PRESS RELEASE (follow link for original), 28 March 2013
The Supreme Court in The Hague held on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 that exemptions to the ban on smoking in small pubs are in conflict with the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control (FCTC) and thus invalid. However, the State has the opportunity to appeal against this judgment, and it is very doubtful whether this Supreme Court ruling will be ratified. It is also important to note that this statement in principle only applies between the parties in the action, namely the State and the Non-Smokers Association CAN. The last word has absolutely not been said about this case.
Application for enforcement of the smoking ban in small pubs rejected
CAN’s claim that the Dutch State must enforce this decision was rejected in the court. The State is not obliged by the court to enforce a ban on smoking in small cafés. The court in its verdict stressed the broad discretion of the State in this regard.
European court
In recent years various, sometimes contradictory, verdicts have been decided in different courts. There is still no final decision regarding the smoking ban in small hospitality businesses.
Depending on the further course of proceedings between the State and CAN, Horecaclaim Netherlands will consider taking this case towards the European courts.
Advice and call to action for small pubs
Hospitality entrepreneurs should not be fooled by this verdict of the court in The Hague. As long as the State does not once again order the small pubs to comply with the smoking ban – which is not expected – pubs can still allow smoking on their premises. Those pubs that have not yet joined Horecaclaim Netherlands are invited to join the organisation, which was set up to claim damages for the economic consequences of smoking bans. Members benefit from the services of Horecaclaim’s legal team, which can provide legal support for appeal procedures when (unlawful) fines are imposed.
Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts
Friday, 29 March 2013
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Dutch smoking ban warded off in court
Dutch anti-smoking ban campaigners were successful yesterday in maintaining the advantage they have gained in exemptions to the smoking ban. This report says that not only is smoking in small bars legal, but smoking is largely carried out in larger bars too.
No doubt ban enthusiasts would say that this is because there is an exemption in small bars, and that only a comprehensive ban can be fully enforced. But the exemption was gained in the first place because of widespread and well organised opposition.
Sorry for Marc Willemsen, who wishes to turn the tide back in the antis' favour. (But not very sorry.)
No doubt ban enthusiasts would say that this is because there is an exemption in small bars, and that only a comprehensive ban can be fully enforced. But the exemption was gained in the first place because of widespread and well organised opposition.
Sorry for Marc Willemsen, who wishes to turn the tide back in the antis' favour. (But not very sorry.)
Monday, 24 October 2011
Florence, the mosquito, and the tobacco industry smear
Ever since the First World Conference of TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition) held in Brussels in 2009 I've wanted to know about Florence Berteletti Kemp – the woman whose complaints to the European Commissioner threatened to disrupt the Conference.
Any Dutch readers will appreciate that this video is really about Edith Schippers, the Health Minister of the Netherlands (or Minister for Tobacco, as her opponents would have it). My Dutch language skills enabled me to enjoy only Ms Berteletti's contribution, as it is in English.
Berteletti starts at 20.30 mins into the video: 'Well, if you're dying of malaria you're hardly going to invite a mosquito to resolve the issue at the policy table.' Anti-smokers have a thing about mosquitos. Sheila Duffy doesn't see the point in fighting them because they don't have expense accounts and are naturally less serious a threat to human health than the tobacco industry.
Florence won't have them at the policy table. I suppose this is because she doesn't believe in engaging with her opponents. Mosquitos however are now acknowledged as the carriers of malaria. If they were any good at talking, perhaps deals could be done at the policy table that might eradicate the malaria problem.
The health problems associated with smoking are a different matter as they are all multi-factorial in nature. Saying on the one hand that tobacco kills x-billion more than road accidents and wars and is best only speculation – rendered more inaccurate by a refusal to engage with the tobacco industry. Nobody is suggesting the tobacco companies write health policy without the participation of public health interests, but excluding them entirely as a matter of policy is equally unwise.
