Seeking assistance from the devil?

This has gone to all members of the Public Petitions Committee, for their information:

Dear [Public Petitions Committee Clerk]

I refer to the Note by the Clerk (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Papers_20121127.pdf) in respect of my petition, 01451.

You point out that the Scottish Government does not seem prepared to consider reviewing the smoking ban, partly in the light of its adherence to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. You may not be familiar with Article 5.3 of this convention, which is set out briefly at http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf. As follows: 

"in setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law”.  

In other words, groups associated with the tobacco industry are considered to be unreliable, constituting an automatic conflict of interest. For background notes describing opposition to smoking ban, however, your note relies almost exclusively upon sources funded by the tobacco industry (the TMA and Forest). You also suggest that TMA and Forest are suitable bodies that the committee could approach for their view of the petition.

I would suggest that the Scottish Government's commitment to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control would predispose it to distrusting and failing to take seriously any views presented by either the TMA or Forest. Is it possible to seek views that the Scottish Government would be forced to consider seriously on their merits and without prejudice? 

For example, you refer to a report by the University of Glamorgan (this may not be the same one but it is on a similar theme by the same author), in other words by an authority outside the normal range of those consulted by Scottish Government but one relevant to this issue as the paper is published within Building Services Engineering Research & Technology. 

Seeking views in support of the petition only from sources that the Government inherently rejects as untrustworthy is unfair to the petitioners. I would urge you to seek views from sources that are not associated with the tobacco industry as outlined above.

The clerk's note claims in a note to paragraph 19 that they have 'not been able to access' the research from the University of Glamorgan on the efficacy of ventilation, even though we supplied it to the Public Petitions Committee on disc. It seems they will do anything rather than ask us for information! – even admit that the Scottish Parliamentary Information Centre (SPICe) researchers can't find something.

The Public Petitions Committee meets at 10 am, Committee Room 1.

Professor in Public Health claims Dutch government swayed by tobacco lobby

Thousands of licensees united to campaign against the smoking ban in the Netherlands, which was never fully enforced before recently being scrapped for bars without employees. The change to the law was made by the incoming Coalition government in the Netherlands, and endowed Professor Marc Willemsen blames the tobacco interests of the Defence Minister for the policy change. Over twelve hundred publicans voice their opposition to the ban in campaigns, and yet the tobacco industry's influence on a single cabinet minister over-rides all other considerations.

To Professor Willemsen, Minister Hillen's presence on the Cabinet as a lobbyist tobacco undermines Dutch compliance with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is meant to protect health policy from tobacco industry influence. Or, perhaps, to ensure that anybody with any (alleged) interest in tobacco, however peripheral, is excluded from discussions of tobacco policy. The fact is that no lobbying interest should dictate government policy, and while it might not be unreasonable to have laws or guidelines on lobbying, excluding interests from lobbying at all is not reasonable or rational.

Professor Willemsen alleges that 'the tobacco industry has strategic connections in government circles', although it isn't clear that he has evidence of financial interests in tobacco for anyone other than Hillen. No other minister is specified in his blog post. It's arguable whether Mr Hillen's presence on the Cabinet made any difference to the outcome of the Dutch licensees' rebellion. No one asks which Cabinet ministers get freebees from Big Tobacco's rivals in the nicotine market: Big Pharma, or whether such influence is improper.

Professor Willemsen's solution? He 'argues for confrontational campaigns which clearly show the damage smoking causes to the body. He also favours higher duties on tobacco and a less prominent location for tobacco products in supermarkets'. None of which has much relevance to smoking ban policies. As for tobacco in shops, its position behind the counter means that it is out of the reach of pilferers and easily accessible to shop staff. Nothing could be more sensible.

More on the Dutch story here.

Professor Willemsen's recipe for success