The Impact of Non-smoking regulations on the Hospitality Industry in England and Wales
The global issue of smoking and its health and societal effects have been a matter of debate for many years, however the debate further heightened in 1988 with the discovery of passive smoking and its dangers to health (World Health Organisation, 2002). More recent increased concerns about passive smoking have led to calls for new legislation to be put into place by governments in many parts of the world, to protect workers and customers from the risks engendered by a smoking environment (Gee, 2006).
The global issue of a smoking ban in public places which has already taken effect in many parts of the world, including parts of, Europe, USA, Australia and Asia, has generated much international media attention and considerable debate particularly for the hospitality Industry (Druce, 2006). A total ban on smoking inside pubs, restaurants, bars, clubs and virtually every enclosed public place throughout England will come into force in summer 2007 (White, 2006) and as the ban is nearing, the issue within the UK hospitality industry is becoming a more vexed one (BBC, 2006), and thus the essay aims to analyse the issue more closely.
The essay will focus on discussing the impact of the smoking ban on the hospitality industry in England and Wales, the health risks associated with smoking, the ethical arguments which exist and the high legislative environment the hospitality industry is faced with. The essay will go on to discuss the sectors of hospitality that the ban may particularly impact, how industry is responding and what measures are being put into place. Differences across countries where the ban is already in place will be interpreted, comparisons shall be made and predictions in regard to how UK and Wales may respond will be made.To conclude, the essay will summarise the extent to which the England and Wales ban will affect the hospitality industry, in terms of what the evidence suggests.
There is a general awareness of the link between smoking and illnesses such as heart disease and cancers, and The Department of Health (1992) evidence that smoking is the largest single cause of preventable mortality in England. Medical statistics suggest that smoking related illnesses are responsible for 25% of deaths in England and Mintel (2006), highlights that exposure to passive smoking in the workplace increases the risk of lung cancer of non-smokers by up to 40% (Radke, 2006). Hussain (2007) signifies that the growing pressure on the Government has been such that it had to act for a smoke-free future.
The primary purpose in introducing smoking bans is to allow people to work and socialise in clean, healthy, smoke free environments (Jamrozik, 2005), and Medical experts, including the British Medical Association, The Royal College of Physicians and the British Heart Foundation, all support this view and believe that a ban on smoking in public places is the single most effective measure to improving health (Byrne, 2001). The TUC (2006) (Trade Union Congress) also agrees and has the opinion that, UK’s pubs, bars and restaurants will become healthier places to work, and in the longer term fewer workers will fall ill or die as a result of secondhand smoke. On the other hand however, health related arguments are primarily challenged by the risk of losing sales and the difficulties of enforcing the ban for the hospitality industry (Batty and Left, 2004). On one hand, Government in England and Wales is predicting that there will be a reduction in deaths (between 60-180 each year) if smoking is reduced (Byrne, 2001), whilst on the other the hospitality industry may face losing potential business as a result, thus there are conflicting views which need to be considered.
Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt said the smoking regulations would help prevent unnecessary deaths caused every year from secondhand smoke, thus saving National Health Service costs, however not everyone is pleased by the news. Simon Clark, Director of Forest the pro-smoking group, argues that (Clark, 2004:2):
“…..the law is draconian and typical of government that seems determined to interfere in every aspect of our daily lives...Government should educate people about the health risks of smoking but have no right to force people to quit by making it more difficult for people to consume a legal product... People will continue to smoke and the idea that people are all going to give up smoking simply because they cant smoke in a pub is nonsense…”
From this it can be seen that there is an ethical argument which also exists and thus the ban looks to be generating an ethical paradox in England and Wales before even coming into force. It can therefore be questioned as to whether this ethical issue will become more extreme when the ban takes effect or whether the issue is just being exaggerated.
The Government is keen to avoid accusations of “nanny statism” by saying it only wants to guide people to make their own decisions about their health (Batty and Left, 2004), however Clark (2006) disagrees with the Government and criticizes their apparent double standards in haranguing the public not to smoke, whilst racking in revenue from smokers.
Lloyd (2005) highlights that the majority of the public who do not smoke, should be able to go to their place of work and other enclosed public places without risk to their health. The Tobacco Worker’s Alliance (2006) retaliates, and says that smokers should not be vilified or marginalized. Therefore it can be said that smokers’ rights groups and the tobacco industry are against such regulations, arguing that the bans are limiting personal freedom.
