Ukip’s new deputy leader supports complete ban on smoking

Oh to be a fly on the wall when Ukip leader Neil Hamilton discusses the party’s policy on smoking with his new deputy Rebecca Jane.

Remember Ukip?

In the 2014 European Parliament election the Nigel Farage-led party won the largest number of seats (24) in the UK with 27 per cent of the vote.

The result forced David Cameron to commit the Conservative party to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union if he won a majority in the subsequent general election and the rest, as they say, is history.

Today, sans Farage, Ukip is unrecognisable from the party whose vibrant conference I attended on behalf of Forest in September 2014.

(The Hands Off Our Packs campaign had a stand in the exhibition area that Farage had promised to visit. He did but 24 hours after we expected him and I missed his show of support because I had nipped out of the hall for a sandwich!)

A few months earlier I was one of millions who voted for Ukip in the 2014 European election but it’s the first and only time I voted for the party because I never bought the idea that Ukip represented a more liberal (or libertarian) form of conservatism.

I knew for example that any commitment to amending the smoking ban or opposing plain packaging and other punitive tobacco control measures was driven almost entirely by Farage, not the party at large.

This became clear the first time he stood down as leader in 2009 because it was obvious that his successor Lord Pearson had absolutely no interest in the subject.

Truth is Ukip has never been a libertarian party and the idea that it was or could have been is one of the great political myths.

To be fair to Neil Hamilton, a very good friend of the late Lord Harris (chairman of Forest from 1986 until his death in 2006), he has been a consistent opponent of the smoking ban hence my fly on the wall comment because the first time I saw Rebecca Jane was on Good Morning Britain in 2018 when she was calling for smoking in the street to be made illegal.

Whether she actually believed that or was just fulfilling the GMB producers’ brief to be controversial I don’t know, but it wasn’t the only time she’s taken a pop at smoking.

In June 2021, again on Good Morning Britain, she called for a complete ban on smoking in public. “One hundred per cent smokers should just be banned in general,” she said.

The following month I was invited to discuss the subject ‘Should smoking be banned in the UK?’ with Mark Dolan on GB News. I was on one side of the debate, Rebecca Jane was on the other.

This week her mission is to #UniteTheRight by bringing together various fringe parties that purport to be on the right.

They include the Reclaim Party led by Laurence Fox (a smoker), and Reform led by former Brexit Party MEP Richard Tice. She’s even reached out to Farage, another smoker (via Twitter of course).

So far only the Reclaim Party has accepted her invitation to talk but it all seems a bit desperate to me.

I can only imagine that by appointing Rebecca Jane as deputy leader Ukip hope to benefit from her media profile, such as it is.

They’ve nothing to lose in terms of their current credibility but it might help if the leader and deputy leader were on the same page with something as fundamental as choice and civil liberties.

Another case of mistaken identity

A couple of months ago I tweeted that my Google alerts now include articles that mention Simon Clarke MP.

A clear case of mistaken identity by the search engine but it’s not the first time I’ve been confused for the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury who is now Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

A year ago a Conservative MP sent me a text and we messaged back and forth before it dawned on me (if not him) that I wasn’t the Simon Clark(e) he thought I was.

Fast forward to today and I’m writing this in a coffee shop in Westminster a short walk from the Houses of Parliament where I had been invited to a meeting (at his request) with another member of Parliament.

To spare the MP’s blushes I won’t name him but this is what happened.

Last week I got an email from the said MP requesting a meeting.

‘Yes of course,’ I replied. ‘Is there anything in particular you want to talk about?’

‘Levelling up’ was the response.

To put this in context, I’ve written about the Government’s levelling up agenda several times - including here - noting how it’s being hijacked by the tobacco control industry to force smokers in poorer areas to quit.

I even raised the issue at the Forest fringe meeting at the recent Conservative party conference so being invited to talk to an MP about levelling up didn’t strike me as odd at all. Quite the opposite.

Anyway I turned up at the agreed time but as soon as the MP arrived I knew something was up.

First, there was the double take (“What’s he doing here?” he was clearly thinking) followed by the question, “Is the minister with you?”

The minister? Would that be the Rt Hon Simon Clarke, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, by any chance?

Indeed it would. And that, dear reader, was the end of the shortest ‘meeting’ I’ve ever attended.

A three-hour round trip, door-to-door. But I’m not complaining. The weather at least is lovely - sunny and 17 degrees. Perfect.

Is the age of liberalism over?

Spent an enjoyable day at the Battle of Ideas yesterday.

For those who don’t know, this annual two-day event is organised by the Academy of Ideas whose director Claire Fox (now Baroness Fox) has been a friend of Forest for over 20 years.

