Tobacco duty increase hits law-abiding consumers who use British shops

Forest's response to the increase in tobacco duty announced today by the Chancellor:

INCREASE IN TOBACCO DUTY PENALISES LAW-ABIDING CONSUMERS, SAYS FOREST

The smokers' lobby group Forest has criticised the Chancellor’s decision to increase tobacco duty by two per cent above inflation, arguing that it penalises "law-abiding consumers".

Director Simon Clark said: "Law-abiding consumers who buy their tobacco in British shops are being penalised unfairly.

"The policy also discriminates against those who can least afford it, especially the elderly and the low paid.

"Increasing tobacco duty could cost the government billions of pounds. The people who will benefit most are black marketeers and those who purchase their tobacco abroad."

He added: "The Chancellor said the government's policy on tobacco will reduce smoking. It's not the government's role to force people to stop consuming a legal product. That's social engineering, which we deplore."

Update: Expect an increase of 33-50p on a pack of 20 cigarettes, and around 67p on a 25g pack of hand rolling tobacco.

Update on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 14:18 by Simon Clark

What the Chancellor announced today:

• Tobacco duty rates – as announced in the March Budget 2010, tobacco duty rates will increase by 2 per cent above the RPI. Duty on hand rolling tobacco will increase by an additional 10 per cent. These changes will come into effect from 6pm on 23 March 2011. (Finance Bill 2011)

• Changes to the tobacco duty regime – the Government is also restructuring cigarette duty to support health objectives. As a result, ad valorem duty on cigarettes will decrease to 16.5 per cent, and specific duty will increase by 25 per cent above the RPI. This will target the duty increase on cheaper cigarettes, adding 50 pence to a packet of economy cigarettes and 33 pence to a packet of premium cigarettes. These changes will come into effect from 6pm on 23 March 2011. (Finance Bill 2011)

• Tobacco: tackling fraud – The Government is fully committed to tackling the illicit trade in tobacco to protect public finances and support health objectives. HMRC and the UK Border Agency will be introducing a renewed strategy to tackle this fraud from April 2011.

The Tobacco Manufacturers Association reports that "According to latest data available from HM Revenue & Customs, up to 22% of cigarettes and 61% of handrolling tobacco consumed in 2008/09 avoided UK duty. This equates to a revenue loss to the Treasury of £3.8 billion (£10.4 million per day)."

Update on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 16:45 by Simon Clark

Media coverage:

Forest: Budget penalises law-abiding smokers (Politics.co.uk)
Cheap cigarettes prompt duty change (Independent/PA)
Cost of cigarettes and alcohol to increase tonight (Daily Mail)
Tobacco duty rise 'a boon to black marketeers' (The Grocer)
Budget 2011: £7 pack of cigarettes (Daily Telegraph)
Booze and fags hit by George Osborne (Daily Mirror)
It's hurting and it's still not working (Daily Record)

Update on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 17:50 by Simon Clark

See also: Bin the 'sin tax' (Tom Miers, The Free Society)

Bad memories of Budget Day

As a small child I hated Budget Day.

I'd cycle home from school, turn on the television, only to find that all the children's programmes had been moved to BBC2 to accommodate some tedious, long-winded analysis of the Chancellor's statement on BBC1. For a six or seven-year-old it was perhaps the most boring thing I had ever heard.

The problem was, on our old black and white TV we didn't get BBC2. And we didn't watch ITV. In fact, I can't remember ever watching ITV as a small child. I don't think it was snobbishness on my family's part. I just think we got better reception on BBC1 and anyway it was too much hassle getting up to retune the television using the little plastic dial on the front of the set.

So BBC1 it was until my father bought a new (colour) television in 1971. Finally we had BBC2, and I think we even watched the occasional programme on ITV.

But that explains why, to this day, the Budget still leaves me cold.

PS. Wearing my professional (ie Forest) hat I shall however be monitoring the Budget to comment upon the anticipated rise in tobacco duty. Watch this space.

Wheel of misfortune

Is it me or am I unlucky?

Drove to London last night to see Squeeze and The Feeling - one of this week's Teenage Cancer Trust concerts - and on my way to the Royal Albert Hall I got a puncture. Again.

Tried to change the wheel myself but we were on a slope (the sliproad at junction 5 of the M1 near Watford) and the car kept rolling off the jack. My hands - and trousers - were filthy.

Called the AA. Owing to our "vulnerable situation" we were given priority status and the patrolman arrived after 45 minutes.

Thankfully, it wasn't just me. There was a problem with the jack, which twisted and collapsed when the car reached a certain height, but he eventually changed the wheel and we continued our journey.

