Lansley unveils Tory proposals on health

Further to yesterday's post about Conservative policy on obesity, smoking and alcohol, shadow health spokesman Andrew Lansley will today unveil new proposals designed to help people control their alcohol consumption.

Speaking on the Today programme this morning, Lansley said: "What I'm publishing today is a public health Green Paper that sets out a broader strategy. Alcohol and the abuse of alcohol and the deaths that are associated with it and the £20 billion cost to society of the misuse of alcohol is clearly a very significant public health challenge."

This morning Lansley is giving a speech at an event organised by 2020health, a centre right think tank.

More information to follow.

Update on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

Here are some excerpts from the press release just received:

A Conservative Government will work with business to draw up new 'responsibility deals' designed to prevent irresponsible activities and extend restrictions on
unsuitable marketing to children throughout the media. We will introduce a clearer system of alcohol labelling which allows people to compare the amount they drink
with other people, mandate the display of 'guideline daily amounts' on food packaging, and encourage restaurants and bars to publish more dietary information for their customers.

We will introduce a focus on public health throughout government, led by the Secretary of State for Public Health, with a series of measures including extra Sure
Start health visitors, a school sports Olympics, better maternity care, and tough measures - including a tax on super-strength drinks - to curb binge-drinking.

The Department of Health will be renamed and refocused, becoming the Department of Public Health, with a stronger remit for preventing disease, rather than just its
cure. Whenever possible, we will ensure that national public health initiatives funded by public money are focused wholly on behaviour change and paid for on the
basis of the results they achieve.

We will extend voluntary restrictions on marketing to children to all media, including online advertising, and support industry-led initiatives to promote better health, such as reducing food portion sizes.

We will also work with business to encourage the publication of dietary information in fast-food outlets, restaurants, cafes and bars, and improve the clarity of information on food packaging by supporting EU proposals for mandatory publication of 'guideline daily amounts' on food packaging.

To tackle the specific problem of binge-drinking, there will be a ban on cheap alcohol used as a loss leader in shops and supermarkets, and problem drinks like alcopops and super-strength beers will be taxed more heavily. A tougher licensing regime will also be introduced to tackle irresponsible bars.

There is no direct mention of smoking in the press release but in his speech this morning Lansley said:

We will invest to save by prioritising public health. There is a vast human and financial cost associated with problems like obesity, sexually transmitted diseases and infectious diseases.

Preventing them makes good economic sense and good public health sense. Obesity costs the NHS £4.2 billion alone. Smoking is responsible for around 84,000 deaths a year.

We are seeing a rising rate of alcohol and drug problems. And there's been a three-fold increase since 1998 in the number of young people diagnosed with HIV. We have to get to grips with the real drivers of demand on our NHS now.

Make of that what you will.

Update on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

"Is this the second longest suicide note in history?" comments Rick S. "Don't the Tories know that people are sick of this stuff and just want to be left alone?"

What the Tories have to get across - fast - is the extent to which these measures are going to be enforced: nanny state or bully state? I understand the need to keep NHS costs in check but government has to acknowledge that smokers (for example) pay a huge sum of money into the public purse (in addition to income tax etc). If anyone is entitled to treatment on the NHS, it's smokers.

Properly targetted, these policies may do some good. What politicians must not do is target and stigmatise everyone who smokes, gets "drunk" or is overweight.

Alcohol and tobacco: two peas in a pod

Earlier this week I had a meeting with a management consultancy whose clients include a well known drinks company. They wanted to know what lessons the drinks industry could learn from the war on tobacco. I was happy to help.

By coincidence, this week's Spectator includes a letter on the subject of alcohol and tobacco. It is written by Rupert Fast, a long-standing supporter of Forest who attends most if not all of our London-based events and is never less than quietly supportive of Forest and the cause in general.

Rupert writes:

Sir: Everything Rod Liddle says about how the war against smoking was always going to lead to similar ones against other legitimate pleasures is true. The smoking ban was not the thin end of the wedge, though. The rot set in with crude warnings on tobacco products and the banning of cigarette advertising on television. The political crusade accelerated when traditional socialism became discredited. Getting nowhere attacking Big Business in general, the opponents of global capitalism turned their attention to businesses that could be deemed ‘unethical’.

