Power point - the Irish smoking ban 20 years on

They say history is written by the victors and the smoking ban is a good example.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with ‘Smoke and mirrors’, the infamous article written by Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, and her sidekick, the late Ian Willmore, in the Guardian in July 2006.

It was a masterpiece of its kind, a step-by-step guide that explained how the authors outfoxed opponents and engineered a ban that was beyond their wildest dreams. It was an article that also introduced us to two campaign strategies - the ‘confidence trick’ and ‘swarm effect’.

Of course, a comprehensive smoking ban would not have happened in England in 2007 had it not been for Scotland opting for a blanket ban in 2006, and the Scottish Government would not have gone for a comprehensive ban had it not been introduced in Ireland in March 2004.

(Famously, a sceptical first minister Jack McConnell flew to Dublin shortly after the ban was enforced and, within hours of meeting two or three carefully chosen pro-ban publicans, returned to Scotland a changed man.)

Today, exactly 20 years since the ban was introduced (a weekend I wrote about here), the Guardian has published an equally celebratory piece, ‘Ireland’s smoking ban 20 years on: how an unheralded civil servant triumphed against big tobacco’:

Tom Power led an alliance that brought about the pioneering health initiative which has since been adopted by more than 70 countries – and has saved countless lives.

According to the paper:

Members of the alliance that ushered in the ban compare Power to an engineer, a guide and a chess grandmaster who anticipated and countered the opponent’s strategy.

I wouldn’t call it a revisionist version of history because Tom Power’s role has been acknowledged before. When he died in 2005, aged 55, his obituary in the Irish Times was headlined ‘Driving force behind the smoking ban’.

Nevertheless, the Irish do like to exaggerate the degree to which the tobacco industry fought the ban. There was opposition, from tobacco companies and the hospitality industry, but recollections vary about the strength of that opposition.

As I remember it, the tobacco industry underestimated the influence a smoking ban in Ireland might have on other countries. My concern was the domino, or snowball, effect that a ban would have on the UK especially, but others saw things differently.

Of far greater concern at that time was the threat of smoking bans in major cities such as New York (where a public smoking ban was introduced in 2003), and London because they were seen as far more influential globally.

Ironically, in 2002, and with a little help from others, we did manage to stop the Greater London Authority from introducing a unilateral New York-style smoking ban in the capital, and with serious resources I like to think we could have put up a similar, consumer-led, fight in Ireland, but it wasn’t to be.

Of course, it suits the anti-smoking lobby to create a David v. Goliath feel to such battles, with individuals such as Tom Power pitted against the combined might of the tobacco and hospitality industries.

But in my experience even multinational industries are vulnerable to a single campaigner/politician/civil servant with drive and passion. (I don't know about Tom Power but more often than not, in the war on tobacco, they are ex-smokers and therefore something of a convert to anti-smoking.)

But that’s another story. Meanwhile, here’s another development, albeit not unexpected.

Twenty years on from the smoking ban, Ireland’s health minister Stephen Donnelly has announced, “The next logical step is to increase the minimum age of sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21, followed by consideration of their phasing out over time.”

According to reports he also wants to ban disposable vapes and ultimately prohibit all e-liquid flavours with the exception of the least popular, tobacco.

It’s interesting that Donnelly should propose raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 before considering a step-by-step generational ban, because it highlights the extreme nature of Rishi Sunak’s policy when even Ireland - the first country to introduce a comprehensive public smoking ban - doesn’t intend to emulate the UK, not yet anyway.

To be clear, I’m firmly against raising the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 21, but I understand why some people favour it as a less worse option to raising the age of sale by one year every year until no adults can purchase a single tobacco product.

If there is significant opposition to a generational ban among Conservative MPs it’s an obvious compromise for the Government to offer rebellious backbenchers without losing face, but it all hangs on the scale of opposition.

We should learn more on April 16 when the Tobacco and Vapes Bill receives its second reading in the House of Commons. Watch this space.

Update: I am quoted in this Irish Daily Mirror report today – Smoking ban not 'an irrefutable success' says smoking rights group, 20 years after introduction in Ireland.

EV? No way!

My car is having its MOT and annual service today.

