Holocaust Memorial Day

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Well, my Lords, I have been looking forward greatly to today’s maiden speeches—without trepidation in the case of the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans of Sealand. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Katz, on his maiden speech, and I look forward to that of the noble Lord, Lord Evans; they will bring much to your Lordships’ House. But at this point, I have the heartfelt—I use the word deliberately—honour of thanking my noble kinswoman for her remarkable speech. I had to check with the clerks what the right appellation was. She demonstrated her eloquence, her wit, her determination and her critical faculty, of which I have some experience, all of which will make her a valued Member of your Lordships’ House. Her contributions on many subjects, I think—declaring my interests firmly—will be welcome, especially those founded upon her unusual and profound knowledge of and contribution to our criminal justice system. I should add that she brought me closer, much closer than I had ever been before, to my Jewish heritage, and I thank her for that.

I turn now directly to the subject of the debate. I say that the Shoah, the Holocaust, was the event of the most unnatural scale and horror in the history of humanity. It brought the end of six million lives, some my own close relatives: people who had no interest in politics, no interest in government, no interest in how their country, Poland, was ruled.

I was denied meeting one pair of grandparents because they were murdered. My half-sister’s mother died in Auschwitz, after spending three years there. On her death certificate it says typhoid, but we know that she became ill and was shot against a pole outside a shed in Auschwitz. Visiting there—I will never do it again, because I do not think I could take it—was an extraordinary experience for me.

In my view, what happened to those people has left an indelible mark on the living. I want to talk a little—nobody has yet—about what is generally referred to as survivor’s guilt. It is not a good description of what it is, but I cannot do better at a moment like this.

I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen the remarkable BBC series, “The Last Musician of Auschwitz”. It is required viewing. It tells the story of brilliant musicians, among the best in the world, who faced the moral dilemma of whether they should play music while others in the camps were marching to their deaths as slave labourers. What happened is that survival won the debate, and that is what survivor’s guilt is about: survival often wins the debate and they were right to do what they did, but it did not go away after they had done it.

I have seen it at close quarters. All my father’s family died of murder, except my beloved sister—my half-sister, in fact—who is now a lovely old lady living in a nursing home. She is spared, by dementia, from the memories of her experience as a hidden child. Before she became ill, she wrote a remarkable book, published by Bloomsbury Publishing, about what she remembered of her childhood between the ages of two and seven when she was hidden in Poland. She was hidden by an audacious young woman called Frederika, who was a distant cousin. She ensured that the child, my half-sister Renata, survived the war. After the war, that woman brought Renata to her father, who had been a solider in England—a medical officer. In a glorious flash, he and Frederika had a speedy romance. They married and I am their son.

Until I was 10 years old, I knew nothing about that background. My parents converted to Christianity while my father was a general practitioner in Burnley. My mother walked into Manchester Cathedral and demanded to see the bishop, and that is how that happened. I was not told until I was 10 years old that Renata, by then 20, was not my full sister. As it was put to me, she “had another mummy”. It bonded us for the rest of our lives and still does, but it was an extraordinary early example of what survivor’s guilt is all about.

Another example from my family is my cousin, Willy Verkauf. He left Poland when he was 17, just before the war. He went to Israel, came to Europe and became an art dealer in Basel. How did he express his survivor’s guilt? He discovered a painter called André Verlon, who you will see referred to in books about paintings of the Holocaust. André Verlon became a reputed Holocaust painter and artist. The survivor’s guilt is that André Verlon and my cousin Willy Verkauf were the same person: he invented an alter ego through which he could express his earlier experiences and the loss of his family in the Holocaust. I am proud to own two of André Verlon’s works, which I keep at home.

Then there is my cousin Ewa, who came for lunch with me in this place. She looked at me as though it were completely bizarre that we were having lunch here, that I had no business to be here and asked, “What on earth is going on?” We have all had these sorts of experiences; I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, nodding.

Ewa told me that she was in a concentration camp with her mother and her baby. The baby died and she helped her mother to commit suicide. One day, she was sitting in a room with a number of women in the concentration camp and a Nazi guard came in. He took a 13 year-old girl by the hair and dragged her out of the room. A few minutes later, the girl returned, weeping, saying, “He raped me, he raped me”. A few minutes later still, the guard came back into the room, stood the girl up against the wall in front of all the other women in the room and shot her dead in the back of the head.

