administration of the Web site.

4. Data Collection and Purpose Specification

4.1 We do not collect any personal data from our visitors when they use our services.

4.2 We do not collect information about our visitors from other sources, such as public records or bodies, or private organisations. To access the table of personal data collected and purposes for which they are used, please click here

4.3 We do not collect or use personal data for any purpose other than that indicated in the table below.

4.4 If we wish to use your personal data for a new purpose, we offer you the means to consent to this new purpose: by indicating in one of our contact/data capture forms, where personal data is collected

5. Children’s Privacy

5.1 We do not knowingly collect personal data from children.

5.2 We do not take specific steps to protect the privacy of children who disclose their personal data to us.

5.3 We do not provide information about our personal data practices in relation to children on our homepage, or at those sites on our Web site where we collect personal data.

6. Disclosure and Visitor Choice

We do not disclose your personal data to our subsidiaries or other organisations.

7. Confidentiality / Security

7.1 We do not give visitors to our Web site the option of using a secure transmission method to send us their personal data.

7.2 We have implemented security policies, rules and technical measures to protect the personal data that we have under our control from:

(a) unauthorised access; or
(b) improper use or disclosure; or
(c) unauthorised modification; or
(d) unlawful destruction; or
(e) accidental loss.

7.3 All our employees and data processors, who have access to, and are associated with the processing of personal data, are obliged to respect the confidentiality of our visitors\’ personal data.

7.4 We ensure that your personal data will not be disclosed to State institutions and authorities except if required by law or other statutory regulation.

8. Privacy Compliance

8.1 There are no national laws or self-regulatory schemes applicable to our web site or organisation.

8.2 There are no global or regional regulatory or self-regulatory schemes applicable to our web site or organisation.

9. Privacy Support

9.1 If you have an enquiry or concern about our privacy policy, please contact: Recruitment Room on 0113 322 0660 or Email address: contact@therecruitmentroom.co.uk

9.2 We do not provide any other means by which visitors’ concerns may be addressed.