Revisiting Liberal Vision ...

And why not – some big names from Tobacco Control have done so ... (see comments)

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!

Retailers unite against European tobacco restrictions

Retail representatives of eleven European nations including the UK's National Federation of Retail Newsagents have met in Brussels to demonstrate joint opposition to restrictions on tobacco.

The revisions follow 'an EC "consultation"' that took place in 2010: the questions offered the possibility that EU member states should be allowed to legislate for themselves on tobacco control issues. The Commission's decision to pursue policies and restrictions throughout Europe gives its opponents a strong motivation to join forces.

Arguments will be dismissed as the work of tobacco company propaganda – just as licensees up and down the country who watched their takings plummet following the smoking ban were told that 'the recession' was to blame for their struggling trade.

"These measures will mean huge costs for retailers along with an explosion of the black market, presenting a threat to more than half a million small retail businesses in the EU," said Giovanni Risso, chairman of the European Confederation of Tobacco Retailers which hosted the Brussels meeting.

The retailers say existing legislation has already forced business closures, thanks to the rise in the smuggling of cheaper illegal cigarettes. Now they say standardised packaging would make products even easier to counterfeit - and banning the more addictive ingredients in tobacco would trigger an illicit market in stronger cigarettes.

They are persuaded that this approach to tobacco will make legitimate sales harder without reducing the demand for the product, and that illegal traders will reap the benefits. It is hard to see how further restrictions in the legal trade in tobacco can fail to benefit rogue traders.

The proposals mimic the Australian unbranded packaging model. A popular argument claims that the branding must be worth sales to tobacco companies, since the threat of its removal has provoked them into a reaction. But it's not that simple: brand identity is important in the marketplace to protect against cheap imitation, and on health grounds alone you would think that distinctive brand-packaging would win the support of the so-called 'health lobby'. Even an Australian anti-smoker has been won over on the argument that government has no right to tamper with the brands of legally traded products.

This legislation will see the potential destruction of brands that have been legally built up over many years. Quite simply, this puts the spotlight squarely where it should be. This is a debate about the freedom of the marketplace, and the boundaries of government restrictions to legal trade. The government, in my opinion, has no right whatsoever to actively seek the destruction of brands that are legally traded in the marketplace. Yes, it has every right to persuade people to choose not to smoke. And it has a duty to publicise the health risks of smoking, if for no other reason than relieving the pressure on the public purse of the exorbitant costs of treatment ... 

I wish the traders from these eleven European countries a productive association. Their case is compelling.

British American Tobacco admits funding newsagents' campaign against display ban

It has emerged at the AGM of British American Tobacco that this tobacco company provided funding and input to the campaign of newsagents to resist the tobacco display ban.

An earlier story by the same Guardian writer quotes Parminder Singh, President of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents:

There is no way that the NFRN could afford the resources and expertise to mount such a high profile campaign to fight on its members' behalf to oppose the tobacco ban without some help towards funding. We are grateful, therefore, to have some help from the tobacco manufacturers to do this.

At stake is the tobacco display ban, legislation enacted already in the Republic of Ireland (a tobacco smuggling hotspot) and voted into law in both Westminster and Holyrood, but not yet implemented. To say the law is controversial understates the case. There is no conclusive evidence that putting tobacco out of sight will make the prospect of smoking any less attractive to young people.

The retail trades, including newsagents and convenience stores, have to put their case against the combined wisdom of the Department of Health and all the health charities, with added lobbying from pharmaceutical interests. The government will not give tobacco interests a hearing. This seems a marriage made in heaven: the  newsagents have access to government but no money, the tobacco interests have pots of money but no access.

I have no idea, nor do I really care, how much of the campaign was paid for by British American Tobacco. The reason Health Secretary Lansley will not speak with tobacco interests is that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control forbids it. Then the health lobby loses itself in moral indignation when the tobacco industry behaves like businesses all over the world, and uses its funds (which it is forbidden by law to use for its own advertising or to sponsor kids to play football) to help business partners.  As far as I'm concerned placing obstacles in the way of tobacco interests attempting to buy influence simply diverts their direction of travel. Tobacco interests have every right to a voice in decisions affecting their product, especially considering the level of taxes levied on their products. Stifling the voice of the tobacco industry and taking the huff when it refuses to lie down and die is just being childish. Here's illustrating:

"For any major company to seek to covertly lobby MPs through the back door is disgraceful, but particularly when it comes to tobacco. The Government has legal obligations to protect public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry and it can only do this if the tobacco industry is transparent about its lobbying activities", said Deborah Arnott, the chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Since the WHO forbids tobacco companies from lobbying openly, the inference is clearly that they're not allowed any voice.

"Lobbying by the NFRN was effective in significantly delaying the implementation of the legislation in small shops and it has already admitted that it received support from tobacco manufacturers for this campaign. The question is which tobacco manufacturers. If BAT was involved it needs to come clean."

The inference here is that NFRN's delaying tactics were successful only with tobacco industry funding. Does that mean the newsagents should have been silenced by lack of funding? The alliance with tobacco was enough to discredit the NFRN's campaign completely?

Behind the scenes are the extraordinary demands of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, not least its dictates about who may influence public policy: as if this needs to be decided by a non-elected global body.

Interestingly, outside the doors of the British American Tobacco AGM, was gathered a group of young people demonstrating against child labour in the tobacco plantations. They were photographed with Deborah Arnott, CEO of Action on Smoking and Health and Kevin Barron, the Labour MP who questioned BAT. I hope, but don't expect, that Deborah Arnott and Kevin Barron will be sure to remind these young people that exploitation of children isn't limited to tobacco companies.