Examination of Witnesses (Questions 600-607)
CAROLINE FLINT
MP, FIONA MACTAGGART
MP AND MR
NICK ADKIN
24 NOVEMBER 2005
Q600 Dr Naysmith: In a
sense we are having a debate next Tuesday about something that
is still a bit vague and people are going to have to vote on things
which are a bit vague. Why is it being done this way?
Caroline Flint: I do not think
it is that vague, is it?
Q601 Dr Naysmith: Some
people think it is.
Caroline Flint: We are working
through a whole host of issues here as you can imagine. These
are tricky areas. We have talked primarily about our exemptions
on particular licensed premises today but I know you have had
someone in from the MoD to talk to you, obviously. My colleague,
Fiona, was here talking about prisons. I am taking soundings at
the moment on issues around mental health institutions and so
forth. I have to say every single country, including Ireland and
Scotland, is having to address exemptions and issues in those
areas. In Ireland, for example, they have a complete exemption
for adult hospices and those countries are working through these
issues as well. I am afraid to say that even in those countries
which have gone for a total ban—Ireland and Scotland planning
to and now Northern Ireland—the issue of exemptions in all
those areas is something they are going to have to deal with and
face and discuss. In relation to the particular issue around bars,
the issue we have to resolve primarily is the issue around the
non-food/food split, although Giles Thorley, the Chief Executive
of Punch Taverns, has said: "Although we acknowledge the
processed non-food/food split will present some landlords with
difficult decisions, nevertheless we feel the distinction is relatively
straightforward and workable as well as preserving some degree
of choice". We also know, as I said earlier, that we are
consulting on the issue around the area around the bar and I am
sure in the Second Reading debate and in Committee there will
be plenty of opportunity for parliamentary colleagues to raise
these issues and press me and raise a number of different concerns,
as we normally do, in Committee processes.
Q602 Dr Naysmith: You
were saying earlier on when you were talking about the licensed
trade and the hospitality industry there were lots of different
opinions. But the one thing which came through, though not unanimously
to us, was they do not want some kind of half-way house. They
would prefer no ban altogether, I suspect, but given that there
is going to be some kind of control they want it nice and clear
and they want to be able to know the difference between membership
clubs and pubs. That is an opinion which was very clear from them
despite what you have said.
Caroline Flint: Yes. That has
been a view that has been expressed but there is also a view not
to do anything at all by a number of sections of the industry
who would just like a voluntary ban. You will know from the British
hospitality industry that they are in favour of a total ban, a
different view from the Beer & Pubs Association. Again, as
I said earlier, there is certainly a unity position on the issue
of the private members' clubs. None of this is necessarily in
and of itself straightforward. We have to make a decision and
I am afraid, sometimes, we can please some of the people some
of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Q603 Dr Naysmith: I am
just raising it in terms of the need for clarity.
Caroline Flint: Our endeavour
here is to make it as clear as it possibly can be. I think we
can work through this. I do not think, based on what other countries
have done, who have had differences in approach, particularly
to the licensed sector, that that is insurmountable.
Q604 Chairman: Minister,
I said last week when we were taking evidence from the hospitality
sector about 30 years ago when I started drinking—I was
actually ten years out, it was 40 years ago when I started drinking—by
and large pubs were where men went to drink and I started my apprenticeship
in this area in some pubs in your own constituency which you represent
now. The one thing I said to them was the culture of public houses
has changed dramatically, not in every public house but in communities
like ours that we represent, and the change by and large has been
on the issue of food. You see more families in there. The great
danger that I see is if there was a situation where they had to
get out of food so they could keep smoking, then it may change
that culture. I know the Government have said that they want to
review this position that they are going to put to the House at
some stage in three years' time, but is there not a great danger
that the change of culture, if it did reverse in three years'
time, would be too late to try and save it, in the sense that
people will have disinvested out of pubs with meals and family
rooms in because they want to stay in business?
Caroline Flint: I think it is
really interesting, is it not, that there has been such a shift.
