Will pubs get stubbed out?

27 June 2007

IT is the last gasp for nicotine addicts and a sigh of relief for non-smokers as from this Sunday smoking in public will be well and truly stubbed out.

The smoking ban in England is estimated to improve public health tenfold and encourage millions to quit.

But will policing this legislation cause more trouble than it's worth?

Just who are the winners and the losers of the smoking ban? Kate Mead finds out...

CHOOSE life. Choose health. Be smoke free. That's the message that the government is sending out loud and clear from this Sunday as pubs and restaurants all over England bin their ashtrays and prepare for a smokeless environment.

The legislation comes into force after the 2004 Choosing Health white paper made way for the Health Act 2006.

It included evidence from the independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) which found that second-hand smoke is a cause of lung cancer and childhood respiratory disease.

There is also evidence that it is the cause of heart disease, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and asthma attacks.

The ban, that forbids smoking in virtually all substantially enclosed public places, is the beacon of hope for health campaigners, non-smokers and those wanting to quit.

Campaigner group ASH claims 1.25 lives could be saved, if as predicted one in five smokers (20 per cent) have quit in time for the ban. Even smokers who want to keep up the habit will be forced to cut down, and youngsters may not be tempted to take up the habit with fewer people puffing away in close proximity.

Policy and Campaigns Manager for ASH, Martin Dockrell, said: "Record numbers of smokers - especially the young - are set to quit for good, more people will be going to pubs and restaurants, customers and workers will be healthier. Even smokers are coming on board with almost as many supporting the law as opposing it. Everybody wins except the tobacco manufacturers and undertakers."

So it sounds as if most of us are winners.

But some disagree, Executive Officer of the Guild of Master Victuallers in London and the South East, John Madden, says trade for pub licensees will suffer.

He said: "A lot of people come out to have a pint and a smoke, there is a long history of people going to their local pub for that. Smokers are less likely to go out and spend three hours in a pub without lighting up or having to go outside."

But landlord Nick Cox, who claims he had the first non-smoking pub in Kent, says those fears are unfounded.

He claims business at his pub, the Wheatsheaf in Southfleet, was boosted after he banned smoking in March 2004 and customers accepted the changes with time.

Mr Cox said: "I don't think owners need to worry, as long as they have made adequate provisions to look after their customers there shouldn't be any problems at all.

"We did have a bit of resistance from a couple of regulars at first but they soon got used to it and generally there was a lot of support."

Approximately £30 million has been invested in the ban, much of it in informing businesses and advertising to the general public.

Greenwich and Bromley councils have not had to hire a new officer to enforce the ban, instead they are giving smoke-busting duties to existing environmental health teams. Bromley would not reveal how much cash they have been given by the government, but Greenwich has £91,000 to promote and enforce the legislation.

Most other London and Kent councils have been given about £24,000 to employ a Smokefree Compliance Officer who will hand smokers a £50 fine if they flout the law.

But the real losers of the legislation may be business owners who face a £2,500 fine if their customers refuse to stub it out.

Mr Madden said: "What we have told licensees is that if someone lights up in their pub, they must point at the non-smoking sign and say that they are liable for a £50 fine if environmental health officers catch them.

"They can call the police, but I think they have enough on their plate. But they may log the call.

"We advise them not to go to the other side of the bar and confront them. If they do, they could be assaulted and we are not in the business to be assaulted.

"Local authorities have introduced it with a 'light touch' but if someone lights up in a pub and the licensee walks away, he is liable for a £2,500 fine which is way out of proportion."

Shelters outside pubs and restaurants for those customers determined to smoke need planning permission from the council. In order to comply with the law, the 'smoke-easy' shelters must have at least half of the structure open to the air.

Landlords George and Pam Pearson of the Bricklayers Arms in Bromley fell foul of the guidelines after their £130,000 'smoke-easy' was deemed too enclosed by Bromley council.

Staff at the Shepherd Neame-owned pub marketed their new garden area last April claiming it would be ready in time for the impending smoking ban.

Thousands of pounds were shelled out for the refurbished covered garden before guidelines for enclosed public areas were published.

The guidelines state that shelters should have a maximum of a roof and two walls.

The garden in the Bricklayers Arms has three walls.

A spokesman for Shepherd Neame claimed that the refurbishment was not part of their £3 million investment to create smoke-easy areas in their pubs.

He added: "We knew there would be a smoking ban but we didn't know at the time what the regulations would be.

"We hoped it would apply to the ban but we decided to carry out the work in April 2006 and the regulations came out much later.