Like the online magazine Spiked, the Academy of Ideas (which was originally called the Institute of Ideas until they were told they couldn’t use the word ‘Institute’) emerged from the dying embers of LM magazine (formerly Living Marxism).

Given that I spent a considerable part of my youth (and twenties) ‘fighting’ Communists and Marxists at home and abroad, the idea that one day I would be aligned with former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party on issues concerning free speech and individual liberty would be a shock to my younger self but here we are.

The first Battle of Ideas, in 2005, was a month-long series of events in a number of small venues throughout London.

It concluded with a dinner to which every speaker was invited and that was the moment I realised how much more enjoyable it was to exchange views in a civilised manner without being dragged down to the level of party politics or no platformed by adversaries whether it be the tobacco control industry or anyone else.

It was the first time too that I began to realise that the political debate wasn’t as simple as left versus right because the political boundaries are often blurred, especially when it comes to free speech and individual autonomy.

I was subsequently asked to endorse the Battle of Ideas and I wrote:

The Battle of Ideas is a breath of fresh air. Freedom of speech is actively encouraged, which is hugely liberating. Audience and speakers are refreshingly candid. Apart from speaking their minds, many of them enjoy a drink. Others like to smoke. This is the real world, not the grey, bland, sanitized world our political masters would like us to inhabit.

In 2007, after the format changed to a single weekend, Claire asked if Forest would sponsor an end of event party, which we did.

It was a few months after the smoking ban was introduced so I suggested we hire a boat - The Elizabethan - which I had used previously for private events and would later hire for ‘Smoke On The Water’, the annual Forest boat party.

The following year, and for several years after that, the Battle of Ideas took place at the Royal College of Art in South Kensington.

In 2008, having again agreed to underwrite the farewell party (this time under the banner of The Free Society), we hired the famous Polish Club in Princes Gate because it had a nice outdoor terrace for smokers.

It was a great success, made even more memorable because I had to discharge myself from hospital to be there. (It’s a long story.)

Thereafter the Battle of Ideas went from strength to strength, enjoying a long residency at the Barbican that lasted until 2019.

There was no Battle of Ideas in 2020 because of Covid but in 2021 the event relocated to Church House in Westminster which is where it reconvened this weekend.

The circular Assembly Hall, with a capacity of 600, is the stand out room but the Memorial Hall (270) is equally historic. Apparently it hosted the House of Commons for a time during the Second World War.

There are 19 ‘event spaces’ in total but at times under the lights one or two of the smaller rooms felt a little cramped (and hot!).

Also, unlike the Barbican, there are no large bar areas to hang out and chat to people, but that’s a very small moan.

In many ways Church House is a better match for an event that prides itself on an intimacy you don’t get at many larger conferences, or even in fringe meetings at party conferences.

The slogan of the Battle of Ideas is ‘Free speech allowed’ and it’s not an idle boast.

Speakers yesterday included Graham Linehan, the Irish television comedy writer whose career appears to have stalled due to his views on transgender issues.

At the Battle of Ideas however there is an acceptance that people can have different and opposing views without falling out and in all the years I’ve been going, either as a speaker or a member of the audience, I can’t remember speakers ever making snarky or personal comments about one another (or their source of funding).

If I have one small criticism it’s that some debates and discussions can be a little on the academic side with (arguably) very little relevance to the real world.

I don’t doubt the sincerity, intellect or enthusiasm of the speakers but one debate I was looking forward to yesterday left me thinking ‘What was that all about?’. A day later I’m none the wiser.

One thing is clear though. I’m struggling to think of another event like this so hats off to Claire Fox and her team for keeping the flame of freedom alight and in such an eclectic way.

At a Forest fringe meeting at the Conservative conference in Birmingham the other week she told the audience:

I’m on the left and I’m far more pro-freedom than anyone I’ve met in the Conservative party … What has happened to you lot? You’ve lost your bottle, in my opinion.”

Sadly the same could be said of every other mainstream political party, and even the smaller ones.

The problem is that if the liberal, pro-freedom Academy of Ideas was reconstituted as a political party it would no doubt succumb sooner or later to the same in-fighting and personal ambitions that bedevil all political groups.

Meanwhile one speaker, in a debate about autonomy, seemed to suggest that because ‘no man is an island’ individual autonomy doesn’t - or shouldn’t - exist because we are part of something bigger.

Another speaker in the same debate suggested that the age of liberalism is coming to an end. (At least I think that’s what she said. Some of it went over my head.)

