As reported by the new-look Freedom2Choose.info website.
Since there is a legal dispute as to the competence of the Scottish Parliament on minimum pricing that will take years to sort out, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association would do well to focus its efforts in supporting our call for a review of the smoking ban. Paul Waterson and the Association clearly recognise the impact of the smoking ban on the hospitality trade.
Reviewing, and amending, the smoking ban is clearly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Showing posts with label Scottish Licensed Trade Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scottish Licensed Trade Association. Show all posts
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Bar closures heavier in cities
A report out today by CR Consulting shows the bar closures throughout the UK, and concludes that contrary to expectation urban pubs have suffered more than rural and suburban ones. The populations affected are younger with larger concentrations of smokers. The report also shows how closures have accelerated since the smoking bans in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. Data shown for all regions of the United Kingdom.
Comment from Forest and Scottish Licensed Trade Association here.
Comment from Forest and Scottish Licensed Trade Association here.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Spanish campaigners and others seek to follow example of Netherlands tobacco policy
Translated by Google, read this Spanish blog post. Beginning with the withdrawal of Dutch public funding from mass smoking cessation campaigns, the piece goes on to discuss the smoking ban itself.
As Scotland's licensed trade has requested, as a campaign orchestrated by Forest at Westminster will put forward at a meeting on 29 June (follow the link for information and to register for attendance).
Edith Schippers is the Minister of Health, which reversed the ban on smoking in the Dutch hotel, with reasoning also flawless. If you smoke in hospitality venues in defense of labor rights of workers, provided that the establishment does not have employees, must be owner's decision whether to smoke or not smoke inside. We want the same for Spain.Pointing out that the WD party in the Netherlands gained electoral support on the smoking ban issue, the article points out that what the Netherlands can do, Spain can also do. As Nevada has done in its own way.
As Scotland's licensed trade has requested, as a campaign orchestrated by Forest at Westminster will put forward at a meeting on 29 June (follow the link for information and to register for attendance).
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Too little too late: Duffy answers Waterson
The response, when it came, was barely audible. Sheila Duffy's retaliation to Paul Waterson's suggestion that perhaps we should review the smoking ban came five days later, and somewhat tepidly reiterating the same tired points that we have been hearing for years now.
The smoking ban reduced heart attack admissions by 17 per cent in the year following implementation. Except they didn't, as was blindingly obvious from the moment Jill Pell's study was announced to the world (nine months before the actual study was published).
Asthma attacks in children declined by 18 per cent (the smoking ban did not affect child venues) – this was not true either.
Duffy also remarks on the state of the hospitality sector, remarking that it has not suffered overall. However, certain sections have suffered, namely pubs, clubs and bingo halls. The licensed trade association would not be calling for a review if its members were not suffering.
Duffy finally asks 'who would compromise or roll back on these health gains'? The problem has been that she and her like have lost much credibility over these supposed health gains. Consider ASH Scotland's next project: extending the smoking ban to prisons and mental institutions and intervening to stop people from smoking with children at home. It's the issue of children that exposes the poverty of the secondary smoking claims. It is an article of faith among anti-smoking activists that smoking bans do not increase children's exposure to secondary smoke. But the smoking ban inevitably involved at least the risk to children of considerably more exposure to secondary smoke. Since the strategy was denormalising smoking, the politically acceptable route was to prohibit smoking in public places and then conduct a very thorough 're-education' to persuade parents not to smoke at home. (Coming soon to a town near you.) It might have been more credible simply to have made some very strong statements about secondary smoke to encourage parents to smoke away from home, but left adult venues alone, with perhaps some encouragement to use extraction systems. That would have both reinforced smoking as an adult activity and protected children further from exposure to smoke – but of course would not have 'denormalised' smoking or made smokers an object of public vilification.
As a rebuttal of Paul Waterson's piece, Sheila Duffy's fails: Mr Waterson's is better researched and more reasonable. I would not agree with his recommendation of separate smoking rooms, unless he wants bars hit with rules from licensing boards about when staff may enter specific rooms in pub premises. An indoor air quality standard and extraction systems could do the job, clear the air of all the stale air as well as the smoke, and open up pubs for business to their core punters again.
The smoking ban reduced heart attack admissions by 17 per cent in the year following implementation. Except they didn't, as was blindingly obvious from the moment Jill Pell's study was announced to the world (nine months before the actual study was published).
