EU couldn't make it up

Hilarious! That's the only word for it (although I can think of a few others). I don't, as a rule, use this blog to report private meetings and conversations, but here's what happened when I attended yesterday's meeting (in Brussels) of "EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission's Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments":

I sensed, as soon as I entered the room and introduced myself ("Hello, I'm Simon Clark - from the smokers' lobby group Forest"), that there could be trouble. The guy from Pfizer (yes, the pharmaceutical company) didn't look pleased, and there were mutterings from some of the other delegates. (There were around 20 in all.)

No surprise then, when, as soon as the meeting began, and we had all formally identified ourselves, two or three hands shot up. As I suspected, some of my fellow delegates were none too happy that a representative of Forest was in the room. If I didn't leave, said one, she would. Others nodded their heads in agreement.

The facilitator (chairwoman) looked at me. "Sorry," I said, "I'm not trying to be difficult because I know some of you have come a long way for this meeting, but Forest represents adults who choose to smoke and tolerant non-smokers like me. The consumer is entitled to be represented in the political process. So, on a point of principle, I'm not going to leave."

And that was how it stood until the facilitator suggested a compromise - of sorts. I could stay for the presentation and return to have my say at the end of the meeting. For the duration of the "facilitated discussion", however, I would have to leave the room. (For some reason the other delegates didn't want me to hear what they had to say. So much for transparent, open government! What do these people have to hide?)

I agreed. I suppose I could have stood my ground and refused to go, but to what purpose? The meeting would have broken up and they would have reconvened at a later date in my absence. In this situation it's best to make your point and leave them to it.

Anyway, the principal reason I was there was not to hear what they had to say (interesting though it may have been) but to communicate Forest's position. And that, in the end, is what I was able to do - helped, I have to say, by the facilitator who, faced with a tricky situation, did her best to keep all parties (including me) happy.

And so, at the end of the meeting, after the other delegates had left, I was invited back in and given 15 minutes to answer questions and make our views abundantly clear. Amusingly, even this session didn't go entirely smoothly. At one point, having pointed out the flaws in the "evidence" on passive smoking, I was asked to apologise (seriously!) by a woman who said she was an epidemiologist with a degree at Harvard. (So what? as Ed Balls might say.) Apparently my comments had upset her, poor soul. (Don't worry, I didn't apologise.)

Needless to say there was no written list of participants (I wonder why not?!), so I had to make my own. Make of it what you will, but the companies and organisations present (or invited) included:

Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline (all pharmaceutical companies), Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), InwatEurope (International Network of Women against Tobacco), International Health and Social Affairs Office, NHS Health Scotland, Business Europe, EUN, HOTREC (representing hotels, restaurants and cafes in Europe), AESGP (Association of the European Self-Medication Industry), SFP (Smoke-Free Partnership) and EHN (European Heart Network).

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, even the hospitality guy failed to support my presence at the meeting so I tackled him afterwards. We represent your customers, I said. Why didn't you say something? "I felt uncomfortable but it wasn't my meeting," he bleated. Pathetic. Sometimes, I told him, you have to have the courage to stand up and be counted. Hospitality? With "friends" like that who needs enemies.

Update on Thursday, March 20, 2008 by Simon Clark

Britain's premier political blogger Iain Dale has added this comment HERE. Pass it on.

Don't do this, don't do that

Further to my post HERE about unnecessary signs, I have just driven to and from Cambridge on the A14 and on both sides of the dual-carriageway temporary electronic signs have been erected with the message DON'T PHONE WHILE DRIVING.

I think most people now know that using a hand-held phone while driving is illegal. But - and this is what annoys me - it is still legal to phone while driving, as long as you use a hands-free kit (see HERE). 

But the authorities don't care for the small print. After all, in today's bully state it's easier to tell everyone not to phone while driving. Period. That's the problem with Britain. When it comes to telling people what to do, we always have to go that extra mile.

PS. As you know, anti-smoking campaigners now want to ban smoking while driving, although there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that smoking is a serious distraction. It's not illegal - yet - so if anyone sees a sign that says DON''T SMOKE WHILE DRIVING please let me know immediately.