Since I don't know Dutch I missed most of the video, getting only the mosquito and Florence Berteletti's disappointment with the Dutch government for its failure to espouse tobacco control policies (33.25). A Dutch tobacco industry representative is interviewed in the video, but I don't know to what extent he has influenced Schippers. The Dutch licensees' campaign to overturn the smoking ban was not, of course, funded by tobacco companies. The 'fearless anti-tobacco warrior' Stanton Glantz took the trouble to interview Wiel Maessen, campaign organiser (and director of TICAP) in order to understand how the legal challenge to the smoking bans came about. Maessen stated that he had paid a large part of the costs, including all the advertising costs, personally.
Berteletti, in common with the likes of Stanton Glantz, has a mission to associate the interests of smoking ban opponents with the tobacco companies. She has invented a reason not to discuss malaria with mosquitos and extends this to exclude tobacco from the discussion of any health issue, in spite of blaming tobacco for all health issues.
For Berteletti, and anti-smoking policy-makers everywhere, nothing is negotiable.
Any Dutch readers will appreciate that this video is really about Edith Schippers, the Health Minister of the Netherlands (or Minister for Tobacco, as her opponents would have it). My Dutch language skills enabled me to enjoy only Ms Berteletti's contribution, as it is in English.
Berteletti starts at 20.30 mins into the video: 'Well, if you're dying of malaria you're hardly going to invite a mosquito to resolve the issue at the policy table.' Anti-smokers have a thing about mosquitos. Sheila Duffy doesn't see the point in fighting them because they don't have expense accounts and are naturally less serious a threat to human health than the tobacco industry.
Florence won't have them at the policy table. I suppose this is because she doesn't believe in engaging with her opponents. Mosquitos however are now acknowledged as the carriers of malaria. If they were any good at talking, perhaps deals could be done at the policy table that might eradicate the malaria problem.
The health problems associated with smoking are a different matter as they are all multi-factorial in nature. Saying on the one hand that tobacco kills x-billion more than road accidents and wars and is best only speculation – rendered more inaccurate by a refusal to engage with the tobacco industry. Nobody is suggesting the tobacco companies write health policy without the participation of public health interests, but excluding them entirely as a matter of policy is equally unwise.
Since I don't know Dutch I missed most of the video, getting only the mosquito and Florence Berteletti's disappointment with the Dutch government for its failure to espouse tobacco control policies (33.25). A Dutch tobacco industry representative is interviewed in the video, but I don't know to what extent he has influenced Schippers. The Dutch licensees' campaign to overturn the smoking ban was not, of course, funded by tobacco companies. The 'fearless anti-tobacco warrior' Stanton Glantz took the trouble to interview Wiel Maessen, campaign organiser (and director of TICAP) in order to understand how the legal challenge to the smoking bans came about. Maessen stated that he had paid a large part of the costs, including all the advertising costs, personally.
Berteletti, in common with the likes of Stanton Glantz, has a mission to associate the interests of smoking ban opponents with the tobacco companies. She has invented a reason not to discuss malaria with mosquitos and extends this to exclude tobacco from the discussion of any health issue, in spite of blaming tobacco for all health issues.
For Berteletti, and anti-smoking policy-makers everywhere, nothing is negotiable.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
The Irish got it wrong again
First of all, as the Chief Medical Officer will confirm, the smoking rate is as high in Ireland as it was in 2004 when the smoking ban came in. All the years of losses to the hospitality trade have succeeded only in moving secondary smoke exposure to the domestic sphere – it's got to be happening somewhere!
Second, according to a report commissioned by the Irish Heart Foundation, the Irish Government has mistakenly frozen the duty on tobacco for the last two years in the belief that raising revenue would drive customers to the hands of illegal sellers. They claim as evidence a 9 per cent rise in tobacco revenue in 1995-2005 at a time when tax on tobacco rose by 11 per cent. It seems a bit odd that the Irish Heart Foundation should be complaining of lost earnings to the Treasury from tobacco revenue resulted from this ill-advised failure to raise duty, but they also claim that a rise in duty of one euro per 20 cigarettes would lead to 30,000 ceasing to smoke. The result: loads of extra money and huge savings in health costs and benefits.