She may be right, especially after the pandemic when more and more people seem happy for government to make decisions on our behalf or ‘protect’ us far beyond what was originally envisaged by advocates of the welfare state (which was supposed to help those in genuine need, not the entire population regardless of circumstances).

I get that people want insurance against a rainy day or acts of God (like the pandemic) but why, with the exception of the most vulnerable, is it the government’s responsibility to be the sole provider of that insurance?

Surely, as individuals, we have to take some responsibility for our own welfare?

The issue is that once we transfer to the government all responsibility for our health, earnings etc we arguably give up the right to freedom of speech and expression because we are no longer autonomous beings.

We become servants of the state, not its master. Or have I been indoctrinated by the ‘wrong’ people?

Either way the day raised some interesting points that are rarely if ever be discussed in Parliament or by the mainstream media.

The astonishing rise and fall of Liz Truss

An unfortunate casualty of the prime minister’s current predicament might be this forthcoming biography.

Out of the Blue: The inside story of Liz Truss and her astonishing rise to power by Harry Cole and James Heale is currently available to pre-order prior to publication on December 8 but I can’t help wondering whether it will ever see the light of day.

Or perhaps, like Prince Harry’s memoir (allegedly), it will undergo extensive revisions with publication postponed until next year when it will be renamed Out of the Blue: The inside story of Liz Truss and her astonishing rise (and fall).

Trussed up and hunted down

A video clip released by Buckingham Palace this week showed King Charles greeting the PM when she arrived for their weekly briefing.

“Dear oh dear,” he was heard to say which wasn’t perhaps what she wanted to hear and definitely not on camera to be shared with the world.

I may be in a small minority but having argued only a few days ago that classical liberals must stick with Liz Truss and her close friend, the cigar chomping health secretary Thérèse Coffey, I’m not going to join the lynch mob but I hope “dear oh dear” doesn’t prove to her epitaph, although it could be a lot worse.

For me the worst moment of her press conference today wasn’t the announcement of another u-turn (on corporation tax this time) but confirmation that the new Chancellor is Jeremy Hunt.

Three months ago, when asked which of the eight candidates for the Tory leadership I favoured, I flippantly said ‘Anyone but Hunt’ and meant it.

I was delighted therefore when he was the first candidate to be eliminated or, as I wrote here, ‘dispatched into political oblivion’.

Three months later he’s back, not just in government but in the Treasury, next door to Number Ten, his ultimate goal.

Personally I don’t get it. OK, he brings more experience to the table but do we really want a return to the vanilla policies of the Cameron/May years?

At least David Cameron and George Osborne were a good match politically and personally.

I could understand it if Truss and Hunt had similar political beliefs but I’m pretty sure they don’t so it looks, on paper, like a marriage made in hell.

For example, on the evidence of his stint at the Department of Health Hunt is a copper bottomed interventionist, the opposite (or so we are led to believe) of Truss. On smoking, for example:

Jeremy Hunt backs Labour bid to ban smoking in cars with children (The Times, February 2, 2014)

Jeremy Hunt wants a 'smoke-free' Britain: Health Secretary praised by anti-smoking groups (Independent, October 23, 2014).

It was Hunt too who launched a consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco and although he was later criticised for delaying its introduction he was effectively forced to because of the weight of opposition that included a street petition organised by Forest that attracted over 250,000 signature opposing the measure.

The fact that Hunt was in favour of plain packaging was never in doubt, as a subsequent Twitter interchange with former Labour Health Secretary Andy Burnham (now mayor of Greater Manchester) seemed to prove.

Many will argue that if Hunt gets inflation under control and revives the economy nothing else matters (and they may be right) but the prospect of him using his new position to further his Number 10 ambitions doesn’t fill me with joy.

Starmer or Hunt? Either way the middle class war on our lifestyles will go into overdrive.

Btw, I listened to Five Live this afternoon. Granted, Truss has brought a lot of this on herself but the BBC didn’t even attempt to be impartial.

Amid all the critical comments they eventually found a 19-year-old Truss ‘supporter’ who allegedly voted for her in the leadership election although his first choice, he said, was Penny Mordaunt.

Naturally he savaged both Truss and the state of the country in apocalyptic terms before demanding, when prompted, that she resign.

I’m not sure what the point of the interview was apart from confirming that even Tory party members who voted for Truss are deserting her, which may or may not be true.

At 19 he’s entitled to his opinion of course but to put current events in perspective surely we needed to hear from one or two people who lived through similar economic and political crises in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties and Nineties.

Unfortunately we’re living in the Twitter age and he who shouts loudest is given airtime regardless of the insight they bring to the table.

