How the smoking ban kills communities that cannot arrange an exemption (Cornwall and St Louis)

Several interesting snippets here:

Much more disturbing though, is the new culture of home alcoholics which is now way out of control. Still, out of sight, out of mind eh? When you went to the pub, you knew when you'd had enough.

And:

In my area alone, two village pubs have just closed, and another is in receivership. I'm aware of many others that have gone under, including working men's clubs throughout Cornwall. They are all the social hub for so many and a necessity to keep the community spirit that brings people together for numerous occasions.

Town establishments are also suffering big time. One place I work, also doubles as a coffee house by day for the shoppers. It's 700 cups down per week. And what of the ladies who liked a ciggy with their morning coffee? Another little luxury lost. Wading through crowds smoking outside on the pavement with cigarette ends everywhere, while avoiding traffic at the same time has become an art form. It's increasingly difficult for the entertainment industry with venues still closing at the ridiculous rate of 16 per week even after four years. I support non-smokers' rights to the hilt, but there is absolutely no need for this, with so many people suffering, including the enormous loss of jobs. The negatives are endless. It's all so absurd. 

And:

Publicans know they can cater for everyone with the return of the ashtray and would undoubtedly survive. They did before. Anyone with a miniscule of [truth, logic, compassion and common sense] could have achieved a harmonious conclusion. It's not rocket science to create a two-roomed pub to satisfy all punters, especially with today's technology. Ultimately, it should be the decision of the landlord, not the far-off voice of Big Brother.

Big Brother features as the cause of all the trouble in this article:

Implementing it is a different matter, especially since we've arrived at the point where the evil 1 per cent elite, are now telling their puppet governments to make laws regarding what the remaining 99 per cent can or cannot do on their own property.

This is not an interpretation of the smoking ban that I am familiar with, but it cannot be denied that the smoking ban is open to manipulation by powerful forces in society. The less powerful are expected to be grateful for the restrictions.

Powerful professional clubs in St Louis, Missouri, have proved able to ignore the ban with minimal fuss from prosecutors and it is now possible that they may get a legal exemption. Opponents and supporters of the ban disapprove for different reasons: opponents would prefer the smoking ban law to be fought as a whole, rather than certain establishments seeking exemptions for themelves; and of course ban supporters would prefer everybody to observe the ban.

So there is a model that undermines the notion of equality before the law: if you are a judge, attorney, politician or other 'man in a suit' with access to certain invitation-only venues in St Louis, you can smoke socially (even supposing you don't have the space to do it in a separate room at home). If you don't, then it's a lot harder (but even here there are more exemptions available than in the UK).

Social smoking should be an issue resolved by the people immediately affected (as the Cornwall article pointed out there is plenty of technology to assist with removing the worst effects of smoke). It should not be an issue resolved by the social and political clout you possess with local lawmakers.

New Statesman and Pete Robinson on pubs

The New Statesman discusses the plight of pubs. It discusses pubcos and then 'other challenges':

Demand is falling. Competition is increasing. Supermarkets are serving a new generation more interested in intoxication than conversation. With beer duty set to go up 10p a pint in the budget on top of VAT rises, there are worries that another wave of pubs will be pushed over edge, and free holders like the Railway are also at risk.

The smoking ban does not even merit mention as a minor contributing factor. Another article referred to in the text of this story does not mention the smoking ban either.

I leave it to Pete Robinson to explain that the smoking ban did enter the equation at some point. From his position with The Publican he was able to see the direction of travel very clearly. The trade was doing very well until mid-2007.

If the Publican was guilty of anything it was blind, unbridled optimism. It's as if there'd been so much good news to report over the previous few years it was unwilling to dwell on the bad.

And bad it was, arse-wipingly bad.

Towards the end of 2007 the industry was clearly in deep trouble. The 'New Breed' of non-smoking drinker had failed to materialise and the long exodus of the pub trade's life blood, its rank-and-file customers, was already underway. Pub insolvencies were already up 600%, a number that would TREBLE in the following year to EIGHTEEN TIMES former rates, while those prized industry shares were nosediving into the cellar. 

