Burning Issues: An Evening with Claire Fox

Pleased to announce the launch of a new initiative hosted by Forest.

Burning Issues is a series of private dinners to which we will invite a small but eclectic group of consumers, opinion formers and decision-makers to address a topical issue.

A guest speaker will kick start the debate which will be followed by a roundtable discussion.

The first Burning Issues dinner takes place in Dublin next month when our speaker is Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas, author of 'I Find That Offensive!' and a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4's The Moral Maze.

Topic for the evening is 'Is health the new religion?' Attendance is by invitation only and Chatham House rules apply but I'll give you a flavour of the debate (without mentioning names) after the event.

Labour wants to address the demise of the British pub - hypocrites!

I was in Brussels this week when I heard that Labour's leaked manifesto included a section about smoking:

Labour will implement a Tobacco Control Plan, focussing on issues of mental health and children smokers, along with groups in society, such as BAME and LGBT communities, with high prevalence of the use of tobacco products.

More interesting perhaps was the commitment to set up a National Review of Local Pubs "to examine the causes for the large-scale demise of pubs."

Seriously, you could have heard me laughing back in London as I scribbled a quick statement and sent it to the usual suspects plus the Morning Advertiser, the pub trade journal:

"We support the idea of a review but it's a bit late for the thousands of pubs that closed as a direct result of the smoking ban that was introduced by the last Labour government in 2007.

"The party ignored warnings that the ban would have a devastating impact so it's stunning hypocrisy to make the plight of pubs an election issue ten years later.

"The smoking ban isn't the only reason for the demise of Britain's pubs but it is a significant factor.

"In recent years polls have consistently shown majority support for allowing well-ventilated designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs.

"If a review is to be more than a PR exercise it must take public opinion into account and consider an amendment to the ban that would meet the demands of all customers, smokers and non-smokers alike."

The Morning Advertiser reported the manifesto policy but ignored our response. Instead they quoted several pub trade spokesman including the saintly Bridget Simmonds, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association.

Typically they all banged on about business rates as if this is the sole cause of thousands of pubs closing over the last ten years.

I'm sure it is a factor - together with cheap supermarket beer and changing social trends - but to ignore the impact of the smoking ban is downright perverse.

As I've pointed out before, the data is clear. In the 12 months after the introduction of smoking bans in Ireland (2004), Scotland (2006), England, Wales and Northern Ireland (2007) there was a significant increase in pub closures that cannot be attributed to anything else.

The recession struck in the second quarter of 2008, making a bad situation even worse, but the damage had already been done (see Smoking gun: is the smoking ban a major cause of the decline of the British pub?).

Subsequent research in 2010 (The British smoking bans: stubbing out the urban pubs) demonstrated that the pubs that suffered most were landlocked inner city pubs, most of them in Labour constituencies.

The irony wasn't lost on us nor is the hypocrisy of a party that pledges to investigate the damage they accelerated when they enforced the smoking ban - against public opinion - in 2007.

Anyway, it's completely academic. Labour have absolutely no chance of winning the election so they can promise whatever they like and it will make no difference to the result on June 8.

Instead we must try and persuade Theresa May's government to commission its own review of the decline of the British pub, examining every factor and what can be done to resuscitate this endangered institution.

Sadly I fear the smoking ban has done to Britain's pubs what the Beeching cuts did to the railways. Hundreds of stations were closed and thousands of miles of track were torn up. Fifty years later people still question whether that was the right decision.

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the smoking ban in England it's not too late to save the traditional pub (by which I don't mean the gastro, child-friendly establishments that have become so ubiquitous) but the patient is in intensive care and needs urgent life-saving measures - including the option of comfortable smoking rooms indoors and out - if it's to survive.

Update: As part of their policy to legalise cannabis the Lib Dems have announced they would allow small "cannabis social clubs".

That seems reasonable to me.

What's odd is that the Lib Dems support the smoking ban and there's no mention in their manifesto of amending the legislation to allow, for example, small social clubs where people can smoke tobacco.

Doesn't seem very logical to me but that's the Lib Dems for you.

The Curse of Forest: Stephen Williams

The Curse of Gnome is a long-running gag in Private Eye that records the subsequent misfortunes of anyone who has taken legal action against the magazine.