Rest of the evening can be summed up as follows: missed all but the last ten minutes of The Feeling, saw Squeeze, then limped home (on a speed restricted space-saver tyre) shortly before 1.00am.

Excuse me if I have a nap after the Budget this afternoon.

Welcome to the Liberty League

When we launched The Free Society in 2008 the plan was to show how the war on tobacco is just one example of excessive interference by Big Government in people's daily lives.

With smoking banned in all public places in the UK, we were concerned that non-smokers might lose interest in the subject and we would lose support, even from the ranks of tolerant non-smokers some of whom, let's be honest, quite like smoke free pubs and bars.

We had to demonstrate that tobacco is one of many lifestyle issues under attack and that, ultimately, the argument goes far beyond smoking. It's about individual freedom, personal responsibility, mutual consideration and much more.

We wanted to link to other liberal or libertarian-minded groups and create a loose coalition that might recreate the "swarm effect" that Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, wrote about in her infamous Guardian article Smoke and mirrors.

That same year, in partnership with The Freedom Association, we launched The Freedom Zone at the Conservative party conference, co-hosting events with the likes of the Manifesto Club and Progressive Vision, and last year we launched a series of debates in London, Voices of Freedom: The Battle Against Big Government.

Each debate was organised and co-hosted by The Free Society in association with one of the following groups: Institute of Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club and Liberal Vision.

The concept appears to have taken off. The Freedom Zone has become a fixture at the Conservative conference, the 2011 Voices of Freedom debates will be announced shortly, and I am delighted to report that the pro-liberty movement has a new ally.

Co-founder Anton Howes, a student at King’s College London and a member of the ASI's Next Generation Group, writes:

The Liberty League is a network for libertarian and classical liberal groups. It acts as a one-stop-shop for anyone wanting to get involved in the movement, helping to train and expand libertarian societies, maintaining a comprehensive list of all pro-freedom events in the UK, and channelling support to activists from campaigns and think-tanks.

It has opened applications for its inaugural Freedom Forum conference on April 1-3 at the Birmingham and Midland Institute.

For £20 (and a £10 deposit to be refunded on registration) accommodation, meals, free books and videos will all be provided. This is the perfect chance to meet other young pro-liberty activists from all over the UK, as well as taking part in seminars, meeting the libertarian movement's best speakers, and learning from activist training workshops.

Speakers from the Adam Smith Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs, Institute of Ideas, The Freedom Association, Big Brother Watch, some MPs and of course The Free Society's very own Simon Clark are confirmed.

Make sure you apply straight away, as space is limited and places are disappearing quickly.

I will be taking part in a panel discussion on 'Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs'. I can report too that The Free Society has joined the Liberty League network.

To put this development in perspective, until a few years ago Forest fought a fairly lonely battle when it came to defending the sale and consumption of tobacco. Now a significant number of groups and individuals (including Clare Fox and David Bowden at the Institute of Ideas) are prepared to take a stand on the issue, and the wider implications.

In addition to Forest and The Free Society, they include the Institute of Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute, The Freedom Association, TaxPayers' Alliance, Big Brother Watch, Manifesto Club, Democracy Institute, Progressive Vision, Liberal Vision, Nurses for Reform, Economic Policy Centre and the Centre for Policy Studies.

Not a bad coalition, if you ask me. And it's getting larger all the time.

Cancer Research: overzealous, overstaffed and over here

Cancer Research has responded to my article on Politics.co.uk last week with a piece of their own: Tobacco control plan is a victory for public health.

The extraordinary thing is, they needed TWO people to write it! Here's a taste:

Large, brightly lit shop displays of tobacco act like big adverts for cigarette brands and, placed next to the sweets and crisps in shops, make smoking seem like an invitingly normal, everyday activity rather than a deadly addiction ...

The tobacco control plan is a testament to the campaigning of a huge range of organisations that care about the nation's health and want to reduce the harm from smoking. Charities such as Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation line up alongside medical bodies such as the BMA and royal colleges for physicians and GPs. We join together because we see the damage caused by smoking and the evidence for what works to cut smoking.

These motivations are in contrast to the tobacco industry whose interests are inherently opposed to the nation's health - their obligations to shareholders require them to maximise profits and sales of cigarettes. The industry's past record is such that the government limits its discussions with them to operational matters. They prefer to influence through front groups but in future anyone who lobbies the Department of Health on tobacco policy will have to declare their links to the industry.

Action on tobacco displays, a review of plain packaging, commitment to stop smoking services and a tough approach to the tobacco industry add up to a good start for the government. The crucial next step is to implement plain packaging and end the dangerously seductive branding of cigarettes.

To comment click here.

Update on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 9:58 by Simon Clark

Curiously, there were 20+ comments on my article when I looked last Friday. All but one has disappeared. Funny that, because they were largely positive.