The nearest dealership/service centre is ten miles away so I am working on site while the work is carried out.

There are desks with power and USB sockets, plus a coffee machine that provides complementary drinks (espresso, latte, cappuccino, Americano), so it’s all very civilised.

My current car, a diesel SUV, is four years old. I bought it in March 2021 after my previous vehicle (the same model) was written off when I parked it next to the brook that runs through our village hours before the area was flooded.

That was two days before Christmas 2020 but the insurance company paid up very promptly, as did the GAP insurance company which meant that I was able to replace it with a car that was newer than the one I lost.

As I explained here, I’ve owned a number of diesels. Before that, and even though I was driving 25-30,000 miles a year (at which point a diesel made more sense economically than a petrol vehicle), I was put off by the unsophisticated noise and vibration of a diesel engine.

Nevertheless, encouraged by Gordon Brown, I decided in 2005 to take the plunge and bought my first diesel, an Audi A4. I got used to it, eventually, but for the first month I hated it and even considered handing it back.

Thankfully diesel engines are much quieter and far more refined today, and although I don’t do the same kind of annual mileage I used to, I still enjoy filling the tank and getting 600-700 miles out of it, enough to get to me to and from Glasgow or Edinburgh, for example.

Compare that with an electric vehicle whose advertised mileage on a full charge might be 250-300 miles (at best) but in real world conditions would be significantly less.

In fact, from the horror stories I’ve read, I can’t imagine even attempting to drive to Scotland in an electric car. Range anxiety and worries about finding a fast charger that was (a) available, and (b) working would be off the scale, so count me out.

I mention this because, sitting here in BMW’s plush showroom outside Cambridge, many of the vehicles on display, including SUVs, are electric so the direction we are being encouraged to go is pretty clear.

Hybrids, though, are surely more practical, in the short or medium term, and yet the manufacture of hybrids, like petrol and diesel vehicles, is supposed to end by 2035.

I’m sure that technological improvements and a far greater number of charging points will eventually overcome current difficulties, but how long that might take is anyone’s guess.

For the moment, and despite a recent (and unaccountable) 50 per cent hike in my car insurance, I shall stick with my SUV.

If smokers can reach for their fags in defiance, I can stick with my diesel.

PS. While I am waiting, BMW has kindly sent me a video of my car, including the underside (below). Now that’s what I call service!

This week, 20 years ago, Ireland banned smoking in pubs

Hard to believe it’s 20 years since the introduction of the public smoking ban in Ireland.

The ban was the first of its type anywhere in the world - something Irish politicians have never stopped boasting about - and it led directly to the ban in Scotland in 2006, followed by England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2007.

When the idea was first suggested, in 2001, I think, I proposed that Forest launch a group in Ireland to fight it but we couldn’t get funding to make it happen.

In my view there was a great deal of complacency that the legislation wouldn’t happen or, if it did, the famously rebellious Irish would ignore it, in pubs at least.

As a result there was very little opposition. A couple of groups emerged in Waterford but Smokers Against Discrimination (SAD) and European Smokers Against Discrimination (ESAD) had a whiff of the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea about them.

Also, few people over here seemed to recognise that if Ireland introduced a public smoking ban, the UK - with its very similar pub tradition - would be ideally placed, geographically and culturally, to be next.

We nevertheless did what we could. We met representatives of SAD (or was it ESAD?) in Waterford. We lobbied the Irish government and Forest spokesmen were interviewed on Irish radio and, occasionally, TV, but at that time we didn't have a dedicated spokesman in Ireland so it was difficult.

We also tried, without much success, to engage with the Licensed Vintners Association (LVA) who represent publicans in Dublin, and the Vintners' Federation of Ireland who represent the trade throughout the rest of Ireland.

Historically the trade had always been well represented in the Dáil where a number of TDs were former publicans.

Unfortunately, as we were to discover during a raucous debate at University College Dublin in 2003, there was surprisingly strong opposition to the vintners who were perceived to be running something of a cartel and the smoking ban was an opportunity to give the trade a long overdue kicking.

Another factor that came into play that was also outside our control concerned the obvious tension in Irish society between those who wanted to create a modern Ireland (with smoke free pubs an emblem of that process) and those more wedded to the past.

