Smokefree South West battles to retain local authority funding

Yesterday I travelled to Bristol to record an interview for BBC1's Sunday Politics West, to be broadcast tomorrow.

On Wednesday a producer rang to tell me that councils in Bristol, Gloucestershire and Somerset have been reviewing the financial support they give Smokefree South West.

One council has decided to stop funding the group, another has cut its funding, and a third is considering its position.

Would I like to come on the programme and comment?

The six-minute item, recorded 'as live', featured a short film on the subject followed by a studio discussion with me and Fiona Andrews, chief executive of Smokefree South West.

Back against the wall (for a change), Fiona was on feisty form.

When we were ushered on to the set she produced a handful of cigarette packs, including those 'lipstick' packs I've never seen outside of a TV studio, and plonked them on the table in full view of the cameras.

Her intention was obvious.

"I thought we were here to discuss Smokefree South West, not plain packaging," I protested mildly.

Presenter David Garmston (on previous experience an unlikely ally) appeared to agree because he asked her to remove them.

That was probably the last time he and I agreed on anything.

When the interview began he introduced me as director of the "pro-smoking" group Forest, which is "funded by the tobacco industry".

On at least two occasions he referred to "your industry" and "your brands".

Each time I had to make the point that I didn't represent the tobacco companies to which he responded, "But they fund you, don't they?"

Had I been quicker on my feet I would have said, "Yes, and as a TV licence payer I fund you, but you don't represent me." But I didn't.

Instead I had to waste precious seconds setting the record straight when all I wanted to do was talk about Smokefree South West!!

Anyway, cut to the chase.

Fiona talked about the work Smokefree South West does while I tried to question why we need a regional anti-smoking group when central government spends millions of pounds on anti-smoking campaigns and we also have ASH and other tobacco control groups doing the same work.

I could, I suppose, have listed some of them – Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation, British Medical Association ... the list is endless.

I could also have mentioned GASP, a Bristol-based smoking cessation company that began life as a pressure group but is now a successful commercial operation that doesn't need public money (as far as I know).

But time was limited.

Instead I found myself saying, in a raised voice, "You're just duplicating their work!"

The problem of public money being used to lobby government came up but the interview had become a bit of a bun fight and I can't remember exactly what was said.

I mentioned transparency, pointing out that while Forest has always been very open about the source of our funding, the same isn't true of Smokefree South West.

In fact, it took a Freedom of Information request before we found out how they funded their Plain Packs Protect campaign (see Public money used to lobby government on plain packaging).

In response, Fiona insisted that the information is on their website.

Well, I had a look the other day and I couldn't see anything. (I mentioned this to the Sunday Politics West producer who told me he had looked as well and could't find anything either.)

Anyway, Fiona insisted the information was there so I've had another look. Under 'About Us' it reads:

Smokefree South West is commissioned by 15 Public Health teams based in local authorities across the region.

"Commissioned" could mean "funded", I suppose, so why not say so? And perhaps Smokefree South West could spell out exactly how much money they get annually from these "Public Health teams".

It's council tax payers' money, after all. I think they have a right to know, even though the Sunday Politics film made a point of saying that the cost to the local community is just 30p per person.

Add it up across the region, though, and it's a tidy sum. Exactly how much I don't know because the Smokefree South West website doesn't say, but I'm sure, with a few FOI requests, we could find out.

The issue however is this:

What is the point of Smokefree South West? Or Tobacco Free Futures (formerly Smokefree North West)? Or Fresh (formerly Smokefree North East)?

What additional value do any of these groups offer that is not already covered by ASH, Cancer Research, the British Medical Association etc and central government which pumps millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into a variety of tobacco control campaigns?

Why should people have to pay for anti-smoking campaigns twice – once through income tax, and again through their council tax?

Worse, a lot of this money is being spent on campaigns that effectively lobby the Department of Health to introduce policies that it already supports or is considering.

The good news is that some councils are finally getting wise to the problem and are questioning this waste (or abuse) of public funds.

Hats off to the local councillors who have seen through the propaganda. Hopefully, more local authorities follow suit.