I am the granddaughter of a publican so I have spent quite a bit
of my time in pubs over the years in one way or another. What
I have seen is quite a big shift in terms of food being more and
more part of the atmosphere of a pub and also family-orientated
to get more women to come into pubs too. Personally I cannot see
that in and of itself would change dramatically because there
is a customer group there that if you are not providing the food
in that sort of atmosphere is not going to come any more. Some
pubs are going to make some choices here about what is important:
a growing market or going back to a limited market that they had
in the past. I think consumer choice here is an important driver
for businesses and that is why public opinion amongst smokers
and non-smokers was very strongly in terms of restrictions where
food was present. We are not just talking about customers who
do not smoke here, we are talking about smokers who, when they
go out and want to have a drink and something to eat want to do
that in a smoke-free environment. I do not think it is clear that
there would be that huge shift in terms of the public. The other
aspect of all of this, of course, is that as a result of our proposals
there will be more smoke-free licensed premises and there could,
therefore, be a growing market for people who currently do not
like to go out, who are buying their drink from the supermarket
and decide to stay at home but who may feel "I feel there
is more choice for me to go out and have a drink now in a convivial
atmosphere" in a way that they do not at the moment because
they have not got the smoke-free choice in Doncaster or elsewhere.
Q605 Chairman: I agree
entirely with that but that would be greatly enhanced if there
was a comprehensive ban and not one that we think the Government
are going to give. In this three-year review that the Secretary
of State has talked about, are you planning to put in any evaluation
strategy so you can monitor what the implementation of this part-ban
is as opposed to any movement that we have in public health because
of it?
Caroline Flint: Yes, I think we
need to do that. In the same way as we have been able to be informed
by changes already which have happened in terms of the evaluation
that we do, for example, of smoking cessation courses and all
of that, I think we will be looking to not only monitor but look
at how we can evaluate how successful the policy has been. I think
we have to work through just how we do that though.
Q606 Chairman: You do
not have anything on paper in terms of evaluation strategy at
this stage?
Caroline Flint: Not at this stage,
no, it is something we will be looking at to see how we will address
it. Obviously the industry will be able to provide some of its
own evaluation because they will look at market trends and issues
of pubs and what have you. It is interesting because what we have
to try and find is where issues can be linked to the policy and
where issues are about a different trend in terms of what is happening
in drinking. Clearly we have some issues at the moment in terms
of the licensing legislation which in and of itself could potentially
lead to some licensed premises being shut down. We have to think
about how we can measure this in a real way, bearing in mind all
those other factors that are happening at the moment in terms
of alcohol licensed establishments.
Q607 Mr Amess: I think
this may be the last question. The point made to us very, very
firmly in Dublin was that the key to the success of this policy
and these changes was very much strong and determined political
leadership. Some of us feel that it was not really the best start
when it became public knowledge that the previous Secretary of
State for Health had a very different view to the present Secretary
of State for Health because it was not like two Cabinet Ministers
disagreeing, it was on a particular area for which they both had
responsibility. Do you think the Government is giving strong and
determined leadership on this matter?
Caroline Flint: I think we are
in the sense that, first of all, the Choosing Health White
Paper, which is where this discussion stemmed from originally,
is the first time in a comprehensive way, not just in terms of
smoking but other public health concerns and priorities, has had
the public airing that it really deserves. I have to say, in terms
of the outcomes of Choosing Health, there is a huge range
of activities underway to make sure we deliver. Of course, I think
by placing in our manifesto our clear intention, which was discussed
through our own policy forums, that again showed leadership. As
far as I understand, your own party is in favour of just supporting
voluntary measures in this area. In terms of a political choice,
I think people had a very clear political choice between voluntary
measures or something which was going, in effect, to bring legislation
in to create the proposals that we have got. I think that is strong
leadership. What I would say is clearly there were some differences
about how far we might go and, in many respects, which reflected
some of the debates I have heard on radio and people have had
outside of Parliament. The important issue here is that there
has been collective discussion and decision, and we will bring
in radical proposals in England that will, in a very real way,
change the debate on smoking from one of just voluntary measures
to one which has the force of the law.
Chairman: Minister, and Mr Adkin, thank
you very much indeed for coming. I am sorry that the session has
gone on but you can imagine when we have multi-witnesses like
this we do tend to get slippage in the timetable. Thank you very
much indeed for coming along and assisting us with our inquiry.
|