Battleground moves to Europe

This time tomorrow I shall be in Brussels for a "consultation meeting" with "EU experts, civil liberty and social partners" (whoever they are). The purpose of the meeting is to assess the impact of smoke-free environments.

No doubt we will hear how "successful" smoking bans have been in Ireland and the UK. My job - as I see it - is to put this "success" in perspective and highlight the negative impact. I also want to make the point that you don't have to introduce a comprehensive ban to offer a "smoke-free" environment to the majority of the population.

The momentum is with the anti-smoking movement but if we can persuade the EU to adopt one of several options short of a draconian, UK-style ban, such a policy could yet filter back to Britain and Ireland. If that means we have to fight our corner in Brussels - that's what we'll do.

Eddie Thompson's final hurdle

Yesterday, at Hampden Park, Dundee United played Rangers in the final of the CIS Insurance Cup. I wasn't at the game because I couldn't get a ticket, but I watched it on BBC Scotland which is available in England on digital TV.

I went to my first United match in 1969. I was ten years old and we had recently moved to Scotland from Maidenhead in Berkshire. Rangers were the opponents then as well and although the game ended 0-0 I was hooked. My father took me that first time but after that I went on my own, rarely missing a home game until, seven years later, I went to university in Aberdeen.

Needless to say, it was only then that a small miracle started to happen. United developed into rather a good team, a team that was good enough eventually to beat some of Europe's top clubs (including Barcelona, home and away) and reach a European final (the UEFA Cup) in 1987.

I supported the club from afar and even when I was living in London I did everything I could to get to the big games, including the match in 1983 when we won the League for the first (and only) time in the club's history. (That year, the title was a three-horse race and was decided on the last day of the season. United had to win, and they did, courtesy of a nail-biting 2-1 win over our city rivals Dundee at their ground, Dens Park. It was one of the best moments of my life.)

Unfortunately, winning at Hampden was a different proposition and I (almost) lost count of the times I watched United dominate cup finals before throwing away yet another trophy. In fact, prior to yesterday United had reached 13 domestic finals since 1974, winning just three and two of those - the League Cup wins of 1979 and 1980 - were at Dens Park.

Famously, the club lost six Scottish Cup finals at Hampden (five of them between 1981 and 1990) before winning at the seventh attempt - against Rangers - in 1994. (Thankfully, having been present at five losing finals, I was there to see it happen. In fact, I think I can pinpoint that day as the moment my obsession with football began to wane. Having, finally, achieved the Holy Grail after so much grief, it was as if, football-wise, I could rest in peace.)

And so to yesterday's game which had more poignancy than most football matches because United's chairman Eddie Thompson, a lifelong fan who has spent £5.5 million of his own money on the club in recent years with little or no success, is dying of cancer and there was speculation - following an emotional semi-final win over Aberdeen - that he might not live to see the game.

I'm delighted to say that he did. And I'm thrilled to say that United played better than I have seen them play for years. In fact, they dominated the match (which went to extra time) to such an extent that the Scotsman reports that they "outplayed Rangers for about 100 of the 120 minutes", which is as good as it gets.

Of course, being United - and this being Hampden - they couldn't quite finish Rangers off. And so, having led twice, the game ended 2-2 and United lost the penalty shoot-out 3-2. Disappointed? Of course. But Graham Spiers, writing in The Times HERE, sums up what I and many United fans feel this morning, even those of us who weren't at the match:

For the 17,000 United fans at Hampden, it was still an unforgettable occasion. They chanted "There's only one Eddie Thompson" throughout the match, and he responded by waving and pumping his fist with resolve. As cruel as the outcome was for United, Thompson will still have savoured this occasion. He is a special man, at a special club.

Full match report and comment HERE and HERE.

Sign language: what does it tell us?

A few weeks ago I stayed at a hotel in Oxford. In the bathroom, stuck to the wall above the bath and the towel rail were ugly and ostentatious signs warning guests that both the rail and the bathwater might get very hot. Frankly, I would have been annoyed if they hadn't. I stayed in another (very posh) hotel in London last week and the bathwater was, at best, luke warm. Perhaps I should have been warned about that, too.