So will the Irish compound their error by increasing the price of tobacco until it's about four times the level it is in, say, Hungary? Who knows?
The Irish Heart Foundation actually commissioned this study specifically to challenge the Irish Revenue Commissioners' conclusions that only smugglers would benefit from an increase in tobacco duty. How the report calculates the price elasticity of tobacco with the result that a jump in price will lead to 4 per cent of smokers giving up is beyond me. I am too stupid even to understand how or if they even attempt to take illegal tobacco sales into account. Unemployment is approaching 15 per cent in Ireland and raising the taxation on what is already overpriced is in my view very likely to encourage people to economise by buying legitimately elsewhere without the Irish Exchequer making any gains, or to buy illegally.
Studies, by the way, are a weapon to be produced when countries rebel against tobacco control. Last year the Dutch lifted smoking bans on unstaffed bars (because there were no staff at risk of secondary smoke exposure). Last month, from an EU-funded tobacco control project, came this lengthy chastisement of the Dutch government for failing to implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, cutting smoking cessation funding, not using graphic images ... and here's the rub, shortening the lives of 145,000 over the next 30 years. The study in question uses a model to calculate the lives that would be saved by increasing taxation on tobacco and by funding smoking cessation services.
Calculations like these make the practice of threading a camel through the eye of a needle look like a fruitful and meaningful exercise.
Second, according to a report commissioned by the Irish Heart Foundation, the Irish Government has mistakenly frozen the duty on tobacco for the last two years in the belief that raising revenue would drive customers to the hands of illegal sellers. They claim as evidence a 9 per cent rise in tobacco revenue in 1995-2005 at a time when tax on tobacco rose by 11 per cent. It seems a bit odd that the Irish Heart Foundation should be complaining of lost earnings to the Treasury from tobacco revenue resulted from this ill-advised failure to raise duty, but they also claim that a rise in duty of one euro per 20 cigarettes would lead to 30,000 ceasing to smoke. The result: loads of extra money and huge savings in health costs and benefits.
So will the Irish compound their error by increasing the price of tobacco until it's about four times the level it is in, say, Hungary? Who knows?
The Irish Heart Foundation actually commissioned this study specifically to challenge the Irish Revenue Commissioners' conclusions that only smugglers would benefit from an increase in tobacco duty. How the report calculates the price elasticity of tobacco with the result that a jump in price will lead to 4 per cent of smokers giving up is beyond me. I am too stupid even to understand how or if they even attempt to take illegal tobacco sales into account. Unemployment is approaching 15 per cent in Ireland and raising the taxation on what is already overpriced is in my view very likely to encourage people to economise by buying legitimately elsewhere without the Irish Exchequer making any gains, or to buy illegally.
Studies, by the way, are a weapon to be produced when countries rebel against tobacco control. Last year the Dutch lifted smoking bans on unstaffed bars (because there were no staff at risk of secondary smoke exposure). Last month, from an EU-funded tobacco control project, came this lengthy chastisement of the Dutch government for failing to implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, cutting smoking cessation funding, not using graphic images ... and here's the rub, shortening the lives of 145,000 over the next 30 years. The study in question uses a model to calculate the lives that would be saved by increasing taxation on tobacco and by funding smoking cessation services.
Calculations like these make the practice of threading a camel through the eye of a needle look like a fruitful and meaningful exercise.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Scotsman: World is adopting the smoking ban: denying the wisdom of ages
Surely the message from this piece by Scotsman consumer affairs correspondent Jane Bradley is that the rest of the world isn't adopting the smoking ban – at least not with the 'zero tolerance' approach adopted throughout the United Kingdom.
