There is no requirement for you to provide a shelter for either. However, since vaping is not covered under the same laws as smoking (yet), then there is no reason why you can't allow them to smoke somewhere within the building - as long as you don't upset your non-smokers, otherwise you could end up with three seperate areas where "never the twain shall meet".

As an ex-smoker I too sympathise with them. As I said in my last post, as they are not banned from vaping inside the building, would it be possible to provide them a space inside rather that building another shelter? In may not be practical I know.

I guess as there is no requirement, the only person who can decide is your employer, and I suppose that would depend on how many staff you are looking at facilitating this for.

Could you also perhaps, run this as a campaign to try to encourage the smokers over to vapour users, and then maybe (once you've got them over to vaping) eventually to quit?

Bast of luck to you!

Edited by user 10 April 2017 12:59:42(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling error

Good pragmatic advice from Public Health England here -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/534586/PHE-advice-on-use-of-e-cigarettes-in-public-places-and-workplaces.PDF

Some key advice from them

• While taking account of the specific circumstances applying to a public place or workplace, policies on e-cigarette use should be evidence-based and should aim to maximise the benefits while managing any identified risks
• E-cigarette use is not covered by smokefree legislation and should not routinely be included in the requirements of an organisation’s smokefree policy
• E-cigarettes have significant potential to help reduce tobacco use and the
  serious harm it causes to smokers, those around them and wider society.
  Recognitionof this should be at the centre of policies on e-cigarette use in public places and workplaces
• it is never acceptable to require vapers to share the same outdoor space with smokers. Where a designated outdoor smoking area has been provided in a public place or workplace, vapers should be allowed to vape elsewhere

It's worth noting that many vapers choose this smoking "alternative" because they are either trying to quit smoking, or they don't like cigarette smoke. As a "healthier" alternative to smoking, I can understand why vapers don't want to end up being in the same environment as regular smokers, however, most companies regard smoking and vaping to be the same thing and would be unwilling (and not compelled) to provide separate areas.

Some employers may choose to allow vaping in other areas (even indoors), but this would be on a case-by-case basis and would possibly be seen by nonsmokers/nonvapers as a disregard to their own welfare.

I have to say that the whole subject of smoking bans, smoking shelters, should we or shouldn't we, really winds me up. My own view (which I have also held in periods as a non-smoker) is that, given the calming but addictive nature of smoking, live and let live. If people want to smoke, that is their personal life choice, and goodness knows, they have suffered a lot of degrading treatment and ostracising from the holier than thou brigade over recent years. I am aware of the usual arguments against allowing smoking on site, but most of these don't really hold water. We have gone from an acceptance of smoking in the office (which I would grant as not acceptable), through the provision of smoking rooms (what was so wrong with these?), to provision of smoking shelters, and now to banning it altogether. And don't even start me on the subject of banning smoking outside hospitals, where a lot of people are under considerable stress; I'm sorry, but that's just cruel.

So, some people turn to a reportedly safer option of e-cigarettes/vapers (although I am not convinced of their safety), and still find themselves ostracised. I have always thought that it is far better to control when and where people smoke at work, rather than ban it altogether, cause considerable distress, and drive it underground. I think the Human Rights Act had something to say about this.......................

Originally Posted by: johnmurray

Victorian attitude?
Victorian productivity!
1. There is NO legal obligation to provide any shelter for smokers/vapers.
Any such provision is bound to impact on productivity, which is now lower than most of the developed world..and getting lower.
Rather than allow smokers to smoke, pay for smoking cessation courses!
No wonder UK management is rubbish!

https://www.ft.com/conte...4-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a

And Victorian management methods, presumably. Remind me which century we are in.

I think we are all well aware that there is no legal obligation to provide smoking shelters, but having lost smoking rooms inside buildings, common humanity would suggest that some shelter from the elements for smokers is provided. Unless, of course, you run a company like a Victorian workhouse.

Perhaps you should let the government know that you have found the reason for low productivity in the country. I'm sure they'd be grateful to know this. We can then stop worrying about issues such as lack of investment, aging workforces, ineffective management, overseas competition, recessions and all the other issues, which are clearly unimportant.

Those shirkers JM refers to are often using their allocated break periods defined in UK enactment of EU Directive - they aren't getting any "extra" time compared to non-smokers conversely they are actually taking a shorter break period as they trudge to clock in/out to some remote location on/off site.

The question could be so readily answered - outlaw the use of tobacco products in all forms.

EXCEPT HM Treasury have their reasons against this:

1) The tax revenue from sales of tobacco products

2) The lower life expectancy of users reducing payable state pension and other benefits

and before someone starts on the cost to the NHS of "smoking related illness" - this is already factored in the Treasury analysis.

On the subject of Victorian productivity - yes it used to be high because this nation was at the forefront of the industrial revolution, problem is a lot of companies are still using the Victorian equipment

A cynical reply - but I fear may become reality.

I am waiting for the first con. neg case where a vaper alleges injury due to being expossed to passive smoking - they had to go to the smoke shelter and were expossed to cigarette smoke, but never smoked cigarettes themselves, only vaped. Their "risk" will be lower than a cigarette smoker, but higher than a non smoker/vaper - hence con neg.

As a reaction to this insurers and employers will simply ban smoking and vaping on their premises. I don't think Legislation will be able to flex enough to accomodate the differential.

I am loathe to get involved in this discussion but some of the comments remind me of the Dark Ages. Perversely if we were discussing employee drugs and alcohol support and rehabilitation programme the comments would most likely be far more benevolent.