Member News
By Shelley Phelps - 28th July 2010
This article was amended on August 10.
Six pubs are forced to close every day, MPs were told at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group in the House of Commons yesterday.
The findings were announced by Mike Benner, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), the campaign group which protects the rights of ale, pubs and drinkers.
Brian Binley, MP for Northampton South, said: "The smoking ban has had a sizeable effect, much greater than anybody imagined, on the long term demise of the pub."
The Tory MP is calling for a review of the smoking ban to stop the closure of so many pubs and clubs.
He argued that the same results achieved by the smoking ban- reducing the impact of smoke on those in surrounding areas- can be achieved through proper ventilation in separate rooms for smokers or designated smoking areas.
Chair of the group Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, voted against the smoking ban.
He expressed some reluctance for the group to adopt Binley's proposals outright.
"This is a tricky area," he said.
The group concluded that it will support the idea of a review of the facts surrounding the smoking ban and full consultation on the issue, but not an outright repeal.
Mike Benner from CAMRA cited the 'beer tax' as the main cause of pub closures. He highlighted that the previous Labour Government increased the tax on beer by 26 per cent.
Benner claimed that beer is a low strength alcoholic product that has been "unfairly penalised by government policy since 1995."
Beer duty has disproportionately increased in comparison to other alcoholic beverages. While beer duty rose by 52 per cent, the rise for spirits was only 10 per cent and cider 30 per cent, he added.
What is needed, he said, is a cohesive and supportive policy framework which will rebalance the tax burden. He advocated a freeze in beer duty which he said would result in fewer pub closures.
Rick Muir, senior research fellow from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), who recently published the report Pubs and places: the social value of community pubs, also spoke at the meeting.
Muir emphasised the damage caused to the pub industry by 'beer ties'. Most pubs are owned by pub companies; pub ties require tenant landlords to buy beer supplies only from owner firms.
Binley agreed that pub companies can be "ruthless" and too often break the pub code of practice. He called for legislative action to be taken to punish those who do not obey the pub code and criticised the government for not monitoring this closely enough.
However, he also said that there may be solutions available outside of government. Dialogue with pub companies could help redress the imbalance of power, he suggested.
The group agreed that planning law must also change to stop pub closures.
Mulholland said: "No community pub should be closed without proper community consultation and a viability test."
Benner added: "Currently there is a hole in the law which means that pubs can be demolished and have their uses changed without planning permission."
He also expressed alarm at reports that supermarket giants have been targeting struggling community pubs as sites for new supermarkets.
Nigel Adams, the recently elected Conservative MP for Selby and Ainsty, will be introducing a Private Member's Bill which will address the issue of planning.
Adams is a keen member of the save the pub group. His bill focuses on the protection of local services.
It would give local planning authorities in England the power to "opt in" to protect local services from conversion to another use or demolition without the need for a developer to apply for and be granted planning permission.
The group pledged to support the bill.
The original version of this article wrongly stated that Greg Mulholland supported the smoking ban.
A spokesman for the MP has asked us to point out that Mulholland supported the sealed smoking room option.
Article Comments
Of course some pubs closed before the smoking ban, but didn't close in big numbers until afterwards.
chas
29th Jul 2010 at 4:13 pm
Brian Binley is spot on. It is the smoking ban that is killing the Industry. How people believe the propaganda put out by anti smoking quangos is beyond me, it is very simple to get the truth concerning any passive smoke dangers. The majority of all research evidence makes it very clear that no danger exists. So how did we get a smoking ban in the first place when it was only based on false and uproven claims surely the MPs had a duty to make sure that all 'claims' are evidence based. As far as the price of a pint goes, beer has always gone up, but it did not force thousands of pubs and clubs out of business. The Lack of customers because of the smoking ban did that. Time for a reform of the ban to allow the industry choice, smoking or non smoking.
