TAKING LIBERTIES CAN NOW BE FOUND HERE (note new URL):

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com

THIS SITE WILL REMAIN LIVE FOR ARCHIVE PURPOSES ONLY.

Further to my post on Monday, here is the cover of the January issue of Club Journal, the monthly newspaper for members of the Working Men's Clubs and Institute Union.

The report reads:

The Union has teamed up with the campaigning organisation Save Our Pubs & Clubs (SOPAC) to step up pressure on the Government to review the smoking ban.

Recent decisions in Denmark and Holland have seen rules relaxed for small bar owners and a recent phone-in on BBC Radio Five Live confirms that the issue is not dead.

General Secretary Mick McGhasham attended a meeting at Westminster recently with Greg Knight, Brian Binley and David Nuttall, all MPs who tried their best to get the Government to allow clubs and pubs to have a smokinq room

The campaign will focus on the ffects that the ban has had on member clubs and pubs - the loss of community networking opportunities for the elderly and ex-servicemen, the failure of the previous government to honour its promise for a formal review of the legislation, and the need for a more balanced approach to the issue of smoking in public places.

SOPAC propose to undertake a social impact study on the effects of the smoking ban as a way to open the debate and reinvigorate the issue and they hope the campaign will focus on clubs and pubs being allowed a separate smoking room with appropriate ventilation.

The Union General Secretary emphasised that, along with below-cost supermarket alcohol pricing and excessive reglation, the smoking ban has been a key part in the demise of clubs.

The Union feels that only by joining other organisations and groups with a similar desire to save clubs will it be in a position to help the many failing clubs in membership.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group is also planning a campaign, along with other groups in Parliament representing similar organisations, to rally support and lobby government to take some positive action to help clubs stay open.

I have been awarded the ultimate accolade - Letter of the Week in The Grocer.

Sir,

As your Top Products Survey shows, price not packaging is the key factor in determining the brand of cigarette people buy ('Consumers choose price over branding', The Grocer, 18 December).

Smokers do not impulse buy, so banning product display or introducing plain packaging will have little or no impact on purchasing habits. We support all reasonable measures that discourage or prevent children from accessing tobacco. But banning display and introducing plain packaging is unreasonable because the idea is based on a desire to denormalise tobacco and stigmatise the consumer.

"Glitzy" packaging, allegedly designed to encourage young people to start smoking, is a figment of the tobacco control industry's fevered imagination. Young people take up smoking for a number of reasons, usually peer pressure. Plain packaging is unlikely to have any effect on youth smoking rates.

A ban on tobacco display and the introduction of plain packaging will eventually reduce choice because companies are less likely to develop new brands and products if their ability to communicate with their customers is severely compromised.

As long as tobacco remains a legal product consumers should have the right to differentiate between brands, and retailers must retain the right to display and sell it in a way that does not harm their business.

Simon Clark
Director, Forest

My letter was sent on behalf of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign:

Rt Hon Anne Milton MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS

Dear Minister,

Pub closures and the smoking ban

You are quoted in the Morning Advertiser on 25 November declaring that “there is little, if any, evidence that would link the closure of pubs and clubs to the introduction of [the smoking bans]”.

A quick look at a report in the Guardian (12 April 2010) should give pause for thought. This sets out the British Beer and Pub Association research on pub numbers in the UK from 1980 to the present. These data are part of a series stretching back decades.

Over the period 1990-2010 the total number of pubs has indeed shown a long-term decline from around 63,500 to 52,000:

UK pub numbers 1990-2010
(source British Beer and Pub Association)

1990 63,500
1991 62,200
1992 61,600
1993 61,000
1994 60,700
1995 61,000
1996 60,800
1997 60,600
1998 61,000
1999 61,500
2000 60,800
2001 60,700
2002 60,100
2003 59,400
2004 59,000
2005 58,600
2006 58,200
2007 56,791
2008 54,818
2009 53,466
2010 52,000

However, a little analysis demonstrates the considerable acceleration of the trend from the end of 2006 – the last data point before the bans in England, Wales and N Ireland.

The period from 2006-10 showed an average closure rate of 2.7% a year - over four times as fast as the long-term trend of 0.6%. In other words, on average more than a thousand more pubs closed each year after the bans than before.

Years Change in UK pub numbers
1990-4 -1.10%
1994-8 -0.10%
1998-2002 -0.40%
2002-6 -0.80%
2006-10 -2.70%

Average trend ... pubs closed per year
Pre-ban (1990-2006) -0.60% ... 331
Post-ban (2006-10) -2.70% ... 1550

Given the frequent references to the impact of the smoking ban by licensed trade associations and companies this is likely to be much more than just a coincidence.

