A small victory for common sense and decency

An NHS hospital in Devon this week reversed its plan to restrict routine operations for smokers and those who are obese.

The decision, reported two days ago, was made following widespread condemnation of the policy which was originally announced in October and for some reason made headlines again ten days ago.

Credit where credit's due, the most prominent opponent of the policy was deputy prime minister Nick Clegg who described the policy as "unacceptable" and said he disagreed with "rationing in that way".

Other politicians who spoke out included Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and Labour's Ben Bradshaw.

When the story broke (again) on December 3 I was invited to appear on Spotlight, the BBC's local evening news programme for the South West.

It was very short notice and I couldn't get to the studio in time but we issued this response:

"The NHS was built on the idea that it doesn't discriminate against people on the grounds of race, creed, colour or lifestyle.

"Not only does this discriminate against people because of their lifestyle, it discriminates against patients according to where they live. Local people will be at a huge disadvantage compared to patients in other regions.

"Smokers are entitled to treatment. They pay £12 billion a year in tobacco taxation alone. This is far more than it costs the NHS to treat smoking-related diseases.

"We would encourage smokers to take their doctor's advice about smoking in advance of an operation but if they choose not to that's a matter for them. Doctors are there to advise, not dictate how people live their lives."

I later caught the programme on iPlayer. We weren't quoted but the presenter gave the NHS representative a serious grilling so we had no complaints.

Thankfully others – including the deputy PM – shared our concerns and the policy has now been dropped.

A small victory, perhaps, but a welcome one nonetheless.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg criticises NHS Devon plan to restrict treatment for smokers and morbidly obese http://t.co/cgvXYdtJat @BBCSpotlight

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) December 4, 2014

Old friends and Christmas letters

I thought round robin Christmas letters were becoming a thing of the past.

Apparently not. Three arrived this morning. One – from "industrialist" Ken Tonkin – even mentioned me by name:

I met an old friend, Simon Clark, a few weeks ago and he kindly pointed out how boring he found the whole idea of Christmas letters and mine in particular so this one is dedicated to him.

Simon is the director of an organisation called Forest, the Voice and Friend of the Smoker, and organised a great party to celebrate Forest 35th anniversary. There were some delightfully right-wing people there and the whole evening was a great success.

Prior to the event at Boisdale I hadn't seen Ken for ten or 15 years. In the Eighties I saw him all the time and even shared a bed with him.

We met through a mutual friend, Richard Thoburn. Richard worked for a PR company just around the corner from me in London.

Richard was a member of the Federation of Conservative Students at Bradford (where he met Ken). Shortly after I arrived in London we were introduced by another old friend.

Several times a week we'd meet for a drink after work. Our 'regular' was the Old King Lud (now closed) on the corner of Ludgate Circus, a few minutes' walk from St Paul's Cathedral.

I remember drinking in the Old King Lud the day Mrs Thatcher announced that a huge task force was to sail 8000 miles to the Falkland Islands. The atmosphere that night was incredible. We were so pumped up it was the closest I've ever got to volunteering!

Later Richard and I shared a flat in West Kensington. That's when I really got to know Ken because he often stayed overnight after a long session in the pub.

We started renting cottages for boozy breaks in small rural villages. We'd invite half a dozen or so friends and together we'd squeeze into however many beds there were.

One year, in North Wales, Richard, who had first pick, chose a single bed leaving Ken and me to share the adjacent double bed, like Morecambe and Wise.

Most of the time, though, was spent in the nearest pub.

Ken had a prodigious appetite for pubs and beer but never seemed to put on weight. Perhaps it helped that he was, and still is, a smoker.

Outwardly relaxed and extremely laid-back, he nevertheless has a sharp and occasionally ruthless business brain. I've lost count of the number of companies he's bought or invested in – hence the "industrialist" tag.

Richard, I should add, has been no less successful, which is equally galling. Nevertheless, it was great to see both of them at Boisdale.

Now, about those letters. In 2012 the late Simon Hoggart had this to say: Bah humbug to the Christmas round robin (Daily Mail).

Question Time: now that's entertainment!

I remember when Question Time was essential viewing for anyone with the slightest interest in politics.

Invitations to sit in the audience were highly prized too.

The first time I took part was in 1984. The ASI's Madsen Pirie was on the panel and he was allowed to invite some 'supporters' to what I think was a church hall in South London where the programme was recorded.