"There is some space between the back door and that area where customers will be able to smoke when the ban comes into effect.

"It is too early to say whether we will apply to change the area."

Shepherd Neame have invested £10,000 in most of their 380 pubs in the area installing large umbrellas, heaters and pergolas.

Chief Executive Jonathan Neame said they are prepared for the impending ban. He said: "By considering all out customers needs and effectively taking the pub environment outside, we feel we are prepared for the ban. July 1 heralds a new era for pub customers and employees."

Speculation has arisen that some councils could ban outside heaters for smoking customers. There is also the issue of fines for dropping fag butts in the street - so smokers could lose out financially as well as being left out in the cold.

Bromley council chiefs say it is nothing new for people to be fined for dropping litter and they will continue to fine people £80 (or £50 on the spot) if council officers catch them.

A spokesman for Greenwich council said: "Cigarette litter is the main cause for issuing a litter fine. We already issue £75 fixed penalty notices for dropping litter. Cigarette litter accounts for around 80 per cent of all litter in our town centres.

"We will also be expecting businesses to make proper arrangements with regard to placing and emptying bins for cigarette ends. If necessary we can issue a Street Litter Control Notice."

Staff at Gravesham council are currently discussing whether to fine littering smokers during a consultation over the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act.

In the meantime, the authority and a number of other councils are handing out thousands of 'Stubbis', envelopes that will allow smokers to safely stub out fags and hold on to them until they find a bin.

For many years, smoking has been seen to be an unsociable habit and with smokers puffing away outside in shelters, and it seems that reputation may intensify.

Will there be a new kind of ASBO for those cigarette and pipe smokers who refuse to comply by the law?

Gravesham, Greenwich and Bexley councils deny that smokers who persist on using the evil weed in public places will be given the orders.

But Bromley council was more open minded, a spokesman said: "We use ASBOs as a last resort for those displaying anti-social behaviour and generally making other people's lives a misery.

"The criteria would usually cover more than one act of anti-social behaviour."

But this highlights the other main objection to the ban, it's not just hitting wallets - some campaigners claim that restricting the right of 'choice' for the individual has serious implications.

Director of pro-smoking pressure group Forest, Simon Clark, describes the ban as 'draconian'.

"The ban is totally disproportionate and has been put in place as part of a government exercise to achieve ridiculous health targets," he said.

"Another part of the ban is the knock-on effects, like we will see a lot more people on the street causing noise pollution and more people will smoke at home around the children.

"Our government has spent £30 million on undercover officers in plain clothes, I think local authorities should have better things to do than snooping on people.

"As long as tobacco is legal, it is not right to kick smokers into the street.

"Smokers are getting weary of the whole thing and some are reaching for their fags in defiance of being pushed around by politicians."

But politicians are split over the ban, with some voting against the party line.

Lifelong non-smoker Jacqui Lait, Beckenham MP, says she welcomes the ban on a personal basis but voted against the legislation because the matter should not be decided by central government.

She added: "I voted against it because I don't like being dictated to by central government. The ban is going to prove to be too heavy-handed for some places.

"But as a life long non-smoker, I am delighted and looking forward to it. I just wish those people who smoke have been able to give it up in time."

Conservative MP for Gravesham, Adam Holloway, voted in favour of the ban but against the same conditions being imposed on private members' clubs.

He said: "It's about choice and seeing as people who don't want to smoke didn't have a choice, I was in favour of the ban. But when it comes to private members' clubs, where individuals get together they can decide for themselves.

"The numbers of early deaths will dramatically decrease. When I go to New York, I am smoking one or two in a day as opposed to 15 or 20 so it will make a big difference to people's health."

Bexleyheath MP David Evenett also backs the ban on smoking.

He said: "I believe it is intrusive on people who don't smoke.

"It is fine to do in their own homes as long as it is not infringing the space of other people."

Eltham's Labour MP Clive Efford agrees.

"It will have a positive impact on people's general health and wellbeing," he said. "People have to be reasonable, when I have a beer I don't spray it over the person next to me.

"It is clear that public opinion supports the ban and many public places are already non-smoking. It is time for us to move on, we are way behind other countries in terms of this."

While many welcome the ban as an excuse to quit or a chance to enjoy a smoke-free social life, business owners and 'freedom of choice' campaigners await July 1 with trepidation.

Whether the ban cripples or boosts custom for small businesses remains to be seen. But one thing is for certain, the days of the smoky British boozer are well and truly over.