For years I considered something very similar – a series of posts chronicling the demise or bad luck of anyone Forest had done battle with.

In a nod to Private Eye I intended to call it The Curse of Forest.

There were no shortage of subjects but the idea remained in my head because I thought that revelling in others' misfortune might be in bad taste.

There comes a point however when the temptation to mock our opponents becomes too great, and I reached that point this week.

Stephen Williams is a name that will be familiar to many readers. He was the Lib Dem MP for Bristol West from 2005-2015 but it wasn't until 2010 that he came to our attention when he was nominated (by ASH) to take part in a video Rod Liddle was filming for the Sunday Times.

Prompted by Brian Binley's EDM that was designed to gauge support for a review of the smoking ban, Rod wanted to interview Brian, me and someone from ASH.

In the event, as I wrote at the time, "and after a lot of waiting", a spokesman from ASH failed to turn up.

Instead they put forward Stephen Williams, a youthful-looking Lib Dem MP, who declared that the reason he couldn't support the use of extraction fans (and therefore an amendment to the smoking ban) is because - wait for it - they are too noisy and drown out conversation!!!

Well, that's what Rod said he said so it must be true. I was out of earshot.

Williams was nominated by ASH because he was chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, a faux parliamentary body run and adminstered by, you guessed, ASH.

A few months later Williams came to our attention again when he voted against David Nuttall's ten-minute motion that sought to amend the smoking ban to allow separate smoking rooms.

But it was his prominent role in the launch of Plain Packs Protect, a taxpayer-funded campaign that supported plain packaging, that finally brought us into direct contact.

I won't bore you with every detail because I wrote about them at length at the time and the relevant posts are featured in Hands Off Our Packs: Diary of a Political Campaign, which you can download for free.

These headlines however give a flavour of our relationship with this "dull but worthy" man:

The hypocrisy of ASH, Stephen Williams and Peter Hain (January 6, 2012)
Only one word to describe Stephen Williams – pathetic (January 18, 2012)
Stephen Williams, "the forces of darkness" and Chris Snowdon's vagina (May 12, 2012)
Medal for Stephen WHO? (May 5, 2013)
Stephen Williams wants to be public health minister (June 14, 2013)
Stephen Williams: ASH to the rescue! (September 11, 2013)

Finally, in a series of posts written shortly before the 2015 Election, I wrote:

Former chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (run by ASH), Lib Dem candidate Stephen Williams is one of Britain's most committed anti-smoking politicians. On a personal level I quite like him. Against that he's a strong advocate of plain packaging and helped launch the Plain Packs Protect campaign in 2012. In 2013 his enthusiastic support for smoking bans and other tobacco control policies was recognised by the World Health Organisation which presented him with a special award, at which point he declared he'd like to be public health minister! Stranger things have happened.

2010 majority: 11,366 (20.5%)
Estimated number of smokers in Bristol West: 16,500
Closest opponent: Labour
Friend or foe: Foe
Target rating: Not impregnable but should hold on

As it turned out, I was wrong about that.

Appointed a junior minister in the Coalition Government, Williams' Westminster career came to a juddering halt when he lost his seat to Thangam Debbonaire (Conservative).

Worse, he came third behind the Green candidate. From 26,593 votes (48 per cent of the votes) in 2010, his support fell by more than half to 12,103 votes (18.8 per cent), a staggering defeat.

Determined to bounce back, however, Williams set his sights on becoming the West of England's first metro mayor.

In February, following his nomination, the Lib Dems declared him to be the favourite to win the mayoral race.

In April Williams himself was a little more cautious, suggesting he was neck and neck with the Tory candidate but well ahead of Labour.

So, how did it go?

The result, announced on Friday, saw Williams come third (again!), behind the Conservative candidate, who won, and Labour, who came second.

The full result was:

Tim Bowles, Conservative – 53,796
Lesley Mansell, Labour – 43,627
Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat – 39,794
John Savage, independent – 29,500
Darren Hall, Green Party – 22,054
Aaron Foot, UKIP – 8,182

Where this latest rejection leaves Williams, I've no idea. His blog has gone strangely quiet, although he's been active on Twitter, retweeting comments about his "fantastic", "spirited" campaign.

