Petulant ASH accuses Government of “loss of nerve”

The New Zealand Parliament last night passed legislation that will ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009.

You do the maths but it means that in 2033, for example, someone aged 25 will be allowed to buy cigarettes but their 24-year-old friend will be denied that choice, legally at least. And so on.

Other measures, reports the Guardian, include ‘dramatically reducing the legal amount of nicotine in tobacco products and forcing them to be sold only through specialty tobacco stores, rather than corner stores and supermarkets’.

As a result the number of stores that are allowed to sell cigarettes is expected to fall from 6,000 to just 600 nationwide.

The aim is for New Zealand to be ‘smoke free’ (fewer than 5% of the population smoking) by 2025. The current rate is 8%.

Conversely, according to the Mirror:

Health Secretary Steve Barclay is to stub out a plan to make the country tobacco free by 2030 - ending hopes of saving an extra 500,000 lives (sic).

Specifically:

Whitehall sources say he is abandoning the scheme to raise the legal age for buying tobacco one year every year until no-one was able to buy cigarettes at all.

It means the tobacco sale age will stay at 18 which anti-smoking campaigners say is a missed opportunity to cut smoking in young people by a third.

I'm not sure I fully believe this story. My guess is that someone in tobacco control placed it to put pressure on government and I'm pretty I know who.

First, the suggestion that Barclay is ‘abandoning’ the policy is nonsense because no-one in government ever proposed or adopted it in the first place.

It was recommended by Dr Javed Khan whose infamous review of tobacco control policies was commissioned by former health secretary Sajid Javid and published in June but at no point did Javid or Thérèse Coffey or Steve Barclay (Javid’s successors) endorse the idea.

It was merely being considered, along with Khan’s other “crackpot” ideas.

Second, while I was fairly sure that Khan’s recommendation to raise the age of sale by one year every year (an idea he clearly took from New Zealand) was unlikely to be adopted by the present Government, which has far more pressing issues to address, I’m less confident that raising the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 21 is off the table, as the Mirror suggests.

Experience has taught me never to be complacent so as far as I’m concerned that battle has still to be fought.

Nevertheless ASH reacted with the petulance we have come to expect when their lobbying doesn’t pay immediate dividends. Quoted by the Mirror:

Deborah Arnott of Action on Smoking and Health said, “Any government worth its salt wouldn’t drop the Smokefree 2030 target.

“This is a failure of imagination and loss of nerve by a government clearly on its last legs.”

Referring perhaps to my recent post about the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money ASH has received from government in recent years, erstwhile blogger Dick Puddlecote tweeted:

Rather rude of ASH, don't you think? Maybe the government should cut its funding.

He’s absolutely right but this is not the first time ASH has thrown its toys out of the pram when things don't go their way but long-term it seems to make very little difference when they make subsequent bids for public money.

For example, in May 2020:

[ASH] accused the government of taking an unreasonably long time to make a decision over the release of £350,000 in funding it was asked to apply for by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for a “quit smoking for coronavirus” campaign.

Writing about it at the time I commented:

At least we have confirmation that ASH is behind the Quit For Covid campaign and, what a surprise, they’ve got the begging bowl out, demanding more taxpayers’ money to keep this sad little initiative afloat.

Typically for ASH, they’re also having a tantrum because the Government hasn’t coughed up the money quickly enough. What an odd way to go about their business. The petulance and sense of entitlement is astounding.

For all the current government’s many failings my fear is that things will be even worse under a Labour government for whom the nanny state is an article of faith that requires no justification.

So when Deborah Arnott talks disparagingly of “a failure of imagination and loss of nerve by a government clearly on its last legs” you can see she is already looking to the future - which probably means a Labour government.

See: Tory Steve Barclay to stub out plan to make Britain tobacco free by 2030 (Mirror)

Update: ASH Scotland are ‘super excited’ about New Zealand …

Update: Discussed the NZ issue with Iain Dale on LBC this evening.

Who is Tom Cridland?

Chris Snowdon recently discussed his five favourite albums with Tom Cridland on The Greatest Music of All Time podcast.

I’ll be honest. Six weeks ago I had never heard of Tom Cridland.

I’m still not sure who he is or what his primary claim to fame is (influencer? entrepreneur? fashion designer? author?) but at the beginning of November - a month before I heard about the Snowdon podcast - I stumbled upon something that amused me.

‘Inspired by Tom Cridland's YouTube show, Celebrities Having Cocktails’ it was an illustration entitled ‘Keith Richards and Matt Hancock smoking cigarettes’.

