Ban smoking in UK parks and squares says Labour peer

A Labour health minister is calling for ban on smoking in UK parks and beaches.

Remarkably, and to his credit, our old friend Professor Simon Chapman "says there is no scientific justification for such a draconian attack on basic freedoms":

Here's Forest's response, which we released earlier today (the BMJ press release was embargoed until 11.30pm):

"The ban on smoking in enclosed public places was introduced, allegedly, to protect the health of bar workers.

"There's nothing to suggest that lighting up in the open air is harmful to anyone other than the smoker.

"Campaigners say a ban will discourage children from smoking but there's no evidence that the sight of a stranger smoking encourages children to start.

"The principal reasons are peer pressure and the influence of family members.

"We must be careful we don't create a world only puritans can inhabit.

"Tobacco is a legal product and smokers pay £10 billion a year in tobacco taxation alone.

"If they're not permitted to smoke in any pub or club, smokers must be allowed to light up outside without being harassed or made to feel uncomfortable."

This afternoon I was asked about my availability to appear on BBC Breakfast in the morning. Thankfully I've heard no more. For once I won't be getting up at 3.00am and driving to Salford ...

Stop The Nonsense: great turnout and excellent speeches

Great turnout for last night's event on plain packaging at the IoD hosted by Forest, Parliament Street and Liberal Vision.

Speakers were Mark Littlewood (Institute of Economic Affairs), John O'Connell (TaxPayers Alliance), Madsen Pirie (Adam Smith Institute), Claire Fox (Institute of Ideas), Rory Broomfield (Freedom Association), Emily Barley (Conservatives for Liberty), Angela Harbutt (Liberal Vision) and Chris Snowdon (IEA Lifestyle Economics Unit).

Each speaker was given a couple of minutes to make their point and the rapid fire format worked rather well, I thought.

Soundbites (courtesy of Dick Puddlecote who was live tweeting), included:

Pirie: "Anti-smoking is a faith industry, not based on evidence."

Harbutt: "MPs, stick to the facts, not fiction. Vote no, stop the nonsense."

Fox: "Plain packaging is a free speech issue" and "My nephew has watched hundreds of ads for washing up liquid but has never washed the dishes."

Snowdon: "There is no doubt that this will be studied by those who want to do the same with alcohol, food and sugar."

Littlewood: "Deficit of £100bn, international instability, Ukraine/Greece, yet last act of government is to regulate colour schemes."

Former criminal justice minister, the Rt Hon Damian Green, also sent a message that was read out by former Forest spokesman Brian Monteith:

As a former Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice I cannot support the current proposals on plain packaging. Our police are engaged in a permanent battle against organised crime gangs which this proposal would make more difficult.

Last week’s report from RUSI [Royal United Services Institute] makes disturbing reading. It describes how organised crime operates in Britain today. It is diverse, sophisticated and largely invisible to the general public. The Report highlights the danger of illicit trade.

Many of these criminal gangs are global. As a Home Office Minister when I visited China I was told by officials there that whole villages were devoted to producing cigarettes for smuggling, and they were now concentrating their activities on Australia, which was the first country to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes. They were politely incredulous that Britain would follow suit, as they knew it would make life easier for criminal gangs.

This is what worries me about the Government’s stated intention to proceed with the introduction of standardised packaging for tobacco. Standardised packaging will make it easier for counterfeiters to produce and sell counterfeit cigarettes. Australia has seen the illicit trade in tobacco reach record levels.

As a Minister I saw at first hand the damage that crime does to people’s lives and the dangers it poses to society. We should be making criminals’ lives as difficult as possible. I hope that the Government will now reconsider standardised packaging. As it stands this is a dangerous proposal.

There was a strong reaction from the audience to the news that a Conservative-led government was pressing ahead with legislation when 99 per cent of the responses to last year's consultation were opposed to plain packaging.

A video of last night's event will be posted online later this week and sent to MPs and ministers.

I'm told Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby was also at the IoD last night. We didn't invite him to our event and I can categorically deny he was there!

Finally, I haven't totted up the bar bill but it was substantial. I think people enjoyed themselves.

Outdoor smoking bans? Let battle commence

Following the "voluntary ban" on smoking in Bristol's Millennium Square, which I wrote about here, Nottingham is considering a similar policy in one of the town squares.

Full story here.

What I find interesting is the suggestion that such an illiberal and unreasonable policy could be introduced "if enough people get behind the idea".

How many is "enough"?

With smokers now a fifth of the adult population it doesn't take a brain surgeon to deduce that opinion polls will favour the views of the non-smoking majority most of whom won't care that strongly but, if pushed, will probably opt for a ban.