Yet at the time you'd never have guessed any of this by reading The Publican. The main consensus was how smoothly and successfully the ban had been implemented. Every 'industry ‘spokesman’ and his dog queued up to insist their business had been totally unaffected by the ban and each was reported in equal, laborious measure.

And The Publican failed to learn from history:

By 2008 the post-ban carnage could no longer be ignored. But as the rapidly plummeting trade stats settled into a terminal spiral of descent the Publican's editorial opinion switched to naively blaming 'bad' pubs which had been unable to evolve.

'Embrace' the smoking ban we were told. Just do food and everything will be okay. Up your game, open a library/post office/cinema in your pub. Set aside a lunchtime for expectant mothers or an evening for transvestite grandads.

Just offer 'excellence' then watch the customers come running.

How do you 'evolve' to a 33% to 80% drop in takings? Even if it were possible for the country to sustain 40-odd-thousand foodie pub-restaurants, for many it was madness to invest a fortune in pricey catering equipment when local competitors were offering £2.99 two-for-one deals.

In truth the customers we've lost don't want excellence. Most pubgoers couldn't give a toss about fine dining, health emporiums, creches, drop-in centres or gymnasiums. They simply want to be treated like adults. They want their old pubs back, warts an' all. 

The Publican magazine has now folded.  

Licensees are quitting, not smokers, says SLTA

Today Paul Waterson has bid for another look at the smoking ban.  He begins:

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.

Scottish Licensed Trade Association backs minimum price bid (wine for £10)

Yesterday's Scottish Daily Mail reported that the Scottish Licensed Trade Association has asked for a £1 minimum per unit of alcohol as the SNP prepares to put a minimum pricing bill through Parliament for the second time. Full story here: 

I have never seen the point of minimum pricing. Scotland is not independent and doesn't have closed borders. A UK-wide policy on alcohol (perhaps restricting alcohol sales below the cost price) seems far more reasonable. But the Scottish Licensed Trade Association's suggestion that 45p per unit is not enough and should be more than doubled in order to keep pubs open is breathtaking.

The SLTA was one of many organisations to publish the results of a CGA survey in 2009. The survey showed a clear relationship between pub closures and the smoking ban in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The piece carries the headline 'Smoking Ban To Blame For Pub Decline, Says New Research':

Oliver Griffiths, director of CR Consulting, said, “The decline of the British pub had started before the smoking ban but at a low level. The ban had a sudden and marked impact, accelerating the rate of decline.

“While it is not the only factor in the closure of pubs, the smoking ban is demonstrably the most significant cause of pub closures.”

We are not just talking of pub closures. We are talking of a sudden decline in the viability of pubs within a very short timespan.

It is not clear how such a dramatic hike in the unit price of alcohol will encourage customers back into pubs, even if pubs are already charging more than £1 per unit, because it is evident from the research that it wasn't price that was the problem in the first place.

The Scottish Government states that over 20 years alcohol prices in the off-trade have remained static and below the retail price index (increases kept below the rate of inflation). The prices in bars and other licensed outlets have risen but affordability in general is lower than it used to be. In other words there has been no radical change in the affordability of alcohol in shops in the last twenty years and no reason to attribute the sharp drops in pub fortunes to supermarket prices.

Minimum pricing will be good for nothing but creating mayhem in a country where many people can't afford shop alcohol prices. As recommended by the SLTA, it will do communities even more damage, without any likely impact on the closure rate of pubs. The recommended £1 per unit might persuade people to be grateful for a minimum price of 45p, in which case the licensed trade will have done the SNP an ill-deserved favour.

The issue is that the smoking ban prevented most bars from providing effective hospitality to their biggest customers. This is what the Scottish Licensed Trade Association needs to persuade the Scottish Government, rather than encouraging it to flex its muscles in restricting its market competitors.

Official In Scotland Too: The smoking ban did it

Press reports abound yesterday and today of the 737 pubs that have closed in Scotland since the smoking ban was implemented on 26 March 2006. For once the story (in the form of a report for the Save our Pubs and Clubs Campaign) says that the smoking ban is to blame for these closures.