Meanwhile, if Smokefree South West is running short of money this year I suggest they approach the pharmaceutical industry for support.

If they offer any value to the tobacco control industry I'm sure Big Pharma will be happy to plug the funding gap.

If Big P declines the message will be loud and clear – Smokefree South West has no USP. It has no positive purpose and merely exists to replicate the work of others and abuse its position by lobbying central government to legislate on plain packaging and other matters.

PS. From the archive – Tobacco control campaign "victim of sabotage" (May 2012). Yeah, right.

Coming up ... Wet with a capital 'W', the Tory MP I met on Sunday Politics West.

Motoring editor fails to read his own paper shock

On Wednesday I reported that Eddie Cunningham, motoring editor at the Irish Independent, wanted drivers who smoke in cars with "others" present to face "massive fines, possibly bans".

So our man in Ireland wrote a letter and submitted it to the Indo. It was published yesterday and reads:

Your motoring editor Eddie Cunningham writes: "I may be wrong, but there appears to [be] a lot of people smoking in cars. More than before, I am inclined to think."

Mr Cunningham says there should be a "blitz of massive fines, possibly bans, for anyone found smoking while others are in the car with them".

We don't condone smoking in cars with children present. It's inconsiderate at best, but the number of people doing it has fallen dramatically. Legislation, accompanied by fines and other penalties, would be a huge and unnecessary over-reaction.

Perhaps I could refer Mr Cunningham and your readers to a study by the UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population, which involved observing 2,230 drivers over three time periods in two Dublin locations.

The study found the prevalence of mobile telephone use was 2.56pc and just 1.39pc for smoking.

This was reported by the Irish Independent on April 10, 2013, under the headline, 'Ban on smoking in cars would have little impact, says study'.

Sadly they censored the punchline:

I'm surprised your motoring editor hasn't read it.

I wonder why.

Freaky Friday - a date with Smokefree South West

Just arrived in Bristol.

There's an interesting story developing that will feature on the Sunday Politics South West.

They want to interview me and Fiona Andrews, chief executive of Smokefree South West, 'as live' in the studio this afternoon.

I'll reveal all later but it's not about plain packaging or smoking in cars carrying children.

Update: Just finished recording. Report to follow. In the meantime I need a stiff drink!!!

Bias and the BBC

On BBC Breakfast this morning.

The clip doesn't show the whole item but it's laughably one-sided.

Funnily enough, when the media storm about smoking in cars broke last week I discovered that BBC Breakfast was planning to interview someone from the British Lung Foundation on his own.

"That doesn't sound very balanced," I said.

"Don't worry," I was told. "The presenters will play devil's advocate. It will be fine."

I wasn't happy and made my views known. Eventually they invited me to go up to Salford so I could go head-to-head with the BLF.

I wouldn't expect to be invited back so soon but the result of having just one side of the debate in the studio is there for all to see.

And no sign, from this clip, of the presenters playing "devil's advocate".

It's pure propaganda which the BBC has quickly posted online, unlike last week's more balanced interview featuring me and the BLF.

See: Smoke effect '11 times worse' in enclosed spaces

See previous post for more media reports about smoking in cars carrying children.

Health lobby explodes into action

Politics.co.uk sums it up best:

Intervention: Health experts come out all guns blazing for car smoking ban.

Several newspapers have the story. Some even feature a quote from me:

• 700 medics call for car smoking ban (Press Association)
• Hundreds of health experts call for smoking ban in cars carrying children (Daily Telegraph)
• Doctors urge MPs to back smoking in cars ban to 'protect the wellbeing of children' (Daily Mirror)

I'm sure there will be more. I'll update this post in the morning, adding links.

Meanwhile here's the press release Forest put out:

NEWS RELEASE Embargoed 00:01hrs Friday 7 February 2014

Campaigners urge MPs to reject legislation to ban smoking in cars with children

The smokers’ group Forest has urged MPs to reject a ban on smoking in cars with children.

Responding to a letter in the British Medical Journal from over 500 health professionals urging MPs to “support this important public health measure”, Simon Clark, director of Forest, said:

“Smoking in cars with children is inconsiderate but there is a line the state shouldn’t cross when it comes to dictating how people behave in private places.