The drinks industry has been asleep during all this, under the false illusion that smoking and drinking are completely separate issues. The last hope is that all industries smeared as ‘bad’ (fast food, confectionary, bottled water and the like) engage with genuine liberals and libertarians and challenge head on those who despise them and wish them to go bankrupt.

I'm not sure that I agree that the war on tobacco, and now alcohol, is entirely motivated by a hatred of big business - although there is an element of that among some campaigners.

What I do agree on is the suggestion that the drinks industry is wrong to believe that smoking and drinking are separate issues. It is clear, however, that the drinks industry wants to distance itself as much as possible from tobacco to the extent that some people are prepared to claim that the impact of "passive drinking" is tiny compared with the (alleged) impact of passive smoking.

I can understand, tactically, why the drinks industry wants to do this. I would argue however that they risk playing into the hands of the "health" lobby which wants to divide and rule, picking off one industry after another.

In a perfect world the food, drink and tobacco industries would stick together. So, too, responsible smokers and drinkers, not to mention every liberal-minded person in the country. Unfortunately the real world is rather different.

Writing worth reading

Rod Liddle has written a piece in this week's Spectator (The smoking ban was always going to be thin end of the wedge) which sums up what many of us, including Rod, have been saying for years. In fact, I'm sure we had this very conversation when we shared a table at Forest's Revolt In Style dinner at The Savoy a couple of years ago.

Tom Utley, another recipient of Forest's coveted Smoker-Friendly Journalist of the Year award, also writes about the war on alcohol HERE.

Of course Rod and Tom - both heavy smokers who enjoy a drink or two - might be expected to write in this vein, not least because it provides an entertaining article and, as Tom is always reminding us, it pays for his children's school fees.

What we also need is for people who have hitherto kept quiet to make their views known. The longer they stay silent, the worse things will get. Writing on blogs and message boards isn't enough. People must write to their MP, to newspapers, and vote with their feet.

Oh, and they might also write to Sir Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health, Room 114, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS.

Political classes are "drunk on power"

"Drunk on power: control politicians not the people" writes Brian Monteith on The Free Society website today. The former MSP wrote the article after Scotland’s minority SNP administration announced tougher regulations on alcohol and tobacco.

Brian's comments could apply equally to politicians (and the medical profession) elsewhere in the UK. Full article HERE.

Chief Medical Officer drives me to drink

Sir Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England and Wales, is in the news again. In his latest annual report, published today, he unveils proposals to set minimum prices for alcoholic drinks. The cheapest bottle of wine, it is said, would cost £4.50 while the Independent reports that:

Stronger New World wines, many of which harbour more than 10 units of alcohol per bottle, would cost upwards of £5. Own-brand spirits, which may contain up to 40 units per bottle and which are currently sold at a loss to encourage shoppers, might double in price.

Ministers, including the PM, are said to be "lukewarm" about the idea. Undeterred, Donaldson has vowed to continue his campaign, calling on people to acknowledge the existence of “passive drinking” — the effects of drinking on other people. Sound familiar?

I'll leave you to comment. Me? I'm off to open a bottle of Arriero Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon 2006. Hopefully, when I'm sober in the morning, "Sir Liam Donaldson" will be nothing more than a very bad dream.

Update on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 by Simon Clark

Fingers crossed, I will be discussing this issue later today on The Alan Titchmarsh Show (ITV, 3.00pm).

What's wrong with drinking every night?

Devil's Kitchen has drawn attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph headlined, "Millions of middle-class drinkers putting health at risk with evening tipple".

The paper reports that "A comprehensive survey claims that middle aged, professional Britons are more likely to exceed recommended daily levels of alcohol consumption than the working-classes, with twice as many drinking every night of the week."

According to Norman Lamb, Lib Dem spokesman on health:

"These statistics lift the lid on the very serious scale of middle-class alcohol consumption, and the potential health risks that this involves. While attention has rightly been on the massive problem of young people binge-drinking, a hidden epidemic among the middle classes has gone unnoticed. The Government has continued to massively under-fund alcohol treatment services, meaning this problem has been allowed to continue unabated."

I mention this because three months ago I was invited to address a seminar in Whitehall organised by the Westminster Health Forum. The subject was "Alcohol & Responsibility" and I was asked to speak about binge drinking and "everyday" drinking.