Batty and Left (2004) point out that the Government believe that in a free society, men and women ultimately have the right within the law to choose their own lifestyle, even when it may damage their own health, but people do not have the right to damage the health of others, therefore the Government intends to shift the balance significantly in favour of smoke free environments. Allen (1994:1) questions the Government’s point of view and states:
“Service businesses are public orientated, if the public doesn’t like the environment, they wouldn’t be there, ‘people speak with their feet, and we don’t need more government intervention’. The government always seems to be knocking at foodservice doors”
Thus from this it can be said that some hospitality businesses in England and Wales may feel pressured by the regulations, and as MaCauley (2006) notes, it is understandable that hospitality organisations who already face considerable statutory responsibilities might feel under more pressure with yet another duty.
The fact that alcohol, eating and smoking are linked to each other, for many people means that employers and their associations fear the possible commercial impact of a total ban on smoking (Pratten, 2003). A wide range of hospitality organisations serve both as a work place and a public place, moreover hotels, bars and restaurants are also public meeting places which place an emphasis on providing hospitality and meeting customer needs (Simon, 2006). Hussain (2007) points out that people go out to restaurants, bars and pubs for the sole reason of unwinding and enjoying themselves, which often means indulging in after dinner liqueurs and lighting up a cigarette. The paradox of restricting consumers’ freedom whilst endeavoring to provide hospitality, may explain why the notion of a smoking ban is particularly contentious to hospitality organisations (Baldwin, 2006).
Prior to the decisions of the smoking ban coming into place, hospitality organisations had taken other steps to prevent the dangers of passive smoke by using ventilation equipment (Bennett, 2004). However it was found that the ventilation systems were only effective to some extent. The British Medical Association (2005) claim that ventilation systems could not protect against the health risks of passive smoking, advising that they do not remove the fine particulate matter that is breathed most deeply into the lungs. This shows that although, other systems had been considered, they didn’t appear to be effective enough and Government took the decision of a ban as a result.
Yates (2006), owner of the Veranda Restaurant in Mississippi, says that the no smoking ordinance has not hurt the upscale dining business but has hurt the pub and bar sectors. Yates thinks the smoking ban is unfair to small business owners who do not have outdoor smoking options. Hussain (2007) also agrees and notes that with an onset of the ban, the consensus within the hospitality sector has been that pubs are bars will be most affected, as smoking and drinking go hand in hand. Thus it appears as though the England and Wales pub and bar sectors will be affected more by the ban, however this is only a prediction. To get a clearer picture of the situation of the hospitality industry in England and Wales after the ban, a comparison can be made using examples of counties where the regulations are already in place.
Hands (1999) signifies that places such as cinemas and public transport have rarely permitted smoking in recent years, therefore it will be places like pubs, restaurants and nights clubs that feel the biggest impact of the ban. In the USA, smokers say their rights are being infringed, while non-smokers delight in a fresher environment (Helm, 2006). Lloyd (2005) notes that business tax revenue from New York’s hospitality venues had increased by 12 per cent in the first nine months following the introduction of a ban, therefore in this way the ban is having a positive impact on New York’s hospitality industry.
Hu (2003) reports that the smoking ban had had an adverse effect on the sales in New York bars, he notes that proprietors had to cut back on hours with one proprietor commenting that “regulars have disappeared along with the ashtrays”. By contrast, Glantz and Smith (2004) provide tentative evidence that a no-smoking policy does not affect restaurant sales, thus the outcome of the regulations appear to differ. Research has shown that in Arizona where the ban has taken place, 56% surveyed felt that there had been no effect on business, 18% believed that it had deceased business and 12% believed the ordinance had increased their restaurant business (Lofton, 2006), thus again the regulations look to have mixed outcomes.
The Republic of Ireland was the first country in Europe to implement the ban (Lloyd, 2005) and industry watchers have been looking to Ireland, to predict the likely impact on the English and Welsh market. Lee (2006) reports that sales for the hospitality sector in Ireland have not been altered significantly since the ban. Some pubs in Ireland however have reported a definite change in customer behaviour, with smokers often deciding, after moving outside to smoke, to move to another bar (Donellan, 2003). Thus in this way, hospitality establishments to some extent look to be suffering. Helm (2006) highlights that in Ireland, people have accepted the ban and are ‘getting on with it’, on the other hand Lloyd (2005) reports that there had been 7,500 job losses in the hospitality sector since the introduction of the ban in Ireland. Thus it can be seen that yet again the outcomes looked to be mixed, and therefore it is difficult to predict whether the English and Welsh hospitality sector will be significantly impacted or not.