Half a dozen of us turned up and every time Madsen opened his mouth we applauded as loudly as we could.

Later, when I watched the programme on TV, you could clearly hear us even though we were massively outnumbered by local Labour party activists.

In the Eighties there was hardly a week when I didn't recognise at least one face in the audience, often more.

On one occasion a member of the audience complained that people were far too quick to criticise. QT, he suggested, had become "a knocking shop".

Sharp as ever the late great Robin Day responded, "Whatever else Question Time is, it cannot be accused of being a knocking shop."

It got a big laugh and the member of the audience (grinning from ear to ear) was my old friend Gary Ling!

I haven't seen Madsen on the programme for years – probably because of his insistence on giving extremely succinct answers in stark contrast to the long-winded drivel that passes for political 'debate' today.

Sadly QT is a shadow of its former self and I rarely watch it. Last night however, for a few brief minutes, it was like the old days.

With one exception (The Times' Camilla Cavendish) the panellists were ordinary (Penny Mordaunt, Mary Creagh, Nigel Farage) or dire (Russell Brand), but for sheer entertainment the programme was unbeatable.

If you didn't see it I recommend this article – What happened when Nigel Farage and Russell Brand were on Question Time together? (New Statesman) – but there are many more online.

If you get a chance watch it on iPlayer. I can't remember the last time I laughed out loud during a TV programme, and certainly not Question Time.

Amend the smoking ban to help save the great British pub

The IEA has published an excellent report by Chris Snowdon.

Closing Time: Who's killing the British pub? doesn't hide the fact that the number of pubs has been in long term decline since the late nineteenth century.

Between 1905 and 1969 the number of licensed premises fell from an estimated 99,000 to 75,000. By 2003 the figure was below 60,000 and in recent years "the trickle of pub closures has become a flood".

In fact, between 2006 and 2013 the number of pubs fell from 58,200 to 48,000, a drop of 18 per cent in just seven years.

Closing Time looks at why this has happened and addresses a number of issues including cultural change, economic factors, the pubco beer tie, and the smoking ban.

Uncomfortably for government, Snowdon concludes that excessive taxation and regulation have played a significant part in the demise of many pubs. He therefore proposes a number of measures including a reduction in alcohol duty and a reduction in VAT and a lower rate for cooked food.

Echoing Forest's long-held position, he also supports an amendment to the smoking ban:

The Labour Party's 2005 manifesto contained a pledge to ban smoking in pubs that sold food while promising that 'other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking to be smoke-free' (Labour Party, 2005). After intense lobbying from anti-smoking groups, this pledge was abandoned and the UK was given one of the most uncompromising smoking bans in the world. This has been devastating for many pubs and there is clearly a market for indoor venues that allow smoking in one or more rooms. The UK should follow the lead of the many European countries that allow the hospitality industry to accommodate smokers.

Not everyone agrees, of course, and today's Eastern Daily Press features comments from two Norfolk publicans who believe the impact of the ban is small compared to "more traditional reasons" and don't want it changed (Impact of smoking ban on pubs less than claimed, say Norwich publicans).

But they would say that, wouldn't they? After all, they're still in business and may have profited from the closure of rival pubs.

No amendment would force publicans to allow smoking on their premises. It would merely give them the option to introduce separate, strictly regulated smoking rooms. You would only want to deny others that option if you feared competition, right?

Truth is, many people in the hospitality industry are in denial. As this 2010 report demonstrated, there is incontrovertible evidence the ban had a huge impact on pubs – and not in a good way.

Snowdon's IEA report has been covered by the Daily Mail. The Telegraph's deputy editor Allister Health has also written a very good piece here – The real reasons for the tragic demise of the British pub industry.

The BBC has of course ignored it, though I'm willing to be corrected. (An interview with Snowdon on BBC Radio Cornwall doesn't count!)

Meanwhile you can download it here. As with all of Chris's work it's full of interesting facts but it's also very easy to read.

Warmly recommended.

PS. One of the reasons I enjoy reading Snowdon's reports is he's not afraid to have a dig at those he disagrees with. In Closing Time, for example, he has a pop at both CAMRA and the IPPR, a left-wing think tank that supports state aid for "community pubs" without addressing the underlying reasons why fewer people want to go to their local.

You can tell too what he thinks of Professor Linda Bauld's 2011 report for the Department of Health – Impact of Smokefree Legislation in England: Evidence Review – which produced an unexpected but superbly written response from Imperial Tobacco, The Bauld Truth.