My cousin Ewa had real survivor’s guilt, so much so that she married an American and had two fine sons, and did not tell them until she had nearly died that they had had a brother or sister who died in a concentration camp. People have to live with these experiences.

The importance of memorialising the Holocaust is that we must make sure that the rest of society lives with these experiences. The wonderful work of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I pay great tribute to him; I have watched him in Parliament for more decades than I would care to mention, because we are all getting older now—demonstrates that it is very important to educate so that people know that the Holocaust not only really happened but was the worst event in history.

My real point is that Holocaust Memorial Day is not merely a day in which we remember, but it is very much part of the present. We who carry the sort of history that I have appreciate the huge public support that comes through Holocaust Memorial Day. The day stands as a memorial and a reckoning for all of us who celebrate the innocence of our grandparents and other close relatives and commemorate their death. It is also for those of us who suffer the benefit of survival, as my parents and my cousins did and as I do to a lesser extent in coming to terms with the past, of which I knew nothing until I was 10 years old.

I could say much more, but for now it is enough that, in a debate such as this, I say about the past that we have the opportunity to learn important lessons for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, this afternoon. I, too, would like to add my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans of Sealand, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on their excellent contributions and maiden speeches. I have no doubt that each of them will make a wonderful contribution to this House. I would like to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that from my position I was able to see that her husband was smiling right through her presentation, with such pride. I have also come away thinking there is no such thing as a quiet breakfast in their household.

The noble Lord, Lord Khan, in opening this debate in such a powerful way, mentioned seeing Manfred Goldberg last week. I, too, had the privilege of listening to this wonderful, articulate 94 year-old, who vividly described his life in Germany pre-war and how, miraculously, he managed to survive the brutality and suffering imposed on him by the Nazi regime. Unfortunately, though, Manfred is now in the minority; very few Holocaust survivors remain alive to tell us of their experiences and give us first-hand testimony to the wickedness imposed upon them and millions of others.

Unless we continue to remember the Holocaust, and the wickedness shown to the Jewish minority and other minorities across Europe, there is no guarantee this will not happen again. The photograph of released hostage Eli Sharabi captured by Hamas on 7 October 2023, looking so gaunt and emaciated, reminded so many of us of the liberation of Belsen in 1945 and the horror discovered there. We say “Never again”, but the rise in anti-Semitism here—3,528 cases reported by CST in 2024—across Europe and in Australia, Canada and the USA, makes the risk of repetition a real possibility. Particularly worrying is the rise of anti-Semitism in our universities. Although much can be done to inform and educate those born after the war, especially our children—the Holocaust became part of the English national curriculum in 1991—hearing from survivors who experienced the horrors of the Holocaust is the best way of achieving this.

If this cannot be done face to face, giving our children the opportunity of hearing from survivors remotely is the next best thing. Therefore, it is commendable that at a recent Holocaust Educational Trust dinner, our present Prime Minister announced a national ambition that every schoolchild should hear the recorded testimony of a Holocaust survivor. Other initiatives include investing a further £2 million for Holocaust education, announced by the Chancellor in her Budget, and for the teaching of the Holocaust to continue to be compulsory in state schools and expanded to include academies. These initiatives were announced by the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, following a curriculum review.

All this is excellent, but to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive and to inform and educate today’s and tomorrow’s generations, the creation of Holocaust centres and memorials all around the world is so important. That is why I strongly support the building of a memorial and learning centre. While the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum are impressive, building a lasting memorial here, right in the centre of Westminster, next to our Parliament—which has always stood for liberty and freedom all around the world—is making a massive statement that we in the UK remember now and will not forget in the future the events of the 1930s and 1940s which resulted in 6 million Jews and other minorities being slaughtered.

Let the world know that in this wonderful United Kingdom, our home, we will always stand against tyranny and prejudice, wherever they raise their ugly heads. The 2015 Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report recommended the building of a “striking and prominent” new national memorial, to be located in central London. There can be no more striking and prominent location than right here in Victoria Tower Gardens. Objections have been raised to this location. It is argued that there are security and traffic issues, that the atmosphere of Victoria Tower Gardens will be changed, that access may be restricted, that too many people might visit the memorial—3 million visitors a year are expected, and I hope that we increase on that number—and that there are alternative sites. Frankly, I do not believe that these objections stack up. Security and traffic issues will arise wherever the memorial is located, and we will sort them, as we always do. As for the atmosphere in the park, I know how sensitive those responsible for the memorial are to this issue and how they truly believe, as do I, that the park can be improved.