The irony that Forest, a UK-based smokers’ rights group, was one of the main voices opposed to the ban wasn’t lost on me, and as for the traditional portrayal of Ireland as a nation of rebels, the smoking ban showed that to be a complete illusion.

Anyway, the ban finally came into effect on March 29, 2024, and this is how I described the days leading up its enforcement.

Wednesday March 24, 2004

To Ireland, courtesy of Sky News who want me to appear on Richard Littlejohn’s show (live from Dublin) to take part in a debate about the Irish smoking ban.

I decided to travel a couple of days early in order to experience the traditional smoker-friendly Irish bar for possibly the last time. Personally I have my doubts that the ban can be enforced and I intend to come back in six months to find out how ‘successful' it has been.

In the meantime my arrival is delayed because I managed to miss the plane!! I blame the BBC with whom I got into an argument after they published the results of an 'interactive' poll that suggested that 73 per cent of people want a ban on smoking in public.

According to the small print in the BBC's own press release it was a 'consultation' not a scientific poll. Needless to say this didn't come across in the way it was reported nor did it deter them from promoting it as a 'top story' on both BBC Online and Ceefax. Top story, my arse. This was a publicly gimmick, pure and simple, for a BBC programme about the NHS to be broadcast tonight.

Curiously the producers contacted Forest last week to see if we could suggest someone to take part in the studio debate. I offered to do it myself, even though it would have meant delaying my departure to Dublin by a day, only to be told that “We want an ordinary member of the general public.”

Oh well, I'm in Dublin now. Tonight I shall watch the Arsenal-Chelsea [Champions League] match in the comfort of an Irish pub and tomorrow I’m visiting a pub once frequented by Sir Walter Raleigh, the man who 400 odd years ago provoked the entire smoking debate. Well done, Walter, see the trouble you’ve caused!

Thursday March 25, 2004

To Johnnie Fox's, the highest and possibly the most famous pub in County Dublin. Founded in 1798, this traditional if slightly kitsch pub has played host to presidents, ambassadors, royalty, sports stars, tourists, "chatty locals" and even Salman Rushdie.

A stone-flagged floor ("daily strewn with sawdust"), ancient bric-a-brac, old dressers, open fireplace and crackling logs are just some of the attractions of this wonderful place. Investigate further and you'll find a penny farthing on one wall and, outside, a feeding pot said to have been used by up to 800 people daily during the potato famine.

Smoker-friendly? A simple glance at walls adorned with advertisements for long gone brands and slogans will tell you all you need to know: Craven 'A' ('smooth to the lips'), Gold Flake ('chosen by Aer Lingus'), Will's Flag, Capstan Navy Cut, 'Wild Woodbine', 'Player's Please' and, my favourite, 'Smoke Clarke's Perfect Plug'.

Next week, thanks to Ireland's ambitious, uncompromising health minister Michael Martin, smoking will be banned in Johnnie Fox's. With its reputation for great food, numerous beers and a good selection of wines and spirits, I can't imagine that business will be much affected. But it will be different, and in my view the poorer for it.

The good news is that Johnny Fox's is not abandoning smokers altogether. While other bars are busy erecting canopies and awnings with outside heaters so people can still smoke in relative comfort, JF has acquired an original 1952 double-decker bus, refurbished it, and renamed it the Happy Smoking Bus.

On Monday it will tour the streets of Dublin before returning to its final resting place outside the pub where it will provide a peaceful sanctuary for the pub’s many smokers. Effervescent business manager Fred Rainert tells me customers can smoke on the bus as long as it's not staffed. And the number plate? FU 2.

Friday March 26, 2004

To Dublin, via Kilcoole, to appear on Littlejohn (Sky News). Why Kilcoole? It's a long story. Suffice to say I was distracted by a radio producer who rang to ask if I would appear on Five Live on Sunday evening. I was on the platform at Greystones, a small town south of Dublin, and we were still talking when a train – the wrong train, as it turns out – pulled in to the station and I climbed aboard.

