Grocers discuss illicit tobacco in England, ASH Scotland rules in Scotland

An interesting piece from the trade paper The Grocer, explaining why tobacco is increasingly an attractive product for smugglers and rogue traders, and how this threat should be fought, with additional tips for shopkeepers acquiring tobacco from cash and carry suppliers to help them avoid trouble.

In discussing strategies against illicit trade, the writer refers to a gathering of relevant professional people:

.... A recent summit co-ordinated by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA) and think tank Progressive Vision, and attended by representatives from Trading Standards and the Police, concluded that current partnership working wasn't what it could be, and as a result "intelligence gathering was substantially insufficient". 

 A key element consists of working relationships between retailers and trading standards officers. Retailers are the people most directly and immediately damaged by the activities of rogue traders. They are also in danger as there have been instances of hijackings of retailers' vans while in transit from cash and carry. It is important to retailers that they can use their knowledge to identify rogue traders to the relevant authorities.

Did you spot the problem with all this? The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control asserts that parties' tobacco control strategies should not involve tobacco companies. In the eyes of the FCTC, this summit is unacceptable because of tobacco industry involvement, indeed leadership (in partnership with Progressive Vision). In Scotland they do things 'properly', ASH Scotland gets the credit and produces the report, and the tobacco industry is nowhere in sight.

The tobacco control community must be sensitive to charges that their antics leave the floor open to illicit traders. Not only have they taken a huge interest in illicit tobacco control, they have approached it with their usual insistence that tobacco interests should not get involved, citing the FCTC's demands. It's odd really, as retailers and manufacturers both have a natural interest in protecting legal tobacco trade. The likes of ASH Scotland have no interest in protecting the legal tobacco trade ... they can advise people not to smoke illicit tobacco as it is bad for their health, contributes to terrorists' coffers, and so on. But they will also tell the general public not to smoke legitimate stock either. So what's their game really about?

Denormalisation, of course. If tobacco manufacturers have been able to contribute to illicit tobacco control in the past (for example by helping to fund the No ID No Sale programme), this act of corporate social responsibility must be shown by their enemies in the worst possible light. Tobacco companies are trying to buy the public's good opinion. The only way to stop tobacco manufacturers from doing good things is to exclude them from the whole policy process, and effectively treat them as criminals.

While it's nice to go back to the school playground where there are 'goodies' and 'baddies', it's more than a little naive. More to the point, excluding tobacco manufacturers from the process leaves a gap in the communication line. The TMA/Progressive Vision summit concluded that low levels of intelligence about illicit tobacco is one of the principle obstacles to tackling the problem. In the Scottish scenario, it's hard to see tobacco control officials and retailers as natural allies, who will be able to communicate effectively as partners, since in many areas they have directly opposing interests.

The idea that the health lobby is in control of the issue is meant to be reassuring. But it isn't. The resulting report on the summit called by ASH Scotland (linked above) is blah: assurances that the summit participants/presenters are on top of things, and a run-down of the plans. We learn nothing really of direct interest to retailers (like how to avoid having your tobacco supply raided on the way home from the cash and carry), and there is no critical insight as to why illicit tobacco is such an issue (not for discussion by anyone without tobacco control instincts). This is not proper teamwork. The report describes how the FCTC will require tobacco manufacturers to enable tobacco products to be tracked from production to sale, so that counterfeit stock can readily be identified, but tobacco manufacturers are not involved in any policy discussion and their opinion considered at best irrelevant, at worst self-interested and destructive.

Like the rest of us, they'll just have to do what they are told.  

Scottish display ban consultation report, and proof of age war

The Scottish Government yesterday published responses to the consultation on tobacco display ban regulations, which closed in the summer. However, consideration is not complete, because of legal action:

In light of the ongoing legal challenge relating to the display ban provisions of the 2010 Act, the Scottish Government is putting on hold meantime finalising the Display of Tobacco and Prices Regulations. This analysis is, therefore, confined to the other 4 sets of regulations.

The Press and Journal has reported that failure to register as a tobacco retailer can invoke fines up to £20,000 or imprisonment. Selling to under-age persons can bring fines of £200, increasing with each offence, and courts can ban repeated offenders.

On proof of age the Press and Journal report also states: 'Proof of age will be a driving licence, passport, or a national Proof of Age Standards Scheme (Pass) card, such as a Young Scot Pass card.' This includes Citizencard.

