Examination of Witnesses (Questions 282-299)
MR ROB
HAYWARD OBE, MR
JOHN HUTSON,
MR NICK
BISH, MR
BOB COTTON
OBE AND MR
TONY PAYNE
17 NOVEMBER 2005
Q282 Chairman: Good morning. Could I
first of all thank you very much for coming along this morning
to give evidence to the Committee. I wonder if I could ask you
to introduce yourselves for the record?
Mr Hayward: Rob Hayward, Chief
Executive, British Beer and Pub Association.
Mr Hutson: John Hutson, Chief
Executive of J.D. Wetherspoon.
Mr Bish: Nick Bish, Chief Executive
of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers.
Mr Cotton: Bob Cotton, Chief Executive
of the British Hospitality Association.
Mr Payne: Tony Payne, Chief Executive
of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations.
Q283 Chairman: Thank you very much.
I suppose it is a question for all of you. Do you believe that
second-hand smoke in the workplace is a danger to the health of
workers? Who would like to start? Mr Hutson.
Mr Hutson: The feedback from our
staff is that they prefer to be in surroundings that are smoke-free.
Whether they perceive it to be a danger or not, they certainly
prefer to be in smoke-free premises.
Mr Bish: I think that is the general
position, and I think that the operators would like to improve
the atmosphere in pubs for staff and for customers.
Mr Cotton: My members employ 600,000
people right across the industry. Over 90% say they would rather
have a comprehensive smoke-free environment in all areas.
Mr Payne: Our members do take
care to look after the interests of their staff. They have done
risk assessments and we make sure that we recommend that people
do not smoke at the bar to look after the interests of the staff.
Mr Hayward: I would echo what
has been said already. Since we are pressed for time, I am going
to keep the answers as short as possible.
Q284 Chairman: I perceive that none
of you dispute, or do you dispute, the issue of science in secondary
smoke?
Mr Hayward: No.
Chairman: There is no dispute.
Q285 Mr Burstow: Given that answer
and given what we know about the current state of legislation
in terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act, do any of you think
that you are liable as a result of that now that you admit that
you know the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke?
Mr Cotton: I have a very clear
view that our employers have a duty of care to their employees,
and we are particularly concerned, if we have current proposals
where some employees will have to work in smoke environments,
that there may be claims down the track, and our employers feel
very nervous about that, where you are exercising a duty of care
for some employees but not others.
Q286 Mr Burstow: Do any others share
that concern?
Mr Hayward: Yes, generally, I
think we would probably all echo those concerns. What the industry
in different forms has been attempting to do is to introduce progressively
smoke-free circumstances in each of the different venues in different
ways, and significantly the industry has made more progress over
the last few years than government has because we have been introducing
those policies.
Q287 Mr Burstow: I noted in your
submission that you felt there had not been a great deal of support
for the roll out of policies around smoke-free environments when
you submitted to the consultation earlier on. What is your view
about the support you have had from the Government to implement
them?
Mr Hayward: Originally, when the
original charter was launched, there was government support, but
I do not think there has been as much support since then as we
might have wished. In fact, the BBPA launched (with a large number
signatories) an initiative last year to make more marked progress
in terms of no smoking at the bar, no smoking back of house and
in smoke-free areas, and we set time deadlines. One of the difficulties
in pursuing those deadlines has actually been that there has been
so much uncertainty. Given that 70-75% of licensees are small
businessmen, trying to induce them to actually take action when
there is uncertainty in relation to what government policies are
going to be is not an easy set of circumstances, but we have made
some progress.
Q288 Mr Burstow: So certainty is
one of the key things you are looking for out of all of this.
Can I come on to a specific question? If the Health Bill does
become law, will some pubs stop serving food in order to continue
to allow smoking? Secondly, how many pubs are currently drink
only and how many additional pubs do you think will stop serving
food as a consequence of the legislation and the regulations as
currently envisaged by the Government?
Mr Bish: We believe somewhere
in the order of 20% of pubs—there are 60,000 pubs for broad
comparison—will cease doing food in order to retain their
smoking status.