Ten minutes after the train set off a kindly ticket inspector confirmed my error but couldn't have been more helpful. "I'll tell you what," he said. "This is a non-stop train to Wicklow but I'll have a word with the driver and we'll stop at Kilcoole and you can get the bus back."

With hindsight it would have been quicker to stay on the train and travel back to Dublin from Wicklow. "You'll be waiting there at least two hours," a friendly voice called out to me as I stood at the first bus stop I encountered. "Keep walking till you find the main road. A bus should be along in an hour or so."

It was only lunchtime so I still had five hours to get back to Dublin via bus, train and taxi, check in to my hotel, shower and change clothes, but in the end I only just made it, arriving at the Shelbourne Hotel, where Littlejohn was being broadcast, with five minutes to spare.

Saturday March 27, 2004

Dublin is awash with kilted Scotsmen. According to the papers, 10,000 are in town for this afternoon's Six Nations rugby match against Ireland. What a pity the smoking ban wasn't implemented a few weeks earlier. The chances of it being enforced on big match day would have been nil. I look forward to 2005 when thousands of Galloise-smoking French supporters descend en masse on Dublin's bars and restaurants.

To read the papers and reflect on last night’s programme, I find a small coffee shop liberally sprinkled with soon to be redundant ashtrays. (The smoking ban is to be enforced from 6.00am tomorrow.) Littlejohn was a hoot. Broadcast live from the Shelbourne, one of Dublin's most historic hotels, the hour-long show featured over a dozen commentators providing a wide range of opinion about the smoking ban. Presenter (and Sun columnist) Richard Littlejohn made no secret of his views (a non-smoker, he's an outspoken opponent of blanket bans), but the programme as a whole was well balanced.

Split into groups of three, guests were seated on stools beside small round tables trembling under the weight of alcohol. To the disappointment of production staff, very few people were actually smoking. My contribution was limited to a brief verbal spat with Professor Luke Clancy, the genial spokesman for ASH Ireland, after which I retired to the bar for another pint of Guinness.

After the programme Tadg O'Sullivan, chief executive of the Vintners Federation of Ireland, told me he thought 'our' side had won. I thought we escaped with a draw, thanks to Littlejohn himself and an extraordinary performance by an anti-smoking columnist with the Irish Sunday Mirror that was so melodramatic I thought she must be auditioning for the part of pantomime dame. Someone whispered in my ear that this was no act - apparently she's like this all the time. “God help her husband,” said another voice.

The antis scored a further own goal when a good looking young restaurateur said he supported a general ban because if he prohibited smoking and others didn't he would lose customers. Doh! Of course similar views have been expressed by some restaurateurs in Britain. The free market, they seem to be saying, is a wonderful thing unless it adversely affects their business, at which point they demand regulations to create a 'level playing field'.

Sunday March 28, 2004

Returning to the UK from Ireland I can't help noticing that Dublin Airport now has severe warnings by every entrance: 'NO SMOKING ANYWHERE IN THIS BUILDING: The Tobacco Smoking (Prohibition) Regulation 2003'. It's all rather intimidating, as if smoking poses as great a threat as terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.

Far more civilised and welcoming are the designated smoking areas at Stansted and all major UK airports. If you're a nervous flyer who desperately needs a fag before or after a flight, airport smoking areas provide an oasis in the desert. Anyone who can't see that is not just being politically correct, they're being mean-spirited and vindictive, words that accurately describe today's obsessive anti-smokers.

Postscript: A few months later I returned to Ireland for what can best be described as a working holiday.

The aim was to investigate the impact of the ban on pubs in Ireland so I took my family on a driving tour that took us to Westport, in Co Mayo, Galway, Kilkenny, Waterford, and Dublin.

I discovered that in smaller towns with an ageing population (Waterford being the best example), pubs that were previously open at lunchtime were now opening later, at 5.00pm.

That was because their lunchtime trade was almost exclusively older men, usually retired, who would previously pop in for a drink and a smoke.

Some might stay all afternoon, propping up the bar with a pint in one hand and a pipe in the other. Prohibited from lighting up inside, they were staying at home.

Elsewhere I discovered the most ingenious methods to get around the ban. In Kilkenny, for example, I found a pub with a designated ‘smoking room’ that had been built as an extension on an upper floor.