Anyway, I’m attending the Battle of Ideas at Church House in Westminster tomorrow which is guaranteed to be far more civil, literate and liberal.

If you’re going too do say hello.

Update: First meeting, selected at random from a choice of eight that all started at 10.15, and the first speaker absolutely eviscerates Jeremy Hunt, highlighting his notorious flip-flopping on Covid restrictions.

Sadly there are many more MPs (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem) just like him.

The hypocrisy of ASH

Deborah Arnott is like a dog with a bone.

I can’t remember the last time time we were interviewed together when the CEO of ASH didn’t raise the issue of Forest’s funding or refer to my salary (which is significantly less than hers, I believe).

The not-so-subtle implication is that when I open my mouth I am speaking not for myself or Forest but on behalf of the tobacco industry. I am, in other words, a puppet.

The same argument is used by others against those who work for free market think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs whose donors are said to include tobacco, alcohol and gambling interests.

But the IEA’s Emily Carver made a good point on LBC the other evening. Responding to Adam Bienkov, political editor of Byline Times, she said:

“It’s no surprise that someone who believes in free markets in general might wish to work for a think tank that also believes in that.”

In the same vein I wouldn’t have accepted a job with Forest if I didn’t agree with the group’s fundamental philosophy which has nothing to do with selling cigarettes and everything to do with freedom of choice and individual liberty.

As a result, in 20+ years I have never said anything I don’t personally support or believe in. I'm not Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking or Don Draper in Mad Men, although I sometimes wish I was!

In fact my commitment to the freedom of choice cause goes back long before I began working for Forest or had any connection with the tobacco industry. And the same is true of my interest in the smoking debate.

In 1984 for example I interviewed Stephen Eyres, the first director of Forest, for a national student magazine I was editing.

You can read the 'The wit and the wisdom of ... Stephen Eyres' on an earlier version of this blog.

It was my choice to interview him for the simple reason that even then I sympathised with Forest's position, and that was almost 40 years ago.

In 1989, a full ten years before I joined Forest, I also researched and published a report called ‘Smoke Out: How the quality press covers the smoking debate'.

At the time I was director of the Media Monitoring Unit which monitored current affairs programme for political bias but this was a separate project, conceived not by the tobacco industry but by me because I thought it was an interesting subject.

The implication therefore that I only parrot what the tobacco companies want me to say is not just false but insulting, but before Deborah chalks that down as a win I can honestly say I’m not aggrieved because I genuinely don’t care what she says!

I could of course have replied to her jibe by pointing out that at least Forest gets its donations exclusively from the private sector.

And unlike ASH we’re not a burden on the taxpayer.

The reason I didn’t say it is because I prefer not to get involved in a tit-for-tat squabble about funding because it’s (a) petty and (b) a distraction from the subject we’re supposed to be talking about.

In future however I may make the point that the most recent grant awarded by government to ASH is substantially more than the combined donations Forest currently receives from the tobacco industry.

According to a TaxPayers Alliance report published earlier this year (Taxpayer funded lobbying and political campaigning 2022) ASH received a grant of £140,000 in 2018-19, a further £140,000 in 2019-20 and £191,680 in 2020-21, a total of £471,680 over three years.

The most recent figure (£191,680) is a substantial increase on the two previous years which begs several questions including:

Why? What was the extra £51,680 for? Was there a proper tendering process? Has the work ASH carried out in return for that and previous grants been fully evaluated?

Did it represent value for money to the taxpayer and who makes that judgement? Is there, for example, an independent auditor or assessor?

Last but not least, has ASH been awarded a grant for 2021-22 and, if so, how much and for what purpose?

ASH loves to bask in its holier than thou charitable status but a substantial part of its work is not charitable (like education) but straight up political lobbying.

Questions have been asked in the past about ASH’s status and whether a lobby group should receive public funds and lobby government and there has never been what I would call a satisfactory answer.

With regard to the grants ASH receives from government, we’re led to believe the money is effectively ring-fenced for specific projects and is not used to fund other activities including lobbying.

Either way the optics aren’t good (in my opinion).

Meanwhile, given Deborah's latest dig at the principal source of Forest’s funding, a quick reminder of another interview - on Sky News in June - that I wrote about here.

Predictable as ever she told presenter Emma Crosby, “Well, first of all what Simon doesn't tell you is that he is a non-smoker, that he has made a very good living for over 20 years from being paid by the tobacco industry …"

On that occasion she was put firmly in her place by Crosby who told her, "Let’s not get personal, OK."

But that’s what Arnott does and she’s been doing it for years. Back in 2010 during another interview she said, “Well, to start with, Simon forgets to mention that his organisation is funded by the tobacco industry so his salary is paid out of their profits.”