Bradley claims that the smoking ban has halved children's exposure to smoke (this seems a bit unlikely to me but no doubt she has studied the 'correct' sources) and that the smoking ban was 'likely' to be here to stay. She speaks of other 'countries' going further than the UK (referring to individual US states and possibly states in Australia), but also refers to countries, like the Netherlands, where the ban has not gained popular support.
Simon Clark of Forest is quoted as having pretty much given up on Scotland as a lost cause ('I think we are resigned to the fact that we are unlikely to make much headway in getting the ban reverted in Scotland'). Never say die, Simon. Bradley does however acknowledge the unpopularity of the ban with publicans:
The article finishes with the nonsense that smoking while driving is not safe – typical of the tunnel vision adopted by people from every walk of life who wish to discourage smoking. The number of journeys completed safely on a daily basis is testament to the nonsense of this statement. The only things that make driving unsafe are inattention, faulty mechanics, alcohol and certain other medications, and bad luck/other drivers. (You can see road casualties from this link here: Table ras:10001 for numbers of accidents and Table ras:30002 for numbers of casualties. Clearly it would be better if we didn't have so many, but I don't see how you can come out with smoking as a factor on the basis of anything better than supposition.)
Bradley claims that the smoking ban is likely to stay, and even Forest despairs of removing it. But no smoking ban is needed. And while the ban hasn't brought demonstrators to the streets in Scotland as it has in the Netherlands or Spain, there is no doubt that smokers would increase their attendance in public venues if there were no ban. It is simply normal behaviour to congregate, whether over tea and coffee or over a drink.
No smoking ban is needed, because smoke is only one of a number of pollutants that were discussed in an air quality standard that was drawn up in 2007 for the whole of Europe. Table A1 shows levels of pollutants in indoor air (four levels, of which smoking takes place in levels 2, 3 and 4), and there are detailed descriptions of how to dispel the pollutants. Technically beyond my comprehension, but it certainly doesn't say: 'Don't even try and get rid of tobacco smoke. Can't be done – but here's how to deal with kitchen and garage exhausts, paints and solvents.'
All this technology exists because somebody has identified a need to extract pollutants from air. The need is there, followed by the application of science to meet the need. The wisdom of 'anti-smoking' seeks to overturn the wisdom of centuries in the words of Rollo Tommasi (comment 15). 'No air management system can protect people in a room from smoke produced in that room.' We can make aeroplanes, rockets, perform surgery, make bridges that can carry formidable amounts of traffic – design all manner of hardware, software, learn languages, apply computer languages to make virtual reality. But we can't move smoke? ever?
Try this, Rollo.
Bradley claims that the smoking ban has halved children's exposure to smoke (this seems a bit unlikely to me but no doubt she has studied the 'correct' sources) and that the smoking ban was 'likely' to be here to stay. She speaks of other 'countries' going further than the UK (referring to individual US states and possibly states in Australia), but also refers to countries, like the Netherlands, where the ban has not gained popular support.
Simon Clark of Forest is quoted as having pretty much given up on Scotland as a lost cause ('I think we are resigned to the fact that we are unlikely to make much headway in getting the ban reverted in Scotland'). Never say die, Simon. Bradley does however acknowledge the unpopularity of the ban with publicans:
Limited opposition to the ban in Scotland, makes this option unlikely, though it would be a welcome move for disgruntled publicans who say people are staying at home to drink while smoking. It is estimated that more than 450 pubs have shut down in Scotland since the ban was introduced five years ago.The ever present Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland deplores the suggestion of amending the ban declaring that 'only a blanket ban offers complete protection from second-hand smoke'. She then urges people to ban smoking in their own cars in order to achieve even more protection from second-hand smoke – she's nothing if not thorough.
The article finishes with the nonsense that smoking while driving is not safe – typical of the tunnel vision adopted by people from every walk of life who wish to discourage smoking. The number of journeys completed safely on a daily basis is testament to the nonsense of this statement. The only things that make driving unsafe are inattention, faulty mechanics, alcohol and certain other medications, and bad luck/other drivers. (You can see road casualties from this link here: Table ras:10001 for numbers of accidents and Table ras:30002 for numbers of casualties. Clearly it would be better if we didn't have so many, but I don't see how you can come out with smoking as a factor on the basis of anything better than supposition.)