Have we heard the last of him? Probably not. After all, anyone who still includes the letters 'mp' in his Twitter handle (@swilliamsmp), two years after losing his seat in Parliament, is either in denial or deluded.

Curiously however I can't find the name of the 2017 Lib Dem candidate for Bristol West anywhere so it's not impossible that it's still to be announced and Williams could yet rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes of a once-promising political career.

Or perhaps he could get a job with ASH. They owe him one.

Anti-smoking campaigners target smoking in the home

The president of the Faculty of Public Health wants smoking banned in all new council houses.

The Sunday Times has the story but it's behind a paywall. I'm quoted as follows:

Simon Clark, director of the pro-smoking (sic) campaign group Forest, said that a ban “would penalise unfairly those who can’t afford to buy their own homes”.

The full comment I gave them (not used) read:

"Banning smoking in social housing would set a very dangerous precedent. Not only would it be a gross invasion of privacy, it would penalise unfairly those who can't afford to buy their own homes.

"How would the policy be enforced? It could create a snooper's charter allowing people to snitch on neighbours, especially those they don't get on with. Children might inadvertently give their parents away, resulting in possible eviction.

"It's not second hand smoke that's making people's lives a misery. It's puritanical bodies like the Faculty of Public Health who, having campaigned to ban smoking in every pub and club in the country, are now trying to dictate how people behave in their own private space as well."

Middleton is one of the public health 'chiefs' who has been pressing the Government to publish its new tobacco control plan without delay (Doctors urge May to publish anti-smoking strategy).

By calling for what many people will think is fairly extreme action, I imagine the strategy is to force ministers to introduce other policies that can be presented as less draconian.

The long-term goal however is clear and thanks to the Obama administration the US now offers governments worldwide a model when it comes to smoking and social housing.

What disgusts me is how shameless anti-smoking campaigners are. Social housing or not, it's still someone's home. As I told the Sunday Times, why should people be discriminated against just because they can't afford to buy their own house?

Whether it's taxation or smoking bans, the likes of ASH just love giving the less well-off a good kicking.

Ultimately though policies such as this are just a Trojan horse to ban smoking in all housing, regardless of wealth.

The 'good' news, if you can call it that, is that it might put 'passive' smoking back on the agenda.

One of the problems we've had since public smoking bans were introduced a decade ago is that no-one, least of all the media, wants to talk about the impact of 'secondhand' smoke in enclosed spaces, public or otherwise.

As far as journalists and politicians are concerned it's yesterday's news. Passive smoking kills (allegedly) and there's no more to be said. The debate, in their eyes, is over.

By putting smoking in the home up for discussion it means there's an opportunity to reassess the impact of 'secondhand' smoke.

Perhaps (and I don't say this with any confidence) we may be able to persuade ministers to revisit the evidence and reconsider the extent to which smoking should be restricted.

If the anti-smoking industry wants to have that battle I'm all for it.

Location, location, location

Just back after 24 hours in Dublin.

I caught an early flight out yesterday and was home by eleven this morning.

My mission was to locate a suitable venue for a series of dinners Forest is organising in the city.

The initiative is called Burning Issues and each dinner will have a different theme. The plan is to invite 12-16 people for a roundtable discussion kick-started by a guest speaker.

There's nothing original about the idea. I attended a very similar event in London a couple of years ago. It was organised by the Institute of Ideas and the format worked rather well.

By coincidence the speaker at the first Burning Issues dinner in Dublin next month will be Claire Fox, director of the IoI and an old friend of Forest.

Finding a suitable location isn't easy, though. There are plenty of restaurants with private dining rooms but we wanted to find somewhere with a smoking terrace adjacent to the room.

The size and shape of the room have to work too, and the location can't have too much background noise.

One restaurant on our shortlist would have been ideal except for the fact that the private dining area was only 'semi-private'. All that separated it from the main restaurant was a thick velvet drape.

It reminded me of a restaurant I went to in Rome ten years ago. The legislation in Italy allowed proprietors to have a separate smoking room as long as certain fairly strict conditions were met.

For example, smoking rooms had to be equipped with automatic sliding doors to stop smoke spreading to other areas.

Not in the restaurant I went to. The smoking 'room' was separated from the rest of the establishment by a simple curtain.

Above our heads however was a ventilation system with enormous pipes that resembled the engine room of a ship.