It had its own bar, comfortable seating, and was almost completely enclosed apart from two narrow gaps in the roof.

Likewise in Dublin I visited a bar with a smoking room that was less comfortable than the one in Kilkenny but was equally sheltered from the elements. Instead, high above our heads at the top of what looked like an industrial chimney was a hole, and through the hole you could see daylight.

The ‘room’ was separated from the main bar by a glass door and walls so you didn’t feel too disconnected from the rest of the pub.

Subsequent visits - to Cork, for example - introduced me to similar feats of ingenuity that clearly stretched the regulations to infinity and beyond but were wisely overlooked by the authorities.

In the UK that has rarely been the case. Here, local authorities seemed determined to act to the letter of the law when common sense might have led to better outcomes for everyone.

Anyway, if I have to listen to one more person saying, “No-one wants to go back to smoking in pubs”, I shall scream and point out that, as a non-smoker, I would positively welcome it, and I know that most of you would too.

Indeed, as late as 2017 (the last time we polled the public on the subject), a clear majority supported designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs.

I’m not saying all pubs should allow smoking indoors. That wouldn’t happen, anyway, even if the government amended the law. Society has moved on, but the decision should rest with the proprietor, not the government.

What I didn’t envisage, when we were fighting the smoking ban 20 years ago, is that within a generation the sale of tobacco to adults would also be under threat.

But that’s what happens when you give an inch, and what’s happening in the UK today has its roots in the introduction of the smoking ban in Ireland on March 29, 2004.

Trouble in paradise?

According to The Times today:

A public health official responsible for tobacco and vaping policy dined with the e-cigarette company Juul and gave advice on launching its vapes in the UK, new documents reveal.

The information appears to have come via internal Juul documents and the official in question is our old friend Martin Dockrell who was Deborah Arnott's sidekick at ASH before he joined Public Health England (now the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities).

Funnily enough, Arnott is mentioned as well because, according to emails, she was present too when the head of PHE's tobacco control programme met representatives of Juul while attending a 'nicotine conference' (the Global Forum on Nicotine) in Warsaw in 2017.

Full story: Civil servant in charge of vaping policy advised e-cigarette giant

I was going to write about the report at greater length but Chris Snowdon got there first and because I can't improve on it I'll leave it here – Hired guns and hatchet jobs.

I'll simply add this. Chris takes the view, which I share, that neither Dockrell nor Arnott did anything wrong:

Civil servants are allowed to speak to people from industry. They should be encouraged to speak to people from industry and then they might draft better legislation. There are rules about meeting the tobacco industry but Juul was an independent vape company in 2017. Neither Arnott nor Dockrell are politicians, no money changed hands and there is nothing wrong with chatting to people at a conference.

On X, however, he describes the investigation as a ‘smear campaign’. Perhaps it is but I can’t help finding it funny that after years of trying to discredit tobacco companies and anyone who engages with the industry (even if it's only attending the annual Chelsea Flower Show), tobacco control campaigners are now the ones being targeted for engaging with "industry" – albeit the vaping industry.

According to The Times, Dockrell hasn’t commented but Arnott ‘disputed Juul’s characterisation of the meeting, saying it was a “misleading account of a discussion about the UK regulatory framework for e-cigarettes”.’

Instead she told the paper that ASH ‘occasionally “met with industry both to gather intelligence and to inform the delivery of more effective regulation and tobacco control measures” and denied it was inappropriate.’

As I say, I don't see anything wrong with that. What I find wrong, and hypocritical, is the indignation if a politician or civil servant should dare engage with the tobacco industry.

If it's OK for ASH and or a government official like Martin Dockrell to meet with the vaping industry "to gather intelligence or to inform the delivery of more effective regulation and tobacco control measures", why can't politicians and civil servants meet with the tobacco industry as well?

Finally, something else caught my eye in The Times report – a quote by Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland:

“The evidence of Juul attempting to influence health policymakers in the UK to promote use of their vaping products is alarming and emphasises the importance of civil servants always ensuring that engagements and conversations, even informally, with industry representatives are beyond reproach.”