Please find attached a research paper that examines the pub closure data in more detail. This shows an almost exact correlation between the rates of decline in pub numbers in Scotland, England, Wales and even the Republic of Ireland, when viewed in comparison to the varying dates of their bans.

All of these data are publicly available. Given the commitment of the Government to a private sector-led recovery, the closure of more than a thousand businesses a year in a key part of the economy surely requires a more thorough investigation and review.

I look forward to your response and hope that the Government will review its decision not to review the smoking ban in accordance with a commitment given by the previous government.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Clark

Yesterday I received a reply - not from Anne Milton (who is too busy schmoozing with ASH!!) - but from someone in the DH's "Customer Service Centre" which sounds more like something you'd find in Kwik Fit than a government department.

Needless to say, the DH has completely ignored the gist of my letter (I expected nothing else), but judge for yourself:

Dear Mr Clark

Thank you for your letter to Anne Milton about smokefree legislation. I have been asked to reply.

In preparing the smokefree legislation, the Government of the time considered the possible economic impact on pubs and the hospitality trade of taking action on secondhand smoke. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was published alongside the Healtj Bill. The RIA contains estimates of cost and benefits of legislation to end smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces. A copy is available on the Department of Health website at www.dh.gov.uk.

Closures in the pub industry and general hospitality sector were covered at the time of Parliament's consideration of the legislation in 2005/2006 and the Regulatory Impact Assessment published at that time includes the following statement (paragraph 323 on page 10, final sentence):

Given the evidence from other countries, as well as in England, the Department of Health understands that it is likely to be prevailing economic, structural and cultural issues, rather than the introduction of smoke-free legilation, which will be primary cause of any significant decline in the sector.

The Government believes that people should have the choice to smoke, but that it is also right that people are both made aware of the major health risks of smoking and are provided with support to quit.

Therefore, by increasing the information available about the dangers of smoking and providing support to individuals who want to stop, the Government can hope to reduce smoking by helping people make the choice or not to start or to give up.

At the same time, it is right that others should be protected from exposure to harzardous secondhand tobacco smoke. The smokefree legislation eliminates smoking in virtually every enclosed public place and workplace in this country.

There is a clear evidence that the smokefree legislation is working very well and almost all enclosed workspaces and public places are free from secondhand smoke. Many families are now voluntarily making their homes smokefree, reducing children's exposure to secondhand smoke.

Public support for the smokefree law is high and continues to grow. Even a majority of smokers now support the law. Because of this, ministers see no reason to review it.

I should also point out that the smokefree provisions in the Health Act 2006 were carried on free votes across all parties by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament. This Parliamentary support for smokefree legislation reflected the very widespread public support.

Smoking is the largest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills over 100,000 people every year and a recent academic study suggests that the cost to the British taxpayer is more than £5 billion a year. It causes 84 per cent of deaths from lung cancer and 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease, including bronchitis.

Medical and scientific evidence also shows that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of serious medical conditions such as lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, childhood respiratory disease, sudden infant death syndrome and reduced lung function.

I realise that this reply is likely to be disappointing, but I hope it clarifies the Department's position on the matter.

Yours sincerely,

Customer Service Centre

Now, I'm not naive enough to have expected any other reply, but it is interesting that rather than address the issue of pub closures that have occurred since the smoking ban, the DH continues to quote from the Regulatory Impact Assessment that was carried out in advance of the smoking ban, despite the very clear evidence that the number of pub closures has increased enormously in the period since the ban.

I'm not going to fisk the DH's letter line by line because I can't be bothered, but one line does annoy me: "Parliamentary support for smokefree legislation reflected the very widespread public support".

I don't need to tell readers of this blog that this is simply not true. It may reflect opinion polls commissioned by ASH (that offered people a straight choice between smoking or smokefree without the option of, for example, separate smoking rooms) but it certainly doesn't reflect the surveys carried out by the Government's own Office for National Statistics that consistently found that a substantial majority (approximately 70 per cent) were opposed to a comprehensive ban.

Of course public opinion has changed a bit as non-smokers (and even some smokers) have got used to smokefree pubs and clubs, but not as much as the tobacco control lobby would have as believe.

On a more positive note, the response from the DH may be disappointing (if unsurprising) but the tone of the letter is well, neutral, and that is a significant improvement on previous years. Others too have commented upon the fact that, under Labour, letters from the DH were cool if not downright hostile.

Sure, public health minister Anne Milton and ASH's Deborah Arnott are birds of a feather. But until we hear more about the Coalition Government's tobacco control strategy it's not all doom and gloom.

Our understanding is that, unlike the previous regime, the new Government is at least listening, even if they spout the same old mantra. So my message is, keep writing to the DH and the relevant ministers.