Twelve years apart yet the words are almost identical. The irony, as I pointed out in June, is that:

Aside from the yawn-inducing tedium of such comments (which I generally ignore on the grounds that it makes me look better than her!), what’s so hilarious is that I am pretty certain that my salary (which I shall keep private, thank you very much!) has never exceeded that of Deborah’s and has usually lagged a considerable distance behind.

In other words, if I’ve made a “very good living” from tobacco (my wife might disagree, looking at the modest size of our house not to mention my pension!) Deborah has arguably made an even better living from tobacco control.

Fancy that!

More thoughts on smoking and Thérèse Coffey, as told to BBC 3 Counties radio

I was on BBC 3 Counties radio yesterday:

A 14-minute interview with me and Dr Peter Carter, former CEO of the Royal College of Nursing, kicked off a one-hour phone-in prompted by reports concerning the future of the Government’s tobacco control strategy.

To put this in perspective it’s worth noting how few interviews Forest has been asked to do on the subject. LBC (Tom Swarbrick), BBC 3 Counties and Talk TV (Vanessa Feltz) are the only ones to date.

The issue wasn’t reported on the BBC News website. Furthermore, despite some press interest and a leading article in The Times, there wasn’t a single question on the subject during PMQs yesterday so I would question whether this is a big issue either for parliament or the public.

(According to an article in the New Statesman ‘Thérèse Coffey doesn’t understand that most people are anti-smoking‘ but just because most people are non-smokers doesn’t mean that ‘most people are anti-smoking’. That’s a huge leap of faith. Where’s the evidence?)

So apart from The Times and the New Statesman the only people trying to make it an issue are the usual anti-smoking lobbyists whose anguished tweets suggest repressed fury that their smoke free goal may be under threat.

My guess is that they and their supporters at the Department of Health are worried by the lack of urgency and what we’ve seen this week is designed to put pressure on Coffey to publish a tobacco plan that reaffirms the smoke free 2030 target (and their futures!) even if there is little chance of it being met.

Anyway, here’s the BBC 3 Counties interview I did yesterday, lightly edited.

I should add that presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith and I are old adversaries (on air) which I don’t mind at all.

He’s an ex-smoker I believe who comes across as being anti-smoking but he gives his guests ample time to speak without constant interruption and I quite enjoy our jousts.

He began, I think, by asking listeners whether the Government should stop people smoking or “butt out”.

(If you don’t want to read the transcript in full you might like to scroll to the end where I praise Thérèse Coffey. Thanks to JVS for giving me the opportunity!)

Jonathan Vernon-Smith: presenter
Let's get some reaction to begin with, from Simon Clark, who's the director of Forest, a smokers’ lobby group. Hello to you, Simon.

Simon Clark: director, Forest
Hello, Jonathan.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Good morning. So, I presume you would be absolutely delighted if the government did butt out?

Simon Clark:
Yes. We’ve always said the government has a role to play educating people about the health risks of smoking but I certainly don't think the government should stop people smoking a legal product and if they want to stop people smoking completely … then let's have a debate about prohibition. But what we have seen in recent years, over the last 15 years since the smoking ban, since the display ban, since plain packaging and a whole raft of measures, [is] what I would call creeping prohibition and I don't think there has been a proper public debate about whether or not people do support prohibition because at the end of the day tobacco is a legal product. Clearly it carries very serious health risks, which people need to know about, but ultimately if you're an adult you should be allowed to smoke without excessive regulations, without excessive restrictions and without this constant harassment because any campaign should be based on education and consent, not forcing people to give up.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay, let's take this back a step and let's break it down. Do you think it would be better if the six million people who smoke in this country stopped smoking?

Simon Clark:
No, I don't because if people were forced to give up that would suggest we are not living in a liberal free society …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
I didn't say about forcing. I said, would it be better if the six million people didn't smoke any more, they stopped smoking?

Simon Clark:
No, I'm not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers who get a great deal of pleasure from smoking, they enjoy smoking. Often it's a great comfort to them in periods of distress or they might be depressed or they might have had bad news. I mean, [there are] all sorts of reasons why people smoke. Sometimes …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
This sounds like the kind of messaging the tobacco industry has been peddling for years.

Simon Clark:
Well I don't care if you think that Jonathan. I happen to believe it. I am an individual …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Well it’s true and you are paid for by the tobacco industry aren't you?