Predictably the response has come that the story has much to do with supermarket prices, property prices, changing habits and anything else but the smoking ban. (Actually I think it fair to say that the legislation was brought in because in spite of a 30-year decline in smoking rates, change was not happening fast enough for those who wanted to bring smoking rates down.)

Of course the trading situation is difficult for the pubs, but the point is that the smoking ban changed pubs from an ideal meeting place for people who wanted to meet friends, colleagues and family for a drink and a chat, to an irrelevance. Smokers made up a larger proportion of pub customers than of the general population. An attack on smokers was bound to hurt the trade (and a significant proportion of cafeterias). The people who wrote the report have been accused of being apologists for the tobacco industry, but it doesn't take tobacco funding to tell you that a smoking ban will put smokers off. In areas and among groups of friends where almost everyone smokes (and some pubs will tell you that nine-tenths of their customers smoke) it just seems more trouble than it's worth to have to keep going outside to smoke.

THE SOLUTION?

Freedom to Choose (Scotland) Chairman Eddie Douthwaite was quoted in the STV version of the story as follows:

Eddie Douthwaite of Freedom to Choose (Scotland) believes that modern air filtration methods mean that the smoking ban should be amended.

He said: "Modern air filtration technology is a far cry from the 'ventilation' considered unable to extract toxins or particulate matter from the air when the introduction of a smoking ban was debated in 2005.  

"These air filtration products are currently fitted in aircraft and in hospitals, where they can remove particulate contamination together with airborne viruses, spores, and bacteria. Their use in the hospitality industry as an alternative to smoking bans is surely a step in the right direction especially as the indoor air quality would be far better than the air outdoors.

 "The Scottish Government should accept that new technology has provided a solution that could eliminate any need for this socially divisive and economically disastrous smoking ban."

HISTORY OF THE CAMPAIGN
Freedom to Choose (Scotland) submitted a petition in 2007 to the Scottish Parliament calling for a review of the smoking ban, and the introduction of Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standards. Such a standard would require the use of air-cleaning equipment if air quality did not meet specific standards, and would cover airborne pollution from any source.

In essence the Scottish Parliament agreed to close the petition and to bring its concerns to any future post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation. (The petition was considered jointly with another petition on the smoking ban from the CISWO (Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation) club in Glenrothes, calling for designated smoking rooms to be allowed – their evidence included trading figures from licensed clubs in the area.)

These are the terms in which the case was effectively dismissed by the Health & Sport Committee.

Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1037 and PE1042)

Dr Simpson: ...I have just one comment on air pollution. It is interesting that when Kenny Gibson and I made the original proposal for a bill to ban smoking in pubs and restaurants, which was rejected by the health minister at the time, the alternative to such a ban was the installation in premises of air filtration and anti-pollution systems. We now know from information that was provided as a result of freedom of information requests to the tobacco companies in America that such systems do not filter carcinogens from the air. I put on record the fact that, as we tackle smoking problems in the future, we will again face one of the most powerful global industries, so we should be extremely careful not to be duped into taking voluntary measures to curtail smoking that could subsequently be circumvented by the tobacco industry.

Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab): It is important to consider all the issues in detail. That is why I agree that when post-legislative scrutiny of the 2005 act is undertaken, consideration of the issues that the petitions raise should be right up there with consideration of the other impacts of the smoking ban. It is right and proper for consideration of such matters to feed into that scrutiny.

The Convener: Without prejudging the post-legislative scrutiny, I think that it would be appropriate for the issues that the petitions raise to be considered along with other issues, such as the impact of the ban on businesses. Are members content with that approach? [my emphasis]

THERE HAS BEEN NO POST LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY TO DATE ON THIS SUBJECT. In the meantime the Scottish Government has steam-rollered on with more jewels from the tobacco control agenda, such as the tobacco display ban. 

An example of suitable equipment for tackling irritants in smoke is Air Manager, a link obtained from a government web site. It can take out particles down to 0.01 micron and 99.9 per cent of bacteria, spores and viruses. It takes out not only smoke but the rest of the muck too. 

Thankfully at least STV has been able to recognise that people should know that there is a viable alternative to the smoking ban.