Ironically Prof Bauld is now "one of us" because she supports light touch regulation on e-cigarettes.

There is nothing light touch about the smoking ban which can be easily extended to include e-cigarettes. Reap what you sow and all that.

Best book in the world? Don't ask me!

Two months ago I received an invitation to take part in the Bookshop Barnie Xmas Bash at Foyles in London on December 17.

If you've never heard of a Bookshop Barnie click here.

The Xmas Bash is different to the usual format but no less terrifying. Instead of one author there are six contestants, each one arguing for 'The Best Book in the World'.

Participants are given two and a half minutes to present their case. After a brief Q&A three contestants are voted off. The remaining speakers are given a further minute before the audience votes for the winner.

Organiser Austin Williams did his very best to appeal to my ego:

Previous Xmas Barnie Balloon debaters have included Alain de Botton, Cosmo Landesman, Shiv Malik, Razia Iqbal, Zoe Williams, Tristram Hunt, James Delingpole, David Aaronovitch, Evan Davis and more.

I would be delighted if you would say yes – notwithstanding that you may regret it nearer the time – but it is an enjoyable event with a good reputation.

How could I decline? Well, I'm ashamed to say I did, but only after procrastinating for several weeks. Eventually, and with some regret, I replied as follows:

Dear Austin,

I was very flattered to be asked and I did give it some thought. Unfortunately the invitation freaked me out a little so I buried it under a long list of things to do.

Your comment "notwithstanding that you may regret it nearer the time" struck a chord because while I try not to turn down things that are out of my comfort zone, as the date approaches I invariably ask myself why on earth I agreed to do it.

I should add that arguing for 'Best Book in the World' filled me with dread because I read so little. Four years studying Eng Lit at university was such a chore it put me off books for 20 years. Even now I read relatively few books and I can't imagine many people who are less qualified to talk about 'The Best Book in the World'.

Anyway the event kicks off with drinks at 6.00pm and finishes at 7.30 leaving, in Austin's words, "plenty of time for yet more drinks".

I would have gone, if only to watch, but I'm otherwise engaged (in Ireland). Warmly recommended, though.

Plain packaging doesn't work! New evidence goes online

We've launched a short online ad campaign to promote the latest evidence about plain packaging.

You'll find the ad on the following blogs:

Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Hill, ConservativeHome, Diplomat magazine, Talk Carswell, Guido Fawkes, Harry's Place, Labour Uncut, Labour List, Left Foot Forward, Liberal Democrat Voice, Liberal Vision, Mark Pack, Newsbiscuit, Pink News, Political Betting, Political Scrapbook, PublicNet, Standpoint Magazine, Tim Worstall, UK Polling Report.

Last time we advertised via MessageSpace Labour List asked for our ad to be removed.

I'm told the editor always kicks off about smoking-related ads so let's see how long it takes before we're banned – again!

Update: Didn't quite make it to lunch before Labour List pulled our ad.

Thankfully Left Foot Forward and Labour Uncut have a rather more liberal attitude towards free speech.

PS. Someone has just said to me, "Bloody stupid. It's as if they don't trust their readers to make up their own minds."

Ironically Labour List's Twitter profile states, "Democracy means government by discussion". But only when it suits them.

Memo to the Prime Minister from Down Under

Today is the second anniversary of the introduction of plain packaging in Australia.

So what's the verdict?

Plain packaging isn't working says Forest

Campaigners have urged the Government to abandon plans to introduce plain packaging of tobacco.

The smokers’ group Forest which runs the Hands Off Our Packs campaign says the UK must learn from Australia where standardised packaging was introduced on 1st December 2012.

New evidence, says Forest, suggests plain packaging will not reduce the number of teenagers who smoke.

Instead of declining since the introduction of plain packaging, youth smoking rates have gone up. According to the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare, youth smoking rates have increased by 36% in the period 2010-2013.

Plain packaging has had no impact on adults either. Monthly figures for the adult (18+) smoking rate are consistent with the long-term decline of smoking in Australia. Far from accelerating that decline, says Forest, the trend for the year 2013 shows a 1.8% annual increase. (Figures courtesy Roy Morgan Research, Australia's longest-established market research company with a strong reputation for reliability and accuracy.)