Anyway, this is Britain today - a country swamped with signs warning us of every peril under the sun. The most offensive are those that order us to behave in a certain way, even if we're not committing an offence. Recently, I used a public loo and above the handbasin was a sign that screamed: NOW WASH YOUR HANDS. As it happens, I usually do - but that sign made me want to rebel and do the exact opposite.

Simon Richards, director of The Freedom Association, touched on this issue a few weeks ago on The Free Society blog. Today, Joe Jackson takes it a bit further. According to Joe, who is currently on tour promoting his new album:

In my hometown, Portsmouth, I saw NO SMOKING signs in bus stops and car parks, and no less than five signs in a phone box ... It was the same story in the rehearsal room just outside town where we prepared for the tour. The signage screamed at us even in the toilets. DO NOT THROW PAPER INTO THE URINALS. I wonder how many people go into a cubicle to get some paper, use it for God knows what, and then try to stuff it down a hole into which it obviously cannot fit. Meanwhile, in the cubicle: PLEASE FLUSH THE TOILET BEFORE LEAVING. Now, I’ve known to do this since I was maybe three, but perhaps I’m unusual.

Full article HERE.

Celebrating a nation of shopkeepers

On Thursday I was a guest at the Convenience Retail Awards in London, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Tate & Lyle, Proctor & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline and Tates Spar, Aberystwyth.

It would be easy to mock an event like this, with its "celebrity" compere (Dermot Murnaghan), flashing lights, deafening rock music and cheesy stand-up comedian. (Actually, he was quite good.) As for the awards, it's hard to get excited about best battery merchandising, best chilled products display, best food-to-go offer, best soft drinks merchandising or best ambient grocery display.

Behind the glitz, however, is a picture of Britain that deserves a higher profile - thousands of men (and women!) working incredibly hard to build small, thriving businesses that provide an essential service to their local communities.

Making a success of any shop, large or small, town or village, is no easy task. I can't imagine the hours these guys work, year after year. They deserve their awards and the respect of their peers. But they also deserve wider recognition. Unfortunately, if you're not Stuart Rose or Philip Green few people are interested.

Britain, they used to say, is a nation of shopkeepers. It still is. We just don't hear about it very often.

The cost of smoking

Reacting (with obvious disappointment) to the fact that the Chancellor has "only" raised the tax on tobacco in line with inflation, anti-smoking campaigners have tried to look for a "positive" spin. The No Smoking Day "charity" says that smokers with a 20-a-day habit will now be paying more than £2,077 a year for their habit.

Presumably they want to shock smokers with this figure in the hope that more will quit. My reaction, as a non-smoker, is "So what?". A quick calculation (on the back of the fag packet that I bought yesterday to mark No Smoking Day) reveals that in the last 12 months I spent several thousand pounds on a family holiday; approximately £2,000 on wine, beer and spirits; over £1,000 on coffee (cappuccinos, lattes and Americanos); God knows how much on fuel (not because I have to use my car all the time, but because I like driving); and close to £1,000 buying and maintaining a small menagerie of pets (and their luxury, five-star hutches) including hamsters, guinea pigs and rabbits.

There are lots of other things I spend money on, none of them essential (and some of them criminally expensive) but they brighten up my day - CDs, gadgets, Belgian buns - and it has nothing to do with anyone else apart from my immediate family.

If people didn't spend money on cigarettes they would almost certainly spend it on something equally ephemeral. (Does anyone seriously believe that the money saved will be invested in property or a pension fund?) That's their choice. The only thing that needs to be said (and even this is rather patronising) is: don't spend more than you can afford. If you can afford to spend £2,000 a year on tobacco, and it brings you pleasure (and you know the risks, blah, blah, blah), why not?

As a non-smoking taxpayer, I'm delighted. Without your money the government would have to find the lost billions somewhere else. For my sake if not for yours, keep smoking!

"I would rather die than give in"

Fantastic article on The Free Society blog today. It was written by journalist and author Pat Nurse. Pat is a committed smoker who has no intention of giving up. Today, No Smoking Day, seemed the perfect moment to publish it. Here's a taster:

Smokers like me will never give up. Any hope of that has gone because of the constant bullying, exclusion and pressure which only makes my resolve to exercise my right to choose even stronger. I would rather die than give in to the sanctimonious, biased and prejudicial pressure heaped upon me by anti-smoking propaganda that often uses tenuous and exaggerated scientific “evidence” while pulling figures out of the air that are never tested but have the desired dramatic effect.

