Memorandum by Rank Group Gaming Division
(SP35)
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment
on the Consultation Paper.
Rank Group Gaming Division is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Rank Group plc and is a major operator of casinos
and bingo clubs in the UK currently owning and operating 37 casinos
and 1,017 commercial bingo clubs and employing some 9,000 staff.
Rank Group has already fully participated in
the consultation process in relation to "Smoking in Public
Places" undertaken by the Scottish Executive together with
separately submitting a response to the Department of Health's
consultation process for England and the Welsh Assembly Government's
consultation process.
RANK'S
CONCLUSIONS
It is Rank's view and preferred option that
the Government's objective could be achieved by an extension of
the voluntary approach as outlined in Option 1 of the Consultative
Document but, if smokefree legislation is to be introduced Option
2 is the way forward—national legislation with no exceptions.
The following points summarise the view that
Rank has adopted and would seek Government to consider:
1. A simple, consistent UK wide National
Policy must be the preferred option.
2. The Policy should not contain exemptions,
and apply irrespective of whether food is served or not, and irrespective
of whether a club is a members" club or not.
3. A total ban in all UK public places should
be Governments long-term aim, allowing licensed operators three
years (from enactment) to prepare their businesses, their staff
and their customers if Option 1 is not adopted.
4. If however Government is determined to
create exceptions, than responsible Licensed Operators in the
Bingo and Casino sectors should also be allowed to create smoking
and non-smoking areas within their clubs.
In responding to the consultation document I
have endeavoured for purposes of clarity to comment on the questions
specifically raised in the document and as if the smokefree legislation
is adopted:
1. PROPOSED DEFINITION
OF SMOKE
OR SMOKING—QUESTION
1
Rank is of the view that in order to avoid any
confusion, particularly bearing in mind the the penalties proposed
for both individual management and premises owner in the case
of non compliance, that all forms of smoking should be banned.
2. DEFINITION
OF ENCLOSED—QUESTION
2
Rank's view is that the definition is clear,
but for clarity sake believes that "partially enclosed areas"
should reflect the Scottish Executives definition of partially
enclosed, 50%—there is then joined up governance across
the UK.
3. OTHER PUBLIC
PLACES AND
WORKPLACES THAT
MIGHT FALL
OUTSIDE THE
DEFINITION OF
"ENCLOSED" WHICH
MIGHT BE
SMOKEFREE—QUESTION
3
Rank has no particular view on sports stadia,
but in regard to other outdoor areas the inclusion of bus shelters,
entrances, exit to public buildings or workplaces does seem overly
draconian. Individuals fearful of inhalation of SHS would simply
be able to avoid any individual or group of people who choose
to smoke in a non enclosed areas.
4. EXCEPTIONS—ALL
LICENSED PREMISES
(RECEIVE A
LONGER LEAD-IN
TIME)—QUESTION
4
Rank has no comment on this proposal.
5. EXCEPTION
—ALL LICENSED
PREMISES THAT
DO NOT
PREPARE AND
SERVE FOOD—DEFINITIONS
OF "PREPARE
AND SERVE
FOOD"—QUESTION
5
Rank's view on this proposal is that—there
is no need for a definition on food served as all premises should
be included in the legislation irrespective.
6. EXCEPTION—RESIDENTIAL
PREMISES—QUESTION
6
Rank has no comment on this proposal.
7. EXCEPTION—MEMBERSHIP
CLUBS—QUESTION
7
Rank is of the view that no premises should
be excluded no matter whether it is a members club or not. The
effect of SHS on members and equally importently on employees
is not diminished due to the status of ownership of the premises.
8. EXCEPTION—PRACTICAL
IMPLICATIONS—QUESTION
8
The practical implications as far as Rank is
concerned will initially revolve around employees and club members
acceptance of the legislation and the enforcement by site management.
It is felt that there should be a lead in time for implementation
and consultation with the enforcement body prior to any penalties
being issued at least for an initial period of time—1 year.
9. SIGNAGE—QUESTION
9
Rank has no particular view on this aspect of
the legislation other than that the signage may be displayed free
standing rather than a requirement that it is affixed to front
doors/windows etc.
10. OFFENCES
AND PENALTIES—QUESTION
10
The levels of penalties are inequitable—£50
for committing the offence and £200 for not enforcing.
Rank's view is that the penalties should be
(i) flexible and dependent on circumstance
ie if the individual who is smoking has been approached and refused
the penalty should only be against the individual and,
(ii) penalties should have the same maximum
limit (£200).
11. DEFENCES—QUESTION
11
Should be read in conjunction with the response
in paras 8 and 10 above.
12. ENFORCEMENT—QUESTION
12
See paras 8 and 10 above.
13. SMOKING AT
THE BAR—QUESTION
13
No comment on this paragraph.
14. TIMETABLE—QUESTION
14
Rank's preference would be to move the start
date to the end of January 2008 and 2009 respectively thus moving
away from any conflict with holiday periods.
15. UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES FOR
BINGE DRINKING—QUESTION
15
Implementing Rank's view—all premises
to be smokefree, would ensure that there would be no risk of an
increase in bringe drinking.
16. GENERAL POINTS—QUESTION
16
Rank's view on selected smoking clubs and pubs
have been detailed in previous responses.
September 2005
| 