Simon Clark:
Indeed and we have never made any secret of that. I don't think it’s unreasonable that tobacco companies should support a consumer group. The reality is tobacco companies have actually moved on a hell of a long way since 30, 40 years ago and they are now supporting and manufacturing and distributing reduced risk products like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco. So you might want to throw accusations at the tobacco industry but actually they are part of the solution, if you like, not the problem.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
But there are much healthier alternatives to uplifting people’s mood than smoking.

Simon Clark:
Like what? Suggest something.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Exercise.

Simon Clark:
Are you going to force people to take exercise?

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
No, no-one is talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You suggested that in some way tobacco smoking is very beneficial to lifting people’s moods and to helping people through stressful situations. I am suggesting to you that in fact it will be far more responsible to suggest exercise to people than smoking a cigarette …

Simon Clark:
I am not suggesting …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
… that kills people.

Simon Clark:
I am not suggesting smoking for everybody. I am saying for some people it does lift their mood, it does help them through difficult situations. I don’t smoke but I drink. I drink more than the recommended number of units per week but so what? That’s my choice. It’s my life, it's not your life. If I choose to drink more than the recommended units of alcohol, if somebody chooses to smoke, that’s their choice. It’s their life and it’s not the government’s job to force them to give up.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay. What about the people listening to this programme though, Simon, who have lost loved ones to lung cancer? What about the people listening to this programme who lost their grandparents too young to lung cancer because their grandparents grew up in a time when smoking was seen as being perfectly normal and a perfectly reasonable thing to do and subsequently they died much much younger than they ever needed to die because of their smoking habit. They may think, they may say to you, that actually it is responsible for a government when you know the facts to try and stop people taking up smoking in the first place. That’s a responsible thing to do.

Simon Clark:
No, the responsible thing to do is to educate people about the health risks of a legal product, so that as an adult they are allowed to make an informed decision and if they choose to smoke knowing full well what the health risks are, and nobody in this country can claim to be ignorant of the health risks and that goes for lung cancer and a whole range of other illnesses that you can potentially get from smoking, it's responsible [for] government in a free society to educate people. But we cannot have this constant harassment of smokers for doing nothing more than a legal activity.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay stay there Simon if you would. Dr Peter Carter is an independent healthcare consultant from Hertfordshire, former CEO of the Royal College of Nursing. Hello to you, Peter.

Dr Peter Carter:
Good morning, Jonathan.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Do you agree with Simon Clark from Forest that the government should butt out? It's down to individuals. This is a legal product. Give individuals the information, the facts, by all means but butt out of their lives. Stop trying to stop them doing this.

Dr Peter Carter:
I couldn't disagree with Simon more. I think the government should carry on with anti-smoking legislation. I think that there should be far more health education on smoking, particularly in schools, [the] number of young people that take up smoking, and when Simon says, look, people are going about their lawful activity, yes it's not illegal to smoke but the problem is the consequences are not readily known to the public. 78,000 people a year die of smoking-related diseases. Tens of thousands more actually live with long-term debilitating diseases and that costs the NHS over 2.5 billion pounds. So whilst people are pursuing their legal activity it’s not just affecting them, it's putting a huge impact on the NHS and the more that can be done to dissuade people from smoking the better. By the way if you smoke your life expectancy after the age of 40 reduces by an extra three months for every year and most smokers have ten years less life expectancy than the average member of the public. So it's not without its consequences.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
So ultimately, Simon, this is about trying to prevent the knock-on impact of smoking as well as protecting the individual's health.

Simon Clark:
Well in terms of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases, Dr Carter is right as the estimated cost is 2.5 billion pounds a year, but against that you have got to remember that smokers contribute over ten billion pounds a year through tobacco taxation. Taxes on tobacco are at punitive levels, almost 90% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government and that goes into the public purse and that helps pay for the NHS. So on purely financial grounds smokers more than pay their way in society and they're certainly not a burden in that respect. And when it comes to longevity, I mean it's a difficult one isn't it because we know a lot of people [who] haven't smoked [and are] living well into their 90s and have a pretty terrible time of it. This idea that we've got to live forever … I think we need to have a little bit of discussion about this because sometimes it’s nice to live the life you enjoy …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Are you suggesting it's better for people to smoke and die younger?

Simon Clark:
I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm actually suggesting is that we do things in our life that bring us pleasure. We take risks with all sorts of things. I mean there are a lot of extreme sports that people take risks with and they might end up getting seriously injured and maybe even killed and people make those decisions as they are go through their lives because they want to make the most of their life, they want to enjoy [it]. Now I completely accept that there are people who have taken up smoking [and] wished they had never done it, but there is nothing to stop people quitting. We are constantly told …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
But hang on a minute, hang on a minute. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there. When people have become addicted to nicotine … I mean you are funded by the tobacco industries, I don't expect you to admit this, but of course the tobacco industry for a long time marketed their products as a way of trying to get people addicted to nicotine. It's very difficult just to come off nicotine. It's not as easy as just, well if you don't want to smoke anymore, just stop.