Asthma attacks in children declined by 18 per cent (the smoking ban did not affect child venues) – this was not true either.
Duffy also remarks on the state of the hospitality sector, remarking that it has not suffered overall. However, certain sections have suffered, namely pubs, clubs and bingo halls. The licensed trade association would not be calling for a review if its members were not suffering.
Duffy finally asks 'who would compromise or roll back on these health gains'? The problem has been that she and her like have lost much credibility over these supposed health gains. Consider ASH Scotland's next project: extending the smoking ban to prisons and mental institutions and intervening to stop people from smoking with children at home. It's the issue of children that exposes the poverty of the secondary smoking claims. It is an article of faith among anti-smoking activists that smoking bans do not increase children's exposure to secondary smoke. But the smoking ban inevitably involved at least the risk to children of considerably more exposure to secondary smoke. Since the strategy was denormalising smoking, the politically acceptable route was to prohibit smoking in public places and then conduct a very thorough 're-education' to persuade parents not to smoke at home. (Coming soon to a town near you.) It might have been more credible simply to have made some very strong statements about secondary smoke to encourage parents to smoke away from home, but left adult venues alone, with perhaps some encouragement to use extraction systems. That would have both reinforced smoking as an adult activity and protected children further from exposure to smoke – but of course would not have 'denormalised' smoking or made smokers an object of public vilification.
As a rebuttal of Paul Waterson's piece, Sheila Duffy's fails: Mr Waterson's is better researched and more reasonable. I would not agree with his recommendation of separate smoking rooms, unless he wants bars hit with rules from licensing boards about when staff may enter specific rooms in pub premises. An indoor air quality standard and extraction systems could do the job, clear the air of all the stale air as well as the smoke, and open up pubs for business to their core punters again.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Licensees are quitting, not smokers, says SLTA
Today Paul Waterson has bid for another look at the smoking ban. He begins:
Mr Waterson's piece goes on to explain how the smoking ban as enacted in Scotland has failed to catch on in Europe, pointing out that the better the weather, the laxer the enforcement tends to be. In terms of trade, bars are closing at four times the rate that they closed before the smoking ban came in. The losses have amounted, he says, to one-eighth of Scotland's pubs.
Comparing this to the smoking cessation rate in Scotland is an interesting move. Although the ban was not introduced (ostensibly) to prevent people from smoking, it's clear that the alleged damage from secondary smoke won't decline in the long term unless the smoking rate declines as well. And Mr Waterson has good reason to draw attention to the poor long-term success rate of smoking cessation interventions by the NHS. The latest official report (summary here) gives this paragraph:
Mr Waterson speaks of moderate amendments, the old days having gone forever, and so on. Whatever. As long as government dominates the discussion of what should be allowed the trade will need to grow teeth before it will make any impact – if my reading of the current Scottish Government's agenda is accurate. Begging the government to increase drinks prices to ridiculous heights will not help the drinks industry and will not help the licensed trade either. To quote at second hand from here:
The licensed trade and its associates and rivals need to consider their strategy very carefully. But it's good to see that the smoking ban is at last getting some of the attention it deserves.
Five years ago our pubs were generally full of life, had a great atmosphere and were just about holding their own against vicious price competition from the supermarkets.A promising start. We knew that the supermarket prices had always been a problem, but it was a problem that broke the surface only when the smoking ban had sent away a good number of traditional pub customers.
Mr Waterson's piece goes on to explain how the smoking ban as enacted in Scotland has failed to catch on in Europe, pointing out that the better the weather, the laxer the enforcement tends to be. In terms of trade, bars are closing at four times the rate that they closed before the smoking ban came in. The losses have amounted, he says, to one-eighth of Scotland's pubs.