“Very few adults smoke in a car with children these days. Government should take encouragement from that and focus on education not legislation.

“We urge MPs to reject this unnecessary intrusion into people’s private lives and trust parents to make the right decision for their children without the need for heavy-handed state intervention.”

Update:

Health experts urge MPs to back car smoking ban (BBC News)

The Today programme (Radio 4) is running the story on its news bulletins (with a quote from Forest) but beyond that I haven't seen anything other than reports in the regional press, via the Press Association.

Meanwhile I'm doing BBC Radio Solent at 8.20!

How impartial is the Oireachtas Health Committee?

The Oireachtas Health Committee hearings on plain packaging continued this morning in the Irish Parliament.

Session 1: medical experts, session 2: retail sector.

The Joint Committee on Health and Children, to give it its full name, is a bit like the Health Select Committee in Westminster. Today's hearing is the third of four on plain packaging.

Forest Eireann made a submission to the Committee last month and as a result the group has been invited to give oral evidence at the fourth hearing next Thursday.

Our representative in Ireland, John Mallon, is looking forward to it. But what can he expect?

Well, members include our old 'friend' Senator John Crown who crossed swords so memorably with the IEA's Chris Snowdon last year. See An evening in Dublin, which I warmly recommend.

John Mallon had this to say about the same event – Thanks to Senator John Crown I was embarrassed to be an Irish citizen.

So far so good.

Another Senator on the Committee is Jillian van Turnhout. This morning Ms van Turnhout tweeted:

What does she mean, "2nd session should be fun!"? This is a serious hearing, right?

More bizarre, perhaps, is the fact that a tweet by the Irish Heart Foundation, posted at 10:30 on Thursday January 30, half an hour before the second hearing was due to begin, was retweeted by Oireachtas Health Committee chairman Jerry Buttimer TD:

If I'm not mistaken the Irish Heart Foundation gave oral evidence at the first hearing the previous week.

The question is, why would the chairman of a parliamentary committee retweet the views of one of the protagonists in a keenly contested debate while hearings are still taking place and the committee has yet to publish its report?

Answers on a postcard ...

Grandad cares, so should you

How did it come to this?

I was late to Twitter. I never caught the bug. Still haven't really. Eventually I was persuaded that if you can't beat 'em join 'em.

So we set up a Twitter account for Forest (@Forest_Smoking). This was followed by an account for The Free Society (@the_freesociety).

When we launched the Hands Off Our Packs campaign we set up another one, @NoToPlainPacks. The No Thank EU campaign gave birth to @NoThankEU.

We even set up an account for a campaign that has yet to be launched (@Action_Choice).

Then I thought it would be nice to have my own account so I could tweet about things that are inappropriate to Forest and all the other accounts but are personal to me, or make me laugh.

Hence @SimonClark2014.

(It's a terrible username, I know, but you try finding one with the words 'simon' and 'clark' that hasn't been snapped up already. If only I had a name like Phoebe Frieze I'd be laughing.)

Anyway, Twitter is beginning to take over my life because there are now seven accounts to manage.

The latest is @stupid_plan, the Twitter account for our new Plain Packs Plain Stupid campaign in Ireland.

If you are on Twitter please follow @stupid_plan. Plain packaging is an international issue and what happens in Ireland over the next few months could have a serious impact on the UK.

If you're not on Twitter visit the embryonic campaign website and register your support.

Last but not least, if you don't care about plain packaging, I urge you to read this post by Grandad, the award-winning Irish blogger, on Head Rambles.

And then follow the campaign on Twitter.

Book review: Unlucky Strike - The Science, Law and Politics of Smoking

I first read this book when I was sent the manuscript, six months ago, by the author John Staddon.

I enjoyed it immensely. John is an academic at Duke University in the United States (and a visiting professor at York University) but it’s far from stuffy. In fact it’s an easy and entertaining read.

The author is sympathetic to the plight of smokers but he's not one-eyed on the subject. He accepts, for example, that smoking shortens the lives of many consumers.