Given that the 'health policymakers' she's referring to are Dockrell (formerly with ASH) and Arnott (CEO of ASH), that's quite a statement.

Trouble in paradise? Or friendly fire?

PS. I should add that Martin Dockrell once ‘liked’ a tweet that described me as a ‘smug apologist for deadly cigarettes'.

I could understand if he was working for ASH when he did that, but this was in 2019 when he was a civil servant.

Also, the words he liked were those of a former Juul executive. Fancy that!!

Anyway, if you want to know more about the great man, read on:

Job for the boy at Public Health England (May 2014)
Shout out for Martin Dockrell (February 2022)

Dockrell also instigated and then quietly ignored the results of an ongoing living evidence review on smoking and Covid.

We may never know why, but I wrote about it here (August 2021).

Wishing the Princess of Wales a full and speedy recovery

Shocking news about the Princess of Wales.

Thirteen years ago my wife and I were passing through St Andrews during one of our regular trips to Scotland.

By coincidence Prince William and Kate Middleton were there too, and driving past my old school playing fields on the edge of town we were held up by a police road block and signs that read 'Royal Visit'.

We had been sitting in a stationary queue of cars for perhaps ten minutes when a small cavalcade of vehicles, led by a police motorcyclist and a black Range Rover, passed in the opposite direction.

And yes, in the Range Rover sat Kate and William, smiling broadly, directly at us, as we waved back at them.

A few hours later, following a leisurely lunch, we were strolling along Market Street in the centre of town when I was stopped by a film crew. Would I mind answering some questions about the monarchy and the young couple in particular?

The next minute I was telling the world how important the monarchy was to Britain and launching a staunch defence of both the institution and William and Kate. (This was a few months before they got married.)

Kate in particular could not have envisaged the life she now has when she was a student in St Andrews, and while it may come with a lot of privilege I’m not sure many people could have handled the transformation from ‘commoner’ to royalty as well as she has.

The relentless grind of royal engagements while bringing up a young family has its own challenges, but the hardest must be living in a perpetual goldfish bowl, with the world gawping and commenting on your every move and outfit.

Hopefully the conspiracy theorists will now desist and she will be given the privacy she is entitled to without the vile and very personal comments that have been commonplace on social media, in particular, in recent months.

On a more positive note, she will no doubt have the best treatment and after care available in this country. I wish her a full and speedy recovery.

Don’t get shirty with me!

I can’t believe how many people are getting their knickers in a twist about the new England football shirt.

The ‘problem’ is a small cross on the back of the collar. Instead of being a red cross, to represent the England flag, it’s a combination of navy, light blue, and purple.

As a simple motif it complements the navy blue collar and is quite subtle. Nevertheless, ‘fans’ and politicians are in uproar because, boo hoo, it’s not the colour of the cross on the England flag.

Incredibly, as if they’ve nothing better to do, the prime minister and the leader of the opposition have both commented on the furore.

Yesterday Keir Starmer called for the new shirt to be scrapped, and this morning Rishi Sunak added that we shouldn’t “mess” with our national flag.

National flag?! It’s a small design motif on the back of the collar of a football shirt!

OK, it may be the England football shirt but the primary kit has never represented the colours of the England flag. If that was the case the team would play in white shirts and red (not blue) shorts.

As for the demand for a red cross on the collar of the shirt, the addition of a flag or any form of red cross to the collar of the national shirt is a relatively recent development driven by commercial considerations not national pride.

Truth is, as kits started to be replaced with increasing frequency (national kits are replaced every two years, club kits every year), manufacturers are under enormous pressure to come up with new designs, or tweak elements of previous designs, often for the worse.

What Nike has done with the cross on the collar of the new England kit is just that, a tweak. Unfortunately, their pompous and ham-fisted PR speak - reported by the BBC - simply added fuel to the fire:

Nike says the shirt, launched earlier this week ahead of Euro 2024, includes "a playful update to the cross of St George" which "appears on the collar to unite and inspire".

A Nike spokesperson told media outlets: "The England 2024 Home kit disrupts history with a modern take on a classic," inspired by the training kit worn by England's 1966 World Cup winners.