Full article HERE. It's a must read.

Update on Thursday, March 13, 2008 by Simon Clark

Pat's article has gone down a storm over on The Free Society blog. Check out the comments and/or add one of your own.

Tax and tobacco

We will hear today what Alastair Darling has in mind for smokers in his first Budget since he succeeded Gordon Brown as Chancellor. In recent years - after a disastrous experiment known as the "tobacco escalator" which forced the tax on tobacco to rise, each year, by inflation plus three (and later five) percent - tobacco taxation has increased, more modestly, in line with inflation.

But that's not enough for the likes of ASH. Anti-smoking campaigners have been lobbying the government to re-introduce the so-called "real-price escalator" which would see the tax on tobacco increase by at least 10p per pack above the rate of inflation.

I can't believe that Darling would embrace a discredited policy that, when it was previously implemented, led to a smuggling epidemic that cost the Treasury £3 billion a year in lost revenue, caused chaotic scenes in many of Britain's ports, had little effect on the smoking rates, and hit the elderly and low paid the hardest - but you never know.

Politicians, and their advisors, are curious creatures and we may find that Darling - hitherto a rather anonymous figure - wants to be "his own man". Smokers are an easy target and hitting them where it hurts (in the pocket) may be too hard to resist, especially on No Smoking Day. We'll find out shortly.

Update on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 by Simon Clark

Duty on tobacco up 11p per pack of 20 cigarettes, in line with inflation. Could have been worse. At least the Chancellor has resisted the demands of the anti-smoking lobby. Bad news for drinkers, though. Tax on alcohol up 6% above inflation now, plus a further 2% above inflation for the next four years. Better buy shares in cross-Channel ferries!

Update on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 by Simon Clark

Forest press release:  "We welcome the Chancellor's decision to reject an increase in duty above the rate of inflation, but the increased cost of cigarettes will still hit those who can least afford it, especially the elderly, the low paid and the unemployed.
 
"The biggest loser, however, is the British taxpayer, because under this government the tax on tobacco has risen to record levels. The knock-on effect is a huge increase in smuggling and a major loss of revenue to the Treasury.
 
"The problem will only be solved when the Chancellor is brave enough to freeze or reduce tobacco taxation to a level that is prudent rather than politically correct."

Light up or leave the country

Today is No Smoking Day. This used to be a major event in the Forest calendar. We'd spend weeks devising a suitable response and preparing for the inevitable round of interviews. It still attracts interest (from the local media) but as a national event NSD is well past its sell-by date. After all, thanks to this government, every day is no smoking day. What makes NSD any different?

Anyway, when I first joined Forest we were under pressure to come up with an angle that would interest journalists and broadcasters. I suggested that for one day only we should leave the country - literally - to the anti-smoking brigade. How much more fun it would be, I reasoned, if we spent No Smoking Day in what was then the European capital of smoking - Paris.

The plan was simple enough. A small group of Forest supporters and staff (led by my colleague Juliette Torres) would travel to France by Eurostar. Arriving in Paris they would be met by our French counterparts who would host a lunch in their honour at a restaurant that was used by the Resistance during the war. All the while they would conduct interviews with the British (and French) media until it was time to come home.

At first, everything went according to plan. In those days you could still smoke on Eurostar so while I stayed behind in London, handling media enquiries, Juliette was broadcasting live to the nation from the smoking coach as the train swept through Kent and, later, northern France. After the group rendezvoused with our French partners at Garde du Norde, there were more interviews from the restaurant and a photo call opposite the Eiffel Tower.

What we didn't take into account was the fact that the group - whose ages varied from mid twenties to mid seventies - was never going to maintain the same pace or be attracted to the same places or drink the same amount of alcohol. As a result, when it was time to go home, a number of tired and emotional travellers missed the train and the return journey was more Dunkirk than Waterloo.

Sadly (but not surprisingly) our jaunt was largely ignored by the British press, apart from a few news-in-brief style reports. Nevertheless one journalist did join us for the entire journey. Bob Shields of the Daily Record came all the way from Glasgow (with a photographer) and his exclusive feature (a double-page spread) is still one of my all time favourite Forest reads. (You couldn't make it up.)

