After Peter Thorn left Bernard asked me if I were serious. He explained that it has been the practice in the past to discourage anti-smoking speeches by Ministers, and not to print or distribute their speeches if they make them. I asked Bernard if there had ever been a written directive on this. He said that it wouldnt be cricket, and that there was just a gentlemans agreement of the matter.
I instructed Bernard to check that Peter Thorns anti-smoking speeches are printed and distributed, and to make sure that everyone knows. It is particularly important that the Treasury gets to hear of it all soon.
Bernard, of course, had no idea of my plan and he asked me if I thought I could possibly win this fight.
I smiled cheerfully. Some you win, Bernard, and some you lose. This one I shall definitely lose.
Now he was completely baffled. Then why ?
I saved his breath for him. Because when I lose theyll have to give me something in return. If you were the Treasury, which would you rather give up -- one and a half pounds of income tax revenue or four billion pounds of tobacco tax revenue?
He smiled. Id prefer the income tax cut.
I nodded. And that, as you know, is what Ive wanted all along.
His face was full of admiration and respect. So youre using cigarettes to create a sort of smokescreen?
Precisely, I said.
May 11th
Humphrey came to see me this morning. He was very tense. Clearly Bernard has been doing an excellent job of making sure that everyone knows about Dr Thorns new policies.
Prime Minister, he began, I just wondered did you have an interesting chat with Dr Thorn?
Yes. He has proposed the elimination of smoking.
Sir Humphrey laughed derisively. And how, pray, does he intend to achieve this? A campaign of mass hypnosis, perhaps?
I remained calm. I leaned back in my chair and smiled confidently at him. No. By raising taxes on tobacco sky high, and simultaneously prohibiting all cigarette advertising including at the point of sale.
Humphrey chuckled confidently, but said nothing.
Dont you think, I asked, that his position is admirably moral?
He was as superior as only Humphrey can be. Moral perhaps, but extremely silly. No one in their right mind could possibly contemplate such a proposal.
Im contemplating it, I said.
Yes, of course, he replied without a moments hesitation, the patronising smile wiped instantly from his face. Dont misunderstand me, of course its right to contemplate all proposals that come from your government, but no sane man could ever support it.
Im supporting it, I said.
And quite right too, Prime Minister, if I may say so. His footwork is so fast that one might be forgiven for not noticing that he totally reversed his opinion with each sentence he uttered.
I gave him the chance to come over to my side. So youll support it? I asked.
Support it? He was emphatic. I support it wholeheartedly! A splended, novel, romantic, well-meaning, imaginative, do-gooding notion.
As I thought. He is totally against it!
The only problem is, he continued, that there are powerful arguments against such a policy.
And powerful arguments for it, I replied.
Oh, absolutely! But against it, he persisted, there are those who will point out that the tax on tobacco is a major source of revenue to the government.
But there are also those who would point out that tobacco is a major cause of death from a number of killer diseases.
[Cancers of the lung, larynx, mouth, oesophagus, pancreas, bladder and kidney; emphesyma and chronic bronchitis; coronary heart disease; strokes; peri-natal mortality; and smoking in pregnancy carries a higher risk of still birth. Also there were about 10,000 fires per annum, in the 1980s, attributed to smoking, causing about 250 deaths a year Ed.]
Humphrey nodded earnestly. Yes. Indeed. Shocking. If its true. But of course, no definite causal link has ever been proved, has it?
The statistics are unarguable, I said.
He looked amused. Statistics? You can prove anything with statistics.
Even the truth, I remarked.
Ye-es, he acknowledged with some reluctance. But 4 billion revenue per annum is a considerable sum. They would say, he added hastily, for fear of it being thought that he was taking sides in this dispute. They were clearly the Treasury.
I remarked that a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths a year -- minimum -- is a hideous epidemic. He agreed that it was appalling. So I went for the kill. It costs the NHS [National Health Service] a fortune to deal with the victims. So the Treasury would be delighted if we discouraged it.
This was a tactical error. Sir Humphrey swung confidently on to the offensive. Now I think youre wrong there, Prime Minister.
I couldnt see how I could be wrong. Smoking-related diseases, I said, referring to Dr Thorns paper which I had in front of me, cost the NHS 165 million a year.
But Sir Humphrey had been well briefed too, by the Treasury and by their friends in the tobacco lobby. We have gone into that, he replied. Its been shown that, if those extra 100,000 people a year had lived to a ripe old age, they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than they did in medical treatment. So, financially, it is unquestionably better that they continue to die at about the present rate.
I was shocked. Ive been in politics a long time and not much shocks me any more. But his cynicism is truly appalling. [Interestingly, Hacker was shocked by Sir Humphreys cynical desire to encourage smoking, but was not shocked by his own self-declared plan to use the smoking issue merely as a way to force the Treasury into conceding income tax cuts. He had no more intention than Sir Humphrey of following Dr Thorns advice. But he was able to convince himself, temporarily, that he was less hypocritical than his Cabinet Secretary. Of such self-deceptions are great political leaders made. Thus Hacker was able to conduct the argument with Sir Humphrey in moral terms Ed.]
Humphrey, I said, when cholera killed 30,000 people in 1833 we got the Public Health Act. When smog killed 2500 people in 1952 we got the Clean Air Act. When a commercial drug kills fifty or sixty people we get it withdrawn from sale, even if its doing lots of good to many patients. But cigarettes kill 100,000 people a year and what do we get?
Four billion pounds a year, he replied promptly. Plus about 25,000 jobs in the tobacco industry, a flourishing cigarette export business which helps the balance of trade. Also, 250,000 jobs indirectly related to tobacco -- newsagents, packing, transport
I interrupted. These figures are just guesses.
No, he said, they are government statistics. He saw me smile, and hurried continued: That is to say, they are facts.
I couldnt resist it. You mean, your statistics are facts, but my facts are just statistics?
Sir Humphrey decided it was time to tell another little untruth. Look, Im on your side, Prime Minister. Im only giving you arguments you will encounter.
I thanked him, and told him that I was glad to know that I should have support such as his. I hoped that would bring the conversation to a close -- but no! He was determined to give me all the arguments I shall encounter.
It will also be pointed out that the tobacco industry is a great sponsor of sport. They give much innocent pleasure to millions of people, and you would be taking it all away. After all, where would the BBC sports programmes be if the cigarette companies couldnt advertise on them? [This was a slip of the tongue by Appleby. Until the late 1980s the BBC maintained the fiction that it did not screen advertisements. Of course, he must have intended to ask where BBC sports programmes would be if cigarette companies could not sponsor the events that are televised Ed.]
I reiterated that we were discussing over 100,000 deaths each year. Humphrey agreed immediately.
Yes, Prime Minister but in a very overpopulated island. And there arent enough jobs for everyone anyway. The benefits of smoking greatly outweigh the ill-effects: cigarettes pay for one-third of the total cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors.