Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

About ASH

1. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a campaigning health charity set up in 1971 by the Royal College of Physicians to work towards eliminating the harm caused by tobacco. ASH is transparent about its activities and its funding which for its campaigning work comes from Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation. ASH works collaboratively with its funders and other health and welfare organisations towards the goal of improving public health by reducing tobacco consumption.

Our Position

2. ASH supports the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists. We have a particular concern because of the behaviour of the tobacco industry over many years in lobbying government, often covertly, against the introduction of measures related to tobacco regulation.

3. The UK has been a party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control1since 2005, and as such has clear legal obligations with respect to tobacco lobbying set out in Article 5.3: “In setting and implementing their 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.” The Government can only live up to these obligations if tobacco industry lobbying is transparent, but on many occasions that is not the case.

4. A good example of such covert lobbying is that which took place arguing for the repeal of the legislation to put tobacco displays out of sight. After the Coalition Government took office, lobbyists Hume Brophy contacted MPs supposedly on behalf of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents campaigning for the repeal of the display legislation. The campaign purported to be on behalf of small retailers, but was covertly bankrolled by the tobacco industry, which stood to gain most from the repeal of the legislation.2 This was only revealed when British American Tobacco (BAT) finally came clean under questioning by the Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP at its AGM.3

5. The lobbying firm Hume Brophy which acted on behalf of the NFRN subsequently admitted there should have been transparency and wrote to the APPG to say that there should be full disclosure of tobacco funding in all future campaigns of this nature and [I] can assure you that if Hume Brophy ever works in this sector again that this will be a strict precondition for our involvement . However, this is shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Although ASH has written to MPs to inform them that this campaign was tobacco industry sponsored, many MPs are still not aware that the NFRN campaign was funded and fuelled by the tobacco industry.

6. We are also concerned about the use of other types of organisation such as Think Tanks to lobby government, which don t reveal where their funding comes from. A good example of this is the Adam Smith Institute which published a report arguing that plain packaging of tobacco products would have no public health benefit on Monday 20 February 2012. On the Adam Smith Institute website it does not state anywhere who the organisation’s funders are, only that “To protect our independence, the Adam Smith Institute accepts no government funding. Most of our funding comes from private individuals who believe in liberty and want to see a freer world; the rest comes from various foundations, businesses and the sales of our books.”4 Yet the tobacco industry documents, made public as a result of litigation in the US reveal a longstanding track record of receiving funding from the tobacco industry. In response to direct questioning from ASH the author of the report, Christopher Snowdon had to admit on the Today programme that the organisation continues to receive funding from the tobacco industry.

Committee’s Questions

Q1. Does the Government’s consultation paper represent a balanced approach to the idea of a statutory register?

Does the paper present the evidence in a balanced way?

Are you confident that the issues covered are ones on which the Government has an open mind?

Is the Government clear wherever it has a preference for a particular option, and is this preference in each case a reasonable one?

7. We are very concerned that the Government’s consultation paper does not represent a balanced approach to the idea of a statutory register. The issues are framed very narrowly which argues against government having an open mind on the issues. The Government’s preference is clearly for a register containing minimal information about lobbying activities and one that would only apply to a minority of lobbyists, those working for agencies and not for example those working in-house or for other types of organization such as Think Tanks . At the moment under the Government’s plans tobacco companies would not be required to disclose their lobbying activities. We believe that it is essential that the register reveals who is lobbying whom in government and on what specific issues.

2. Does the consultation paper contain the right questions?

Is each of the questions asked in a balanced way?

Are there any important questions that are not asked?

8. The consultation paper questions make no reference to requiring lobbyists to disclose whom they are trying to lobby or what they are trying to influence. Both of these are essential if the register is to be effective and lobbying to be made transparent, yet neither has been put forward as an option.

3. Which lobbying contacts are of greatest legitimate public interest?

Does the consultation paper envisage the capture of appropriate information about these contacts, as opposed to other kinds of contact?

9. There are many lobbying contacts of legitimate public interest but those of greatest concern to ASH relate to the tobacco industry, which because it is recognized that, “There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.” (see WHO FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines).5The UK is a party to the WHO FCTC and has signed up to guidelines on Article 5.3 which recommend that Parties:

(1)Raise awareness about the addictive and harmful nature of tobacco products and about tobacco industry interference with Parties tobacco control policies.

(2)Establish measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry and ensure the transparency of those interactions that occur.

(3)Reject partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements with the tobacco industry.

(4)Avoid conflicts of interest for government officials and employees.

(5)Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.

(6)Denormalize and, to the extent possible, regulate activities described as “socially responsible” by the tobacco industry, including but not limited to activities described as “corporate social responsibility”.

(7)Do not give preferential treatment to the tobacco industry.

10. In order to ensure that the Government can live up to its obligations tobacco industry lobbying should be subject to the most stringent requirements to ensure that all lobbying by the industry and its front groups is transparent.

4. How should the Government deal in policy and practice with how it might be lobbied on the issue of a statutory register of lobbyists?

How open should the Government be about such lobbying contacts?

11. As a matter of principle the Government must publish all information about any lobbying on the issue of a statutory register of lobbyists.

5. How should the Government analyse the consultation responses, and seek to balance the weight of opposing argument?

12. All those responding to the consultation must be required to make clear any links they have with the tobacco industry, both financial and non-financial.

6. Do you have any comments on how any proposals emerging from the consultation should be implemented?

13. The lobbying register must be implemented without further delay and should be comprehensive, statutory and independent with substantive penalties for non-compliance.

February 2012