An extended version of my speech can be found HERE on The Free Society website. But here's a taster:

"I believe the problem of binge drinking has been exaggerated ... We’re told that it’s a cause of considerable national expense; hospital admissions directly linked to excess alcohol have more than doubled in the past 10 years; alcohol-related crimes and accidents have risen sharply; it causes domestic violence; traffic accidents etc etc.

"We’re told that Britain’s drinking culture is costing the country £20 billion a year; that 17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year; that 40% of A&E admissions are alcohol-related, and that between midnight and 5.00am that figure rises to 70%.

"We’re also told that “5.9 million people drink more than twice the recommended daily guidelines on some occasions” as if this is a terrible, anti-social thing to do.

"I’m sorry, but statistics like this – some of which appear to have been plucked out of thin air – leave me immensely sceptical about the scale of the problem."

I then added:

"One reason why the scale of the problem is exaggerated is because the definition of binge drinking has changed: ten years ago, it was “ten or more drinks in one session”. Now, apparently, it’s ten or more units for men, seven for women, which is very different.

"I’ve even seen a definition of binge drinking to be “drinking sufficient alcohol to reach a state of intoxication”. Now if that’s a definition of a binge drinker, I’ll hold my hand up and say that I binge drink at least three times a week.

"Like many people, I often have three or four glasses of wine, or 2-3 pints of beer, in the evening – and yes, it leaves me feeling a little light-headed (some would call that intoxicated) – but I think that’s rather a nice feeling after a hard day’s work.

"Am I a threat to my family, to my neighbours, to society? I think not. Yet if I were to tell a researcher about my alcohol intake I would no doubt become a binge drinking statistic and added to the “growing number” of binge drinkers that - we are told - is becoming such a burden on society."

It wasn't a bad speech but I don't think it impressed the audience (which included MPs, peers and health professionals), most of whom looked a bit nonplussed.

Nor, clearly, did it influence the chairman - a certain Norman Lamb MP, Lib Dem spokesman on health!!

Alcohol, feminism and freedom

"Since when have women not been able to make up their minds whether to accept a drink or not?" asks Suzy Dean on The Free Society website. "Proposed government policy aimed at reducing the amount of alcohol that women in particular drink suggests that it should be illegal for bars to give women free drinks, that restaurants and bars should serve wine in glasses with clear marks to show the volumes being consumed and that happy hour promotions should be curbed."

Full article HERE.

Driven to drink (part two)

Postscript to the Westminster Health Forum seminar on 'Alcohol and Responsibility' (see below). There were several things I didn't get a chance to say in my presentation or during the Q&A session that followed. Here's a couple:

There are numerous examples of scaremongering. Last year, for example, a report in the British Medical Journal said that binge drinking has increased to such an extent that cases of “exploding bladders” are on the rise in the UK.

Exploding bladders? Even Alcohol Concern had the grace to admit that these are few and far between - in fact there seem to be only three documented cases in the entire world – but a spokesman went on to say that “this new development certainly highlights the facts that the risks of heavy drinking go way beyond liver cirrhosis”. Hmmm.

On Monday I was tickled to read the following promotion in the Daily Telegraph: "Win an iPod and one year’s free supply of gin". Hilarious. My only query is: how much is a year’s supply?


If it was based on my consumption of gin (at home), half a dozen bottles would do nicely. For someone else, however, a year's supply might be 52 bottles - one for every week of the year - or more. Then again, if I was given six bottles as a prize, who’s to say I wouldn’t knock them back inside a month.

The point is, what represents a year’s supply is for me to decide – not the government, not the healthy lobby, nor - if I may say so - the Daily Telegraph.

My full presentation, including the bits I didn't say because I ran out of time, can be found HERE.

Update on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 by Simon Clark

Before I forget I must mention Chief Inspector Shaun de Souza Brady of the Metropolitan Police who spoke in the session that followed mine. Having explained the problems that can be caused by late licences and drunken, rowdy behaviour, he described one highly successful problem-solving model in Haringay, north London.

Asked whether he would welcome more legislative powers, his reply should be read by every politician throughout Britain. "Legislation," he said, "wouldn't really help unless things were really falling apart, and I don't see that at this moment."