Comparing this to the smoking cessation rate in Scotland is an interesting move. Although the ban was not introduced (ostensibly) to prevent people from smoking, it's clear that the alleged damage from secondary smoke won't decline in the long term unless the smoking rate declines as well. And Mr Waterson has good reason to draw attention to the poor long-term success rate of smoking cessation interventions by the NHS. The latest official report (summary here) gives this paragraph:
Quit outcomes based on client follow-up at 12 months after the quit date use data for the 2009 calendar year (12 month outcomes for the full 2010 calendar year are not yet available). Based on data for 2009, the quit rate at 12 months was 7% with 68% of cases 'lost to follow-up'/smoking status unknown by this stage.A 7 per cent quit rate at 12 months (that's 7 per cent of the 7.4 per cent of smokers that even tried to give up) seems rather bleak from where I am sitting. Sheila Duffy does her best to sound optimistic but this is all she can manage:
While giving up smoking can be difficult for some, it is encouraging to see that at least 39% of those who attended stop smoking services in 2010 remained quit a month later. [emphasis added]
Surely anyone wanting to give up would like a fair idea of their chances after the first few weeks of intensive support. Failure to give any information after four weeks doesn't look promising. A rough ballpark figure suggests that from one year to the next, 93 per cent of the smoking population carries on smoking, plus 92 per cent of the remaining 7 per cent who have tried to quit, plus any youngsters who have taken up the habit and minus any smokers who have died. It gives Paul Waterson good grounds for saying that the impact of the smoking ban has been far greater on licensees and their establishments than it has on the smoking rate.
Mr Waterson speaks of moderate amendments, the old days having gone forever, and so on. Whatever. As long as government dominates the discussion of what should be allowed the trade will need to grow teeth before it will make any impact – if my reading of the current Scottish Government's agenda is accurate. Begging the government to increase drinks prices to ridiculous heights will not help the drinks industry and will not help the licensed trade either. To quote at second hand from here:
The hospitality industry lobbies for more restrictions on supermarket-bought alcohol to boost sales in bars; small brewers push for more punitive tax rates on big brewers... the only winners are the healthists who get support bit by bit for more regulations on everything. It's like a bunch of folks on the scaffolds complaining that the other guy's noose isn't quite tight enough. Y'all might instead direct your attention to the hangman sometime and try helping each other cut those ropes.Things could get more ridiculous yet, as some health expert (not in Scotland thankfully) has said the drinking age should be raised to 24. Raising any legal purchasing age so far beyond the age of majority would not, I suspect, go down well with young people in this country. But some people will enjoy flying this kind of kite.
The licensed trade and its associates and rivals need to consider their strategy very carefully. But it's good to see that the smoking ban is at last getting some of the attention it deserves.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Scots licensed trade seek smoking ban review
Two weeks ago a meeting took place in Edinburgh between licensees from Scotland and counterparts from the Netherlands and Croatia. As described here, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association seeks amendments to the ban to allow indoor smoking to take place in specific circumstances.
The leader of the Scottish Beer & Pub Association, another trade body, on the other hand, observes politely that tobacco restrictions are going to increase rather than decrease under the new administration ... but hey, let's go with the flow!
With opponents like this in the picture, it seems unlikely that such polite requests will be heeded. The official anti-smoking position (from the World Health Organisation) is that no amount of ventilation will work. Unless the SLTA is firing off more powerful cylinders in private than it appears to be doing in public (and I really hope that they are), I might ask why anyone from Croatia or Holland was invited to speak to licensees. These countries operate under systems that allow smoking, and they have had to fight their corner in order to permit smoking on their premises.He said: “No-one wants to go back to the old ways of smoke-filled pubs and people coming out of pubs smelling of smoke, but I think it is appropriate to see if there is a way we can be sympathetic to everyone.“This might be through a certain amount of ventilation, and by allowing only certain types of operations to allow smoking. There are some smaller operators that don’t have an outdoor area and can’t do food and are one step away from closure."
The leader of the Scottish Beer & Pub Association, another trade body, on the other hand, observes politely that tobacco restrictions are going to increase rather than decrease under the new administration ... but hey, let's go with the flow!
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
SLTA invites Dutch and Croats to reconsider smoking ban
The Scottish Licensed Trade Association has invited licensees from countries where the smoking rules are more relaxed – the Netherlands, Croatia and Hungary – to a meeting with Scottish licensees in order to explore possibilities of relaxing the ban.
At a time when the world awaits an avalanche of outdoor smoking bans (following New York) and apartment bans (following Australia), perhaps the last thing anyone expected was for the Scottish licensed trade to announce that smoking bans in pubs are not needed! This is not in fact what the SLTA is saying to the press – they are looking for 'some accommodation', not a return to the old days.
Good luck to them. Bringing Scottish licensees face-to-face with their counterparts who have fought successfully against restrictions in other countries is an inspired move, and we hope it will restore some confidence to our licensed trade.