If we tried the same stunt today we would have to travel a little further afield. According to our information, the European capital of smoking is currently Budapest or Prague. Next year, perhaps?

Freedom has its limits

I am reasonably liberal but not, I suspect, a true libertarian. Everyone has limits (even anarchists) but my limits (possibly as a result of being a parent) are definitely more conservative than some.

Take, for example, the video games that Andrew Ian Dodge writes about on The Free Society blog today. Andrew objects to games such as Manhunt II (which I had never heard of until I read his piece) being banned. Give them a rating, he argues, and let adults decide whether they wish to buy them.

I would like to agree - but where do we draw the line? Looking for an image to illustrate Andrew's article, I found some stills of Manhunt and one in particular made me feel distinctly queasy. (It featured a man about to bludgeon another man, cowering in terror on the floor, with what I think was an axe.)

I seriously question the minds of adults who want to play games like this and the thought of my children seeing some of these images, let alone playing the game (should they get their hands on it at a friend's house, for example), disturbs me. 

I have always said that liberals/libertarians should stick together and fight one another's corner because, one day, politicians will target something that you value. But what are the limits? Where do we draw the line?

Personally, I think there is a case for banning some things. Who can seriously argue otherwise? The important thing, before government steps in, is that there should be serious debate and people, including politicians, should make decisions based on hard facts, not intuition, anecdotes or half-baked junk science.

Unfortunately we live in a world dominated by spin doctors and lobby groups and everyone - including politicians - is so busy we simply don't have time to consider each issue properly. And so we get knee-jerk responses and legislation introduced by well-meaning or publicity-hungry politicians

If I am sympathetic to the banning of Manhunt it's not because I think it will encourage people to become serial killers but because - like "No Smoking" signs on every shop door - it adds to what David Hockney subjectively calls the "uglification" of society.

Does that make me illiberal and intolerant? Or just a grumpy old man out of touch with the video gaming generation? I think I should be told.

A serious argument against ID cards

Information released last week revealed that at least 1,052 laptops have been lost or stolen from UK government departments since 2001, including 200 in the past year alone. (Story HERE.)

Writing on The Free Society blog today, Eamonn Butler highlights some of the data that has gone missing. Some of the stories are so bizarre you have to laugh, but I suspect they're only funny if you're not directly involved. How would you feel if your passport, National Insurance and bank details (or NHS records) fell into the hands of the "wrong" people? 

Quite what effect this will have on the Government's ID scheme remains to be seen. As Eamonn concludes: "The defining argument against the government’s ID database proposals is the demonstrated inability of civil servants to safeguard even the information that they have on us right now."

Full article HERE.

Never work with children

Last night, for the third time in four weeks, I was a guest on Five Live's Stephen Nolan Show. This time it was to discuss what Nolan called a "Five Live exclusive" - the claim, by Liverpool's Alder Hey Hospital, that up to a third of the children it treats for certain conditions are ill because their parents smoke in front of them. (Full story HERE.)

I armed myself with appropriate notes but it was no use. The adults, myself included, were completely upstaged by two children - a remarkably articulate 14-year-old boy whose hatred of tobacco smoke and concern for his mother and stepfather's health had persuaded them to stop smoking, and a 10-year-old girl who wanted her mother to quit before her "addiction" killed the pair of them.

Together they made an extraordinary double-act and dominated the programme to such an extent that at one point Nolan decided to butt out and let them speak to one another directly without interruption. 

Outgunned by tales of woe from various listeners, the girl's mother was equally impressive with her quiet determination to smoke in a well-ventilated room in her own home. By the end, however, even she was on the verge of conceding the argument in order to mollify her sweet but increasingly opinionated child.

You can hear the discussion HERE for the next seven days. It's at the start of the programme and continues for about 45 minutes. My (brief) contribution comes at the start and end of the discussion. In between I gave up the unequal contest and watched Match of the Day instead.

Never work with children? Never work with anti-smoking children!!

Why is the UK so mean?