That alone would justify the term "tyranny of the majority" but my guess is that "enough people" will be tens rather than hundreds or even thousands of people.

In practise "enough people" will probably be a coalition of public health professionals and NGOs augmented by a handful of anti-smoking fanatics and a small child who doesn't like the smell of tobacco smoke.

(I'm not making this up. The Nottingham Post report really did feature a six-year-old girl who doesn't like the smell of smoke.)

As a potential battleground Nottingham is much better than Bristol. Millennium and Anchor squares in Bristol are privately owned and if we're to be consistent we have to accept that private landlords have the right to decide their own policy on smoking, however much we may disagree with it.

Council or government-owned property is different because smokers are taxpayers and that should give them certain rights.

Clearly we've a battle on our hands to stop outdoor smoking bans spreading from town to town but Nottingham is a good place to start.

I know Dick Puddlecote shares my view and since he was the mastermind behind the Stony Stratford rebellion I'm confident we can win this initial skirmish too.

Watch this space.

Update: Hundreds vote against banning smoking in Nottingham's Old Market Square (Nottingham Post).

Update: I'll be discussing a potential ban on BBC Radio Nottingham tomorrow morning. Lead item after 7.00am news bulletin.

Ireland: Children's minister plays David versus Goliath card

According to the Irish Times yesterday:

Tobacco giant issues legal threat over plain packaging (Irish Times).

Cue faux outrage from former health minister (now children's minister) James Reilly who immediately seized the spotlight, using the letter to portray both himself and the Irish parliament as David versus Goliath:

The Oireachtas "will not be intimidated by external forces" in legislating to control tobacco use which is responsible for 5,200 deaths each year, Minister for Children James Reilly has said.

See Legal threat will not halt tobacco packaging plan, says Reilly (Irish Times) and Big Tobacco is threatening James Reilly but plain packs ‘will be in shops by May 2017’ (The Journal.ie).

I'll leave you to judge who leaked the letter but it was published just hours before the Irish Parliament health sub-committee was due to debate plain packaging.

Had it not been leaked opponents of plain packaging – including Forest – might have enjoyed greater publicity for our own message:

The Dáil health subcommittee has been urged to consider "very carefully" the risks of introducing standardised packaging of tobacco.

Speaking ahead of a debate on measures to introduce plain packaging, John Mallon, spokesman for the smokers' group Forest Eireann, said:

"James Reilly desperately wants Ireland to be the first country in Europe to introduce plain packaging but he's taking a huge and unnecessary risk with taxpayers' money.

"Standardised packaging could not only fuel illicit trade by playing into the hands of counterfeiters and criminal gangs, it could also cost the taxpayer billions of euros in compensation to the tobacco companies.

"We urge the health subcommittee to consider these risks very carefully."

Mallon said the government should wait and assess the impact of the larger health warnings that will be introduced next year as part of the EU's revised Tobacco Products Directive.

See Plain packaging a "huge and unnecessary risk" (Forest Eireann).

Anyway we weren't totally ignored. John appeared on the TV3 and UTV news programmes and today's Irish Sun features a head-to-head 'debate' between John and the man he calls "Stubbs Reilly".

Here's what John had to say:

James Reilly desperately wants Ireland tone the first country in Europe to introduce plain packaging but he's taking a huge and unnecessary risk with taxpayer's money.

Standardised packaging could not only fuel the illicit trade by playing into the hands of counterfeiters, it could also cost the taxpayer billions of euros in compensation for the tobacco companies.

The Government can't deny intellectual property rights. If Steve Jobs had been told that he could sell his Apple products but couldn't have the logo on them he'd have taken action so it is understandable that tobacco companies are doing the same.

Putting cigarettes in standardized packs is yet another attempt to de-normalise a legal product, stigmatizing those who consume it.

The measures are based on the fallacy that children find so-called glitzy packaging appealing. But children aren't allowed to smoke, and if you go into a shop, cigarettes are out of view, so removing the brand is not going to make a bit of difference.

Meanwhile expect more 'David versus Goliath' nonsense as the tobacco companies understandably try to protect their intellectual property.

Update: Our old friend John Crown has called for a 99 per cent tax on the profits of tobacco companies - if they pursue their threats of legal action against the State.

See: Senator calls for 99% tax on tobacco profits amid legal threat (Irish Examiner).

He really is a plonker.

Update: The Irish Times has an online readers' poll on plain packaging. Please vote. Click here.