More important, if you haven't already done so, is to write to your local MP. By and large, organised letter writing campaigns don't work. They're easy to spot and MPs will usually ignore them. A letter from an individual constituent - that's different.

Feel free to recycle the statistics in my letter to Anne Milton but the letter should be in your own words and no more than two sides of A4. You can also send them a copy of our Smoking Gun report.

Let me know if you get a response.

Btw, we used to call Paris the "European capital of smoking". The title then transferred to Prague. Any further suggestions? I have heard that the bars in Budapest are so smoky that even smokers (well, those that live in Britain) find them a little, er, fuggy.

The article was prompted by the recent smoking ban in Spain:

The Spanish measures, which are the country’s second attempt at a ban, are far more stringent than those introduced here in 2004, when Ireland became the first EU country to implement the policy.

Since last Sunday, smoking in Spain – the fourth largest tobacco manufacturer in the EU – is outlawed not only in places such as restaurants, bars and airports but also outside schools, hospitals and in children’s playgrounds.

The fines for breaking the ban range from €60 to €600,000. It remains to be seen whether the fuming Spaniards will flout the new laws, but both Irish experience and recent research suggest the extreme nature of the ban makes compliance even more likely.

As it happens we have in our midst an unrepentant smoker who has been working in the Spanish tourism industry for a number of years.

"I knew about the proposed ban last year," writes Peter Thurgood, "but to be perfectly honest I never thought it would really happen. I feel so let down I will never again recommend Spain as a holiday destination to anyone until they overturn it."

Peter feels so strongly he has written a 1500-word article for The Free Society. Click HERE.

See also: Smoke-free? It's a Spanish imposition! (Daily Mail), Spanish Bars Flout the Ban (Time) and Spanish smokers struggle with new ban (Daily Telegraph)

Further to rumours and reports, I am delighted to confirm that the Working Men's Clubs & Institute Union (CIU) has agreed to join the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign.

Together with Forest, the CIU will lobby MPs to change the law to allow separate smoking rooms in private members' clubs. (Forest will of course continue to fight for smoking rooms in pubs as well.)

The CIU's National Executive agreed to the proposal last month following our extremely productive meeting with general secretary Mick McGlasham in November.

Specific initiatives will be announced shortly. In the meantime I have accepted an invitation to address the CIU's annual general meeting in Blackpool in April. Greg Knight MP, a leading supporter of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign, will also attend the conference dinner to demonstrate his support for working mens' clubs.

The CIU describes itself as "the largest non-profit making social entertainment and leisure organisation in the UK, representing the interests and views of four million club members".

Above: yours truly with Mick McGlasham (general secretary, CIU) and Geoff Whewell (chairman, West Midlands branch) following a Forest/Free Society event at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham last year. Below, publicans from East Anglia demonstrate their support at the launch of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign in London in June 2009.

I disguised some of the details because June (not her real name) was worried that her knowledge of her email might "rip my family apart". The basic story, however, was unaltered.

June had mixed feelings about Christmas. She was looking forward to having her daughter, her son-in-law and her grandchild to stay (for the first time in years) but the prospect of having to stand outside in the cold every time she wanted a cigarette was less appealing. Eventually it was agreed that June could smoke in an upstairs room, as long as the door was shut.

"I don’t know how I’m going to pull this off, with my sense of outrage running high," wrote June in November, "and still be a welcoming hostess to our guests."

I was curious to know what happened so on Saturday I emailed her and last night she replied as follows:

Christmas didn’t go exactly to schedule, as we received a phone call Christmas morning to say that my daughter, her husband and child couldn’t join us as planned. My grandson was suffering a mild case of flu, and was too poorly.

My daughter, her husband and child joined us on New Year’s Day instead. It was a small party of just five adults. I honoured my agreement.

I cooked a two-course meal, and disappeared upstairs periodically during the visit. Nobody commented on my disappearances. Nobody was inconvenienced by this except me. I have told none of my guests over the Christmas/New Year period of my daughter’s request.

I sent both my children extracts about passive smoking found on your site. My son informed me that he’d never believed everything said about passive smoking anyway. My daughter didn’t reply.

I’d like to thank all those who have left posts as they heartened me. Joyce in particular hit the nail on the head. I will tell my daughter that I will never refrain from smoking downstairs again when he visits. I would be prepared to go into another room, but not to shut myself away again.

Sadly, I fear that this will cause his visits to diminish, perhaps even cease, and I feel a great injustice here – as he had a privileged upbringing. I also feel bereaved in some way – crazy, I know.

Public and repeated debunking of the effects of passive smoking is a priority, I think. But what hope is there for tolerance when even our prime minister and his deputy are ashamed to admit they do or ever did smoke?

You can read the original post HERE.