Prints of various sizes were available for just £29 so I took the plunge and purchased one.

I ordered it on November 7 and it was finally delivered on Thursday after a delay that, I must admit, tested my patience a little.

Anyway it’s here now. I just need to get it framed so I can hang it on the wall in my office.

Meanwhile you can listen to Chris Snowdon (Greatest Music of All Time Podcast) here.

Like most podcasts it’s far too long (33 minutes in and most of the talk has been non-music related) but it’s Saturday and I’m not working so I’ll stick with it.

Cridland, btw, could pass for a student (although I believe he’s 32) yet this is podcast #494.

Seriously, given his many interests, where does he find the time?

E-Cigarette Summit - where are the consumers?

The tenth E-Cigarette Summit (UK edition) is taking place in London today.

I've written enough about this annual event and how it has evolved but if you want to read my review of the first Summit in 2013 click here: The E-Cigarette Summit - another view.

It was, I think, quite positive. Subsequent posts were less complimentary as it developed into an event increasingly dominated by public health professionals and anti-smoking campaigners with consumers largely relegated to an observer role.

Judge for yourself:

Why I'm not attending today's E-Cigarette Summit (2015)
Why I'm tempted to attend the 2017 E-Cigarette Summit (2017)
A very British coup – how public health took control of UK vaping advocacy (2021)

And here’s the list of speakers in 2022. Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, who spoke at the first E-Cigarette Summit in 2013 and has been been a regular speaker ever since, will be giving the closing address.

If you are attending today's event and want to comment or review it in the comments below please do. I’m always happy to hear other views.

The art of sending a successful freedom of information request

Commenting on my previous post Andrew Carey writes:

Submitting FOI requests that meet the criteria to get an answer is a bit of a craft as well as hard work.

That's very true, and I don’t always get it right.

Over the years I have submitted many freedom of information requests, several designed to elicit correspondence between anti-smoking campaigners and ministers and civil servants.

This is not as simple as it sounds, especially if there is a large volume of emails or letters and the identities of the relevant civil servants are unknown.

For example, I recently submitted a request for copies of all correspondence between a certain group and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) over a six-month period.

Instead of the information I was hoping to get I received this reply:

DHSC may hold information relevant to your request. However, to provide the information as it is currently framed would exceed the appropriate cost limit set out in the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act].

Section 12(1) of the FOIA means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for DHSC is set at £600, which represents the cost of one person spending 24 working hours determining whether we hold the information, and then locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Although we cannot answer your request at the moment, we may be able to answer a refined request within the cost limit ... Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a refined request would fall within the FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply.

Lesson learned. I'll try again and this time I'll refine my request as suggested.

A further problem is that information is sometimes withheld under another section of the FOI Act 'which states that public bodies are not obliged to disclose information that is intended for future publication'.

In Scotland (and probably England but I haven't read the FOI Act in full) information may also be withheld 'because disclosure of the information would or would be likely to inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of advice (or views) for the purposes of deliberation':

It is essential for officials to be able to communicate/meet, often in confidence, with external stakeholders on a range of issues. Disclosing the content of these communications particularly without the consent of the stakeholder, is likely to undermine their trust in the Scottish Government and will substantially inhibit communications on this type of issue in the future.

These stakeholders will be reluctant to participate in meetings or provide their views fully and frankly if they believe that their views are likely to be made public, particularly while these discussions are still on-going and decisions have not been taken. This would significantly harm the Government’s ability to carry out many aspects of its work, and could adversely affect its ability to gather all of the evidence it needs to make fully informed decisions ...

We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing ministers and officials a private space within which to communicate with appropriate external stakeholders as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s policy position until the Government as a whole can adopt a policy that is sound and likely to be effective.

This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, so that good policy decisions can be taken based on fully informed advice and evidence, such as that provided by [x]. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between the Scottish government and these stakeholders, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy making process, which would not be in the public interest.

I understand the argument but it sounds to me like a recipe for behind-closed-door policy making.

What if the 'fully informed advice and evidence' is not just debatable but genuinely controversial or wrong?

Stakeholders not invited to participate must be allowed to challenge the 'advice and evidence' presented to Government in private meetings and how are we to do that if we are denied full freedom of information?

Talking of FOIs, I am reminded that in April 2015 I acquired a letter that had been sent to Swindon Borough Council by Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH.