Unlucky Strike was originally commissioned by a leading Washington think tank. When I read the manuscript I thought there might be too much focus on the US healthcare system and the Master Settlement Agreement to truly engage a British audience.

Perhaps it's been edited since then, or I'm imagining it, but that doesn't seem to be the case with the published book. In any case, most of the issues are generic and will be understood by readers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Staddon addresses a number of questions, some philosophical, others factual. What is the common good? How dangerous is smoking? What do smokers cost society? Do anti-smoking policies make sense in light of the facts?

The facts, he says, should make society far more relaxed about smoking than it is. For example, how dangerous are cigarettes, really? "Overall," he concludes, "the evidence is that smoking is risky but far from invariably lethal."

Likewise, and contrary to received wisdom, smoking does not put the public purse at risk because smokers pay in far more than they take out.

Staddon questions whether smoking is a public health problem and concludes that, actually, it's a private health problem so the state should butt out.

He also questions the value of longevity. Smoking, he says, shortens life but is that a reason for society to suppress it? Is extending life good for everybody? Old age, he suggests (and I agree), is not always a blessing.

These are not the rantings of a lunatic. Staddon asks serious, thought-provoking questions that a mature society should seek to answer.

The book also addresses addiction, the benefits of smoking and the alleged perils of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

"Is ETS really dangerous to children?" he asks before noting that the ill effects of passive smoking on children are highly significant politically. You can say that again!

The book is delightfully non-PC. "The war against smoking has become a secular religion ... For a common cause of death like heart attack, identifying smoking as the cause of any particular death – or even as a risk factor – is essentially impossible ... The bottom line is that even with maximal exposure to ETS, evidence for serious health effects of ETS is minimal to zero." And so on.

More controversially, perhaps, he compares government attitudes to smoking and Aids. "Most Aids sufferers are responsible for their own illness," he writes, "and governments have spent a fortune searching for a cure." In contrast, "government has not spent a nickel looking for a 'safe' cigarette".

When I read this passage in the original manuscript I felt a bit uncomfortable. Why bring Aids (and therefore homosexuality) into it? I still think it's a hostage to fortune because, taken out of context, it could be seized upon by detractors to distract attention from the rest of the book.

But Staddon has a point about the apparent lack of interest in developing a 'safe' cigarette. When it comes to smoking the message is 'quit or die'.

The question I would like to ask is this: why doesn't government commission research to find out why some smokers live to a ripe old age with little sign of ill health, while others are more susceptible to 'smoking-related' diseases?

It has always puzzled me that all the money goes into smoking cessation and nothing (as far as I know) into research concerning the Russian roulette aspect of smoking.

This abstinence-only policy, says Staddon, "has put a stop to research on making smoking safer", which, when you think about it, is a crime in itself.

Apart from being scornful of anti-smoking health activists who have "no problem with stigmatizing and being judgemental about smokers", Staddon's harshest words are directed at the Master Settlement Agreement:

The great scandal of the MSA is that the people who have to pay its huge costs – smokers – had no say at all in the in the agreement. The MSA is "tyranny of the majority" and "taxation without representation" on a scale that dwarfs the colonial imposts that prompted the Boston tea party.

The MSA, he adds, "did nothing for smokers, even failing to reduce their numbers below historical trends".

Even more damningly, he writes:

Questionable science, flawed law, massaged emotion and malign incentives have combined to warp public policy in ways that punish smokers but yield little public gain.

Searching for an explanation for today's anti-smoking orthodoxy, Staddon concludes, "It seems that human beings need to despise somebody."

If that sounds thoroughly depressing, the book itself isn't. Personally it gave me a lift to know that someone with an established academic reputation is brave enough to question and even refute some of the myths perpetrated by tobacco control activists.

A foreword and illustrations by Staddon's friend David Hockney have inspired reports in The Times and the Yorkshire Post. Hopefully they will help flog some copies but it would be a pity if they overshadowed the book itself.

Well-researched, with lots of useful references, Unlucky Strike is essential reading for anyone with an open mind and an interest in the war on tobacco.

Unlucky Strike - The Science, Law and Politics of Smoking, University of Buckingham Press, 111pp, £15