Market analysts are also looking into what effects the ban is having on neighboring Scotland, to get some idea of how a similar one would affect trade for English pubs. Scotland introduced its ban in March 2006 and so far, the prognosis shows an early drop in sales beyond levels anticipated in the run up to the ban (Simon, 2006). Hussain’s (2007) findings also correlate to this and report that the smoking ban implemented in Scotland has led to an estimated 11% drop in drink sales. Therefore it can be questioned as to whether the implementation of the ban in England and Wales will also significantly affect drink sales when people eat out or go to the pub.
The ban in Italy is said to be having positive impacts on health. Radke (2006) points out that the ban in Italy has led to a fall in hospital admissions for heart attacks and that admissions had fallen by 11% in the first five months of the regulations taking effect. On the other hand, the ban has had some negative impact and has not been accepted by all. Some bar owners and smokers say they ignore the ban on the grounds that smoking is an integral part of Italian bar and café culture (Helm, 2006). BBC (2002) highlights that England has a strong pub culture based on drinking in a smoky and noisy environment, and in this way it can be questioned whether the ban in England will have a similar impact on England’s pub culture as it has had on Italy’s bar and café culture.
Warwick (2006) emphasises that some smaller businesses may have difficulty in adapting to the changes, he also puts across the benefits of a smoke-free atmosphere and the way in which restaurateurs could attract more nonsmokers, and thus increase business and tap into new markets as a result. In terms of the types of sectors the ban look to impact more significantly, research is suggesting that the pub sector in England and Wales more than any other sector will be affected. It appears as though bars and ‘sit down’ type restaurants may be affected very slightly, however in relation to fast food, this sector is in large part smoke free already, and thus the ban would not have the same effect as it would for a other sectors (Hands, 1999).
Professor Gerard Hastings of Stirling University referred to 21 studies examining the financial impacts for pubs and restaurants of becoming smoke free. 12 out of 21 studies evidenced that there would be no negative impact (Asset Securization Report, 2006). Hewitt’s (2005) research also correlates to this and suggests that many businesses from the bans, have recognised that this is exactly what customers want. Hewitt (2005:2) comments:
‘If pubs, bars and restaurants are more pleasant places to be, more people will come in, the economic benefits from this angle are clear…’
Therefore from this it appears as though the bans will also bring positive outcomes. Simon (2006) believes that the smoking issue is being exaggerate and that once the regulations come into effect, business will carry on as normal. McCauley (2006) however brings to light that, once the bans have come into place, businesses must display no-smoking signs, otherwise owners will be fined £2,500 for failing to display the signs or to enforce the ban. In this way, the bans may cause problems for hospitality establishments, especially if they fail to take the ban seriously on a legal note.
The essay has shown that the non-smoking regulations due to come into force in England and Wales (summer 2007) may impact he hospitality industry to a certain degree. The evidence has suggested that in regard to the ban in other countries, the outcome has varied from place to place. Some research suggests that hospitality organisations are coping with the changes, whilst other evidence suggest that the ban has resulted in negative outcomes, such as a loss in customers and a decline in sales for some businesses. In terms of the sector which looks to be affected most in other countries, pubs and bars look to be feeling the loss more than restaurants and hotels. However, even with all the research and evidence, it is not certain as to how England and Wales will respond and the impact can only be a predicted one. Although it appears as though, the English and Welsh hospitality industry will not drastically suffer, evidence in relation to the ethics, the industry’s opinions and other country reactions suggests that there may be a slight impact on hospitality businesses.
It appears as though the English pub industry will be likely to feel an impact when the regulations come into place. Other European countries have reported decreases in mainly drink sales and a minor decline in customers, thus it can be predicted that England and Wales may follow suit. The research overall has suggested that customers in countries where the ban is in force, are happy with the change, however the question for the English and Welsh hospitality industry remains as to whether the bans will be good for business. Therefore it can be said that looking at all the research, there appears to be no thorough conclusion which can be made and therefore it can only be predicted that the smoking ban will impact England and Wales hospitality industry to a small extent. It can also be summarised that the regulations look to be, being made into a bigger issue than they actually are as the hospitality industry is under pressure by the bans coming into place, however again this is only a prediction and thus nothing can be said until the regulations are implemented.