Invitation to Stop The Nonsense

Exactly three years ago Forest launched the Hands Off Our Packs campaign against standardised packaging of tobacco with a drinks reception at the old St Stephen’s Club in Westminster.

I wrote about it here.

Describing our “unconventional libertarian campaign” video, the Financial Times wrote:

The footage resembles a music video for an anarchist punk-rock band. Policemen, warning signs, CCTV cameras and spiked fences appear in a rapid sequence of black and white shots. A thrashing guitar soundtrack begins – cue the message: “Welcome to Nanny Town”.

The Hands Off Our Packs campaign had two goals: one, to generate as much noise about the issue as possible; two, to mobilise public opposition to plain packs. It’s fair to say we succeeded on both counts.

Since February 2012 plain packaging has rarely been out of the news and Forest has led the resistance online, in print, on radio and on television. In 2012 the Government’s 16-week consultation attracted a record 665,989 campaign responses, two-thirds (427,888) opposed to the policy. The Hands Off Our Packs campaign generated 269,852 of them.

Last year Forest responded to a further six-week consultation by generating 123,269 campaign responses (plus 53,000 letters to the Prime Minister). Remarkably this represented 90.4% of the total number of campaign responses.

Despite this overwhelming demonstration of public opposition to plain packaging, MPs are expected to vote in favour of the policy in March. Next week therefore, on Tuesday 24th February, we’re hosting another drinks party – Stop The Nonsense: An Evening of Plain Speaking on Plain Packaging – at the Institute of Directors in London.

Our impressive line-up of speakers includes Mark Littlewood (Institute of Economic Affairs), John O’Connell (TaxPayers Alliance), Dr Madsen Pirie (Adam Smith Institute), Claire Fox (Institute of Ideas), Rory Broomfield (Freedom Association), Emily Barley (Conservatives for Liberty), Patrick Sullivan (Parliament Street), Angela Harbutt (Liberal Vision) and Chris Snowdon (author, Velvet Glove Iron Fist).

Speakers will be filmed, guests will be interviewed (optional), and a video will be posted online and sent to MPs ahead of the vote next month.

According to reports at least 100 Conservative MPs and twelve Labour MPs may vote against plain packs. If we can demonstrate the strength of opposition to standardised packaging others may follow.

If you’re opposed to excessive regulations that infantilise us all please join us for what promises to be a lively and entertaining evening with FREE drinks and light refreshments at an impressive location. It’s also a chance to network with representatives of some of our most active think tanks and campaign groups.

RSVP events@forestonline.org or telephone Nicky on 01223 370156. Friends and colleagues welcome.

In politics individuals don't count

The Government yesterday published the draft regulations on standardised packaging of tobacco products.

At the same time we finally got to read the summary report on last year's consultation.

The first thing to note is that, predictably, the Government has completely ignored the huge public response against plain packaging.

According to the report:

A total of 137,711 responses were received, made up of 1,307 detailed responses from businesses, organisations, the public and health and social care professionals, and 136,404 campaign responses (ie multiple copies of the same response endorsed by individuals).

So, how do those campaign responses break down? Here's the table:

Well, that's pretty comprehensive, I think you'll agree. The general public has spoken and with few exceptions almost every individual who responded to the consultation via a campaign petition was opposed to the policy.

Unelected Department of Health officials saw things a little differently however. Effectively dismissing the campaign responses they wrote:

The consultation process was not designed or intended to elicit representative samples of public opinion, instead it sought information, comments and views on the consultation questions, draft regulations, impact assessment and equality analysis.

It gets better:

It is in the nature of open consultation exercises that, generally, it is only those who have an interest in the subject to respond to the questions. The nature of consultation exercises means that respondents are self-selecting, and cannot be considered to be a representative sample of public opinion.

In other words, if you have not responded to the questions in detail you clearly have no real interest in the subject and we will disregard your opinions.

Furthermore, as you have chosen (unlike the overwhelming majority of the public) to play your part in the democratic process we shall categorise you as "self-selecting" and your views are therefore worthless.

Finally, as an individual contributor to the consultation you are no interest to us. We only want to hear the opinions of NGOs, government bodies and (some) businesses (but not tobacco companies or retailers, obviously).

Oddly, I don't remember any comments like that in the report on the Consultation on the future of tobacco control published in December 2008.

On that occasion, of course, the result was very different:

As you can see, petition responses greatly favoured the tobacco control industry.

Anyway, I'll let you draw your own conclusions why Department of Health officials would qualify one set of campaign responses but not another.

The only thing I'll add at this stage is a big thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation via the Forest campaign. On numbers alone the tobacco control industry took a hell of a beating.