In the mean time, the Scottish licensed trade and all hospital managers should know that there is a European Air Quality Standard, EN 13779, that deals with non-residential human occupancy and discusses tobacco smoke as just one of a range of conditions in buildings that must be dealt with. This documented is dated 2007, so it has been known for some time that tobacco smoke is reckoned to be a problem capable of resolution. There never has been a need for a smoking ban, and the whole of Europe should know it by now.
At a time when the world awaits an avalanche of outdoor smoking bans (following New York) and apartment bans (following Australia), perhaps the last thing anyone expected was for the Scottish licensed trade to announce that smoking bans in pubs are not needed! This is not in fact what the SLTA is saying to the press – they are looking for 'some accommodation', not a return to the old days.
Good luck to them. Bringing Scottish licensees face-to-face with their counterparts who have fought successfully against restrictions in other countries is an inspired move, and we hope it will restore some confidence to our licensed trade.
In the mean time, the Scottish licensed trade and all hospital managers should know that there is a European Air Quality Standard, EN 13779, that deals with non-residential human occupancy and discusses tobacco smoke as just one of a range of conditions in buildings that must be dealt with. This documented is dated 2007, so it has been known for some time that tobacco smoke is reckoned to be a problem capable of resolution. There never has been a need for a smoking ban, and the whole of Europe should know it by now.
Monday, 9 May 2011
The vested interests of (ahem) tobacco companies, and private meetings
This month Ms Duffy blogs on the Guardian's revelations that tobacco industry funding had assisted newsagents in their campaign against the display ban, covered in a story here just over a week ago.
ASH Scotland's concern with tobacco industry 'vested interests' is natural. Any industry has 'vested interests' in public policy debates that affect its products. Less wholesome are 'competing interests', especially in the field of tobacco control: this is where a lobbying group claims they are acting in the public interest, even though private interests benefit from their lobbying activities. Even the British Medical Journal published a note of concern about this issue.
Ms Duffy also refers to a meeting that was 'publicised' by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, where 'retrograde moves' and 'backwards looking, expensive and unworkable' proposals were discussed – the whole thing financed by tobacco companies. Simon Clark has quite rightly pointed out that not only was the meeting private, but also funding it was a matter of necessity. Publicly funded Ms Duffy with no anxieties about her next meal (cool salary offered here, and it's not even the top job) huffs about tobacco money going to fund private trade meetings on topics vital to their commercial survival.
Interesting that with this kind of track record, pharmaceutical companies – the ones who feed the tobacco control industry – are regulated with such a light touch in Scotland. Incoming MSPs take note.
ASH Scotland's concern with tobacco industry 'vested interests' is natural. Any industry has 'vested interests' in public policy debates that affect its products. Less wholesome are 'competing interests', especially in the field of tobacco control: this is where a lobbying group claims they are acting in the public interest, even though private interests benefit from their lobbying activities. Even the British Medical Journal published a note of concern about this issue.
Ms Duffy also refers to a meeting that was 'publicised' by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, where 'retrograde moves' and 'backwards looking, expensive and unworkable' proposals were discussed – the whole thing financed by tobacco companies. Simon Clark has quite rightly pointed out that not only was the meeting private, but also funding it was a matter of necessity. Publicly funded Ms Duffy with no anxieties about her next meal (cool salary offered here, and it's not even the top job) huffs about tobacco money going to fund private trade meetings on topics vital to their commercial survival.
Interesting that with this kind of track record, pharmaceutical companies – the ones who feed the tobacco control industry – are regulated with such a light touch in Scotland. Incoming MSPs take note.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Work together, says Scottish Coalition on Tobacco
Work together to improve tobacco control in Scotland. This is the message of Sheila Duffy, speaking as Chair of the Scottish Coalition On Tobacco, which includes the following organisations:
Perhaps they have succeeded in convincing enough of the public that something must be done about Scottish health, whether under-age smoking, drinking, anti-social behaviour. But it doesn't stop at something, either with tobacco or alcohol. Australia has graduated to a general state of threatening to stop people from smoking in their own homes. Meanwhile Alcohol Focus Scotland, following the strategy of ASH Scotland, excludes the drinks industry from alcohol policy discussions.
It's disappointing that the licensed trade can't find its way to cooperating as effectively as the alliance that's fighting it. Disappointing but not surprising, because the alliance of professional associations and well-heeled charities is naturally in a far stronger bargaining position than those in the market place whose survival depends on sympathetic policies.