Simon Clark:
I think that's a complete cop-out Jonathan. I think it is difficult for some people to give up smoking because it becomes a habit they find difficult to break but there are millions upon millions of people who have stopped smoking. Many of them have quit overnight. They have simply gone cold turkey and they've stopped overnight. If you've got the willpower and you really want to give up smoking, maybe you had a health scare. I mean, that often focuses people's minds …

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
What, a health scare caused by smoking?

Simon Clark:
Well again, people know the risks. Nobody in the last 50 years in this country can be ignorant of the fact that there are serious health risks associated with smoking. There are also health risks associated with being obese, with drinking alcohol to excess, but in a free society we are allowed to make those choices and again, I don't disagree with Dr Carter that there should be more health education. That’s absolutely fine. I'm simply drawing a distinction between education and consent and actually forcing people to stop smoking. If you want to force people to stop smoking then let's have a debate about prohibition and that will be something completely different.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
So Peter, if you ultimately want people to stop smoking, ban tobacco altogether?

Dr Peter Carter:
Well, more legislation, more health education and more awareness because I know … Look, Simon is doing his job but the public really do not understand the consequences. They think about cancer, which is right, but young people need to know that, for example, if you smoke you are more likely to get acne and it's a slower healing of skin blemishes and wounds. Smokers go grey earlier than non-smokers. So getting these messages out to people I think would be very very powerful and I think the government have an ethical and a moral responsibility to keep the pressure on and hopefully in some years to come smoking will be a thing of the past and whilst Simon makes the point about obesity and drinking, he is absolutely right on that but I was brought up to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. So just because some people drink alcohol in excess that doesn't in any way give smokers some kind of moral high ground to say [that] some people drink so I'm going to smoke. I think we should lessen our drinking, we should do something about obesity and we certainly should do a lot more about eradicating smoking.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Can I just ask you, Simon? I mentioned in my introduction that the new health secretary, Therese Coffey, who herself is a smoker and I understand has accepted hospitality paid for by the tobacco industry in the past, she has voted in the Commons against an array of measures to restrict smoking including the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. I presume you think she was right to vote against that?

Simon Clark:
Of course and even today, although it's not going to happen, we would like to see the ban amended to allow for separate designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay. She also voted against the outlawing of smoking in cars containing children. Was she right to vote against that?

Simon Clark:
I think she was. We were against that legislation not because we would ever condone somebody lighting a cigarette in a car with a small child, but when that legislation was introduced hardly anybody was actually doing it and you can't legislate constantly. I mean, there comes a point where you have to leave it to parental judgement and most parents would never dream of lighting a cigarette in a car with a small child present. So we felt, for that reason, legislation was unnecessary.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Do you feel you have an ally in Therese Coffey?

Simon Clark:
I don't know. I think what was refreshing about her comments is that you have mentioned all these things she has voted against. Well, if she is against further measures, further punitive measures, then that suggests that she's being remarkably consistent with her beliefs and I think that's something we should celebrate because we've seen so many politicians in the past who have done a 180 degree turn as soon as they get into power. As soon as they get into a senior or government role they go back on everything they have previously said or done. So I think we should actually celebrate that we have got a politician who appears to be sticking to her guns. Now, whether or not she will be able to do that moving forward … we don't know. But, no, I think her comments were remarkably refreshing and we should congratulate her, not condemn her.

Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay. Thank you very much indeed both of you. Simon Clark is the director of Forest, a smokers’ lobby group that is funded by the tobacco industry, and Dr Peter Carter who is an independent healthcare consultant from Hertfordshire, former CEO of the Royal College of Nursing.

PS. Who knew that ‘Smokers go grey earlier than non-smokers’? You learn something new every day!

See also: In defence of Thérèse Coffey

In defence of Thérèse Coffey

The Times, unsurprisingly, has thrown its weight behind further tobacco control measures.

Responding to the new Health Secretary’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for a new tobacco control plan to meet Theresa May’s ‘smoke free 2030’ ambition, the most pompous, self-regarding paper in Britain has published a leading article on the subject.

It’s behind a paywall but the gist of it is in the strapline - the government should not abandon its anti-smoking agenda.

The good news, I suppose, is that the paper hasn’t explicitly endorsed any specific policy, like Javed Khan’s absurd recommendation that the age of sale of tobacco be raised by one year every year until no-one is permitted to buy tobacco legally.