Plain packaging, says Forest, is also fuelling the black market. In Australia in 2012 illicit tobacco stood at 11.5% of tobacco consumption. By mid-2014 it reached an unprecedented 14.3% share of the market, an increase of nearly 25% (KPMG, Illicit tobacco in Australia, 2014 Half Year Report, October 2014).

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Plain packaging hasn’t worked. Youth smoking rates in Australia have gone up since it was introduced and illicit trade has soared. If alarm bells aren’t ringing in Westminster they should be.

"Standardised packaging would be a huge risk with no beneficial effect. We urge the Government to learn from Australia’s experience and abandon this ill-conceived and potentially costly measure."

Note: Official Australian Government figures from the National Drugs Strategy Household Survey show the number of 12-17 year olds smoking every day has increased from 2.5 out of 100 (2010) to 3.4 out of 100 (2013). Plain packaging was introduced on 1st December 2012.

Are you listening, Prime Minister?

PS. According to tobacco control plain packaging has been a "resounding success":

Cancer Research UK said the country’s experiment with unbranded packaging had led to falling smoking rates without creating an illegal black market.

Sarah Woolnough, the charity’s executive director of policy and information, said: "This is an anniversary worth celebrating. Australia took the lead on this issue and two years later they’re reaping the rewards.

"Smoking rates have fallen, more people than ever support standard packs and scare stories about flooding the market with cheap, illegal tobacco have failed to materialise. It’s been a resounding success in Australia and we’re confident the same can happen here.

"Research has shown that removing the colourful designs of tobacco packs reduces the appeal of smoking to children. This measure will help cut the number of people killed by smoking and we’re urging the UK government to take the next steps as soon as possible."

Needless to say one news agency saw fit to issue a report based on CRUK's comments without a single balancing fact or opinion - hence this report in the Yorkshire Post (Charity calls for plain cigarette packaging in UK ‘without delay’) and similar reports in the Irish Examiner, Herald and Metro.

Most media, including the Press Association, have ignored the story.

Memo to Save E-Cigs: spare us the moral crusade

The Save E-Cigs campaign has written to the Speaker John Bercow about the proposal to ban the use of e-cigarettes inside the Palace of Westminster.

Clive Bates, former director of ASH and now a leading advocate for e-cigarettes, has described the letter as "outstanding" and "a great template for anyone trying to bring reason to the vaping debate".

It's a good letter when it sticks to the facts, adding references for verification. For example:

We know from the latest statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics that e-cigarettes are used almost exclusively by current and former smokers. We know that e-cigarette used in public does not renormalise smoking [5]. We know that e-cigarettes are not a gateway into smoking [6]. We know that e-cigarette use in public does not lead to children using e-cigarettes [7].

What about this, though:

A major scientific study undertaken by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos and Professor Riccardo Polosa concluded that the “effects of e-cigarette use on by standers are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes". A review of the available literature conducted last year by researchers at the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia concluded that “exposures of bystanders pose no apparent concern".

I'm sure the "effects of e-cigarette use on by-standers" are indeed minimal but so are the effects of "conventional cigarettes" in most situations. Given their concerns about the use of junk science to undermine the use of e-cigarettes, it's a bit rich for the e-cig movement to embrace the politics of secondhand smoke to advance their cause.

Equally unimpressive are comments that range from subjective to pure speculation. For example:

There is never a situation where it is better to smoke than to vape.

Never? What about people who enjoy smoking and don't like e-cigarettes? I think they should be the judge of whether it's better to smoke or vape.

Professor John Britton from the Royal College of Physicians has said: “If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started using e-cigarettes we would save five million deaths in people who are alive today."

Yeah, that must be true because one of the country's leading tobacco control campaigners says so, and they're always right, aren't they?!

We very much hope that you will continue to support your colleagues who have done the right thing by switching from smoking to vaping.

Done the right thing? This isn't about right and wrong. It's a matter of choice.

I may be reading too much into this but language matters and as soon as you introduce the concept of right and wrong it suggests a moral crusade.

Choosing to smoke is no less virtuous than vaping. The battle that has to be fought is freedom of choice versus excessive regulation, not vaping (good) versus smoking (bad).

Unless of course you want to be allied to the anti-smoking industry. Good luck with that!

This letter from @SaveEcigs is outstanding: a great template for anyone trying to bring reason to the vaping debate > http://t.co/Q44CHJKxtC

— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) November 26, 2014

Update on Friday, November 28, 2014 at 8:18 by Simon Clark

This post has been amended.

See Comments for a brief explanation.