The picture illustrating 'Level the playing field' aptly shows the slope in the playing field sloping sideways and not offering advantage to pubs, clubs or supermarkets. Yet the Scottish Licensed Trade Association's campaign of the same name seeks to remove any advantages of clubs in relation to licensing laws, and the ability of supermarkets to sell cheap booze.
The difficulties faced by licensed premises of all kinds relate to official attitudes and policies relating to drink, the beer tie, drink and driving and all manner of other issues. The smoking ban, however, has allowed official policy to dictate the pub's customer base, and interfered terribly with what happens in private clubs. It's hard to see anything more fundamental to the success and confidence of the pubs and clubs as autonomous institutions welcoming whoever came through the door.
Pubs, supermarkets and clubs used to serve different markets. The smoking ban has done much to increase direct competition between pubs and supermarkets for the same market – most pubs can't offer nearly the same advantages in terms of social experience to their erstwhile customer base, the smokers, nor can they compete with supermarkets on price. This has made pubs feel more keenly any apparent preferential treatment that clubs get in their licensing arrangements.
Unlike those worthies (above) who find it relatively easy to cooperate with each other to further the honourable agenda of denormalising smoking, drinking and who knows what next, the traders in the market place are still treating each other (publicly at any rate) as their biggest threat. Of course there are issues but surely if nothing else they could unite to fight the powers that unite to stop them trading effectively.
They're doing it in Spain.
ASH Scotland, British Heart Foundation Scotland, British Lung Foundation Scotland, British Medical Association, Cancer Research UK, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, Macmillan Cancer Support, Royal College of Nursing, The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Royal College of Psychiatrists, The Stroke Association, and the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland.And furthermore:
The coalition provides a platform to share view with other organisations and with policy makers as it works closely with the Scottish Government, NHS Health Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament's Cross Party Group on Tobacco Control. Its collective approach means that SCOT has become an influential and respected voice in public health, with the secretariat being provided by ASH Scotland, the leading charity campaigning for effective tobacco control in Scotland.These people have got cooperation off to a fine art. On the issue of tobacco control they have succeeded in pushing legislation through Holyrood with eye-watering majorities (both the tobacco display ban and the smoking ban itself were opposed by fewer than twenty MSPs each).
Perhaps they have succeeded in convincing enough of the public that something must be done about Scottish health, whether under-age smoking, drinking, anti-social behaviour. But it doesn't stop at something, either with tobacco or alcohol. Australia has graduated to a general state of threatening to stop people from smoking in their own homes. Meanwhile Alcohol Focus Scotland, following the strategy of ASH Scotland, excludes the drinks industry from alcohol policy discussions.
It's disappointing that the licensed trade can't find its way to cooperating as effectively as the alliance that's fighting it. Disappointing but not surprising, because the alliance of professional associations and well-heeled charities is naturally in a far stronger bargaining position than those in the market place whose survival depends on sympathetic policies.
The picture illustrating 'Level the playing field' aptly shows the slope in the playing field sloping sideways and not offering advantage to pubs, clubs or supermarkets. Yet the Scottish Licensed Trade Association's campaign of the same name seeks to remove any advantages of clubs in relation to licensing laws, and the ability of supermarkets to sell cheap booze.
The difficulties faced by licensed premises of all kinds relate to official attitudes and policies relating to drink, the beer tie, drink and driving and all manner of other issues. The smoking ban, however, has allowed official policy to dictate the pub's customer base, and interfered terribly with what happens in private clubs. It's hard to see anything more fundamental to the success and confidence of the pubs and clubs as autonomous institutions welcoming whoever came through the door.Pubs, supermarkets and clubs used to serve different markets. The smoking ban has done much to increase direct competition between pubs and supermarkets for the same market – most pubs can't offer nearly the same advantages in terms of social experience to their erstwhile customer base, the smokers, nor can they compete with supermarkets on price. This has made pubs feel more keenly any apparent preferential treatment that clubs get in their licensing arrangements.
Unlike those worthies (above) who find it relatively easy to cooperate with each other to further the honourable agenda of denormalising smoking, drinking and who knows what next, the traders in the market place are still treating each other (publicly at any rate) as their biggest threat. Of course there are issues but surely if nothing else they could unite to fight the powers that unite to stop them trading effectively.