By going ahead with the building of the memorial and learning centre here, we are raising awareness of the Holocaust and acknowledging its importance, just as was achieved last month by the visit of His Majesty King Charles to Auschwitz on Holocaust Memorial Day, commemorating 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. No other memorial in any location in the world will be as prominent as this one—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The earlier part of the noble Lord’s speech was very moving and compelling, but a number of us have avoided burying this debate in a difficult discussion about the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. Will he do the same and move on to another subject?

[Lord Gold (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It so happens that I am through on this. I just wanted to add one last word, which is that we should be very proud of going ahead with this. I accept the noble Lord’s intervention and have nothing else to say except to pay tribute to everyone who has spoken here today. Every single speech has been most moving.

National Policy Planning Framework: Housing

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the topic of housing for older people and for those with particular needs. For example, we laid regulations to exempt all former members of the regular Armed Forces and victims of domestic abuse from any local connection tests. We are actively working on issues around older people’s housing; in fact, I met Anchor this morning to discuss that very topic. We will bring forward further policies in the spring to look at the need for older people’s housing and how to make better provision for it in the planning process.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in my time as leader of the Welsh Liberal Party I had the advantage of a close relationship with and enormous support from the late Baroness Randerson. I was shocked to hear of her passing when I was told yesterday, and I personally, like many others, will miss her greatly. She was a great public servant.

On the Government’s commendable ambition to build a very large number of houses, I remind the Minister that this ambition will be matched by an extraordinary visual effect on our townscape and landscape in general for hundreds of years. Can the Government try to ensure that the design of these houses to be built is of a high quality which reflects well on our age? Well-designed houses cost no more than badly-designed houses.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I could not agree with the noble Lord more; this is an important issue. I am not apologising for the ambitious targets we have—we certainly need the housing. However, I am also passionate not only about delivering well-designed homes—we are currently working on the future homes standard and will publish that shortly—but about those homes being situated in communities that really work for people. That was part of what the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework were about, but it is also incumbent on all local authorities, as they pass their local plans, to make sure that they enable that too.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Particularly as somebody with my background, I admire the motivation and ambition which he expressed when he announced the commission. The difference between us is about location. It may be partly because when I went to Auschwitz—as I have once, and frankly I do not have the courage to go there again—I went into the very room where my father’s first wife, my sister’s mother, was murdered after three years as a slave worker in that camp. After that visit, I came back thinking, “How really can we honour the people who died like Tosia?” That was her name.

My belief is that we can honour those people not by choosing a symbolic location about which not everybody agrees, but only by choosing a place which in itself declares honour for those people, where children and adults can go and learn about what happened to those people, where tyranny is laid out for what it is— tyrannical—where there is the academic potential for people to teach and learn in large numbers about what happened during the Holocaust, and where they are going to be secure.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I agree about almost everything, but the location in my view is far too small. It is far too mechanical, and I use the word literally. The architecture is mechanical; that is why it is so repetitious, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, declared. In my view, it also creates a security issue, not only for the centre itself but for this Parliament. There have been terrorist murders in and around this Parliament. We know that; some of us were here when some of them took place. We cannot say for sure that the curtilage of Parliament will not have to be extended at some point for security reasons. There are arguments for extending the curtilage of Parliament from one bridge to the other. If that were advised and were to happen, it would cause great difficulty for people visiting and leaving a centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.

Then there is the point raised by my noble friend about the number and nature of security guards who would have to be there. The figures we have been given suggest that between 2,000 and 3,000 people every day would visit that memorial centre, wherever it was situated. I do not want to be the person who says later, “I told you so”, but this is the real world and some of those 2,000 or 3,000 people could be terrorists. Terrorists are often not stupid people—they know how to cause terror.

Everybody who goes near that centre or enters the garden would see police officers holding machine guns, as we have outside Peers’ Entrance. There would have to be detailed searches. It would take hours to get in and out of the premises. It would be open only by appointment to people who had booked on the internet the previous day; it would not be open to the general public simply to walk around the grounds and see memorials to the Holocaust which had been erected there.