Citizencard provides proof of age backed by the Home Office PASS (Proof of Age Standards Scheme). It is hologram protected and uses laser-etched photography, to reduce the risk of forgery. Its principal stakeholder is the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association (along with No ID, No Sale). This card is mentioned in the consultation report:

While the majority of those who expressed a view backed the use of Young Scot as a PASS accredited card as an alternative for those who do not have a driving licence or passport, the use of another PASS accredited card, CitizenCard, was specifically endorsed by tobacco manufacturers. Health interests suggested, however, that nothing should be done to lend credence to the tobacco industry-supported CitizenCard. 

This is the Young Scot card, another useful age verification device. It is available to anyone over the age of 16, and proves that someone is either young enough to apply for concession fares, or old enough to smoke and drink, whichever applies. (Its health message for smokers is very unflattering, with its page on smoking including a young person with a mouthful of dogends.)

Note the pressure that is brought to bear on the government by health experts, who don't want tobacco interests to get any credence for their contribution to age verification campaigns age-restricted goods. No Sale, No ID is another campaign sponsored by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, and is the only one that I can think of that is featured in shops and newspaper kiosks everywhere. The health gurus don't like it because it puts tobacco manufacturers in a good light.  The Scottish Government's conclusion on age verification?

The Scottish Government notes that the majority of respondents who expressed a view are content with the draft regulations. In terms of the issues raised at paragraph 4.3, we would emphasise that this is not really a matter for the draft regulations. It should be noted, however, that the Scottish Government will continue to put its weight behind the Young Scot PASS card and that it also has the full backing of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS), Scottish local authorities and leading retailer representative bodies.

Bit of a cop-out really. Citizencard is a PASS card, and has not been ruled out, but rather than make this clear, the Government mumbles about this 'not being a matter for the draft regulations'. Pure poppycock. Where do you specify what is valid ID if not in the regulations? Public Health Minister Shona Robison says herself: 'For the first time, this legislation will put a duty on retailers to verify that a potential purchaser is not underage - and it also specifies what methods of ID are acceptable.' As for Young Scot having the full backing of ACPOS and so on, all well and good: No ID, No Sale also has a wide range of sponsors.

People are still getting used to the PASS, and Citizencard has had problems because employees at some outlets have failed to recognise it. Getting age verification wrong is such a threat that many employees reject it simply through lack of training, and because of the heavy sanctions applied to people who make mistakes, but also some companies have policies in favour of passports or driving licences only. Efforts to iron out these problems are under way, but it appears that not all companies do accept PASS cards yet.

The main issue here is what is legally recognised as proof of age. That is, people selling age-restricted items can avoid making mistakes by refusing forms of identification that are not an acceptable proof of age. This appears to show that Citizencard is legally acceptable in Scotland. Even if the health nuts don't  like it, there is no reason that the Citizencard should not be used.

Understanding the business of selling tobacco

Who knows more about selling tobacco. These people?

Or these people?

My vote goes to the former crowd. They sell tobacco, alongside other consumer commodities. They buy it every few days and sell it every day. The survival of their livelihoods depends on understanding the market environment, in tobacco and whatever else they sell.

They also believe in upholding the law around purchasing age. They make use of No ID No Sale (devised by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association), a campaign designed to encourage age verification at the point of sale.

What about the British Heart Foundation? On the face of it they are an organisation designed to make the public aware of heart health. Nothing wrong with that. In this instance however they are using charitable donations to promote the tobacco display ban, which is a real waste of money when their expertise is not in the tobacco trade. Considering that many people who are in the tobacco trade consider that the display ban will make bootleggers stronger and sales to young people harder to control, they are using public funds to back a loser. And they claim (either in naive ignorance or untruthfully) that only the tobacco industry disagrees with their approach to the tobacco trade. In an era where universal benefits are about to be sacrificed on the altar of cost efficiency, just how stupid is this?

No doubt the British Heart Foundation works very hard to maintain its revenue stream, which is substantial (its Annual report is downloadable here). Their survival depends on successful fundraising (and significantly, legacy fundraising), running profitable second-hand shops and canny investments.

But it relies on naive arguments for its tobacco policies. There is no evidence that the display ban will work (I know I linked to this piece already but really, what are these people doing passing laws without knowing they will make any difference?)