Or the authoritarian idea that smoking bans should be extended to beaches, beer gardens and even social housing.

Nevertheless The Times believes there is ‘significant work to do’ to further reduce smoking rates which can only mean further punitive measures because encouraging more smokers to vape (which is fine) isn’t going to achieve the 2030 target by itself.

But back to the kerfuffle that was prompted by yesterday’s report in the Guardian (Thérèse Coffey to drop smoking action plan, insiders say).

When I wrote about it here I was unaware that Coffey had been interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC.

Her response to Ferrari’s probing (it was a one-on-one interview so he was perfectly entitled to play devil’s advocate and ask the questions he did) provoked even more derision.

Sensing they had a good story, LBC stuck with it. Drive time presenter Tom Swarbrick not only led with the issue, interviewing both me and Hazel Cheeseman, deputy CEO of ASH, he also raised the issue with health minister Robert Jenrick when he was interviewed later in the programme.

In 2020, when he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Jenrick successfully fought off an attempt by the tobacco control lobby to impose a comprehensive ban on smoking in the new licensed pavement areas that were permitted under the emergency Business and Planning Bill.

At one point he even took issue with Manchester Council after the council exercised their right to prohibit smoking completely in the new licensed seating areas, arguing (if I remember) that it was not “in the spirit” of the law.

Yesterday Jenrick gave non-committal answers to Swarbrick’s questions, diplomatically saying the Government was still considering both the Khan review and its options.

His straight bat response was arguably the one Coffey should have adopted with Ferrari. It would certainly have avoided the subsequent fallout but there was something refreshingly honest about her reaction.

It may have been a little naive given the power of the tobacco control lobby and their acolytes in the media but her message was clear - she has other priorities, what she calls her “ABCD: ambulances, backlogs, care and doctors and dentists”.

She even explained why she voted against the ban on smoking in cars with children and didn’t repent, which was brave.

Where she stumbled was in not appearing to know whether smoking in cars carrying children is now banned. Instead her dogged inquisitor had to tell her gently that, yes, it is prohibited.

But while some mocked her apparent ignorance, I again thought she was just being honest, although I admit her responses did give plenty of ammunition to the opposition.

But so what? Isn’t honesty what we crave in politicians? Thérèse Coffey also strikes me as unpretentious and, above all, normal, unlike some of her slick, shiny predecessors.

So forget the headlines and disparaging tweets. Given a fair wind I think most people will relate to her far more than Matt Hancock, for example, or Andrew Lansley or any other health secretary in recent times, most of whom I have long forgotten.

As for her so-called u-turn on tobacco control policy, I would dispute that it’s anything of the sort.

Coffey inherited an unrealistic ‘smoke free’ (sic) target from the last but one prime minister. Why should she or the current government be bound by it? There’s no u-turn on her part.

Likewise, the Khan review may have been commissioned by the last but one health secretary (Sajid Javid) but none of its recommendations have ever been adopted or announced as government policy so, again, where’s the u-turn?

It also seems perfectly reasonable, given the many other challenges she faces as health secretary, that Coffey would prioritise problems in the NHS (waiting times, staffing, availability of beds etc etc) over tobacco control, especially when smoking rates continue to fall without more regulations.

Finally, ASH argues that the public supports further anti-smoking measures. For years though polls not commissioned by have suggested that the public does not consider them a top priority.

Indeed, every time the public has been asked about it the response has been the same.

Given ten issues to prioritise, tackling smoking has always come in the bottom three alongside tackling obesity and alcohol misuse.

Of those, tackling smoking has more often than not been bottom of the list.

By NOT prioritising tobacco control Thérèse Coffey would therefore be far more in tune with public opinion than her opponents in Parliament and public health or today’s Times leader writer.

Whether she sticks to her guns remains to be seen - she wouldn’t be the first health secretary to succumb to the anti-smoking lobby - but I hope she does.

PS. I was on BBC 3 Counties radio this morning discussing this with presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith who is anti-smoking but always fair in that he gives interviewees plenty of opportunity to respond.

I lost count though of the number of times he said that Forest is funded by the tobacco industry. Really? Who knew?!!

Update: I shall also be speaking to Vanessa Felz on TalkTV shortly at 4.20.

In my experience Vanessa is fairly libertarian but those are often the more difficult interviews because the presenter sometimes tries to over-compensate.

Alternatively they agree with you which is equally discombobulating and there’s a danger you can be drawn into a false sense of security before the better ones pounce and catch you out.

Feltz is one of the best so I’ll have to be on my toes.