Legislation, he added, imposes on people. What is needed are strong partnerships and local area agreements involving the police, local residents and local businesses (notably pubs and clubs), with the police held to account.

I couldn't agree more. This is the future, not more and more laws, many of them prohibitive. But is anyone listening?

Driven to drink

Sixty One Whitehall is home of the Royal United Services Institute. It was also the venue for yesterday's seminar, 'Alcohol & Responsibility', organised by the Westminster Health Forum.

Fittingly, perhaps, the event was organised with military precision. The first session, chaired by Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb MP, began on cue at 9.05 and finished, on schedule, 40 minutes later. There were four panellists - Professor Sir Charles George (British Medical Association), Cathie Smith (British Institute of Innkeeping), the rather fearsome Professor Mark Bellis (Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University), and me.

We were each given 4-5 minutes to give a short speech on binge drinking. After four minutes a yellow card was held up at the back of the impressive Duke of Wellington Hall. Sixty seconds later a red card appeared and we had to stop.

I was the last to speak. Needless to say, I was just getting into my stride when the yellow and then the red cards were held aloft. In my allotted time I expressed scepticism at the extent of Britain's "binge drinking culture" and the ever-changing definition of what constitutes "binge drinking". I also voiced concern that if the scale of the problem is exaggerated, then the reaction to the problem will also be exaggerated (eg Boris Johnson's booze ban).

Alcohol, I said, is a legal consumer product. (Sound familar?) Adults have every right to purchase alcohol, to consume alcohol, and to enjoy alcohol. People have every right to "binge drink" or get drunk, if they so wish. And if, when they get drunk, they become boorish or bad-tempered, fall asleep in their chair or wake up with a hangover, they have every right to do that as well.

What they DON’T have the right to do is to become violent or aggressive or threaten people and damage property. But we already have laws – and a police force - to deter that sort of behaviour, so I see no need for yet more rules and regulations. Or to tar all drinkers with the same brush.

The audience (a mixture of MPs, peers, civil servants, health professionals, PR execs and people from the drinks industry) seemed a bit non-plussed. When I confessed (shock horror) to being an occasional binge drinker myself (according to government guidelines) there wasn't a murmour - not even a titter.

It wasn't my best performance but I must have made some impression because Norman Lamb prefaced his closing remarks by saying, "Simon Clark issued a challenge". (Challenge? I'd hardly started.) Inevitably, though, he concluded by saying that the evidence (of the harm allegedly caused by binge drinking) supported a "powerful case for society to intervene". (Funnily enough, he said much the same in his opening remarks so no-one can accuse him of inconsistency. A decent chap but better, perhaps, if we'd had someone more impartial in the chair.)

As for the "evidence", I'm still not convinced. A lot of it is based on statistics: 40% of all male drinking sessions are binge-drinking sessions; Britain’s drinking culture is costing the country £20 billion a year; 17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year; 40% of A&E admissions are alcohol-related; and (best of all) 5.9 million people drink more than twice the recommended daily guidelines on some occasions (my italics) - as if this is a terrible, anti-social thing to do!!

Afterwards the director of the Westminster Health Forum invited me back to speak on other issues. No problem, I said. But first, I need a drink.

Sobering thought

I am about to move outside my comfort zone. Wearing my Free Society hat, I have been invited by the Westminster Health Forum to speak at a seminar called Alcohol & Responsibility.

My session, chaired by Norman Lamb MP (Lib Dem shadow health secretary) concerns binge drinking and ‘everyday’ drinking. The other speakers are Professor Sir Charles George, chairman, Board of Science, British Medical Association; Cathie Smith, British Institute of Innkeeping; and Professor Mark Bellis, director, Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University.

I have been asked to talk about "the rights of the citizen to enjoy alcohol as part of their chosen lifestyle", plus the impact of current anti-drinking campaigns and the cultural issues behind drinking.

The seminar is next Tuesday. If anyone has any thoughts on these matters, I'd be delighted to hear from you.

Symbol of impotence

Suzy Dean is co-organiser of the Manifesto Club. Writing for The Free Society blog, Suzy, 22, attacks the government's war on alchol and complains that, "Far from trying to promote a continental style ‘cafe culture’ ... the UK’s political elite would rather try to control who can drink, how much and where, particularly when it comes to teenage drinking.