Dated October 9, 2014, it requested that 'where information from non-governmental and other organisations will be made public, councils should follow good practice and notify those organisations affected ahead of any release', before adding:

There are a number of reasons why we are keen to ensure organisations in tobacco control have a chance to review any information which will be going into the public domain.

The first reason was 'threats of violence and direct abuse directed at ASH staff and other working in tobacco control'.

The second concerned 'some written materials which are shared with council staff to assist in developing future policy, including early drafts of documents which are intended for later publication. In line with the [Freedom of Information] Act it may not be appropriate to release this information.'

According to Arnott:

Some recent tobacco industry requests have been very broad in their scope, covering a number of years and not defining the topic on which they are requesting information. We would urge councils to consider these requests with caution [my emphasis], and when necessary and in line with the legislation to ask for further and better particulars of such requests.

At the time I was staggered that ASH would attempt to influence what information councils released under the Freedom of Information Act, but nothing surprises me any more.

Full story: ASH advises councils on best practice concerning Freedom of Information (Taking Liberties, April 30, 2015).

Where our money goes – ASH awarded over £700k by government since 2018

On Monday I noted that the anti-smoking group ASH has been awarded a grant of £95,000 by NHS England.

You can read about it here.

I can now reveal that in the last year (2021-22) ASH was also awarded £192,000 by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

This follows grants of £140,000 in 2018-19, £140,000 in 2019-20 and £191,680 in 2020-21.

Responding to a freedom of information request submitted last month, the DHSC adds that:

The work was to support the Tobacco Control Plan and activities were in line with the original funding themes, which are publicly available at Tobacco control plan: funding.

My FOI request included five questions, one of which was to ask if the work carried out by ASH in return for the grants awarded in 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been evaluated. ‘If so, please provide copies of the relevant evaluation reports.’

In response the DHSC sent me a single document - Final report to the DHSC on the evaluation of project grant to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), 2018-2021.

Under 'The evaluation process and results' it reads:

This is the final report by the independent evaluator nominated by ASH [my italics] in their application.

I'm not making this up. It would appear that ASH has not only received hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money 'to support the Tobacco Control Plan' but their work has been marked (apparently) by an evaluator (not identified) of their own choosing!!!

Since then, other than persistently lobbying the Government to introduce a new Tobacco Control Plan, I'm not sure what ASH has done to justify a further grant of £192,000 for 2021-22.

Unfortunately we’ll probably never know because, according to the DHSC, ‘There will be no evaluation report for the 2021-22 work'.

Seriously?

A grant of £192,000 has been awarded by government and there will be no evaluation of the work carried out?

Meanwhile, if you include the additional £70,000 that was awarded to ASH for a Quit4Covid campaign in 2020, that’s more than £700,000 from the DHSC alone since 2018.

Add the £95,000 just granted to ASH by NHS England and the total sum of public money awarded to ASH in the last four years appears to be in excess of £800,000.

And we haven't yet asked whether the DHSC has awarded ASH a further grant for 2022-23.

Watch this space.

See also: ASH demands £350k from Government to fund ailing Quit for Covid campaign (May 2020) and ASH campaign grant slashed from £350,000 to £70,000 (August 2020).

ASH awarded £95,000 grant by NHS England to lobby local government

Last month I noted that the anti-smoking group ASH was recruiting a new member of staff.

And not any old employee. The job title - NHS strategic lead - was very specific and applicants were told that the role was ‘to engage the NHS in action to tackle smoking’ and ‘to deliver on an NHS England funded project’.

The salary was said to be ‘£50-60,000, depending on experience’ but that still left more questions than answers.

Since it involved a publicly-funded body and therefore public money I submitted a freedom of information request.

I can now reveal that the total projected cost of the project, and the sum awarded to ASH by NHS England to work on it, is £95,000.

The post of NHS strategic lead, whose salary will be funded by the grant, ‘is to support delivery of the grant and will be funded from the grant award’.

‘Grant activity’ is to be delivered by 31st March 2024.

NHS England add that ‘ASH were the successful bidder for this grant’ but they don't say how many other bidders there were.

Instead, in response to my request for ‘details of the tendering/application process including whether bids by other groups or organisations were considered before ASH was chosen to work on the project’, all NHS England will say is:

This grant was competed via a public process, all applications submitted were considered as part of this process.

Grant details, they add, can be found on the Contracts Finder website.

There are four documents (which I have not yet read in forensic detail) but I’m mildly intrigued by the fact that the job was published/advertised on September 2 with a closing date of September 14.

According to the Contracts Finder website the grant contract start date was September 27, just two weeks later, which begs another question.

