New outdoor smoking rules will force ‘three pubs a week to close’: Three pubs a week will close in a blow to the industry if Sir Keir Starmer bans outdoor smoking, trade bosses have warned. Labour Party government leader Sir Keir is on a collision course with the hospitality industry and political opponents after signalling plans for major curbs on outdoor smoking. The Press Association said that analysis from the British Beer and Pub Association claimed a ban would see an extra 800 venues go to the wall in the next five years. The trade body says applying the 6.4% closure rate suffered after the 2007 indoor ban to Sir Keir’s proposals would see 2,900 pubs shut within five years compared to the projected 2,100. Sir Keir said: “My starting point on this is to remind everybody that over 80,000 people lose their lives every year because of smoking. Yes, we are going to take decisions in this space, more details will be revealed, but this is a preventable series of deaths and we’ve got to take action to reduce the burden on the NHS and the taxpayer.” Chris Jowsey, chief executive of Admiral Taverns, which runs more than 1,600 pubs, called it “ill-thought through”. Jowsey said: “It would also reduce footfall and revenue into pubs. A pub is the last community asset left standing in many communities. Anything that undermines their ability to survive and grow their business is a bad thing. What are we going to do? Will we have to employ people to patrol beer gardens to make sure nobody’s smoking? It seems a bit nuts.” Clive Watson, chairman of Inda Pub Group, who also founded City Pub Group, called the policy “a bonkers idea”. He said: “Surely, after all the pub industry has been through, we should be allowed a period of stability.” Sir Tim Martin, founder of JD Wetherspoon, was less critical of the policy from a business point of view, instead calling it a “libertarian issue”. He said Wetherspoon was the first pub group to open non-smoking pubs before the 2007 smoking ban, adding: “The rationale then was that non-smokers should be free to avoid passive smoking. That argument is diluted outside.” He added: “The question is whether the government should interfere in individual liberties, where danger is involved.”