As if on cue (see below), Joe Jackson has just been in touch, offering to write an article about smoking bans in other countries. Currently on tour (see review of his London gig HERE), Joe says:

"Having so far been to Ireland, France, Belgium and Holland, with Germany, Italy, Austria and Israel to come, I thought of writing a piece about the different smoking bans around Europe, and the different ways in which, or extents to which, they are enforced.

"So far I'm pretty sure that the UK ban is not only the most draconian but the most strictly observed. In Paris cafes are making a much better effort to make people comfortable outside than UK pubs are; in Brussels smoking is banned in restaurants but not in bars; there is much resistance in Germany, etc.

"The question would be: smoking bans may be spreading, but why is the UK embracing it to the meanest, most extreme possible extent?"

Three cheers for celebrities!

Interviewed in the current issue of Fresh, the food and lifestyle magazine, Antony Worrall Thompson is asked: "And you're still a member of Forest?" To which Wozza replies: "And proud of it. It's not really about pro-smoking, it's about pro-freedom of choice."

In the current climate it takes a brave man to stand up for smokers, and if you're a "celebrity" whose programmes are aimed at a mainstream audience, it takes even more guts.

Antony has it in spades. I've lost count of the times he has popped up on TV or radio, supporting our cause. I once arrived at Bush House, home of the World Service, to do an interview, and there, on a bank of TV monitors in the studio, was Wozza, live on Sky News. I couldn't hear what he was saying but he was clearly engaged in a rip-roaring argument with Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, and was relishing every moment of it!

Recently he was asked to appear on BBC Breakfast on New Year's Eve. He agreed, despite the fact that he had to get up at five o'clock to be at Television Centre in west London for 7.00am. Pretty impressive, given the subject matter, and the time of year, slap bang in the middle of the holiday season.

I mention this because I have received an email from someone attacking Forest for our use of  "celebrities" such as Antony, David Hockney and Joe Jackson. This strategy, our critic claimed, has been a total failure. What we need, he argues, are "numbers, rational argument and legal loopholes".

I agree about numbers and rational argument but not about legal loopholes which is a time-consuming licence to make lawyers even richer than they already are. (In the unlikely event that you find a "loophole", rest assured that it will be quickly closed.)

However, "celebrities" do have a role to play and it almost worked. Think back a few years to when John Reid was Health Secretary. In May 2004, in answer to an invitation that was sent to his home in California, David Hockney unexpectedly turned up for a private Forest dinner.

Inspired by what he called a "life-enhancing experience", Hockney chose the very next day to write an impassioned letter to the Guardian. It was picked up by Newsnight and two days later Britain's greatest living artist appeared on the country's leading current affairs programme arguing against the prospect of a public smoking ban.

A few weeks later I persuaded Joe Jackson - who had joined our campaign a few months earlier - to write a letter to The Times arguing against a smoking ban. It took a while but eventually, thanks to Joe's persistence, we had 14 signatories including Bob Geldof, Stephen Fry, Simon Cowell, Chris Tarrant, Hockney and AWT.

The letter was published and reported HERE on Saturday September 25, 2004. The following day, at the Labour party conference in Brighton, Joe shared a platform with Reid at a high profile fringe event. During the panel discussion, the Health Secretary specifically mentioned The Times letter as evidence of opposition to a ban. After the event, Joe spoke briefly to him and gave him a copy of his essay, The Smoking Issue, which Forest had just published.

A few weeks later Reid announced his decision - a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places with the exception of private members clubs and pubs that don't serve food. I believe that our use of "celebrities" had some influence on his decision to seek a compromise. The fact that the government later overturned this policy was due to factors outwith our control, the most notable of which was the "success" (ie high compliance rate) of the smoking ban in Ireland.

There's another factor, too. We live in a celebrity-dominated culture. Forest is a media (and political) lobby group. To get our message across we have to use whatever resources we can. Often we are asked to provide a spokesman, but it has to be a "celebrity". (GMTV and BBC Breakfast are the worst culprits but other broadcasters and journalists have made similar requests.)

In the real world that's how it is, and we have to work accordingly (although I must stress that the use of celebrities plays only a small part in our overall strategy). Thankfully, the likes of AWT and David Hockney understand this and are prepared to help us out. They deserve thanks, not criticism. If only we could find a few more.