The set up seemed to work, though, and everyone was happy.

Anyway, in the brief time I was in Dublin I think we've whittled the shortlist down to two.

The first is one of the best restaurants in the city. It has two private dining rooms. One is next to the kitchen so guests can watch the chef at work.

The other is on the first floor and offers greater privacy. It has air conditioning and, most important, direct access to a covered smoking terrace.

The downside is the shape of the room. It's long and narrow, which isn't ideal for a roundtable discussion.

The location of the second option on our shortlist has three dining areas for hire. One is a room on the ground floor off the small and rather dark public bar.

It's the right shape and an adequate size but it doesn't have air conditioning. In June, even in Ireland, it could get a bit hot and you can't open the windows because there would be too much noise from passing traffic.

On the top floor there's a bright, typically Edwardian room with views over St Stephen's Green. There's even a small smoking area, although it looked and felt more like a fire escape to me.

There were three or four round tables seating 4-6 people per table. For a roundtable discussion however that wouldn't work because everyone has to sit together, not be seated on separate tables.

Which brings me to the most intriguing option – a small wooden 'lodge' at one end of the outdoor smoking terrace, complete with its own bar and a fully retractable roof.

It can accommodate 16-20 people, seated in a square. Weather permitting the roof can be opened allowing guests to dine al fresco.

The safer option is the first one. The restaurant has a good reputation and enquiries suggest people enjoy going there.

The second is a bit of a wild card but that can sometimes be more fun.

We'll make our decision on Monday.

Brussels bound, again

At the end of this month we're hosting the official launch party for Forest EU.

The event takes place on May 31 at The Staff 42, a stylish bar restaurant just yards from the European Parliament.

By coincidence May 31 is also World No Tobacco Day.

Last year I was in Brussels on WNTD and I couldn't help noticing that the Smokefree Partnership, a coalition of tobacco control groups that includes ASH and Cancer Research UK, was hosting a reception to mark the Tobacco Products Directive and 'plain packaging progress in the EU'.

Naturally I endeavoured to get an invitation – but they didn't reply (sob). Instead I spent the evening watching football in an Irish bar off Avenue Louise.

I can't say Forest EU is the direct result of the Smokefree Partnership's little soirée. It did give the project the kick start it needed though because our long-term goal is to create our own coalition that is the antithesis of the anti-smoking lobby in Brussels.

Whether we succeed remains to be seen but if you'd like to join us in Brussels on May 31 and help make our voices heard it would be great to see you. Click here to register.

PS. Last week I was in Brussels to attend the launch of Students for Liberty's Consumer Choice Center.

Next week I am returning for the first Nanny State Index conference. After that it's the Forest EU launch party.

How ironic that just as the UK is preparing to Brexit I find myself semi-resident in the heart of the EU!

Lifestyle and the NHS

I was on The Big Questions (BBC1, above) yesterday.

The programme was broadcast from a secondary school just outside York. They wanted guests to arrive by 8.45 so I had to leave home shortly after six to drive the 138 miles from Cambridgeshire.

When I arrived there were outside broadcast vans in the car park and the staff room had been commandeered as a green room.

I introduced myself to one or two guests including Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum and we talked about Formula 1 (which he likes) and boxing (which he doesn't).

Presenter Nicky Campbell then came to say hello. As I've mentioned before, Nicky and I were at Aberdeen University together. I didn't know him well - he was one or two years below me - but our paths crossed via a student newspaper I edited and I've followed his career with interest.

We had a brief chat before we were taken downstairs to a large room that had been converted into a makeshift studio.

Prior to the live broadcast there was a 'rehearsal' to check mics etc. Guests and members of the audience were encouraged to talk about the election but as I was wearing my Forest hat I preferred to keep quiet.

If you watch The Big Questions you'll know that each week they feature three topics, devoting approximately 18-minutes to each one.

This week the subjects were 'Should the NHS ration according to lifestyle?', 'Is welfare reform working?' and 'Are your actions more important than your beliefs?'

The lifestyle issue was first up but instead of developing into a debate it was more a series of non-related statements by various guests, followed by two or three comments from members of the audience.

My contribution was limited to a handful of soundbites.

It's "morally wrong", I said, to deny people operations because of their lifestyles.