But here’s the thing, whether you like it not, what’s it got to do with the PM, the leader of the opposition, or any other politician? The Football Association is an independent body, and the kit supplier, Nike, is an independent commercial company.

As it happens, I would very much doubt that Nike has introduced the new kits (including the purple second kit) without conducting extensive market research.

After all, they want to sell as many shirts as possible, so it makes sense to test the market in advance and see what consumers like, and don’t like.

Demanding that the new kit be scrapped is not just pathetic, it’s pointless because I expect the design was approved by the FA the best part of a year ago.

I would imagine too that tens of thousands of shirts have been manufactured and are already in shops or awaiting distribution both nationally and globally.

For what it’s worth, the last England strip I liked was the plain white shirt and navy blue shorts with plain white socks, supplied by Umbro, that was worn, unchanged, from 1965 to 1974.

My other favourite kit was the equally iconic change strip - the famous red shirt, white shorts, and red socks - that was used in the 1966 World Cup final (and also worn from 1965 to 1974).

In 1974 Admiral won the contract to supply England kits and although the supplier has changed at least twice in the intervening years, it’s been downhill ever since.

Today shirts, shorts, and socks all have to have additional ‘trim’ in a variety of colours. The famous ‘Three Lions’ badge now fights for space with the manufacturer’s logo and the player’s number that unnecessarily (in my view) replicates the number on the back of the shirt and on the shorts.

International players’ shirts even include details of the opponent, the date, and the name of the tournament, and on the back they’ve added the names of the players.

And if that’s not enough, manufacturers have added flags or motifs to the back of the collar!

What today’s confected anger tells me is that we have to go back to basics. No flags or motifs on shirts. No manufacturer’s logo. No names. Nothing.

Keep it simple. A badge or emblem on the chest and a large number on the back. That’s all.

And while we’re at it, no national anthems before the start of every international match. We don’t need it. Just stop!

Seconds out

It was announced yesterday that the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will take place in the House of Commons on Tuesday April 16.

Make a note in your diary because that’s when the Bill will be debated by MPs and the extent of Conservative opposition to the generational tobacco ban should become clearer.

As it happens, before the Bill was published on Wednesday I was asked by the Guardian to comment on the scale of opposition to the ban. They didn’t publish it, but this was my reply:

Based on what has been reported and what we've heard, we have reason to believe that up to 100 Conservative MPs may oppose the legislation, but clearly that will change after they have read the bill in full.

Whether the scale of opposition goes up or down will almost certainly depend on the Government's willingness to compromise, raising the age of sale from 18 to 21, for example, instead of imposing a ban on all future generations of adults.

Either way, many Tory MPs are undoubtedly unhappy, with one telling us privately that he was happy to pledge his 'hardline opposition' to what he called the government's 'mad cap plans'.

Of course, by delaying the introduction of the Bill until this week, days before the start of the Easter recess, and then scheduling the second reading to take place just one day after MPs have returned from their three week break (for many it will be their first day back), the Government has been quite shrewd.

One, it makes it much more difficult to lobby MPs during this crucial period because they won’t be in Westminster.

Two, whatever their views on the generational ban, how many Conservative MPs will want to rock the boat just before the local elections on May 2?

After that date, and a further drubbing by voters, more backbenchers may be inclined to mutiny in protest at Rishi’s leadership, but before then … perhaps not.

Funnily enough, I had a long chat with a Danish journalist yesterday and she also wanted to discuss the potential scale of any Tory rebellion against the generational ban.

The truth is, it’s difficult if not impossible to predict. As I told the Guardian, we know a lot of Conservative MPs are unhappy with the policy, but how will that translate in practice?

That said, momentum is everything in politics and it’s amazing how things can turn overnight, so all is not yet lost.

For avoidance of doubt, btw, I should make it clear that Forest is still strongly opposed to any increase in the age of sale of tobacco, and we won’t be changing our position.

As far as we’re concerned, when you’re 18 you are legally an adult and, just as you can purchase alcohol and do all sorts of other risky things from that age, you must be allowed to buy tobacco as well.

Nevertheless, we are aware that a ‘compromise’ has been suggested that might get the prime minister off a hook of his own making without losing too much face.

