More to be gained than lost from a smoke ban'

The issue of smoking in pubs surely merits proper debate rather than the paranoid and misinformed rantings of Tony Brooks (Morning Advertiser Letters 22 April). In fact, teams from Wetherspoon's have visited California and New York three times following the imposition of smoking bans in those cities and our analysis indicates serious issues which need to be addressed by the pub industry. The first is that, as the number of smokers continues to decline, the trade will at some point reach the stage where there is more to be gained financially ­ albeit after a potentially difficult transitional period ­ from a ban. We believe that this point has now been reached. The second issue, raised by a large number of commentators, is that a ban is probably inevitable at some stage. In relation to this point, we believe that a country-wide ban, as in Ireland, is financially preferable to a borough-by-borough ban, similar to the New York situation. Many local authorities in Britain are known to be keen to introduce a ban, if they can, on environmental health grounds. If local authorities go it alone in this manner, the random effect of a ban in Newcastle, for example, when smoking is still permitted in Gateshead, would be potentially catastrophic for many pubs. This is the real sword of Damocles for the industry. Thirdly, an orderly approach to a ban supported by the pub trade would mean that the industry was on the front foot, whereas we are now perceived by many as a reactionary force with attitudes rooted in the past. This affects sales, with many people, as the MA has frequently reported, abandoning pubs, with a consequent growth in off-sales at the expense of the on-trade. Tim Martin Non-executive Chairman JD Wetherspoon Wetherspoon House Central Park Reeds Crescent Watford Hertfordshire WD24 4QL We are disgusted at the loss of the SLV name' I write in response to the reply by Mr Colin Wheeler, chief executive of the Society of Licensed Victuallers, to the letter submitted by Mr J Mulroy, past governor of the SLV. I was very disappointed and annoyed to read in his reply, that the objectors to the loss of the title "Society of Licensed Victuallers" and the position of "governor" of our great charity in the pending merger with our sister charity were "a small group of past trustees of the SLV who have for many years played no part in the affairs of this charity, although some of them have benefited from our charitable giving". First the "few trustees" are actually past governors of the SLV, nine in number, who spent many years of their time in their pubs, being very involved in the running of the SLV before being elected as governors. In that position they continued, as their predecessors had done, to promote and protect the SLV in their year. All of them were very disgusted that the present governor and trustees were prepared to allow the loss of our SLV title [to the Licensed Trade Charity] and the position of governor to facilitate this merger. The statement that some of them have received "charitable giving" goes very much against the principles of the SLV, and he [Mr Wheeler] should know better than to give any such inference about any person, or group of persons. If they qualify for assistance then they are entitled to it, and are still entitled to their opinion, and confidentiality. It was on their behalf that I wrote three letters to the governor and chief executive asking them to reconsider these changes, to which I have not yet had an informative reply. I also wrote two letters to the Charity Commissioner questioning the action, and received two very courteous replies, albeit, stating that the trustees could get around the rules of the SLV if it did not put the SLV in jeopardy. I also wrote to the Licensed Trade Charities Trust, who have also been involved in the merger discussions. I received two similarly courteous replies from Alastair Eadie, the chairman of the LTCT. It would seem that someone put forward the change in name so that "the LVNH should not be seen to have failed". Maybe who that was will come out in the final wash. Finally I believe that the only addition to the SLV family silver, will be a few brass candlesticks! However, it will be better for the trade and the members of the charities that the merger goes ahead, even better, under the banner, "Society of Licensed Victuallers" and with a "governor" at its head. Tom Lowe Governor 1989-90, Trustee 1972-92, plus 10 years as an active Past Governor 24 Derwent Drive Littleborough Rochdale Greater Manchester OL15 0BT Standing at your pub door could cost you dear' Your report (Morning Advertiser, 25 March) on the reluctance of door staff in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to sign up to a new Security Industry Authority (SIA) scheme, tells only half the story. It is not only door staff who are required to sign up, but anybody who is responsible for security, for protection, for screening the suitability of people entering the licensed premises, or for dealing with conflict inside. The SIA itself reminds us that it is not your job title that counts, but the work that you do. A telephone call to the SIA Helpline (08702 430100) confirmed that even if a licensee only very occasionally acted as a door supervisor, for example to prevent the admission of a known troublemaker, he would need a Front Line Licence. Nor is it simply a case of registering by letter with the SIA. All applicants must undergo compulsory training ­ a minimum of 30 hours ­ and pass two exams at an SIA-approved training centre. There is a non-refundable fee of £190, and the licence will last three years. And, by the way, failure to register, or using non-registered staff, is an offence punishable by six months imprisonment and/or a fine up to £5,000 at a magistrates court, or five years imprisonment at a crown court. So think twice before you stand at your door to greet your happy guests. It could cost you more than a round of drinks! David Thornton Jones The Hibernian Tavern Holyhead Anglesey North Wales LL65 1UD Head goes across here in two decks It was great to see you flying the flag yet again for the smaller brewers in the industry in an article in the Morning Advertiser on 8 April. Whilst we at Jennings fully support the general thrust of your article and the "message to Gordon" to give British brewers a more level playing field, I must correct the point you make on the benfits of Progressive beer Duty, post the recent Budget, Whilst we are still seeking final clarification on the impact, we are clear that the positive benefit for a brewery of Jennings size producing 30,000-plus barrels will be significantly below £100,000, and any benefit we do derive will be quickly lost as our production moves through the new 36,000-barrel threshold. MD Clayton Managing Director Jennings Brothers Castle Brewery Cockermouth Cumbria Head goes across here in two decks I read with relief Roger Barley's letter on envious villagers not supporting the village pub. I am not the only one to feel aggrieved by similar attitudes. There seems to be an axiom that the local pub is to be kept in a successful but unprofitable quiescent state, including the lowest prices, so it can be used by a vocal, local but non regular clientele at their whim and at odd times like quarter of an hour before closing on new year's eve. It is the lot of the landlord to get free management consultancy from all and particularly sundry, sorry, it's not free, drinks are expected in exchange. I also ran a successful pub for 9 years and most of the guides agreed. The partnership between the guest and host is a two way street which involves both parties giving of themselves, the often ill-conceived, strident and insistent approach of a minority driving one way is why I sold up! Should I sign this letter Victor Meldrew? Jonathan Hewitt Millbrook House 99 High Street Milton Abingdon Oxon OX14 4EL Head goes across here in two decks I would like to say a big thank you to all members and staff of The Society of Licensed Victuallers, the Licensed Victuallers National Homes, ex