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.

You couldn't make it up!

The Government finally introduced the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in the Commons today.

After weeks of speculation, the Department of Health and Social Care announced it in a press release embargoed until midnight last night. (See – Smokefree generation one step closer as bill introduced.)

Forest’s response was quoted in full by inews:

“The government has no mandate to ban the sale of tobacco to adults.

“The policy has never featured in a single election manifesto, and less than a year ago the government dismissed the idea as 'too big a departure' and said it wasn't going to pursue it.

"What's changed, apart from Rishi Sunak's increasingly desperate attempts to leave a personal legacy?

“No-one wants children to smoke, but the idea that government should take away people's freedom to choose long after they have grown up is absurd.

“Instead of rushing this vanity project through parliament, the prime minister should include the policy in the Tories’ election manifesto and let the people decide.”

Via the Press Association, an edited version of that quote was reported by the Independent, Daily Express, Daily Mail, plus local and regional newspapers around the country.

We were also quoted on the BBC News website (UK smoking ban for those born after 2009 starts journey into law).

In general though I was surprised by how little coverage the first reading of the Bill received. This, after all, is one of Rishi Sunak’s flagship policies, without which he will leave office with almost nothing to show for his two years as PM.

Instead, reports of the Bill seems to have been marginalised by another story, the results of a new 'landmark' study by scientists at University College London that suggest that e-cigarettes "might not be as harmless as originally thought".

I won't go into the details here. All I'll say is, the headlines are way over the top and represent unnecessary scaremongering. For example:

• Vaping ‘linked to cancer and damages body like smoking’ (The Times)
• Vaping 'causes same DNA changes as smoking' and could lead to cancer (Daily Express)
• Vapers suffer ‘similar’ DNA damage to smokers – and it’s linked to lung cancer (The Sun)
• Vaping causes similar DNA damage to smoking - as study links e-cigarettes to cancer risk (Sky News)
• Fears vaping could cause CANCER: Shock study reveals e-cigs damage DNA just like smoking (Daily Mail)

But wait. According to Dr Ian Walker, executive director of policy at Cancer Research UK, "This study contributes to our understanding of e-cigarettes, but it does not show that e-cigarettes cause cancer" [my emphasis].

Try telling the headline writers!

Thankfully, who better to bring a calm head to the situation than Maria Caulfield, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the DHSC. I didn't see it but according to The Times:

Asked to "look down the lens and tell him", she issued a direct appeal to her husband on Sky News to "stop vaping".

What?!

As a minister in a government that has put vaping at the forefront of its smoke free ambition, isn't she supposed to be persuading smokers to Swap to Stop (ie switch to vaping), not pleading with her nearest and dearest to quit the very thing that helped him stop smoking?

You couldn't make it up!

Full story: Health minister begs husband to stop vaping during live interview (Sky News)

Tobacco and vapes banned wagon starts to roll

According to the Guardian, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will have its first reading in the House of Commons tomorrow.

It follows a similar report by the Express on Friday (which I was a little sceptical about) so it seems the legislation is finally edging forward, albeit a few weeks later than expected.

If you're not familiar with it, it's worth reading about the legislative process.

There is no debate at the first reading of a bill. That happens at the second reading which usually follows two weeks later, although in this instance that would be during the Easter recess, so if the first reading is tomorrow we must assume the second reading will be scheduled for mid April.

(Note to self: never assume anything!)

The second reading is followed by the committee stage and then the report stage (when amendments are discussed).

The third reading of a bill takes place in the Commons after the report stage in the House of Lords and that ought to be that, although some bills can move backwards and forwards between the two Houses before agreement is reached and the legislation moves on to Royal Assent.

Reports currently suggest that upwards of 70 Tory MPs may vote against the generational ban which would embarrass the prime minister without actually derailing a measure that has the support of the Labour Party.

One amendment I've heard suggested would replace the ban with a new age restriction – raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 – but whether Sunak would accept that change to his flagship policy remains to be seen.

I guess it comes down to numbers and the strength of feeling among Conservative backbenchers.

Another complication concerns the plan to ban disposable vapes because that too is controversial, but how many Conservative MPs are prepared to vote against their own government ahead of an election?

Then again, given the polls, what have they to lose? Ditto those who are standing down.

I’ll keep you posted. Either way it's going to be an interesting few weeks.

See: Sunak braces for backlash as smoking ban bill to be introduced in Commons (Guardian)

Why Steve Harley was a Big Big Deal

Sorry to hear that Steve Harley has died, aged 73.

‘Big Big Deal’, a solo single released in 1974 after the original members of Cockney Rebel (bar the drummer) had left the band, is still one of my favourite singles from that period.

Even though it wasn’t a hit, and I didn’t have a record player, I bought the 7” vinyl after I heard it on the Radio 1 Breakfast Show.

(I can still remember turning up the volume in the kitchen before I left to catch the bus to school.)

Harley subsequently recruited new musicians to replace the departing band members, and Cockney Rebel became Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel.

He then enjoyed the biggest hit of his career, the million-selling ‘Make Me Smile (Come Up And See Me)’, which is rarely off the radio even today, and whose lyrics were allegedly a dig at his former colleagues.

As a regular reader of NME throughout the Seventies, I kept scrapbooks of cuttings that unfortunately ‘disappeared’ after my parents moved house.

Harley, a former journalist himself, featured prominently in the paper for several years until his star began to wane, so I remember how articulate (and occasionally big-headed) he was.

As it happens, the two Cockney Rebel albums I bought were not the early, critically acclaimed records featuring the original band, but the final two albums that were less well received and failed to produce a top 30 single - Timeless Flight and Love’s A Prima Donna, both released in 1976.

Funnily enough, the latter was responsible for one of the lowest moments of my life when I played it during a social evening at an outdoor activity centre on the west coast of Scotland and after several tracks one of my school ‘friends’ not only demanded to know “What is this shit?” but refused to let me play side two.

In hindsight it’s fair to say the album is an acquired taste but at the time it wasn’t very nice to have it critiqued so publicly and so brutally!

Nevertheless, if I was compiling a Steve Harley playlist today I’d still include the title track plus the cover version of ‘Here Comes The Sun’, a top ten hit in the ‘sizzling’ summer of ‘76.

I’d also include ‘White White Dove’ and ‘Black Or White’ from Timeless Flight. And to that I would add some early album tracks, ‘Make Me Smile’ (obviously), and ‘Big Big Deal’.

RIP.

See also: Steve Harley: 1970s Cockney Rebel who took risks and wrote hits (Guardian)
Farewell to Steve Harley, the impossibly glamorous Cockney Rebel frontman who made us all smile (Telegraph)