Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Sheikh and Lord Adonis

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, leaving aside what colleagues have said about their support or non-support for particular amendments, the right policy here is very clear. In fact, it has been supported by 15 of the 17 noble Lords who have spoken before me in the debate.

That policy is this: licensed outdoor premises, where they replace indoor premises where smoking is currently not allowed, should not be licensed for smoking. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—a former Health Secretary—said, anything less than this is a retrograde step. This is emphatically not a new smoking ban, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just suggested. It is the replacement of indoor premises by outdoor premises, and those indoor premises do not currently allow smoking.

I applaud everyone who has helped get us to the halfway stage: my noble friends on the Front Bench who have done an excellent job in negotiations with the Government; the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who first raised this matter at Second Reading; and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whom we hold in very high regard, and whom I know has worked hard to get to a compromise position.

The compromise is a compromise. The House needs to address this question: on an issue as fundamental as this, to the public health of England and to people’s ability to enjoy and access licensed premises, should we settle for a compromise or should we move to the right policy which—as I have said—almost everyone who has spoken in this debate supports? This policy would simply replace the existing prohibition on smoking indoors in licensed premises with a prohibition on smoking outdoors, in respect of those licenses. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, this would not affect existing outdoor smoking facilities.

I have listened carefully to this debate, and to representations which have been made to some of us outside of it. I cannot see a single good argument for not agreeing with this amendment. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing it forward and pushing it so strongly. Without people like her, we never make progress on these fundamental issues of public health and civil liberties. I will simply end with the great injunction of David Lloyd George: “When traversing a chasm, it is advisable to do so in one leap”.

[Lord Sheikh [V]]

My Lords, we need the hospitality sector to be active and to start doing business, both for its benefit and for the good of the country and members of the public. People have been frustrated over the last few months due to the lockdown. Some of them suffer from anxiety problems, and it is important for them to go out and mingle with their friends and relatives. Therefore, we must cater for people who smoke, as well as those who do not, when they go out.

We must bear in mind that over 85% of the British population are non-smokers, and they are concerned about being subjected to passive smoking when they go to a pub, restaurant or café. We all appreciate that if any person smokes it causes harm, not only to himself but to others around him who inhale second-hand smoke.

Persons who have been confined indoors over the last few months are now able to go out, and they feel happier when they are sitting in the open, rather than inside the premises. I was recently at a private club, where nearly all the customers were sitting outside on the terrace. In fact, the group next to me were smoking, but there was adequate distance between the two tables and I was happy with the situation.

In Committee, I supported an amendment disallowing smoking outside the relevant premises. In fact, the Government are unwilling to ban smoking altogether, and I support Amendments 13 and 14 as I feel it is an adequate compromise. These amendments will allow both smokers and non-smokers to go out with some degree of safety, as there will be areas for both groups.

I follow the logic of the Government, as they do not wish to ban smoking outside generally. By banning smoking outside a restaurant, pub or café, it could be deemed that we are banning smoking altogether. I feel that the Government have listened and introduced Amendments 13 and 14. Having said this, I hope that we will achieve a smoke-free England by 2030.

With regard to the situation at present, there needs to be appropriate distance between smokers and non-smokers, which will prevent the danger of passive smoking affecting non-smokers. In addition to supporting Amendments 13 and 14, I am happy to support Amendment 25, as we ought to clearly define what smoking is all about and avoid ambiguity.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Sheikh and Lord Adonis

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

[Lord Sheikh [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 25 relating to the two requirements that have been stated. I reiterate what I said when I spoke on Amendment 11: I support the Bill, which will trigger the revitalisation of our businesses and help the well-being of the people. However, it is necessary for us to implement the changes with caution. My concern is safety of passage and accessibility by blind and disabled persons. In addition, of course, all pedestrians must be able to pass without hindrance where there is a gathering of customers outside a restaurant or pub.

Blind persons have felt less independent since the lockdown rules were implemented and, if there is an increase in street furniture, blind and partially sighted people may be forced to walk in the road, change their route, avoid travelling independently or even stay at home. Street furniture will present additional challenges and should be marked off with an accessible barrier. The idea of marking off the areas will ensure accessibility. Furthermore, if the appropriate distances are maintained, it will help pedestrians to walk without difficulty and prevent the spread of the virus. Adequate spacing will also enable disabled persons to go through without much difficulty.

As a Muslim, my other concern is the passage of Muslim ladies who may be subjected to harassment, particularly if they are wearing a hijab, niqab or burka. Most hate-crime incidents happen in the street and if the accessibility and passage of these ladies are blocked or hindered in any way, my concern is that they may be picked on by customers, especially if they have had a lot to drink. I have been informed by Fiyaz Mughal and Iman Atta of Tell MAMA that, since the lockdown was eased, there has been a spike in the number of cases where Muslim women have been abused and spat at in the street. In fact, I have been told by Tell MAMA that there has been a threefold increase in hate crimes against Muslims, and some of the incidents are unfortunately nasty and aggressive. I hope that the Minister will agree to Amendment 25.

[Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, every speaker in this debate so far, from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, onwards, has emphasised the importance of safe arrangements on pavements both for pedestrians, particularly those who have impairments, and for those sitting outside under the new arrangements, with the new licences allowing tables and chairs to be set up outside places of refreshment.

I do not have anything to add to those points. I simply note that some noble Lords have said that we should be mindful of the fact that these are only temporary arrangements, but we do not know that. It is perfectly possible that they will go on for many months, because we just do not know what the course of the virus is going to be. So I absolutely do not think we should legislate less precisely for the arrangements because we think that they may apply for only a short time. It could well be that in a year’s time the arrangements and licences still apply.

However, it is vital that the law is clear about what the licences are going to contain, and it is that which I want to speak on. When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, replied to the debate last week, he said, in response to concerns that were raised at Second Reading about arrangements for pavements, that a national condition would be imposed,

“taking account of … section 3.1 of the Department for Transport’s Inclusive Mobility guidance. This sets out the recommended minimum footway widths and distances required for access by mobility-impaired and visually impaired people.”—[Official Report, 6/7/20; col. 969.]

When the noble Earl said that, it rang alarm bells in my mind. I remember when I was Secretary of State for Transport having to deal with an extremely difficult case of an accident, which led to a very serious injury, that was caused by a lack of clarity in the department’s guidance as to what minimum footway widths should be. Indeed, I remember looking at the guidance and believing that it should be updated. Due to the passage of time, I cannot now remember why it was not.

I have been back to look at the guidance and it brought back all the details of the case itself, which of course could happen on many occasions if licences are granted under the Inclusive Mobility guidance. It looks to me as if the 2005 guidance has not been updated: perhaps the Minister could confirm that. I could not find any record of it being updated—but if it has, perhaps he could point us to the updating. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will read section 3.1 to the Committee, because it is so important to the point about what is going to be contained in these licences.

The guidance says under the heading “Widths”:

“A clear width of 2000mm allows two wheelchairs to pass one another comfortably. This should be regarded as the minimum under normal circumstances. Where this is not possible because of physical constraints 1500mm could be regarded as the minimum acceptable under most circumstances, giving sufficient space for a wheelchair user and a walker to pass one another.”


That already brings in an ambiguity, on which I would like the Minister to respond. Will local authorities regard 2,000 millimetres or 1,500 millimetres as the minimum? Under the guidance, it could be either. However, the confusion gets greater still. It continues:

“The absolute minimum, where there is an obstacle”—


although “an obstacle” is not defined under the guidance—

“should be 1000mm clear space … It is also recommended that there should be minimum widths of 3000mm at bus stops and 3500mm to 4500mm by shops though it is recognized that available space will not always be sufficient to achieve these dimensions.”

The guidance is as clear as mud. Five different widths are specified in it but none is given priority. We are told that anything from 1,000 millimetres to 4,500 millimetres might be regarded as appropriate. The Committee should take particular note of the fact that the widest width—4,500 millimetres—is given in respect of shops, which will indeed be the premises that we are talking about almost exclusively in the case of this guidance. To double the confusion, it also says:

“The maximum length of restricted width”—


which of course is also vital; the restrictions apply not just to the width but to the length—

“should be 6 metres”,

and that is given without qualification, but of course many of the premises that we are talking about might be longer than six metres.

Therefore, my question for the Minister is: which of the various potential stipulations in the 2005 guidance will apply in respect of these licences? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the national condition would take account of section 3.1: what exactly is it taking account of? It is now very clear to me that it could be taking account of any one of six different, and in many respects contradictory, aspects of the guidance. On Report, the Government should come forward with an amendment that specifies the precise widths that will apply, and it should be more precise than the guidance. We must remember that the guidance was intended for exceptional purposes, whereas we are now talking about what will become quite a common occurrence in respect of our high streets and side streets.

The guidance makes no reference whatever to physical barriers—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in his Amendment 2. If we are talking about the widespread introduction of pavement facilities for customers in cafés, pubs and so on, I think that the case for segregation is very strong, not just to make things safer—although it will do so—but to delineate very clearly the limits of the seating area. If there is not a physical barrier, those will not be clear, and we all know that people will spill out beyond them.

The 2005 guidance makes no reference whatever to barriers. If there is to be a provision in respect of barriers—a point very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others—that has to be a wholly new provision over and above the provisions of the Department for Transport’s existing guidance on inclusive mobility.

I have just asked the Minister a very precise set of questions, which I hope he can respond to when he sums up.