Bradley claims that the smoking ban is likely to stay, and even Forest despairs of removing it. But no smoking ban is needed. And while the ban hasn't brought demonstrators to the streets in Scotland as it has in the Netherlands or Spain, there is no doubt that smokers would increase their attendance in public venues if there were no ban. It is simply normal behaviour to congregate, whether over tea and coffee or over a drink.
No smoking ban is needed, because smoke is only one of a number of pollutants that were discussed in an air quality standard that was drawn up in 2007 for the whole of Europe. Table A1 shows levels of pollutants in indoor air (four levels, of which smoking takes place in levels 2, 3 and 4), and there are detailed descriptions of how to dispel the pollutants. Technically beyond my comprehension, but it certainly doesn't say: 'Don't even try and get rid of tobacco smoke. Can't be done – but here's how to deal with kitchen and garage exhausts, paints and solvents.'
All this technology exists because somebody has identified a need to extract pollutants from air. The need is there, followed by the application of science to meet the need. The wisdom of 'anti-smoking' seeks to overturn the wisdom of centuries in the words of Rollo Tommasi (comment 15). 'No air management system can protect people in a room from smoke produced in that room.' We can make aeroplanes, rockets, perform surgery, make bridges that can carry formidable amounts of traffic – design all manner of hardware, software, learn languages, apply computer languages to make virtual reality. But we can't move smoke? ever?
Try this, Rollo.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
Citibank predicts that smoking will cease
Citibank predicts that smoking in the UK will expire by 2050 in the UK. It produces a table with data based on national smoking rates across several countries:
I find it interesting that two countries that have announced that they will eradicate smoking in the medium term, Finland and New Zealand, according to this table, won't actually achieve it until relatively late: New Zealand in 2058, and Finland in 2193. Netherlands (where there has been a huge backlash to the recent smoking restrictions) kicks the habit in 2048, but France carries on till 2118, 70 years later, and the Greeks for more than a century after that.
The predictions are based on fifty years' decline in smoking rates, and reports stress that 'if this continues', smoking will die out by the dates indicated.
If this causes any jitters in the stock market I doubt they will last. Ireland's smoking rate appears to have increased again after a short-term decline following their ban in 2004, and Scotland is failing to meet targets.
| % of the population that smokes | Citi's earliest prediction for end of smoking | |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 17 | 2030 |
| Belgium | 20 | 2051 |
| Canada | 18 | 2040 |
| Finland | 21 | 2093 |
| France | 25 | 2118 |
| Germany | 23 | 2280 |
| Greece | 40 | 2231 |
| Iceland | 16 | 2033 |
| Italy | 23 | 2091 |
| Japan | 24 | 2054 |
| Netherlands | 28 | 2048 |
| New Zealand | 18 | 2058 |
| Norway | 21 | 2042 |
| Spain | 26 | 2056 |
| Sweden | 15 | 2028 |
| United Kingdom | 21 | 2040 |
| United States | 21 | 2046 |
I find it interesting that two countries that have announced that they will eradicate smoking in the medium term, Finland and New Zealand, according to this table, won't actually achieve it until relatively late: New Zealand in 2058, and Finland in 2193. Netherlands (where there has been a huge backlash to the recent smoking restrictions) kicks the habit in 2048, but France carries on till 2118, 70 years later, and the Greeks for more than a century after that.
The predictions are based on fifty years' decline in smoking rates, and reports stress that 'if this continues', smoking will die out by the dates indicated.