Q289 Mr Burstow: That is an additional
20% over and above those who currently do not serve food. Is that
what you mean?
Mr Bish: We are in the throws
of defining what food is, but there are very few pubs that do
no food at all. We are not talking additional, we are talking
total. They are about 20%.
Mr Hayward: I am sorry to interrupt,
but we have actually provided some data in our submission on page
12 which I think sets out what we expect to be the position.
Q290 Mr Burstow: You suggest something
like 34%, I think was the figure I have seen in your paper?
Mr Hayward: Yes.
Q291 Mr Burstow: The Choosing Health
White Paper suggests a range of ten to 30%; so I am interested
that you suggest it is 20%. That looks as if you are splitting
the difference?
Mr Bish: That is the report back
from my members who are marginally different from the BBPAs.
Q292 Mr Burstow: So 20% of your members
are saying that within those multiple premises they will be giving
up food in order to retain their smoking status?
Mr Bish: Yes.
Mr Cotton: Can I come back to
your previous point? We as an industry have been very much engaged
with government in trying to improve the health of the nation
in a holistic way, because we are very much into food (about salt,
fat, sugar, all these issues), and I think improving the health
of the nation is an holistic issue—you have got to treat
it in the whole—and smoking is a key part of improving the
health of the nation. If we are looking to, as it were, make changes
to what people eat to improve their health, smoking is a key part
of that dialogue as well. You cannot treat these in a segmented
way and have one thrust in one part of government and not supported
in another way.
Mr Payne: Going back to your first
point again, when I came into the trade 30 years ago you walked
into a pub and it was like a smog, full of smoke. Nowadays licensees
have spent millions of pounds and you can go into many public
houses that are clear. I do go and have meal in a public house
where they have smoking in one area, no smoking at the other area
where I go, and it is clear. Going on to the other part about
the changing over from food, we have many members who have a turnover
of 120,000 or less and they do rely to a certain part on food,
and a lot of those pubs will close. The survey from our members
said that a blanket ban, first of all, would see 38% of them closing
down.[3]
Q293 Mr Burstow: Thirty-eight per cent
of your members?
Mr Payne: Of our membership, yes.
Q294 Mr Burstow: That is based on
their statements?
Mr Payne: On their statements—their
statements only—on a total blanket ban.
Q295 Mr Burstow: That would be a
higher level of closure than has even been observed in the Republic
of Ireland, would it not?
Mr Payne: Yes, but this is on
a total ban: if we had a total ban where you could not have either
smoking areas or food areas.
Q296 Mr Burstow: Do you think if
a ban of the sort that was implemented in the Republic of Ireland
were implemented that figure would go down?
Mr Payne: The only different position
in Ireland is that the family own a lot of the public houses.
They do not have rents or mortgages to pay. We still understand
that 400-500 public houses have closed in Ireland since the ban
came in.
Q297 Mr Burstow: The figure does
seem to move about quite a lot, as we discovered when we went
to Dublin last week. Even here, in terms of the evidence we have
had, we have had the suggestion of very varying levels of speculative
figures about job losses. I think 7,500 has been mentioned in
another of the submissions we have had.
Mr Payne: Could I clarify the
point about the 38%?
Q298 Mr Burstow: Yes.
Mr Payne: We are talking about
the smaller end of the market. We are not talking about 38% of
the country.
Q299 Mr Burstow: That is a helpful
qualification. Finally on this issue around partial bans, it has
been put to us by a number of those who have submitted evidence
that the areas of the country where pubs will opt to remain smoking
pubs will be very concentrated in the less well-off areas. Is
that a view that you would share, or do you believe that this
would be spread across all areas and all social groups as a result?
Is there a view here?
Mr Hayward: Smoking prevalence
clearly indicates certain classifications of higher levels of
smoking than others, and there is no reason for believing that
that would not apply in this set of circumstances.
3 Mr Payne later informed the Committee that the actual
survey figure was 33.58%. Subsequent references to 38% should
also be read as the actual survey figure of 33.58%. Back
| 
