Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord German and Baroness Sheehan

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

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover, which I am pleased to say enjoys support across the House. Before I do so, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading last week. I thank my noble friend Lady Northover for the comprehensive way in which she introduced her amendment, and her co-signatories the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for their support.

The amendment seeks to ensure that in our attempt to find new and different ways of allowing our cafés, pubs and restaurants to survive, we do so in a way that is sustainable and safe for as many members of the public as possible, including staff. It will also make family-friendly areas safer for young children, who are particularly susceptible to toxic second-hand smoke.

I heard a few people say that extending non-smoking areas to licensed pavements should be left to local authorities to decide on an ad hoc basis, but, as in 2016, most proprietors of pubs, restaurants and cafés support extending the non-smoking area to licensed pavements. They know they will be on the front line when it comes to enforcing rules and, not surprisingly, they want the clarity and the safety from disappointed and sometime aggressive members of the public. They want the clarity that comes from everybody having to adhere to the same rules. Anything other than a national regime, underpinned by legislation, would cause confusion and, I fear, sometimes conflict.

I agree what other noble Lords have said in support of the amendment and I do not want to repeat what has already been said. However, there is one last point I would like to make. To introduce pavement licensing without the attendant safeguards from exposure to second-hand smoke would fly in the face of the Government’s own rationale for reducing the two-metre safety distance to one metre-plus. The plus refers to a physical barrier such as a screen or a face covering. Allowing smoking outdoors will mean the removal of face coverings and masks, therefore more exposure for the smoker and for anyone sharing his or her airspace. If only for the sake of consistency with their own policies, the Government should accept this amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Northover.

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, when the smoking ban was first introduced in 2007, it had followed years of campaigning and research to demonstrate the negative effects. Second-hand smoke affects everyone. The research studies then showed breathing in second-hand smoke increased an adult non-smoker’s risk of lung cancer and heart disease by a quarter, and of a stroke by 30%. I had been chair of a committee in the then National Assembly, which is now the Welsh Parliament, investigating the case for and the effects of a smoking ban in public and workplaces, and it was introduced before the ban in England. But that case is now well established and agreed across all parts of the United Kingdom, and 10 years after the 2007 Act, in 2017, the Welsh Parliament went even further, introducing restrictions on smoking in outdoor care settings for children, school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds.

The current smoking ban in England is meant to be one of a series of moves to discourage smoking. The ban is part of a trend towards policies that de-normalise smoking and it has helped create a shift in culture. Around the world, Governments are considering or instituting bans on outdoor smoking. Just last summer, Sweden banned smoking in many outdoor places, including playgrounds, train platforms and restaurant patios. Following the Welsh example, smoking has been banned in the grounds of most NHS hospitals in England. The case for preventing the breathing in of other people’s smoke is proven. It is beyond doubt; it is harmful. Given there is a ban in workplaces, moving the workplace outside on to the pavement extends the boundary of the workplace, and thereby extends the need for banning smoking within that boundary if for no other reason than for those who work within those establishments.

One of the arguments used in 2007 was that a smoking ban would damage the business of pubs, but there has been no direct negative effect on pubs. People, as has already been commented, just go outside to smoke. Therefore, if the experience of 2007 is anything to go by, and the smoking ban is introduced on the pavement facility provided by the Bill, the new and temporary outside for smokers will be an outside space away from others who are eating and drinking. In reality, not having a smoking ban may well be the bigger deterrent here. Not being able to eat or drink in a non-smoking environment, to which the public have been accustomed, may well keep them away from eating out.

Breathing in other people’s smoke is harmful. The Government have indicated that they want to go further. The experience thus far is that a ban on the pavement facility will not damage business; smokers will move away from those eating and drinking. So why not use this limited opportunity to provide an environment which is not just smoke free but is healthy for diners and staff alike? The Government can demonstrate that they mean business in the challenge to tackle the harm that smoking does to the health of the nation. I am pleased to support the amendment.