They're doing it in Spain.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Duffy celebrates smoking ban in Scotland
The fifth anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland falls tomorrow. ASH Scotland celebrates, even if 'she' has to rely on Jill Pell's accounts of drops in heart attack admissions and childhood asthma. Sheila Duffy looks forward to more of the same after the Scottish elections in order to protect children from second hand smoke exposure in the home. As usual, no comments are allowed on the ASH Scotland blog, but you can of course comment here and on Taking Liberties, linked below.
More on the campaign undertaken by Forest and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association here. Much of Europe allows limited smoking in bars, and their campaign is to bring Scotland into line with this. (I would love to see the line-up of Scottish parliamentarians that would act on this, but I won't hold my breath.)
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Denormalisation of drinkers and the alcohol trade?
Published on the same page, from Eddie Douthwaite (Freedom to Choose (Scotland)), comes a letter challenging the Scottish Government that will take office following May's General Election. Will such a government willingly accept the conclusions from a summit that has excluded people with an informed input? What of delegates attending the summit? will they voice any disapproval that the trade has been sidelined? (or will they be so relieved to be 'in the club' that they will agree that it's in the nation's best interests to leave the industry out of the reckoning?)
Will parties generally adopt the idea that only public health personnel should contribute to public health policy? We have already learned from Richard Simpson MSP that Labour (if elected) will engage with the alcohol industry in accordance with WHO guidance. But Duffy and Gillan tell us that according to the World Health Organisation: “interaction with the alcohol industry should be in the context of their role as producers, distributors and marketers of alcohol, not in terms of alcohol policy development or health promotion”. So perhaps Labour will gladly swallow the results of this summit.
Whatever Richard Simpson's views on alcohol, David Nutt outdoes him by miles. On the other hand Vivienne Nathanson of the BMA wants to denormalise alcohol by ensuring that it is not displayed next to food. But in this respect Scotland has the edge, as it already restricts the displays of alcohol in shops to a single aisle. (Says Gavin Partington of the WSTA: "Far from demonising alcohol, surely we should encourage people to drink with food," but no one listens because he is employed by the demon drink trade association.)
Five years after the smoking ban was introduced, life doesn't look much brighter for the licensed trade in Scotland. In October, they face the removal of tobacco vending machines and (what concerns them more) the introduction of a mandatory Challenge 25 policy, meaning that staff will feel their jobs are on the line if they don't ID anyone who doesn't 'look 25'. What does a 25-year-old look like? Someone of 24 can be approaching junior management levels and over in some jobs. They might have children at home up to four or five years old, and they might have completed a few tours of duty in the army. In terms of physical maturity they have as much in common with a 17-year-old as someone of six years old has with someone of 3. Whatever the purpose of Challenge 25 (especially as a condition of licensing), it is unlikely to present an obstacle to 14- to 17-year-olds who want to drink. The only thing it is likely to achieve is the alienation of customers. Challenge 21 should provide enough margin of error in most venues. Parliamentary deliberations in November 2010 did not question whether this policy would stop underage sales, but seemed to take it for granted that any deleterious effect on the licensed trade was no bad thing in the long run. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association Chief Executive rightly condemns this useless form of identification:
Waterson branded Challenge 25 a "joke" for pubs. "There's absolutely no reason for pubs to be running Challenge 25," he said.I can't see a reason either.
There are too many factions here, however: the licensed trade can be picked apart by governments and by lobby groups (ASH Scotland and Alcohol Focus Scotland) with restrictive agendas and money to burn on divide and rule tactics. Everyone in the community should demand full participation in any publicly funded policy summit, because in the end we all contribute to the cost of these events, and the people that run them are our servants and not our masters or managers.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Scottish call for relaxation of smoking ban
Scottish licensed trade representatives have joined the call for a reversal of the Scottish smoking ban – the article includes a contribution from Eddie Douthwaite of Freedom to Choose (Scotland).
