The U-turn on smoking outside pubs is a start – but it doesn’t go far enough
When the Tories suggested raising the age limit for purchasing tobacco , it was one of their most illiberal policies to date – made even more illiberal because of the cross-party backing it received. But, following their victory in the election, Labour seemed hellbent on turning that policy into a dystopian reality, when they announced a smoking ban in pub beer gardens .
Mercifully, it seems someone talked some sense into them, as they have now U-turned on the proposal . Health secretary Wes Streeting , during his latest round of broadcast interviews, acknowledged that the hospitality industry has "taken a real battering in recent years" (something of an understatement.) As such, he said, it was not "the right time" to ban smoking outside pubs .
Praise be for sensible Wes? Another score for one of the government's freer thinkers and best communicators? Well, up to a point.
Streeting said that smoking and vaping could still be banned from other outdoor public places in England under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill – we're talking about the grounds of schools and hospitals , outdoor playgrounds and the like.
What next? Smoke-free exclusion zones? Stressed out teachers and nurses wheezing their way down the road to the local ciggies and drink shop to avoid the spot fine patrols?
How outdoor bans will be policed in practice isn't actually all that clear. Streeting suggested a similar regime to the one designed to tackle anti-social behaviour and activities such as fly-tipping. We'll see.
Do you know what the best way to cut down on school and health staff smoking would be? Making working in health and education less stressful . How many lungs could be saved by cutting down on Ofsted ratings and inspections ? Just a thought...
I'm not opposed to taxing tobacco heavily. Smoking is a killer. It's a nasty habit and it is quite right that it is discouraged. If you want the NHS to fix you up, you should have to pay through the nose via tobacco duty. This is a similar principle to the "polluter pays" idea – and it is a good one.
I'm not opposed to regulation either, particularly when it comes to vaping (an activity which the law hasn't yet caught up with) and indoor spaces, where people were once unable to avoid second-hand smoke and the health effects of inhaling it. Kids? They absolutely should be protected from cigarettes ( and the potential dangers of vaping, while we're at it).
But the way the government is going with these proposals smacks of over-reach. They are troublingly – even dangerously – illiberal. We have to allow adults to make their own decisions and their own mistakes – and to live with the consequences of them.
Minors are already protected and we've seen a cultural step change against smoking in recent years; no longer is it "cool". There are no billboards featuring the high plains drifter looking pensive amid a cloud of smoke any more.
But there is a word that is missing from the current direction of travel: "proportionate". Bans and exclusion zones do not belong in a liberal democracy.
We should instinctively rally against them. The health secretary's U-turn is, therefore, a welcome move – and not just from the perspective of a hard-pressed hospitality industry in need of a break. But I still fear that it doesn't go far enough.