Raising the legal age of sale from 18 to 21, it is argued, would ‘protect’ young adults and provide clarity to retailers and shop workers who will otherwise face never-ending hassle as the age of sale creeps up each and every year.

Yes, it would be better than a generational ban, but compromise, like appeasement, rarely works. If you agree to raise the age of sale to 21, you have effectively conceded the ‘adult’ argument and there will still be a two-tier society, albeit not quite so pronounced.

Nor will it end with tobacco. Alcohol will be next, followed by age restrictions on other consumables considered ‘unhealthy’ or a ‘risk to health’.

Either way it’s important we have this debate, but in Parliament. Unfortunately I suspect that Government whips will do everything they can to stifle opposition to the Bill, even amendments such as this.

Put simply, the Government may say that Conservative MPs will have a free vote on this issue, but the closer we get to a vote I’m sure that pressure from whips to support the Government will intensify.

Why? Because that’s politics and no-one, least of all government, likes to lose.

Times Radio, a former Health Secretary, and me

I was a bit dismissive of Times Radio last week.

It was partly because they interviewed Hazel Cheeseman of ASH on No Smoking Day and it was such a soft and one-sided interview it was ridiculous.

Also, since the station was launched in 2020, Forest has very rarely been invited to appear and I put it down to the fact that The Times (newspaper) is firmly in the tobacco prohibition camp.

On one of the few occasions I have been invited on it was to take part in an item to mark the 50th anniversary of ASH.

Broadcast on December 2, 2021, the item lasted 25 minutes. The main guest, as you might expect, was Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH.

The other guests were Patricia Hewitt, the former Labour MP who was Secretary of State for Health when the public smoking ban was introduced, anti-smoking campaigner Prof Robert West, and me.

I assumed that my role for the short time I was on air was to play devil’s advocate and cast a more sceptical eye on ASH’s place in history.

Instead I got the distinct impression that the presenter, Matt Chorley, was a bit miffed when I wasn’t as respectful as everyone else.

When Deborah and I began arguing and talking over one another (she started it!) I sensed that the carefully constructed segment had gone a bit Pete Tong and it was clear who Chorley blamed - me!

(See ASH at 50.)

Fast forward to yesterday and following a long absence from the station I was invited to take part in a ten-minute discussion about the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the UCL study on e-cigarettes that featured as the lead story in The Times yesterday.

It was recorded via Zoom at 6.30pm and broadcast late last night, around 11.30. I was planning to stay up and listen but I fell asleep a few minutes before it was due to be broadcast.

What I can say is, it was one of the more agreeable discussions I’ve been involved in on radio or television.

The presenter was Carole Walker and my fellow guest was Stephen Dorrell, the former Conservative MP (1979-2015) who was Secretary of State for Health under John Major, and chairman of the Health Select Committee from 2010 to 2014.

Politically Dorrell is as wet as they come, although in person he was very friendly. (I think he was relieved that I wasn’t my namesake, the former Conservative Cabinet minister Simon Clarke.)

I had forgotten though that in the aftermath of Brexit he had left the Conservative Party, standing as a Change UK candidate in the 2019 European elections, before joining the Lib Dems and standing as one of their candidates in the 2019 general election.

I expected him to be in favour of the generational tobacco ban, and he was. To be fair, though, while we disagreed on some points, we agreed on others, and it was an amiable and, I think, informative discussion, very well moderated by Carole Walker who gave us plenty of time to speak.

We didn’t interrupt or speak over one another, and we were respectful (I think) of one another’s views.

It helped that although it was an audio only recording we could nevertheless see one another on the Zoom link, so it felt more like a normal conversation.

Either way, it was one of the more enjoyable interviews I’ve done, and I wish this was the norm rather than the more confrontational type of discussion we have come to expect.

You’ll have to take my word for it, though, because I can’t find a link to the programme. If I do I’ll post it here.

PS. I was interested to hear Dorrell suggest that society has moved on and people now expect government to make decisions on their behalf about potentially unhealthy habits and behaviours.

He may be right. Either way, I will return to this another time.

Update: Times Radio programmes appear to be available for a week on the Times Radio app. Downloading the app, and searching for programmes, is pretty straightforward, even for me.