I don't go along with the call for a licensing system for allowing smoking personally. As a non-smoker it never bothered me to have smoke about and I don't know that it's one of the things that councils should be trying to make money from. Allowing smoking in licensed premises makes for a bit less mess in the streets and that's one saving before they even start charging licence fees. But it's good to see that the Scottish Licensed Trade Association has identified air quality as the pertinent issue, and air cleaning equipment as the solution. 'Ventilation works in industrial situations where the air needs to be clean,' says Paul Waterson (SLTA chairman). 'Why can't it work in pubs?' This would mean redeploying council staff from the unsavoury duty of prosecuting their friends in the community for smoking-related offences, to that of assisting licensees in keeping the air clean, not only of smoke but of any other airborne toxins – recommending appropriate air cleaning equipment, ensuring that filters get cleaned out and replaced when needed. They're environmental officers, aren't they?
The Press and Journal's editorial on this issue is feebly written and muddled. 'Unsightly huddles of smokers... are a poor byproduct of the ban,' it says, adding that this is 'outweighed' by protection from secondary smoke. Having just pointed out that ventilation equipment has been put forward as a solution to this issue, it fails to explain why such equipment will not work. It would seem that even if we live in the space age and the nuclear age, we still need to have smokers outdoors because air cleaning equipment doesn't work. I don't like what this says about our priorities. This line of argument also suggests that the leader writer of the Press and Journal lacks vision. What kind of leader writer defends a government for trying to saving face rather than admit they got the answer wrong?
The leader then goes on to say that 'mixed messages' would be sent out by revising the ban, and that it would 'seem inconsistent' to revise the ban after recently applauding it. Sorry to say, but this kind of excuse comes of consulting only one side of the issue seriously. Sheila Duffy, quoted in the Press and Journal news story (first link) has claimed health benefits from the ban, such as heart attacks (no time to link to these stories at present but you know the ones I mean), finding less evidence of smoke in bar staff's breath after the ban than before it, finding bar staff sneezing less in June 2006 than March 2006. This kind of 'evidence' will be relied on to 'prove' how helpful the smoking ban is. ASH Scotland seems to be the only authority the Scottish Government (and much of the press) recognises on smoking issues.
It is hard to imagine the Scottish Government doing any research into what kind of air management system will remove smoke particles from the air, or listening to anyone who has done such research. As the Press and Journal editorial points out (although weakly), such an approach would do little to support the denormalisation of smoking (it would 'send out mixed messages'), and that is why the Scottish Government is against it.
I don't go along with the call for a licensing system for allowing smoking personally. As a non-smoker it never bothered me to have smoke about and I don't know that it's one of the things that councils should be trying to make money from. Allowing smoking in licensed premises makes for a bit less mess in the streets and that's one saving before they even start charging licence fees. But it's good to see that the Scottish Licensed Trade Association has identified air quality as the pertinent issue, and air cleaning equipment as the solution. 'Ventilation works in industrial situations where the air needs to be clean,' says Paul Waterson (SLTA chairman). 'Why can't it work in pubs?' This would mean redeploying council staff from the unsavoury duty of prosecuting their friends in the community for smoking-related offences, to that of assisting licensees in keeping the air clean, not only of smoke but of any other airborne toxins – recommending appropriate air cleaning equipment, ensuring that filters get cleaned out and replaced when needed. They're environmental officers, aren't they?
The Press and Journal's editorial on this issue is feebly written and muddled. 'Unsightly huddles of smokers... are a poor byproduct of the ban,' it says, adding that this is 'outweighed' by protection from secondary smoke. Having just pointed out that ventilation equipment has been put forward as a solution to this issue, it fails to explain why such equipment will not work. It would seem that even if we live in the space age and the nuclear age, we still need to have smokers outdoors because air cleaning equipment doesn't work. I don't like what this says about our priorities. This line of argument also suggests that the leader writer of the Press and Journal lacks vision. What kind of leader writer defends a government for trying to saving face rather than admit they got the answer wrong?
The leader then goes on to say that 'mixed messages' would be sent out by revising the ban, and that it would 'seem inconsistent' to revise the ban after recently applauding it. Sorry to say, but this kind of excuse comes of consulting only one side of the issue seriously. Sheila Duffy, quoted in the Press and Journal news story (first link) has claimed health benefits from the ban, such as heart attacks (no time to link to these stories at present but you know the ones I mean), finding less evidence of smoke in bar staff's breath after the ban than before it, finding bar staff sneezing less in June 2006 than March 2006. This kind of 'evidence' will be relied on to 'prove' how helpful the smoking ban is. ASH Scotland seems to be the only authority the Scottish Government (and much of the press) recognises on smoking issues.
