Duffy in print

Sheila Duffy has excelled herself today by producing a leader column in the Scotsman entitled 'Restricting tobacco industry will improve health' (this was not published online), and another in the Herald: 'Health levy will bring huge benefits to public health and the economy'.

Does tobacco control have some special status for our national media that ASH Scotland's opinion gets placed next to the editorials at the centre of the Scotsman?

In her column, Duffy applauds the Australian effort to bring in plain packaging and makes her support for this legislation very clear. She refers to the recent UN summit on non-communicable diseases and the 'fundamental conflict between the tobacco industry and public health. She promotes plain packaging as a global strategy endorsed by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – an undemocratic measure that seeks to over-ride national democratic processes.

In the Herald she writes about the proposed health levy on major supermarkets, in reference to a previous article in which the Scottish Retail Consortium warned that the levy could fall on an increasing number of retailers with time. She huffs, 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?' because they are 'keen to protect their members' interests'. Well – it takes one to know one.  This is the old story –  there is a dispute and both sides lobby. One does it out of sheer altruism and the other out of sheer self-interest. Sheila wants this levy because it is destined for 'preventive work': in more prosaic terms, to sustain the health promotion business.

The 'denormalisation' process is also at work here. Duffy echoes the words of Margaret Chan of the World Health Organisation who criticises the tobacco industry's efforts to gain support against plain packaging legislation, especially for the effrontery of employing lawsuits to challenge tobacco control legislation. God forbid that tobacco companies, having been marginalised from the policy-making process, should be allowed to make the public aware of their view of the situation.

Sheila clearly has a vested interest in the health levy. No doubt she will point to all the benefits of smokeless pubs such as a 17 per cent drop in heart attacks, a 13 per cent drop in childhood asthma admissions, better respiratory health in bar staff (based on a comparison of their health between February and June) and other fantasies. Her stock figures are 13,500 – the annual Scottish death rate from tobacco – and one in four, which is the proportion of Scots that are killed by tobacco. These figures are used in 2009,  but if we go back to 2005 we see very little change (in fact the rate for smoking-related deaths is only 13,000, but they have probably changed their method of counting). It rather looks as if the money spent on ASH Scotland has got very little result over the last six years.

Edit: Scotsman piece now online.

Social responsibility/business levy splits retail trade in Scotland

This is just a small observation that those people who will not attract the proposed business levy in Scotland – which is to be levied on 'large' supermarkets selling alcohol and tobacco – seem think it's a good idea. The Scottish Grocers' Federation has supported the levy. Such supporters feel it offers relief to small traders from the competitive pressures of their big brothers in the marketplace – as this piece from January on a proposed 'supermarket tax' seems to suggest.

But the point of the public health levy is to penalise retail shops that sell tobacco and alcohol, rather than to level the playing field between large and small retailers:

"Given the reason for this is to tackle alcohol and tobacco, I think it's short-sighted and naive to suggest that that threshold which has been proposed, in the region of £300,000 of rateable value, that it won't be lowered in due course to smaller retailers."

So says David Lonsdale of the CBI. If he is wrong and the Government is simply trying to level the playing field, then the proposal has been presented dishonestly.

The Scottish Retail Consortium has responded to the announcement of this levy with dismay. In its submission to the Scottish Government to the draft budget it presents some sound arguments criticising the levy, including the arbitrary nature of its imposition on a small part of the retail sector, poor consultation, no sign of the levy in the SNP's election manifesto, lack of consultation and the size of the financial burden. The submission makes good points about lack of accountability, transparency and communication.

I hold no candle for the likes of Tesco and Asda, and in general wouldn't shop with them. But to say I'm uneasy about the levy is putting it mildly – not only about the general approach to raising the revenue but the vagueness about how the money will be spent. As the SRC points out, major supermarkets have been contributing to public health efforts:

Supermarkets take the responsible retailing of alcohol, tobacco and  all other lines extremely seriously.  They have led industry in working in close partnership with Government towards achieving this aim and in supporting associated health objectives.  They contribute substantial sums towards the funding of DrinkAware, pioneered the prevention of under-age sales through the Challenge 25 initiative and have led the way on clear alcohol labelling.  Over many years they have led industry in their nutritional initiatives and their commitment to help consumers to make healthier and balanced choices in the food they buy.  As recently as July, the SRC and major retailers announced, to wide acclaim, a major new commitment to support greater consumption of fruit and vegetables ...  

As they say, an appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Not sure quite why those words came to mind!

Taxing supermarkets for tobacco and alcohol sales

Via the business rate the Scottish Government announced last week that large shops selling alcohol and tobacco will be charged a levy, to be spent on public health initiatives.

Naturally Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland has welcomed this announcement, not least since public health initiatives (what she describes as preventative measures) are her business. She spent time last year pleading for spending in the area of prevention to be maintained. Her blog also exalts the recent UN summit on non-communicable diseases and applauds the Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon's stupendous gift of A$700,000 (the amount seems to differ depending where you read it) to the World Health Organisation.

Because tobacco control works and delivers real health benefits, of course.

Cuts are being felt in the anti-smoking business. The charity No Smoking Day will lose its budget from the Department of Health leading to a merger of No Smoking Day with the British Heart Foundation.

Scotland's attempt at a solution, the business levy, has angered businesses, but the SNP's majority makes it a working possibility. Its ambition to raise £110 million over three years for public health initiatives is likely to sour relationships between the Government and the retail sector (possibly many of its customers, since retailers may be forced to raise prices generally), and possibly enrich lawyers.