Angela Harbutt (Liberal Voice) crosses swords with Lord Faulkner

Further criticism of Lord Faulkner's article yesterday comes from Angela Harbutt, new entrant to the world of professional campaigning who is now working on the hands off our packs campaign. Angela's voluntary campaigning has produced blog posts like this in the past.

She takes issue with Lord Faulkner's view that tobacco companies have undue influence with politicians by pointing at the raft of recent legislation restricting smoking, and points instead to the disproportionate influence of tobacco control.

If there is a need for transparency – it is a need for government to come clean on just how much public money is being spent on Tobacco Control and just how far the tentacles of Tobacco Control have reached into government health policy. It might not be a bad idea to also get a truly independent body to evaluate how effectively this money has been spent. In August 2010 Eric Pickles MP announced that the government was going to stop "government lobbying government". This must surely apply to Tobacco Control.

She points out that like many of us in the population, her campaigning has so far been voluntary.

What drove me to campaigning? A richly funded and politically active health lobbying industry that has agitated constantly to price out of reach, limit access to, or otherwise bully people into ending consumption of, things deemed undesirable or unhealthy.

She has accepted payment from Forest to undertake a campaign against plain packaging.

Perhaps not surprisingly, her piece was published with Lord Faulkner's response immediately below.  It has since been edited, but the original read as follows:

For Angela Harbutt to compare "Big Tobacco" to organisations devoted to improving public health is laughable, but hardly surprising from someone who admits to being funded by FOREST, an organisation set up by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to promote the interests of the tobacco industry.

Leaving aside the point that Angela Harbutt has not been paid for her previous five years of campaigning, rendering the point he makes inaccurate, Lord Faulkner somehow also has the belief that Forest was started as a tobacco industry front group. Its actual funding from tobacco companies is listed on the front page of its website. Simon Clark of Forest wrote to the PoliticsHome website pointing out the error, and clearly His Lordship has no evidence for his belief (other than that it is received tobacco control wisdom): hence the corrected version.

All that is left to Lord Faulkner after his attack on Angela Harbutt are (1) the somewhat pointless supposition that not smoking would save many hundred thousand lives, (2) the assertion that it is important that universities participate in studying the causes of disease (is that what happens in universities party to the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, which seems to have a loaded name) and (3) the suggestion that tobacco is the only consumer product that kills when used as intended. That old chestnut – never mind the fact that alcohol, salt and now sugar are catching up fast.

Does that mean that the health lobby will be fighting within itself for resources soon? That will show them as the one-trick ponies they are.

EDIT: background to latest edit of Lord Faulkner's response.

Liberal Vision revisited, again

This time, a discussion of the relevance of libertarianism to the smoking ban, for the benefit of people who think of themselves as libertarian but still believe that the issue is about dirty air caused by smoking ('The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins'), rather than an invasion of personal autonomy, and the right of individuals and businesses to decide their own rules of engagement.

I haven't considered the issue of libertarianism enough to know whether I am a libertarian. But you don' t have to be a libertarian to realise that the only way the health authorities have got away with the smoking ban so far has been by convincing enough people that secondary smoke is a killer (even though there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that isn't distorted by compounding factors). And to convince people of something so unlikely, they must have been distorting the truth for some ulterior motive – which is not acceptable to me and many readers of blogs like this one. Government needs to be reliable, truthful and keep things in proportion. It fails on all counts with this legislation.

National Federation of Retail Newsagents complains at extent of ASH influence: Liberal Vision

Good for Liberal Vision for reporting this letter from the NFRN to the Prime Minister complaining about the close relationship between the Health Minister and Action on Smoking and Health:

This statement and public acceptance and deliverance of awards to an organisation that has been lobbying her department, MPs and other government departments (and indeed is granted government funding on the basis that it not be used for lobbying purposes) has called into question the manner in which recent tobacco display ban legislation has been made; and the ability of the Minister to be considered unbiased on the issue.

I attach a copy of the event report from an independent parliamentary reporting service and would ask that you formally conduct an investigation into the conduct of your minister in the light of her public admission that she had worked with an officer of an ASH funded parliamentary lobby group on recent legislation “behind the scenes”. Moreover, this inappropriate conduct necessitates a review of the legitimacy of the legislation itself. [emphasis added]

[...]

In light of these recent statements, I regrettably now see proof of these suspicions which is deeply offensive to our members who have campaigned so hard to see the government fulfil its pre-election commitments to bring the debate back to the House of Commons for a free vote and which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publically opposed in opposition. 

[...] 

Writer Angela Harbutt also has hard words to say about ASH and its aims and working methods:

ASH receives huge amounts of money from the taxpayer  and sadly, like so many publicly funded bodies with too much money and too little scrutiny it has NOT gone about its task well. ASH has now become a fat, over-staffed, political, and single-minded organisation hell bent on eradicating smoking from the face of the earth, by whatever means necessary.  Where it could have worked with the industry to find solutions to the issues, it has set itself up against the manufacturers, the retailers and the consumers. And much of its so-called advice has been at best ineffective, and all too often counter-productive, with huge financial and social unintended consequences.

ASH's destructive behaviour is of course in line with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It does not sit well with ASH's original remit, as Angela Harbutt points out in the comments below:

As I understood it ASH was set up in 1971 as a campaigning health charity to work towards eliminating THE HARM caused by tobacco – not created to work towards eliminating tobacco. If that remains their public aim then working with the industry is surely a pretty sensible thing to do?

 Angela ... come to Scotland!

Plain packaging on the way, Westminster and/or Holyrood

Has Andrew Lansley, who has been weighing up whether to implement the display ban as passed into law, found an even stronger form of deterrence? The BBC announces that the Department of Health will consider requiring plain packaging for tobacco products, and that it will put together a White Paper on the subject (it also says the government 'will ask' shops to cover up displays from next year: the wording is too mild to suggest that any final decision has been made).

Compelling the sale of tobacco in plain packaging cannot fail to make counterfeiting easier and cheaper, but legislation requiring such a move has already been mooted in Australia. The Scottish Government has also expressed interest in this, but does not have the powers to pass legislation on packaging. An SNP spokesman said: “The SNP is favourably disposed to this idea, and if Westminster will not do it then the powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament".

It would seem that the SNP might not need the extra powers, if the Westminster government proceeds to bring in legislation. Is this a factor behind the Department of Health's interest in the idea: 'being in the lead in tobacco control'? (or do they wish to prevent the devolution of further powers?)

Within Scotland, the effectiveness of plain packaging as a deterrent to smoking is disputed. Enrico Bonadio of Abertay University predicts a price war, but Crawfood Moodie (of the Institute for Social Marketing – yes, them again!) believes that the deterrent effect will outweigh any price war. The tobacco industry has concerns over its right to a brand image, and warns of legal trouble in the event of any legislation.

Nothing would be less surprising than an aggressive policy of this kind in Scotland, where ASH Scotland rules supreme. The same cannot be said of England however, where even many Tories have felt grounds for hope that the Coalition would adopt a less 'nanny state' line of policy. Dick Puddlecote has been enjoying disabusing them of their hopes of a better future under the Coalition.

LiberalVision also comments: also disillusioned with its leaders over more central control and illiberal governance, in contrast with its promises. More criticism from the Scottish blogosphere would be welcome: surely not everyone in Scotland approves of this policy?