Criminals can smoke while smokers become criminals

JACK McConnell surprised everybody, including his own back-benchers, yesterday when he announced his plans to ban smoking in public places in Scotland.

A general ban had been widely expected, but the sweep of the proposals went far wider than even the pro-smoking lobby had dared hope for.

Smoking will be banned outright in all pubs, restaurants and public places. Private clubs, which had hoped to be excluded from the legislation, will have to conform to the draconian new rules.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The only indoor places left for smokers to enjoy tobacco, outside their own homes, will be in hotel bedrooms.

But it was not just in the scale of the ban that Mr McConnell went further than expected. The First Minister took the unprecedented step of announcing a plan to introduce fixed-penalty notices for smokers.

These will be fines of between 50 and 100 and will be enforced by public health officers who will be given permission to patrol the country, popping into pubs and clubs and criminalising anybody caught indulging in the now pariah-like habit of smoking.

Licensees will also be liable for fines of up to 2,600 and could lose their licences if they allow anyone to smoke on their premises.

These moves represent a significant escalation in the attacks on smokers compared with Ireland’s ban. The Irish government legislated for a 3,000 fine for smokers who flouted the law, but this was seen as the ultimate deterrent and was never expected to be used.

What Mr McConnell is doing by going for smaller, fixed-penalty fines is taking a much harsher, more aggressive approach and it is one that could backfire. The last thing he needs is for smokers to rebel, feeling pried upon by a bunch of officious enforcement officers - the smoking equivalent of parking’s "blue meanies".

The Irish government shrewdly placed most of the emphasis for enforcement on the licensees, not the smokers, but Mr McConnell has ignored this and targeted the individual.

The First Minister is not helped by the fact that there is still confusion over what the bill will actually mean.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The possible anomaly that criminals might be allowed to smoke in their cells was neatly captured by David McLetchie, the Tory leader, when he told MSPs: "Wouldn’t it be ironic if ... the criminals can be smokers but the smokers will become criminals?"

It is difficult to over-estimate the scale of what Mr McConnell is trying to achieve. He wants to bring to an end a habit which is as much a part of the fabric of Scotland as those staples of the Scottish diet: sugar, salt and alcohol.

Only 50 years ago, smoking was so widespread that most doctors not only smoked but some used to recommend cigarettes to patients with chest problems to "help clear their lungs in the morning".

What is at stake politically for the Labour Party is simply staggering.

First, there are the votes of the smokers. The majority of Labour voters come from the former industrial heartlands of west and central Scotland, most are middle-aged or pensioners and many of them smoke.

Mr McConnell has already been warned that a smoking ban represents "electoral suicide" for a Labour administration, but he has planned the timing carefully. The ban will be introduced at the end of March 2006, a year after the General Election and a full year before the Scottish election - a perfect time to offset an adverse reaction to the ban - but it is still difficult to assess what the electoral impact will be.

Then, there are the Labour clubs, also in the party’s heartlands. Many towns and villages across urban Scotland have Labour clubs where local residents gather to drink, socialise and raise money for the Labour Party.

Tens of thousands of pounds in party funding is at risk. Some party members will no longer donate to a party which has stopped them smoking, while others will simply stop going to the clubs.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There are also the potential legal problems, and they are substantial.

There are already mutterings that the Scottish Executive is acting beyond its powers, with employment issues such as health and safety reserved to Westminster. However, the Executive is entitled to legislate on health, and this is what it is doing, neatly encapsulating the whole issue into a public health bill which should be enough to see off this particular challenge.

The pro-smoking lobby will present a human rights argument, that individual freedoms should not be interfered with by the state unless absolutely necessary.

But many of these arguments have already been tried, and failed, in the cases raised by the Countryside Alliance against the fox-hunting ban.

Individual smokers might also argue that their right to smoke is being interfered with in an over-reaction by the state. But, again, the law is moving in the other direction.

The Executive is hoping that it has closed all the potential legal loopholes which might pave the way for a court challenge but it will not know for certain until the bill starts its passage through parliament.

What the First Minister is gambling on is that Scotland reacts to the smoking ban in the same way as Ireland.

Indeed, the Irish experience has shown that a total ban on smoking is enforceable, workable and can carry the support of the public.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Had Ireland not gone ahead with its ban, there is no doubt Mr McConnell would not have attempted something similar here. He has Ireland to thank for giving him the impetus to attempt something so radical. All he can do now is hope Scots react in the same way as their Celtic counterparts. If they don’t, both he and his party will be in serious trouble.

For years, the First Minister has suffered from a reputation of someone who lacks both vision and political courage. Yesterday, he showed both.

The big question which remains unanswered, however, is just how "courageous" (as Sir Humphrey would put it) his decision will prove to be.