It is hard to imagine the Scottish Government doing any research into what kind of air management system will remove smoke particles from the air, or listening to anyone who has done such research. As the Press and Journal editorial points out (although weakly), such an approach would do little to support the denormalisation of smoking (it would 'send out mixed messages'), and that is why the Scottish Government is against it.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Dutch ban for small pubs lifted again (what happened to Scotland?)
Dutch small bars are celebrating the lifting of a smoking ban that was first imposed in 2008. The ban still applies to any outlet that employs staff, but any enterprise in the hospitality sector without staff is free to allow smoking.
Since the ban was ostensibly imposed on the grounds of protecting staff, one-man operators fought it on the grounds that they had no staff needing protection. Partial success in the courts last year led to a temporary lifting of the ban on such operations, but these judgements were overturned and the ban became general once again, but it has never been effectively enforced. This week's change has come from a new Dutch government – only just formed several weeks after the general election on 9 June.
Dutch bar owners, apart from not enforcing the ban, have also made their feelings known in other ways. They are well organised, and in a sensible way: i.e. the small bars have banded together as they have had a specific campaign regarding the smoking ban.
What has happened in Scotland and the UK? Dominated by chains and breweries, the fight for licensees since the ban struck their pockets has focussed on tied licences and (happily for the government) supermarket prices. It is never easy to get the powers that be to admit that the licensed trade, rendered unfit for purpose to up to half its customers by the smoking ban, has suffered thereby. And since some venues have stood to gain at the expense of their smaller neighbours, the trade has itself been divided.
In reports on the recent study that demonstrated the damage done by the smoking ban (in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) the response from Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association is lukewarm if not downright disappointing. Here, he says that pubs have been hit by the smoking ban, but not what an absolute travesty the ban is, and he does not recommend a review.
Even before the ban became law, the SLTA's stance was conciliatory rather than defiant. They declared they had compromise proposals on the table. Regrettably this proves to have been too genteel an approach to the enemies that were pushing at the door. What kind of bargaining counter is a 'compromise proposal'? Now that the Scottish Government's anti-smoking agenda has proved anything but genteel, bodies like the Scottish Licensed Trade Association must grow teeth and defend their members' choice of customers be respected. How is it to any licensee's advantage to be forced to put customers outside?
Weil Maessen, who represents the Dutch small bar umbrella organisation KHO, reminds us that the fight is not over until the whole hospitality sector regains choice. Brilliant: not just defiant but intelligent and prepared to deploy strategy and keep fighting!
Since the ban was ostensibly imposed on the grounds of protecting staff, one-man operators fought it on the grounds that they had no staff needing protection. Partial success in the courts last year led to a temporary lifting of the ban on such operations, but these judgements were overturned and the ban became general once again, but it has never been effectively enforced. This week's change has come from a new Dutch government – only just formed several weeks after the general election on 9 June.
Dutch bar owners, apart from not enforcing the ban, have also made their feelings known in other ways. They are well organised, and in a sensible way: i.e. the small bars have banded together as they have had a specific campaign regarding the smoking ban.
What has happened in Scotland and the UK? Dominated by chains and breweries, the fight for licensees since the ban struck their pockets has focussed on tied licences and (happily for the government) supermarket prices. It is never easy to get the powers that be to admit that the licensed trade, rendered unfit for purpose to up to half its customers by the smoking ban, has suffered thereby. And since some venues have stood to gain at the expense of their smaller neighbours, the trade has itself been divided.
In reports on the recent study that demonstrated the damage done by the smoking ban (in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) the response from Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association is lukewarm if not downright disappointing. Here, he says that pubs have been hit by the smoking ban, but not what an absolute travesty the ban is, and he does not recommend a review.
Even before the ban became law, the SLTA's stance was conciliatory rather than defiant. They declared they had compromise proposals on the table. Regrettably this proves to have been too genteel an approach to the enemies that were pushing at the door. What kind of bargaining counter is a 'compromise proposal'? Now that the Scottish Government's anti-smoking agenda has proved anything but genteel, bodies like the Scottish Licensed Trade Association must grow teeth and defend their members' choice of customers be respected. How is it to any licensee's advantage to be forced to put customers outside?
Weil Maessen, who represents the Dutch small bar umbrella organisation KHO, reminds us that the fight is not over until the whole hospitality sector regains choice. Brilliant: not just defiant but intelligent and prepared to deploy strategy and keep fighting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)