Friday, 31 January 2014

No matter who you vote for, public health always gets in

There's always a loophole (via Nonjob)

Cynical old men in pubs like to say of politics that "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in." Tautologically true though this is, it is equally true to say that the unelected 'public health' lobby is the permanent government of Britain. No matter which government gets in and no matter how much the government promises to leave people alone the demagogues of 'public health' always get their way.

Banning smoking in cars is a classic example. The elected government is against it, the deputy prime minister is against it, it's been rejected in the House of Commons and yet it is on the brink of becoming law thanks to the parliamentary opposition persuading unelected lords to tack it on to a different piece of legislation.

Dick Puddlecote has written a must-read post about the implications of the ban on smoking in your own car if under-18s are in it. As he says, it not only leaves the door wide open for bans on smoking in the home, but it also makes the police responsible for enforcing nanny state regulations for the first time in our history.

It's senseless to argue with people who say that this legislation isn't the thin end of the wedge. In this blog post's four year history, I have given enough examples of the slippery slope for all but the most willfully ignorant to see how it works. This week, it was grimly amusing to hear people denying that the slippery slope exists while citing the seat belt legislation as a precedent for banning smoking in cars. If they knew their history, they would know that their proposal was just the kind of thing MPs had in mind when they warned they warned of mission creep during the parliamentary debate on mandatory seat belts in 1979.

Those MPs were ignored in 1979, but they have ultimately been shown to have been right. At a time when campaigners claim that 'sugar is the new tobacco' and the head of the WHO rants about 'Big Soda', the time has come to stop arguing with people who pretend that precedents do not have predictable consequences which follow from the precedent being followed to its logical end. Sure enough, it took only a matter of hours before the question of extending the ban to e-cigarettes surfaced.

When I was at University, I remember a politics lecturer mentioning that the parliamentary debate on seat belts was one of the few examples of John Stuart Mill's harm principle being seriously discussed in the House of Commons. Rightly so, since it was one of the first times in recent history (along with the motorcycle helmet law) that the government legislated to save people from themselves. The rest is history. Since then we have seen a raft of increasingly intrusive paternalist laws introduced 'for our own good', with the seat belt legislation cited as a precedent. This was all predicted in 1979. Ivan Lawrence MP, for example, said...

Since I have been in the House I have seen the cogent arguments and the telling pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House persuading and succeeding in persuading the House that it is only a very little piece more of liberty that we are withdrawing and for such great benefits and advantages. As a result we have far fewer of our freedoms now than was ever dreamed possible a few years ago. In the end we shall find that our liberties have all but disappeared. It might be possible to save more lives in Britain by this measure—and by countless other measures. But I do not see the virtue in saving more lives by legislation which will produce in the end a Britain where nobody wants to live.

Parliamentary debates like this are a thing of the past. Indeed, parliamentary debates about smoking will soon be a thing of the past if the Children and Families Bill goes through as it is. The real story of the week is not the ban on smoking in private cars, but the enabling act which has also been tacked onto the Bill. This enabling act allows any health secretary to do almost anything they like regarding tobacco without having to go to the trouble of having a debate and a vote.

This is the relevant part of the Lords' amendment...

Insert the following new Clause—

“Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products

(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (6) or (8) if the Secretary of State considers that the regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may in particular impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations relating to—

(a) the markings on the retail packaging of tobacco products (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos);

(b) the appearance of such packaging;

(c) the materials used for such packaging;

(d) the texture of such packaging;

(e) the size of such packaging;

(f) the shape of such packaging;

(g) the means by which such packaging is opened;

(h) any other features of the retail packaging of tobacco products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of tobacco product;

(i) the number of individual tobacco products contained in an individual packet;

(j) the quantity of a tobacco product contained in an individual packet.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision imposing prohibitions, requirements or limitations relating to—

(a) the markings on tobacco products (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos);

(b) the appearance of such products;

(c) the size of such products;

(d) the shape of such products;

(e) the flavour of such products;

(f) any other features of tobacco products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of tobacco product.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) create offences which may be committed by persons who produce or supply tobacco products the retail packaging of which breaches prohibitions, requirements or limitations imposed by regulations under subsection (6)

This basically gives carte blanche to any health secretary to bring in plain packaging and create any number of new tobacco crimes at the drop of the hat. Knowing how quickly politicians go native when they start working at the Department of Health, this is a crank's charter and ASH knows it. As far as they are concerned, the amendment makes plain packaging a done deal.

Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said:

“This is a great win for tobacco control and public health. We congratulate parliamentarians from all Parties and the crossbenches in the House of Lords and all those supporters, who worked so hard to make standardised tobacco packaging a reality. Everyone who cares about protecting the health of children and about reducing the toll of death and disease caused by smoking should welcome the outcome of today’s vote. We are absolutely delighted.”

And so they should be. They lost the argument, they lost the public consultation and they lost the political battle in the elected chamber, but they found a way of never having to go through the democratic process again. If this law goes through, all they will need to do in the future is flatter whichever inexperienced politician is trying to make a name for themselves as Minister for Public Health and they will be able to get away with murder. This is more than they could ever have hoped for and the media hasn't even noticed.


For more commentary on the extension of the smoking ban, see...

Charlotte Gore, Guardian, A ban on smoking in cars with children is an authoritarian step too far

Stephen Glover, Daily Mail, 'If we let the Nanny State hound parents who smoke in cars, I dread to think who it'll pick on next'

Longrider, An authoritarian step too far

And you can hear me talking about it on Five Live here (starts at 8.25).

5 comments:

nisakiman said...


“This is a great win for tobacco control and public health. We congratulate parliamentarians from all Parties and the crossbenches in the House of Lords and all those supporters, who worked so hard to make standardised tobacco packaging a reality. Everyone who cares about protecting the health of children and about reducing the toll of death and disease caused by smoking should welcome the outcome of today’s vote. We are absolutely delighted.”


I realise I'm becoming increasingly repetitive here, but WHO THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THEY ARE? What on earth do they think gives them the right to dictate what I can and cannot buy, and how my cigarettes are packaged, flavoured or sized?

All too often I find myself gaping wordlessly at the sheer effrontery of these charlatans; I seethe with red-hot anger at their gall.

Commenters are often chastised for making comparisons between the likes of Arnott et al and the Nazis, but the similarities of their modus operandi and their total disregard of the opinions or desires of those who they persecute makes the comparison a valid one.

Jean Granville said...

Don't you have any kind of constitutional safeguard in the UK? Even in France, unelected people couldn't possibly pass any law, and authorizing the executive to legislate on behalf of the parliament is possible but requires a proper ratification by the parliament afterwards.
I seem to recall an English king who got beheaded after trying to go around the parliament, and at least he was a king, which meant something at the time.

I agree completely that bad precedents are created regarding liberty, but I also see a very problematic constitutional precedent - unless it's not the first time, of course.

Junican said...

It's ye olde confidence trick again, JG. Give the impression that this vote mean something and pretend that whatever is is a done deal. But that is far from so. Note what Earl Howe (for the coalition government said in his summing up:
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked about the timetable for the regulations. I emphasise here that I do not want to pre-empt any decision that the Government may make on whether to proceed with standardised tobacco packaging, and I know that the noble Baroness understands that; but equally for that reason, it would be premature to set out a detailed timetable. What I can confirm is that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure an appropriate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. She may like to be aware that before being laid in Parliament, any draft regulation that seeks to regulate tobacco packaging would need to be notified to the European Commission and member states. There is a process that goes with that, which would mean that we would not be able to lay regulations instantly after taking a positive decision. I am happy, however, to reiterate the Government’s commitment to make a decision quickly when we receive Sir Cyril Chantler’s independent report. Tabling these amendments is, I hope, evidence of our commitment to act without delay if we decide to go ahead. But the Government, as I am sure she appreciates, must rightly consider the wider issues raised by this policy, and I can assure her that we will do so.
Nothing has actually changed, nor will it until the Commons votes.
But once again, we see the panic in tobacco control. They just want legislation and they want it now.

Miles Dolphin said...

I just bought myself a new plastic box for the few cigs I now smoke.
F them and their packaging - plain or polka-dotted - mine will always be covered in Sushi! http://www.smoke-screenz.com/
I find it extremely irritating that the laws can be changed like this, when all the consultations and evidence show no definite advantage to doing so.

Manuel Azana said...

I just want to say how much I like this post. It entertained me a great deal, and has left me with a lasting sense of satisfaction.

Thank you for brightening my day.

Ian Willmore