"Policy," she adds, "is increasingly geared, naively, towards trying to discourage young people from drinking at all rather than encouraging police to deal with silly behaviour with discretion ... Anti-drinking measures are today a symbol of government impotence rather than a nation of hedonists. With no sense of who the public are or how to connect with them in any meaningful way, they try to manage the trivial, everyday decisions."

Full article HERE.

No way to tackle our drinking culture

The age for buying alcohol from supermarkets and off-licences in Scotland could rise from 18 to 21, the BBC reports. "Scottish ministers said it was time for radical action in the fight against Scotland's binge drinking culture."

Last year Public Policy Research, the journal of New Labour's favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, declared that it was time to practise "tough love", such as reviewing the minimum drinking age. Britain, it said, should consider making the legal drinking age 21.

On today's Free Society blog, former MSP Brian Monteith takes issue with these no doubt well-meaning prohibitionists when he writes:

As a parent of two boys now in their early twenties let me provide some simple observations. Kids demand football strips with “Carlsberg” or “Guinness” emblazoned across the chest because they want the authentic strip their heroes wear – not some diddy imitation.

The only way to curb the demand is to ban the advertising of alcohol branding on any sports-related clothing – no doubt something that will ultimately come. Did it make my sons want to drink Carlsberg? No, they prefer real ale.

Restrictions on a popular drinks such as alcopops or the practice of drinking outside can result in kids switching to stronger drinks such as cider and imbibing out of sight of anyone – a far more dangerous situation.

Full article HERE.

Going underground

To read the newspapers you might be forgiven for thinking there was drunken riot on the Underground the other night as thousands of revellers descended on the Circle Line to protest against the ban on drinking alcohol on the Tube.

I wasn't there but Suzy Dean of the Manifesto Club was and she reports that "Boris’s booze ban seems to have annoyed a whole spectrum of people – from football fans who will no longer be able to enjoy a pre-match beer on their way to the stadium, to hen parties, students and city boys who like a tipple when they travel". More important:

The ban follows various other restrictions on our behaviour, all of which have been introduced in the name of making our public spaces more pleasant – from the smoking ban brought in last year to the ban on the wearing of hoodies in certain shopping centres. Instead of tolerating this increasing invasion of our public space by the authorities, we should stand up and say that public space is always more pleasant if we are free to behave in it in ways that we see fit.

Full article HERE.

Update on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 by Simon Clark

Meet Suzy Dean and other members of the Manifesto Club at the Forest party on June 24.

Boris joins the banned wagon

I was invited to be on the Richard Bacon show on Five Live last night. They wanted me to talk about Boris Johnson's plan to ban alcohol on London buses and the Tube. As it happens, I got the message too late because I was in Peterborough watching my son play cricket, but they assumed (I think) that I am against such a ban - which I'm not.

To this day no-one can prove that the Kings Cross fire - which killed 31 people on November 18, 1987 - was caused by a discarded cigarette. Smoking, as ever, was an easy target when the primary problem was the discarded litter that lay beneath the escalators. This was an accident waiting to happen because it could be set alight by the slightest spark, including a spark from the escalator itself.

Nevertheless, I don't think many people object to smoking being banned on Underground trains, or even buses. This is an issue of comfort and I have little sympathy for people who can't go 30 or even 60 minutes without a cigarette while they are (literally) underground.

The same applies (I think) to alcohol. As with tobacco, no-one has a right to consume alcohol whenever or wherever they want. The only question is, does the scale of the problem justify the heavy hand of politicians, or should it be left to a combination of education and peer pressure?

These days I am rarely in London late at night and, when I am, I tend not to use the bus or Tube, so the problem Boris seeks to address (boorish, sometimes threatening, behaviour) has largely passed me by. Nor do I recall it being a serious issue in the 12 years I lived in London. Readers who do live in London and regularly experience London transport at night may like to enlighten me.

Hopefully, the new mayor is not over-reacting to the problem as he seeks to make his mark. Fingers crossed, his next move will be de-regulate rather than regulate. I am also waiting for an early announcement that a modern version of the old Routemaster bus will be back on the road (complete with open platform) as soon as they can be ordered and delivered.

When it comes to freedom, politicians need to give as well as take.