If this causes any jitters in the stock market I doubt they will last. Ireland's smoking rate appears to have increased again after a short-term decline following their ban in 2004, and Scotland is failing to meet targets.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Turks disenchanted with smoking ban, while Dutch fighter speaks to the Sun
As if half measures by the Dutch and Bulgarians were not enough, recent reports show that Turkey is also less than happy with the smoking ban with over 70 per cent of those interviewed (including the non-smokers) finding fault. The report doesn't speak of non-compliance, however. The results contradict an earlier survey that found widespread support for the ban, but also find business losses on a large scale.
Authorities last year expected that the smoking ban would be implemented without trouble. The tobacco control expert interviewed there, Elif Dagli, expressed particular happiness about the short time-scale of implementation. She also denied that there was any hint of human rights violation involved in a smoking ban. This might explain why she feels it should be possible to implement such a ban without spending years trying to convince the population that black is white. She blames business failures under the smoking ban on a refusal to adapt to new conditions
Meanwhile Wiel Maessen explains his fight in the Netherlands to the Sun newspaper. Bars could not compete on an equal footing (in a so-called 'level playing field'), because they did not have to space to cater for people smoking outside, or the facilities to reorient their businesses. Claiming (credibly) that up to 80 per cent of Dutch believed smoking in public should be allowable, he states that the bans themselves are socially and psychologically damaging, and more so to 'the common man' (ordinary people) who felt excluded from social engagement by such a ban. Elif Dagli would have little sympathy with this argument, but I am sure most Turks would see exactly what he meant. 'Smoking kills' is a simple argument, but the issues around smoking bans are far from simple.
Wiel points out great disparities between penalties imposed in the UK and the Netherlands, and says that the Dutch have a different approach to enforcement in many areas.
The European Commission's current consultation on the 2001 Tobacco Directive includes questions in every area of tobacco regulation about whether laws and enforcement should be included in the directive or left to member states to regulate. The European Commission will not win itself many friends by insisting on Europe-wide conformity on smoking regulation.
Authorities last year expected that the smoking ban would be implemented without trouble. The tobacco control expert interviewed there, Elif Dagli, expressed particular happiness about the short time-scale of implementation. She also denied that there was any hint of human rights violation involved in a smoking ban. This might explain why she feels it should be possible to implement such a ban without spending years trying to convince the population that black is white. She blames business failures under the smoking ban on a refusal to adapt to new conditions
Meanwhile Wiel Maessen explains his fight in the Netherlands to the Sun newspaper. Bars could not compete on an equal footing (in a so-called 'level playing field'), because they did not have to space to cater for people smoking outside, or the facilities to reorient their businesses. Claiming (credibly) that up to 80 per cent of Dutch believed smoking in public should be allowable, he states that the bans themselves are socially and psychologically damaging, and more so to 'the common man' (ordinary people) who felt excluded from social engagement by such a ban. Elif Dagli would have little sympathy with this argument, but I am sure most Turks would see exactly what he meant. 'Smoking kills' is a simple argument, but the issues around smoking bans are far from simple.
Wiel points out great disparities between penalties imposed in the UK and the Netherlands, and says that the Dutch have a different approach to enforcement in many areas.
The European Commission's current consultation on the 2001 Tobacco Directive includes questions in every area of tobacco regulation about whether laws and enforcement should be included in the directive or left to member states to regulate. The European Commission will not win itself many friends by insisting on Europe-wide conformity on smoking regulation.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Small bar exemptions to Dutch smoking ban formally announced
A formal announcement in the Dutch parliament confirmed that there will be an exemption to the smoking ban (first reported on this blog here), to include any bar below 70 square metres and without employees. Fines so far issued will be allowed to lapse, meaning that the ban, for small one-operator businesses, is effectively in tatters.
This development is the result of determined opposition and effective lobbying from the Dutch hospitality industry . These people have not given up the fight, and will move on to defend the entire hospitality industry's right to entertain its customers properly.
Respect!
This development is the result of determined opposition and effective lobbying from the Dutch hospitality industry . These people have not given up the fight, and will move on to defend the entire hospitality industry's right to entertain its customers properly.
Respect!
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)