A proposal by pub owners to delay the planned blanket ban on smoking for two years has been rejected today by the Minister for Health, Mr Martin.
The Licensed Vintners' Association (LVA) and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland (VFI) launched what they said was a reasonable and working alternative to the ban, which would include a two-year review period.
Speaking in Dublin this morning LVA chief executive Mr Donall O'Keeffe said the proposed alternatives would go a long way towards meeting the Government's objectives for improved working conditions while offering customers a choice.
He said the Government would still have the option of introducing the ban in 2005 if conditions had not significantly improved for both staff and non-smoking customers.
However Mr Martin said any delay in the introduction of the ban would serve no purpose and would only ensure that employees were forced to work in a unsafe environment for an "unnecessarily extended period of time."
The Minister said the ban was based on advice from health experts which is emphatic and enough time was allowed for discussion on the issue. He said the primary purpose of the initiative was to protect workers and the public from harmful environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and there was no room for compromise or delay.
The details of the LVA/VFI's alternatives are contained in their "Customer Choice and Common Sense" campaign, which include the results of a independent survey into customer attitudes to smoking in pubs and an economic impact survey.
VFI chief executive Mr Tadg O'Sullivan said both groups were concerned about the air quality in pubs and the announcement of the imminent ban, and had worked together to establish a reasoned and reasonable position to respond to those concerns.
Mr O'Keeffe agreed that the results of the survey showed that the majority of those questioned saw smoking as a problem in pubs, but he said this was before any alternatives were put forward.
In an instance where adequate ventilation was in place 46 per cent of regular pub users said they would prefer that to an outright ban, and 54 per cent would agree with separate smoking areas.
He said it was clear that there was a preference for customer choice over a total ban.
The economic impact study, which only considered effects on the licensed trade and was carried out by Mr Anthony Foley of DCU's Business School, predicted an 8 per cent drop in sales as the result of a ban, which Mr O'Keeffe said was based on very conservative assumptions. On the other hand, the study showed a worse-case scenario of at 22 per cent drop at a cost to the exchequer of €190 million and job losses of 8,500.
The groups have put forward a six-point proposed compromise plan.
- 50 per cent of pubs would be non-smoking
- No smoking at the bar counter
- Commitment to independently verified ventilation standards; minimum of 12 air changes per hour
- Owner managed/family run premises (with five employees or less) to be exempted
- Two-year review period
- Government to undertake scientific research as recommended in Expert Report
.
However, trade union MANDATE, which represents thousands of workers in the hospitality sector, called on the Government not to allow vintners to use bar workers as guinea pigs in what it said was a two-year experiment with ventilation.
Mr John Douglas described the alternatives as "ludicrous and unworkable" and would in fact be even more difficult to enforce that the Government's proposed complete ban.
Mr Douglas described the proposal to exempt pubs with five employees or less as not acceptable. "Bizarrely, given all we know about the cancer-causing effects of ETS, the vintners are proposing that bar staff in pubs with five staff or under should continue to be exposed indefinitely to ETS."