F Wilson
29th Jul 2010 at 2:39 pm
If the smoking ban is responsible for the closures of all those pubs, then why did the closure begin BEFORE the smoking ban was implemented? and why has the number of licensed premises actually risen since the ban (figures can be found on the DCMS's site)?
Nick
29th Jul 2010 at 10:32 am
I thank Mr Binley, for having the courage to even dare to mention amending the smoking ban experiment and incurring the anger of the anti-smoking crusaders and the medical mafia.
Mr Binley, the 'passive smoke' claim is a red herring, there's too many scientific reports that state SHS is not harmful to non-smokers, any scientist that refutes the SHS claim is smeared or denied funding. Even the WHO 7 year study came to the same conclusion, NOT harmful to non-smokers, the same was stated in the study by our own H and S, NOT harmful to non-smokers, both suppressed because they didn't fit the agenda. This is about control and money, plenty of money, billions of pounds has been channeled into the anti-smoking crusade all over the world, it's a very lucrative campaign, not dissimilar to the global warming one. A campaign planned over long years by those who have a personal hatred of smoking who enjoy funding from pharma, that encourage these anti-smoking organisations to push their products, it starts at the top, from WHO downwards, and it appears no one gives a damn about the lobbying of pharma and the grip that ASH and their like have on politicans, too much money to be had I suspect.
The trouble is the public, otherwise decent human beings have, since the smoking ban experiment was introduced, hid behind the scaremongering of the SHS claim because they don't like the smell. Millions of smokers are being vilified, denormalised because their LEGAL activity offends the sensivities of some non-smokers. Many non-smokers don't even bother hiding behind SHS, they just blatantly state they don't like the smell and don't have to wash all the time.
Greg Mulholland and the rest of the politicans that voted for this malicious, divisive legislation are no more than diabolical hypocrites, why don't they call for tobacco to be made illegal now, not in 10/20/30 years but now, immediately if SHS is so very dangerous, surely it's their duty to do so. The lost revenue can be passed onto non-smokers, those who smoke will not notice any difference due to the exorbitant taxes they pay now.
How about this for gross hypcrisy of the anti-smoking cartel. Read below, a golden opportunity to ban tobacco, it was overwhelmingly opposed, and look at the opposers.
BISMARCK - North Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state.
Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued.
The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.
Note the last paragraph. Anyone with a smidging of common sense knows that with no tobacco, no need for tobacco control programmes, no need for the employment of bigots & liars of tobacco control and ASH. But the opposition to banning tobacco will be passed of as 'it's not democratic', no Mr Binley, they want smokers money but they don't want to see them, or for them to smoke, even in their cars & homes. Just their taxes to keep them in control and employment.
To keep dehumanising smokers and calling them killers, bad and smelly goes beyond hypocrisy and falls into the evil category. They have to be stopped but who has the courage or influence to stop them?
And please or offend, to try and get the help of the Lib-Dems in this is a non-starter, Chris Hulne, and his dangerous naivity on energy is enough to tell me this.
I wish you well in your endeavours Mr Bingley, at least you show that there are still decent people who dislike treating others like garbage because of a personal dislike of their legal activity.
Joan
29th Jul 2010 at 1:11 am
Personally speaking it's the smoking ban that's keeping me away from pubs, as a moderate drinker the cost of three or four pints is not much more than before the ban. Smokers have been made to feel unwelcome at what once was a place to relax all because of unproven claims concerning passive smoke. The Health and Safety Executive could find no serious harm from second hand smoke so a blanket ban should never have been enacted in the first place. Ventilated smoking rooms in Pubs etc. would have kept everyone happy and would of stopped the massive amount of closures.
Mr.C.Whittaker
28th Jul 2010 at 10:49 pm
The duty on a pint of beer is less than 50p. There is hardly any difference in the cost of a pint in a pub or a free house. The smoking ban is the main cause of the majority of pub closures.
chas
28th Jul 2010 at 10:32 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.