So tonight I shall raise a glass to everyone who signed our petition. Cheers!

To read the summary report of the 2014 consultation click here.

Poll: Government’s plain packaging proposals “not important”

Last week Forest commissioned a poll on plain packaging. The result was interesting but not unexpected.

Populus interviewed 2,106 members of the British public online. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = not important at all and 10 = very important, they were invited to rate the importance of eight issues facing the remainder of the current parliament.

The outcome was as follows:

• "controlling the UK's borders and reducing immigration" (8.14)
• "tougher counter-terrorism and security laws" (8.08)
• "stopping human trafficking" (7.92)
• "improving access to affordable housing" (7.46)
• "making it easier for employers to take on apprentices" (7.10)
• "improving rail and train services" (6.43)
• "regulating the future of the fracking sector" (6.10)
• "introducing plain packaging for cigarettes" (3.51).

As you can see, "introducing plain packaging for cigarettes" was the lowest of any of the variables tested with a net importance rating of just 3.51. The closest variable, "regulating the future of the fracking sector", scored 6.10.

More than half (52%) of the general public awarded "introducing plain packaging for cigarettes" a mean score of 0-3 in terms of importance. Conversely, only one in ten (12%) awarded the issue a score of 7-10.

Both men (3.14) and women (3.00) expressed low net importance ratings on the issue of plain packaging.

Likewise workers in both the public (3.04) and private (3.12) sectors attached little importance to the issue.

Those members of the public who have children awarded it a net importance rating of just 3.88.

The key messages of the poll appear to be:

The general public simply do not view a vote on the introduction of plain packaging as a priority.

Plain packaging legislation is all ill-judged sideshow and a distraction from the real challenges the government faces.

Twice as many members of the public attach importance to the government pursuing legislation in the fields of "controlling the UK's borders and reducing immigration", "tougher counter-terrorism and security laws", stopping human trafficking", "improving access to affordable housing" and "making it easier for employers to take on apprentices" than they do to the plain packaging issue.

You can read the Forest press release here: Poll: plain packaging not a priority says British public.

Battling with the BBC

Smoking will be banned in cars with children in England from October 1.

The news was announced this evening. At 6.10, sitting in the car waiting for my daughter to finish her dance class, I received a text from a producer on the BBC News Channel.

"We would like to hear your views on the smoking ban in cars if they're carrying children. Would you be available at 7pm or 8pm?"

"I can do 8pm from your Cambridge studio," I replied.

I waited for Sophie to finish her class, drove home, shaved (I hadn't shaved since Sunday), and drove the 20 miles to Cambridge, arriving at 7.50.

At 8.00pm I was in the studio with my earpiece in, waiting to be interviewed.

The time ticked by. Eventually, after I'd reminded the producer I had an interview with LBC at 8.30, I was on.

I was asked for my reaction to the ban but what the clip above doesn't show is the presenter's final thrust.

Apropos of nothing that had gone before he said, quite abruptly: "Mr Clark, can you tell us who funds Forest?"

Well, I'm used to dealing with that question but it struck me as a cheap shot. After all, I'd given up my evening to go on a 40-mile round trip at the BBC's request yet the presenter was clearly determined to undermine me if he could.

Anyway, after I came out of the studio and did my LBC interview sitting in my car, I checked the BBC News website.

A report, England bans smoking in cars with children, had a prominent position on the home page.

At 6.44 we'd sent the BBC online news desk our response to the ban. Were we quoted? Of course not. In fact, there were no comments from anyone opposed to the ban.

So I did what I often do. I rang the news desk to point this out. In particular I said how ironic it was that at that very moment I was sitting in a BBC car park having done an interview for the BBC News Channel yet BBC News online hadn't quoted Forest despite the fact that we'd sent them our response.

To be fair the person I spoke to was perfectly reasonable and the upshot was that at 8.57 the BBC News report was updated:

But Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said the legislation was excessive.

"The overwhelming majority of smokers know it's inconsiderate to smoke in a car with children and they don't do it. They don't need the state micro-managing their lives," he said.

"The police won't be able to enforce the law on their own so the government will need a small army of snoopers to report people."

In addition they've added a link to my BBC News Channel interview which can now be seen via the home page too.

Update: An hour ago Good Morning Britain (ITV) asked me to appear on the sofa at 6.00 in the morning. That would mean getting up at 3.00am and driving to London to arrive at 5.30.

I'm usually up for such requests. This time I declined. I'm just too busy (as I'll reveal tomorrow).

Hopefully someone else will do it. I gave them a few names.