If candidates had to be interviewed and the successful applicant was already in a job, would they not have had to give several weeks’ notice before starting their new role with ASH?

Or is there some other explanation?

Finally, in reply to my query about an evaluation process, NHS England replied:

Regular reporting and progress of deliverables will be monitored throughout the grant duration.

I’m not entirely sure what the 'deliverables' are but here's the description that appears on the Contracts Finder website under Grant - Supporting the NHS Long Term Plan Tobacco Priorities:

NHS England is commissioning additional support for implementation of the tobacco long term plan commitments. This prospectus outlines a requirement for practical and expert support for tobacco LTP implementation. As clinical support is already in place, the grant would be focused on the work needed to drive system, organisational and regional change, including building links with and making the case to local government [my italics].

So what we have here is a publicly-funded body using public money to fund a partisan pressure group to lobby local government.

Meanwhile we’re told the NHS is strapped for cash.

You couldn’t make it up.

Below: Leadership role will seek to ‘engage’ NHS leaders …

Vape-free Ireland?

As mentioned in my previous post I was in Ireland last week catching up with my colleague John Mallon.

Remarkably, given the fact that the smoking rate in Ireland was 18% in 2021 (down from 22% in 2016), anti-smoking campaigners are still officially targeting 2025 as the year Ireland will be ‘tobacco-free'.

To put this in perspective, in Scotland – where the smoking rate is currently 17% – the government wants 2034 to be the year the country becomes ‘smoke free’ so how the Irish government hopes to achieve its tobacco-free ambition nine years earlier is baffling.

It goes without saying that the Irish target in particular is unachievable which may explain why, as 2025 fast approaches, the Tobacco Free Ireland programme that was launched in 2016 seems to have lost its way.

Take for example the Public Health (Tobacco and Nicotine Inhaling Product) Bill. Legislation that was first mooted in 2014 and has been trundling its way through parliament for several years has still not been passed or implemented.

When it's finally introduced there will be a ban on self-service tobacco vending machines but no-one seriously believes that will have a significant impact on smoking rates. It’s a petty inconvenience for smokers and a small loss of revenue for pubs but easy enough to adapt to.

The sale of tobacco 'via mobile or temporary units' will also be banned (at festivals and other events) but if the widespread use of illegal drugs at music festivals is a guide I can't see see that having much effect on smoking rates either.

Of greater concern is the introduction of a licensing system for the retail sale of tobacco that will include a retail licence fee because it’s pretty obvious that politicians and tobacco control campaigners will demand that the licence fee be increased every year until it no longer makes commercial sense to sell tobacco products, although the inevitable loss of revenue to the black market may concentrate ministers' minds.

What is also clear is that tobacco control campaigners on both sides of the Irish Sea are quickly running out of ideas to reduce smoking rates that don't involve creeping prohibition or coercion, which is where vaping comes in.

In England both the government and the public health industry are largely supportive of vaping as a reduced risk alternative to smoking. In Ireland however the environment is far more hostile. In September 2019 for example:

A leading heart consultant called for a ban on vaping and warned: “It’s more dangerous than smoking and booze combined.”

President of the International Society For Vascular Surgery, Prof Sherif Sultan, described e-cigarettes as “the disaster of the century”.

He told the Irish Sunday Mirror, “We need to ban them immediately.”

I don't remember anyone else pushing such an extreme policy but calls to ban flavoured vapes have been commonplace in Ireland for years.

As I wrote here one of the first to do so was former health minister, Senator James Reilly (but more on him later).

More recently, following a series of hearings that began this time last year, the Joint Committee on Health threw its weight behind a ban on flavoured vaping products.

According to the Pre-Legislative Report on the Public Health (Tobacco and Nicotine Inhaling Products) Bill 2019:

The Committee’s focus at hearings on the issue was largely on the regulation of e-cigarettes as this legislation would introduce a new regulatory regime for the sale of nicotine inhaling products in Ireland …

Over the course of the hearings on the Bill, significant evidence came to light regarding the harms of e-cigarettes, particularly for adolescents and young adults. Evidence was also provided about growing trends of vaping among teenagers and the easy accessibility and marketing of such products, with the use of brightly coloured packaging and flavours as well as the use of online marketing to attract younger people to these products.

The Committee recommends that some of the provisions which relate to tobacco products in Part 3 of the Bill should also be extended to e-cigarette products, including regulation of sale of products from points of sale and restrictions on the sale of such products at places intended for children.