Scotland's smoking ban five years on

Further to this post, the Scotsman has published a feature entitled 'Five years of the smoking ban'.

"With the fifth anniversary of the most radical public health legislation since devolution, Lyndsay Moss gauges how Scots have reacted and tries to discover what the next step might be."

The article is not (yet) available online but it includes comments from me, Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, Phil Hanlon and Jill Pell, professors of public health at Glasgow University, and Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland.

It also features several case studies including a publican, Lynn Adams, who "has seen her business decline since the smoking ban came in", and a smoker, Dr Stuart Waiton:

Stuart Waiton is a lecturer in Dundee and has smoked on and off for the past 25 years and now smokes about four cigarettes and two pipes a day.

The 43-year-old said the smoking ban had changed the atmosphere in pubs, and he finds the altered attitude to smokers since the legislation "depressing".

He said: "The fact I have to go outside to have a cigarette is an irritation, but it's nothing compared to the sense of depression that there is no 'public' in Britain in terms of a public that organises its own affairs without having experts setting the agenda.

"Previously people were quite happy to sit and smoke and talk. Now you have people standing outside, so something they had been doing for 20 years without any bother is suddenly not an accepted thing - I am a danger to other people and they might see me as a danger and, therefore, I must stand outside the pub. That is depressing."

Waiton said after the ban it became a novelty to visit pubs in England, where smoking was allowed until July 2007.

He said: "I was suddenly in a situation where I was in a pub where I could smoke and it felt strangely liberaying.

"It occurred to me to be a bizarre thing that it was accepted now in Scotland that you were, in a sense, killing people if you smoked in a bar, and yet you could go to England and kill people and no-one seemed to mind."

Waiton said what currently annoyed him most was schools teaching children to lecture their parents about the dangers of tobacco.

The father-of-two said: "My children's teachers are educating them to educate me not to smoke, which I find profoundly insidious."

He said his children had made a point of showing him a no-smoking poster they had made. "Ironically, they had spelt it incorrectly, with 'smocking' instead of smoking. I thought that was brilliant as I am always saying: if only your teachers educated you - rather than trying to socialise you to socialise me - you might actually be able to spell."

Other profiles include 'The Quitter' and 'The Doctor'.

Update: Five years of the smoking ban

Thank God for Guinness

Returned late last night from our weekend in Dublin.

The least said about the rugby on Saturday the better. It was all going so well - for the first 30 seconds. After that - well, we were in the third row of the upper tier behind one end so we got a perfect view of the carnage that followed.

Yesterday we spent the afternoon at Croke Park, home of the GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association) where Dublin were playing Mayo.

Having enjoyed a week's holiday in Westport, Co Mayo, several years ago - and seen Mayo play Fermanagh in an All-Ireland semi-final at Croke Park in 2004 - we supported the visitors.

Dublin won. Naturally.

Before the match my son bought a hurling stick. The taxi driver who drove us to the airport after the match was visibly impressed. Not so airport security. They confiscated it as an "offensive weapon".

"Do we look like we're going to club someone to death?" I protested, but to no avail.

It was one of those weekends.

Thank God for Guinness.

Interrogated by the Morning Star - and I survived to tell the tale

Had a long conversation this afternoon with Rory MacKinnon, a reporter for the Morning Star.

He's working on a piece about the response to the Government's tobacco control plan and wanted answers to the following questions (which he kindly emailed in advance):

1. I understand you told a select committee in 2000 that Forest received around £250,000pa in funding from the TMA. Is this figure still accurate?

2. You also confirmed that this represented around 96% of Forest's operating budget. Is this also still accurate?

3. You have said in both your testimony to the select committee and on Forest's website that it was "not set up by the industry, but independently by this chap, Christopher Foxley-Norris, and a few of his pals." Can you confirm that neither the TMA nor its predecessor the Tobacco Advisory Council were behind its creation? If not, why do you maintain that Forest is an independent organisation?"

4. I've read several interviews and columns in which you've said there is no evidence for a tobacco display ban reducing the number of young smokers. How do you reconcile this with the importance the tobacco industry itself places on branding and visibility?

I won't repeat my replies to these and other searching questions. Suffice it to say I'm not expecting a ringing endorsement of Forest or our role in the war on tobacco!

Update: According to its Wikipedia entry, "The [Morning Star] was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It was relaunched as the Morning Star in 1966. Since 1945, the paper has been owned by the People's Press Printing Society whose current policy is that Britain's Road to Socialism, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain, underlies the paper's editorial stance."

Another Wikipedia entry states that the Communist Party of Britain is "not to be confused with Communist Party of Great Britain".

Confused? Never!