News in the national press last weekend suggesting that the Government is examining the idea of smoking rooms as an alternative to an outright ban on smoking indicates that it's close to making a decision on the subject. But while a ruling would be appreciated by operators - finally putting this debate to bed - it's alarming that the Government is still prepared to contemplate subjecting hospitality employees to passive smoke.
Last year, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health stated that knowledge of the hazardous nature of second-hand smoke (SHS) demonstrated that "no infant, child or adult should be exposed to SHS". So given that the Department of Health is supposed to be going to lengths to protect people from the health risks, why would it still consider exposing workers in bars and pubs? As pressure group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) stated in this magazine just two months ago: "There can be no justification whatever for protecting the great majority of employees while continuing to leave some of the employees at the greatest risk exposed."
A compromise, such as the introduction of smoking rooms, is a legislation fudge that would also create an unlevel playing field for operators - smaller pubs and bars unable to accommodate a smoking room would lose smokers to the larger operations that could.
Surely a blanket ban is the only acceptable solution.
A resolution is imminent, so make sure you keep up with developments on www.caterersearch.com.
Meanwhile, Caterer this week exclusively reveals the minutiae of the new rating system by which all hotels and B&Bs across the UK will be judged. Although there's bound to be discussion over the criteria, a single method of assessing and rating serviced accommodation should be welcomed - not least because it will clarify what consumers can expect. But as anyone who has read the wave of concern in Caterer's own letters pages over the past couple of months will know, the common standards must work with hotels to ensure they're not forced into categories detrimental to their business and damaging to their individual characters.
Mark Lewis