Furthermore, the Committee believes the legislation should be extended to regulate flavouring and marketing of e-cigarettes, which is not currently provided for under the General Scheme.

(See also Ireland's Health Committee wants flavoured e-cigarette ban.)

The Health Committee appears to have been influenced by two organisations - the Irish Heart Foundation and the Irish Cancer Society – both of which gave evidence to the Committee. According to the IHF banning flavoured e-cigarettes is 'an issue the charity has long campaigned for'.

Another body, the Royal College of Physicians Ireland, has also been vocal on the subject. Professor Des Cox, who is chair of the RCPI policy group on tobacco, claimed only last week that e-cigarettes are creating a "new generation of nicotine-addicted young people".

In a report published last Sunday Cox said:

“Our group has been calling for a ban on the sale of flavourings in e-cigarette liquids for a number of years now.

“It is something which would allow ex-smokers to continue to use e-cigarettes if they wish to quit smoking, but it would also not entice teenagers to the market, because it has been shown in research that flavours are one of the attractions to these products for young people.".

In response, and on behalf of Forest, John Mallon argued that:

“Banning flavoured vapes would be a monumental error because it would discourage many smokers from switching to a far less harmful product.

“It will also result in unregulated flavoured vapes being sold on the black market.

“There is very little evidence that vaping is a gateway to smoking so it’s important not to fuel unnecessary fears about a product that is overwhelmingly used not by teenagers but by adults who are trying to quit smoking.”

Meanwhile what are current smokers in Ireland to make of the advice about vaping that can be found on the Health Service Executive (HSE) website. Briefly:

We do not recommend vaping as a way to stop smoking.  

Explaining the HSE’s position it continues:

We have reviewed the studies of vaping as a stop smoking support. Compared to the options we recommend, we are not confident that vaping is a safe or effective way to stop smoking. We will continue to review new studies.

E-cigarettes are not stop smoking medicines

E-cigarettes are not licensed medicines.

Licensed stop smoking medicines go through quality and safety checks before they can be sold.

There are some regulations for e-cigarettes and vaping liquids as consumer products. But the system for licensed medicines is much stricter.

If you have never smoked cigarettes, vaping offers no health benefit. If you do not smoke, do not start vaping.

Most vaping liquids contain nicotine. Nicotine is a dangerous and addictive chemical.

The risks and negative health effects linked with vaping include:

– nicotine dependence
– injuries - for example, from defective e-cigarette batteries
– poisoning and exposure to toxins
– changes to how your heart, lungs and other organs normally work

Over time these risks may cause diseases such as heart disease, lung disease and cancer.
Vaping liquid that does not contain nicotine often has other chemicals such as colours and flavourings.

These chemicals can be harmful when you inhale them into your lungs.

We are still learning about the long-term risks of vaping. This is because e-cigarettes are relatively new compared to cigarettes. We need to review studies of people who use e-cigarettes over many years before we can know the health impact of vaping.

The irony is that despite that tobacco free target, vaping is arguably under greater threat in Ireland than smoking, which brings me back to James Reilly whose retirement from politics in 2020 - after several election defeats - is possibly one of the reasons why the 2025 target has dropped off many people's radar.

For the best part of a decade Reilly waged a very personal crusade against smoking. After advocating plain packaging it was he who in October 2013 announced plans for a tobacco-free Ireland by 2025.

Even as a former health minister he tried to persuade the Government to ban smoking in al fresco dining areas.

In 2020 however Reilly retired from politics and his previous commitment to the anti-smoking cause has left a major hole, although it's arguable whether his obsession with smoking had become more of a hindrance than a help.

Another loss was Senator John Crown who shared Reilly's hatred of smoking and the tobacco industry. Crown stepped back from politics in 2016.

In 2012 Crown called for the sale of tobacco products to be banned in Ireland by 2025 and without their voices in parliament the anti-smoking drive has arguably stalled.

Or perhaps most people in Ireland feel the war on smoking has gone far enough. Vaping however may be a different kettle of fish.

See also: The Senator Crown affair (November 2012)
Why Irish health minister James Reilly should resign (May 2013)
Tantrums and tobacco: the ugly face of public health (October 2013)
James Reilly: the people have spoken (February 2016)

Sláinte!

As I mentioned yesterday I am in Cork for a meeting with my Forest colleague John Mallon.

John has been our representative in Ireland since 2010 and I’ve been coming here for meetings and events ever since.

However my first trip to any part of Ireland was in 1986 when I flew to Belfast to visit a friend who was in the army.