It's also "cruel" because if you're waiting for a hip or knee replacement you may be in "massive, physical pain" or unable to move.

Delaying operations would still cost the NHS money, I said, because patients may need medication and physiotherapy while they are waiting for their operations.

"No smoker should feel any guilt for smoking," I added, because they make a "massive contribution" to the welfare state and the NHS would "struggle without the tobacco taxes that smokers contribute."

I got a smattering of applause for saying I was overweight and would like to lose weight but didn't want the government to force me to lose weight by "introducing, for example, sugar taxes."

Later I got a bit more applause when I tackled a member of the audience who complained about the food and drink industries "supersizing us" (sic) with "giant capucinos you could take a swim in."

"People have a choice not to drink these things," I retorted. "We can make up our own minds."

There appeared to be very little support for the idea that the NHS should ration treatment on the basis of lifestyle but the 'debate' was so unfocused it was difficult to draw any conclusions.

As usual some speakers seemed to think the answer to everything lies in pouring more and more money into the health service or increasing taxes.

In hindsight I regret not suggesting that health is the new religion, with people increasingly classified as saints or sinners.

Given the nature of the programme, which describes itself as a series of "moral, ethical and religious" debates, it would have been more apposite.

Next time, perhaps.

PS. You can watch yesterday's episode of The Big Questions here.

They were going to describe Forest as "pro-smoking". After I put them right the caption on the screen was changed to 'Forest, lifestyle choice lobby'.

That has a nice ring to it.

PPS. My daughter, after seeing the programme, said, "You always seem so angry."

It's not me, it's my job!

How ignorance and propaganda influenced the smoking ban

Final word on my You and Yours interview with former Secretary of State for Health Patricia Hewitt.

I mentioned yesterday that the 'as live' interview was edited quite heavily with the result that my reference to the Enstrom/Kabat study on passive smoking was omitted from the broadcast.

Interestingly, Hewitt admitted she had never heard of it, despite the fact that it remains the largest single study on the impact on secondhand smoke on people regularly exposed - year after year - to other people's tobacco smoke.

Two more things that didn't make the broadcast.

During the recording she explained that one of the factors in her decision to push for a comprehensive smoking ban was evidence that bans had reduced heart attacks.

She was referring to the famous 'heart attack miracle' in Helena, Montana, that has been debunked many times. (Fergus Mason wrote about it here only this week.)

Her comments were, I think, cut but it's significant she was aware of the Helena study but not the Enstrom/Kabat research.

In contrast her predecessor John Reid was very well briefed on the evidence on passive smoking - and made it his business to be so.

Unlike Hewitt he took the trouble to speak to ALL sides of the debate, including Forest.

Our late chairman Lord Harris and I were invited to a meeting with Reid and his senior advisor Julian Le Grand at the Department of Health.

Reid was clearly sceptical about the risks of passive smoking and when he was asked to comment Le Grand stated that the evidence was indeed weak.

The point is, Reid and his senior adviser were aware of all the evidence and spoke to all sides. Hewitt wasn't, and didn't.

Another thing that didn't make the cut was the story of Nick Hogan, the Bolton publican who received a six-month prison sentence for failing to pay fines received for allowing customers to smoke on his premises for one day only (July 1, 2007) in defiance of the ban.

I explained how I had travelled to Salford Jail to help oversee Nick's release after an online appeal had raised £9,000 to pay the accumulated fines.

The former Health Secretary said she knew nothing of that either - despite the headlines it attracted at the time.

Unfortunately her ignorance of this and other smoking-related issues wasn't broadcast and will have to remain a secret.

PS. There was an amusing postscript to our meeting with John Reid.

Prior to the meeting Lord Harris and I were under strict instructions to keep it confidential. Nobody was to know we were meeting and it was to take place under strict Chatham House rules.

Imagine my surprise - and consternation - when minutes after leaving the meeting I got a call from the Press Association asking me to comment on the meeting.

I was worried Reid might think we had gone straight to the press and this might jeopardise future engagement.

So I admitted the meeting had taken place but said nothing about our (extremely agreeable) discussion.

It took me a few minutes to realise that the source of the 'leak' must have been Reid's office and we were unwitting participants in what I imagine was his battle with the tobacco control lobby.