Pete Robinson: Pub closures? All in your imagination, says ASH
First the good news. Apparently there have been no pub closures since the imposition of the smoking ban. In fact this industry has never had it so good, actually growing in numbers since that glorious day in July 2007 when we kicked out half the customers.
The bad news is this information comes from the taxpayer-funded fantasy factory known as ASH-UK, issued in an attempt to rubbish a recently published report concerning the disappearing British pub.
The report, compiled by CR Consulting, clearly demonstrates the smoking ban as "the main cause" of pub closures. Scotland, Wales and England have seen between 7.1 and 7.6 per cent of their pubs close due to the ban's imposition with even more pain due over the coming years.
Before we go on it's worth examining this report because it shouldn't be taken lightly. The data came directly from respected CGA Strategy, the leader in market intelligence for this industry.
CR Consulting's analysis revealed a striking correlation in the rate of closures in England, Scotland and Wales following their respective smoking bans.
Previously, the different start times of the ban have obscured the similarity of the decline across Britain, causing observers to blame other reasons for pubs closing - e.g. the recession, duty hikes, supermarket booze, the tie, etc.
Whilst these factors undoubtedly had some effect none relate to the differing timelines of pub closures in UK countries.
However having compared this with data from Ireland there was an almost total correlation between the three GB lines at corresponding periods after the ban, the common factor being the smoking ban itself.
"The correlation is in fact so close that the trend line for the three countries is identical", said CR Consulting director Oliver Griffiths. He blames the decline on the loss of sociability in pubs since smoking has been banned.
"With smokers being moved outside, the price premium [in pubs] can no longer be justified by many, so more people drink at home.
This has a cumulative effect — as fewer people use the pub it becomes less of a social draw."
But Amanda Sandford of ASH-UK said: "Despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence of overall harm to the licensed trade. In fact, alcohol on-sales licences increased by five per cent in the first year following the smoking ban."
"True, many traditional pubs have closed, but more licensed premises have opened in recent years that now sell food as well as alcohol," she added.
Amazingly Ms Sandford is trying to imply pub numbers have actually gone UP! That hokum about the 'five per cent increase'
in licences I'll deal with below. But to insist 'more licensed premises have opened in recent years' than have closed' makes my bowel go into violent spasm.
Do they really think we'll believe this, just because ASH says so? Well it certainly seems to work on journalists because they refuse to challenge such patently absurd misinformation.
In their recent press release ASH highlights four reasons why "returning to the bad old days of smoky pubs" would be a disastrous move:
(1) Recent research from the University of Bath shows how smokefree legislation has accelerated the reduction in heart attacks (a drop of 2.5% on top of the long term trend) and saved the NHS in England more than £8 million in the first year.
(2) With every passing year the smokefree law gets more and more popular and now commands the support of 80% of English adults with support growing fastest among smokers.
(3) In response to claims that the law has been bad for the licensed trade, government figures show the number of premises licensed for "on sales" actually increased by 5% the year England and Wales went smokefree.
(4) This is a law that has worked well and if anything we should be looking at ways to strengthen it.
Okay, I've done the decent thing and quoted verbatim from ASH's press release because I'm confident most of you will see it for what it is - pure, unadulterated bollocks.
But to save indignant protestations from the hard-of-thinking we'll also look a little closer at those four claims.
(i) - Point ONE I've already covered in a blog. ASH neglects to mention that the person who led this 'research', Dr Anna Gilmore, has been a Board & Council member of ASH since 2002.
In truth even her own research clearly demonstrates no effect on heart attack trends whatsoever but she chooses to conclude differently. Still, what do you expect when the result was bought and paid for by Nu-Labour using a quarter of a million pounds of YOUR money?
(ii) - Point TWO is a real gobsmacker. If 80% of English adults support the smoking ban why do they never grace our pubs? Support growing fastest among smokers? Come on puleeze...
And it's always 80%. Currently in Michigan USA local anti-smoking groups claim exactly the same level of support for a ban.
Australia, most of Europe, even parts of Africa all keep throwing up that 80% figure. Why?
A quick glance at ASH's footnotes provides a telling clue. It appears ASH's statistics were gathered in a series of obscure online surveys. My first experience of these came in 2006, shortly before the Commons voted for the blanket ban.
The 'yes or no' questions were worded in such a way it was virtually impossible NOT to support the ban - "Do you believe that smokers should be allowed to damage the health of children and others around them?" - Who's gonna say 'yes' to that?
This latest batch of contrived stats were being gathered for the smoking ban review, which ASH had intended would extend the ban to doorways, beer gardens and smoking shelters. Fortunately the incoming government had the good sense to shelve it.
(iii) - It's point THREE where we move into the realms of pure and deliberate con-artistry. You see ASH believes that you really can fool all of the people all of the time. And to be fair they have been getting away with it for a long time. They're very good at what they do.
Their tactic is to cherry-pick the odd statistic before presenting an illusion of what's happening as if it were the truth. Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes embedded in the public psyche as fact.
In this case they are quoting from Nu-Labour's DCMS Statistical Bulletin (Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing, England and Wales) April 2007 - March 2008.
Yes, you've already noticed the figures begin three months BEFORE the smoking ban even started. On the surface they do appear to show a 5% increase in premises licences issued. However the stats are only 'modeled estimates', i.e. fabricated, because the data was incomplete and further confused by merging authorities and the 'hangover' at that time from the new Licencing Act.
Business failures and closed pubs don't even appear in those figures. Neither does the dramatic fall in industry turnover, or the large numbers of pubs fighting tooth and nail for survival.
The document itself warns of "a degree of uncertainty" with these estimates, and they should only be used as a general guide. Of course ASH declines to mention any of this, or the fact that in the following year licences issued showed a marked decline, alongside club licences.
(iv) - Point FOUR is ASH's usual fall back position, the generic claim that the "law that has worked well".
Has it really? There have been no significantly recordable health gains whatsoever, many thousands of great pubs gone for good and this industry still facing "bleak times ahead", according to Price Waterhouse Cooper who quite rightly blame the smoking ban as a primary factor in the trade's woes.
ASH still cites the 'success' of Ireland's 2004 smoking ban. Yet since 2004 Irish smoking rates have soared from a quarter to a THIRD of the population, while today the Irish pub trade is well and truly in it's death throws. Whole swathes of the country are effectively 'dry' as pubs have been converted into flats, shops, even off-licences - anything but a pub.