I say to the noble Lord and anyone who thinks that this is the right site: please go to Warsaw. It took people a very long time to build the POLIN centre there, but it is the most magnificent, broad and diverse centre you can have for an understanding of the Holocaust and the wickedness of tyranny. What I say is not only for myself but for my parents, who are dead now. My mother, too, was an extremely brave Holocaust survivor. She saved the little girl who later became my half-sister; she and my sister’s father fell in love and, for good or ill, they had just me. I speak from a family like this.

I want to add one more thing, if I can be forgiven the brief time that it will take. The noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is sitting next to me. In the other place, she and I played a significant part in the War Crimes Act. It was very hard opposed at one stage, and we believe that we contributed to something very important in memory of those who died in the Holocaust. There have not been many cases, but its existence is important, and there has been at least one very major case. Equally, what I want for my deceased relatives and my still-living sister is an establishment which is not just symbolic but able to teach everything one can learn about what happened at that terrible time.

Housing: Conditions in Rented Sector

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not think it is a discourtesy to the House; it is part of the process and we will be discussing it further, I am sure, on Tuesday, when the Commons amendments come back to the House on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that, in those cases where the only realistic way of having a house in appalling condition repaired is to sue the landlord, including social landlords, in the county courts, it is completely unconscionable that tenants should have to wait between a year and 18 months for those cases to be heard? What are the Government going to do to deal with the backlog in the county courts?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill that we were talking about earlier will deal with a lot of that problem, particularly with Awaab’s law that has entered that Bill in the Commons. There will be clear timescales, first, for housing providers to respond to tenants, and, secondly, for any serious safety defects in housing to also be dealt with in a good timescale.

Anti-Semitic Attacks

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Polak, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, about the speedy action by the police were extremely welcome. For the sake of Holocaust survivors, such as my beloved sister, and the whole of the community, can we ensure that once prosecutions are brought, they are brought quickly and not delayed? Will the Government call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to account to the Government for the speedy way in which these cases should be processed?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot talk about specific cases, but equally, justice delayed is justice denied. We need to see swift and sure justice in these matters.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, with his detailed knowledge of local rules. However, I wish to emphasise the importance of balance, and to remind noble Lords that these are temporary measures. We must not get bound up in regulatory amendments, however justified these might be for permanent laws. We have to get the economy and our high streets going again and allow vibrancy to return to our bars and pubs. Our hospitality sector has been decimated and it needs all the help it can get.

There are safeguards: there is scope for suspending licensing conditions for up to three months, or removing permission for sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises. There are quite onerous requirements for Covid-19 risk assessments prepared in consultation with employees and unions. There are also various forms of guidance which, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, can contain anomalies. But the economy needs to open up. Bars and pubs must be part of the revival and regeneration, whether by young people, tourists or those of us at a more stately stage of life. The Local Government Association has, rightly, supported the Bill, including pavement licensing freedoms, and we need to get on with turning it into law.

Finally, I did not get a chance to say so, but I will be returning to digital verification on Report, as there is more to be done—and quickly.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. Like her, I absolutely recognise the economic imperatives behind the Bill, including this part of it. In your Lordships’ House we have excellent spokespeople for disabled people and real expertise, ranging from a colleague with enormous Olympic achievements to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I congratulate on his admirable—if uncharacteristic—feat of pedantry in this debate, showing the absurdity of some of the rules. I support the notion that there should be the best possible uniform standard for enabling disabled people to negotiate our streets and built environment, even when economic imperatives lead to the opening up of those streets for eating, drinking and café society.

I will add a comment on Amendments 6, 7 and 8. There are good reasons for planning restrictions, and we do not want to see our built environment damaged significantly as a result of the economic imperatives that we are following. In particular, we need to protect the peace of places where people live and not see them turned into drinking streets because they happen to have a couple of pubs in the vicinity. I therefore support the requirement set out in Amendments 6, 7 and 8 for a proper consultation period.

Because of the internet, everybody knows that it is necessary at the current time to curtail some of the more officious parts of planning law, I would regard 14 days, rather than a week, as a reasonable period. However, it is important for such applications to be screened on the internet by local authorities, which can do it very easily, and for people to be given a meaningful number of days in which to make their representation. That would enable local authorities to make a quick assessment of the level of objections, if there were any, and to make an empirical judgment, rather than reacting only to the economic imperatives. I will keep back some of the things I want to say on similar issues to the debate on the next group of amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Blencathra and Lord Cormack, on their amendments. This is a difficult area. On the one hand, we want to proceed quickly as these are temporary measures and we want to make good and recoup some of the losses that the hospitality industry has suffered. On the other, we want to allow access for those who are visually or otherwise impaired, or who are wheelchair users. When he sums up on this group of amendments, will my noble friend clarify how the Government imagine that the guidelines will be fit for purpose in this regard? Although I can see that there is an argument for consultation, does my noble friend not agree that that could potentially delay the coming into force of these arrangements?

