Trade associations submit concerns over smoking ban

The government consultation on the details of the impending smoking ban ended on October 9.

The guidelines explain how the ban, which comes into effect in summer 2007, will be implemented and cover issues such as the definition of an enclosed area, the signage required and how the law will be enforced.

The final regulations are not expected to be confirmed before December at the earliest. Here we give a round-up of submissions made by trade associations and lobby groups…

British Beer & Pub Association​

PUBS NEED effective information and a start date for the smoking ban, says the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA). It says proposals to fine licensees up to £2,500 are out of proportion and it is calling for a fine of £200. It is also asking the government to ensure that local authorities implement the legislation fairly and consistently. In particular, it is concerned that local councils may adopt different interpretations of planning rules for outside smoking shelters. On signage the trade organisation has labelled requirements for no smoking signage on every entrance to a building as "excessive". Mark Hastings, BBPA director of communications, said: "This is a clear case of the devil in the detail, it is absolutely crucial for pubs that the government gets these regulations right.

Forest​

PRO-SMOKING group Forest is calling on the government to offer tax breaks to businesses, including pubs and restaurants, that want to erect high quality outdoor smoking shelters.

Forest director Simon Clark said: "Some people may jump at the chance to give up smoking, but many more will resent being treated like lepers.

"Tax breaks for smoking shelters would not only suggest some level of compassion towards smokers, a quarter of the adult population, but it would also be good for pubs and restaurants who might otherwise lose business if smokers choose either to stay at home or spend less time on the premises."

The group, which claims to represent many of Britain's 13 million smokers, also called for an extensive public information campaign to alert people to the new regulations.

BII​

THE BII has supported the submission of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers but is concerned about four particular issues - the definition of enclosed premises, signage, exemptions for smoking areas and penalties for licensees.

Spokeswoman Melanie Taylor said: "Our members felt very strongly that signage should be the way forward, that a sign at each entrance to the premises would be sufficient, and that as long as it was in the minimum requirements of legislation that it could be branded by the pub or the pub company or even an organisation like ourselves to provide our members with that signage."

It has expressed concern about access to smoking areas. It believes this will cause some logistical problems depending on how the premises are laid out. And the BII is also concerned that there is not a clear definition of what a club is.

"With penalties we believe that it should be an offence to knowingly allow smoking in a non-smoking premises rather than actually not preventing smoking," says Melanie.

The Publican and Club Mirror​

The Publican​, together with the magazine for private members' clubs, Club Mirror, has submitted its concerns to the government.

The submission includes the joint research carried out between the two publications earlier this year, which showed that most licensees want more than six months to prepare for a ban.

It also calls for absolute clarity on what will constitute a 'substantially enclosed' area for the purposes of the smoking ban - thus enabling businesses to get on and make their plans for provision for smokers outside of their immediate premises.

A delay to the start-date would allow for planning applications for necessary amendments to be made to areas outside pubs and private members' clubs.

Other demands made in our submission include calls for rate relief to be made available to pubs facing hardship as a result of the legislation, that the offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place (currently suggested as £2,500) should be brought into line with the offence of smoking (currently £200) and there should be one single start-date in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations​

The licensee organisation has called for extra time for licensees to prepare for the ban, and is concerned about the government definition of an outside area and the level of fines. Tony Payne, chief executive of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations (FLVA) said: "Our opinion is that larger business will be able to cater for it but the smaller pubs will have problems and we're asking for extra time. We think it will give the smaller businesses time to get planning permission and to digest all the legal information that's required. In particular the FLVA believes the fines are too high for licensees and is concerned about the impact of this on staff."

The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the Bar, Entertainment and Dance Association​

These groups are calling for a new definition of what constitutes a roof for the purposes of the ban to be introduced. On signage both believe the requirement should be to only display signs at or near the entrance to the premises and that this should be subject to a timeframe. Also, they recommend that hotel, guest house, inn and hostel providers be free to designate a room for use by residents and their guests for smoking.The penalty applied to operators is unfair and a revision should be made in the level of fines applied to an individual breaking the law.The bodies also believe the offence should be reworded to focus on allowing someone to smoke on smoke-free premises rather than 'failing to prevent' them doing so. A due diligence defence should also be included in the regulations. They are also calling for planning guidance and a decent timeframe to allow licensees to prepare. Nick Bish, chief executive of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, said: "The ban is an opportunity for us to improve our external facilities. But to take advantage of this, operators need clear, unambiguous and above all workable rules. The government's first draft fails to meet this test and unless action is taken, we believe it will undermine support for the ban."