I was given a room in barracks to the north of the city, had dinner in the officers’ mess, and felt as safe as I had when visiting him at another army base in Corsham, Wiltshire.

The following day however, when we set off in a hire car on a sightseeing trip, it was explained that because I was with a British soldier - albeit on his day off and not in uniform - two-thirds of the province were out of bounds for safety reasons.

We therefore kept to the well-worn tourist route to Giant’s Causeway and avoided going off piste.

A year or two later I visited the south for the first time. I went to a weekend conference in Dun Laoghaire, south of Dublin, but for reasons I can neither remember nor explain I travelled there and back by train and ferry, an excruciating 12-hour journey each way.

I didn’t visit Ireland again until 2003, the year before the smoking ban was introduced. There was some opposition to the ban but it was centred in Waterford where two groups had been set up to oppose the measure.

They were called Smokers Against Discrimination (SAD) and European Smokers Against Discrimination (ESAD) which sounded to me like the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea.

I met the founder of one (I think it was SAD) but neither had any money and we couldn’t afford to support them which in hindsight was regrettable because a well organised, well-funded campaign might have enjoyed more success and it would have sent a warning to the UK government as well.

Nevertheless we did what we could (mostly media interviews) and later that year I returned to Ireland when Forest was invited to take part in a debate about the smoking ban at University College Dublin, a visit I described thus:

Tuesday October 14, 2003

To Ireland to take part in a debate organised by the Literary and Historical Society at University College Dublin. Subject: smoking in public places. My colleague Jo Gaffikin and I are following in some famous footsteps, including James Joyce and every Irish prime minister since 1921.

Although we lose the debate we don't disgrace ourselves, persuading a significant number of non-smokers to vote against the motion [to ban smoking in public places]. It is nevertheless astounding to hear so many students support the political establishment on such a fundamental issue. Ironically, the vote in favour of a smoking ban comes at the same time that students at UCD are calling for a boycott of Pepsi Cola for some obscure reason that escapes me.

To be fair, the evening is more stand-up comedy than serious debate and some of the students are very funny. It's the guest speakers who let the side down. Jo and I do our best to enter into the spirit of the occasion (Jo’s boots, featuring a smoking cowboy, catch the eye) but the two public health speakers deliver such crushingly boring speeches, which they read line by line from notes, it's a miracle no-one is injured in a mass stampede for the exit.

The following year, on the eve of the ban, I returned to Dublin:

Wednesday March 24, 2004

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

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 bar 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 on Monday.) 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 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.

Five months later I returned to Ireland again to conduct some research into the impact of the ban. Forest chairman Lord Harris encouraged me to take my family and have a holiday at the same time so we took the car and travelled to Westport (in Co Mayo), Galway, Dublin, Waterford and Kilkenny.

One day I would be climbing Croagh Patrick, the next I would be visiting pubs and bars in Westport or Galway.

In smaller towns such as Waterford the impact of the ban was obvious. Pubs I had visited the previous year at lunchtime were now closed until 5.00pm because the elderly male customers who would sit quietly from midday to mid afternoon nursing their pipe and a pint had been driven away.

There were however some ingenious strategies to get round the ban.

For example, the owner of a pub in Kilkenny had built a large extension on the first floor where people could smoke in comfort. It had its own bar with tables and stools. It also had four solid walls and a high pitched roof that offered almost total protection from bad weather.

How it passed the new regulations I’ve no idea but it did and everyone, including the staff we spoke to, seemed happy with the result.

In Dublin I was taken to a smoking room that was inside the pub. There were stools and small raised tables and if I remember correctly both the door and floor to ceiling dividing wall were made of glass so staff and customers could see in and those inside could see out.

It looked and felt completely enclosed but the ‘room’ was like a chimney and high above our heads was a hole through which you could see the sky so technically it was said to be ‘outside’ and smoking was allowed. Ingenious.

In 2010 we belatedly launched Forest Ireland and invited John Mallon (who we identified as being ‘one of us’ due to his persistent letters to the press on the issue of smoking) to be our spokesman in Ireland.

Since then, with the exception of 2020 and 2021 - the pandemic years - I’ve been coming here at least once and often several times a year.

I enjoy every visit and our annual pre-Christmas dinner when I get together with John and others to review the current year and discuss what may happen in the year ahead is always a highlight.

Thank you to them and to everyone I have worked with in Ireland over the years … sláinte!

Below: journalist Ian O’Doherty with a Voices of Freedom award, presented by Forest at a dinner in Dublin in November 2018