I bow to the good will and common sense of the restauranteurs and bar owners who will seek to use a pavement area only if it is physically safe for the category that falls within the remit of these amendments. It is up to them, working with the environmental health officers and the police, to make sure that these provisions are enforceable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe [V]]

I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes: we are not trying to make it more difficult; as I see it, we are trying to get the balance right. I referred in my initial speech to the changes in the regulations—what I think of as the Blair/Jowell reforms—which opened up our high streets to a wild west of alcohol licensing. One thing those measures had in common with this legislation is that they came into force in August. We are proposing to bring this into force at precisely the time when local authorities are going for their summer break—indeed, at precisely the time when we are going for our summer break. By my definition of local authorities getting “a move on”, extending the consultation from seven to 14 days is quite reasonable; I do not think that it is difficult at all. If someone sends an application by second-class post and gets their proof of posting at 5 pm on a Friday, it is unlikely to get there before the next Tuesday—particularly in Cambridge—so we are not even giving seven days. Seven days from date of receipt would be bad enough, but seven days from posting is just not enough.

I asked in my previous contribution whether people who wished to extend in front of unused shops would need to get the permission of their lessee or owner. That is an important point, because otherwise we are basically saying that a premises can just expand on to next door’s territory without any agreement.

I asked earlier, and did not get an answer, whether a local authority could reject an application because it had not had enough time to consider it. In other words, if it arrived on a Tuesday and was due to be determined on a Friday, and it is August and everybody is on holiday, could the authority say, “No, we reject it. We need another seven or 14 days to consider it”?

Amendment 16 states that conditions may

“incorporate views and concerns expressed in the public consultation under section 2.”

How will those views and concerns be gathered? If the local authority asks for views and concerns, it will effectively be giving the general public 24 or maybe 48 hours and then it will have to meet to decide what to do with the public consultation. We keep hearing about the need to open up the economy, but the majority of people in Britain do not feel safe going into a restaurant as it is. I do not agree that the economy will be opened up by this legislation. What we will get is basically another version of the wild west. We need to legislate at a reasonable pace, because if we do so in haste, we will regret at leisure. That is what happened in the earlier, 2003-04 experiment and it is what we are heading for here. Please let us take this at a reasonable pace.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, the points I would have wished to make in this group of amendments have already been made skilfully by others and I see no need to repeat them. All I would say is that I absolutely support and adopt the approach taken and submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. The noble Lord said extremely skilfully what I would have tried to say, so I have nothing further to add.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, spoke on the previous group, he said he had visited an establishment over the weekend. I share with noble Lords that I went to four establishments over the weekend and found them all very busy. I was pleased to “eat out to help out” as much as I did.

I do not know whether any noble Lords tuned into local London news last night, but it was interesting that the images of Soho this weekend were much different from those we saw the weekend before. One of the small establishment owners interviewed on “BBC London News” was very compelling in what he said about the tables and chairs outside his business making a massive difference to whether it would be able to survive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on having the courage to present this important amendment, and on doing it so well—[Connection lost.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Lord Carlile, are you still there? We had better move to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and we may try to get the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, back later.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Can we get the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, back?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, I apologise—just as I was speaking, there was a power cut in my home. I was saying that in 2015, some 115,000 people died of smoking-related diseases in the UK alone, at a time when knowledge of the dangers of smoking was complete. Since at least 2006, when a significant report was published by Stanford University, it has been known that exposure to tobacco smoke outdoors is less damaging but still potentially very damaging. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who is a considerable medical expert in your Lordships’ House, described clearly how the effects of tobacco can be transferred outdoors.

Let us turn to the nature of the venues that we are discussing. We are not talking about people smoking cigarettes in a field or in a park, or walking along a pavement and making steady progress. The nature of many of the venues that we are discussing here involves canopies, umbrellas and, by definition, proximity. We need only look at the courtyard of every public house.