From the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service
May 15
Dear Frank,
We are, of course, agreed that in an ideal world cigarette smoking would be discouraged. And we agree, obviously, that it is our duty to help the Prime Minister achieve his objectives. Nonetheless, we may have to help him understand that we are not in an ideal world and that he might be wise to reappraise not his objectives but his priorities.
He is unfortunately subject to silly pressure groups and fanatics such as the Royal College of Physicians. These fanatics want the Government to have a policy about smoking.
This is wishful thinking, I regret to say. It is not how the world works. Everyone outside government wants government policies. But none of us in government want them including, I venture to suggest, the Prime Minister when he fully understands the risks and the downside.
If you have a policy someone can hold you to it. And although the anti-smoking lobby see the whole matter in terms of black and white, merely preventing death and so forth, we know that the whole issue is much more complex than this.
As in all government, Im sure that you agree that there has to be a balance. For instance the Minister of Health may be anti-smoking, but the Minister for Sport needs the tobacco companies.
It would be easier if the government were a team. But as, in fact, it is a loose confederation of warring tribes, it is up to us to find the common ground.
Comments please.
HA
[The following day a reply was received Ed.]
H M Treasury
Permanent Secretary
May 16
Dear Humphrey,
The Minister for Health wishes the smoking problem dealt with by high taxation. The Chancellor, however, will not let me raise taxes too high -- he is concerned about his own popularity with the electorate.
I must agree with him, for other reasons. The inflationary effect of such a high rise in cigarette taxes would be considerable.
Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there is a moral principle involved. And we at the Treasury fully understand and applaud the PMs concerns. We earnestly believe in the moral principle.
But when four billion pounds of revenue is at stake I think that we have to consider very seriously how far we are entitled to indulge ourselves in the rather selfish luxury of pursuing moral principles.
As you recall, I have been worried about a suggested income tax cut of one and a half billion, and that was in a proposal that may not now happen. A cut of four billion would be a catastrophe!
I suggest we get Noels opinion and advice. I have copied these letters to him.
Frank
[The copies of the correspondence were sent to the DHSS [Department of Health and Social Security] for the comments of Sir Noel Whittington, the Permanent Secretary. Two days later this letter was sent to Sir Frank, with a copy to Sir Humphrey Ed.]
Department of Health and Social Security
May 18th
Dear Frank,
There are several worrying implications raised by this potential cigarette tax increase:
1. It is not just a matter of revenue loss. There is also the question of scrutiny. If we took on the tobacco companies they would put a host of people on to scrutinising everything we do. They would point out, publicly, any errors of facts, inconsistencies of argument, inaccurate or misleading published figures, and so forth. Of course, it is said that our work should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Quite right too! Parliamentary scrutiny and press scrutiny are to be applauded. But not professional scrutiny, which could take up far too much government time. It is therefore not in the public interest to provoke it.
2. The tobacco companies might attempt to embarrass us by threatening to drag up all the times we have accepted invitations to lunches and free tickets at Wimbledon, Glyndebourne, etc.
3. Where would the arts be without tobacco sponsorship? They would be at the mercy of the Arts Council!
4. Above all, and here I speak for the DHSS specifically, we must remind the PM that there is a moral issue here: Government must be impartial. It is not proper for us to take sides as between health and cigarettes. This is especially true in the DHSS, which is the Department of Health and Social Security. We have a dual responsibility. What will happen, if we lose the tobacco revenues, to the extra 100,000 people per year who would be alive and drawing pensions?
It is clear that we must, as always, maintain a balance. We want a healthy nation, but we also need a healthy tobacco industry.
We have a duty to be even-handed: tobacco sponsorship may encourage people to smoke, but sponsored sport encourages them to take exercise.
In my view, the DHSS may already go too far on this anti-smoking matter. We already devote one third of an Assistant Secretarys time and half a Principals time to reducing smoking. Surely this is enough in a free society.
In summation I make two suggestions:
1) that Humphrey Appleby arranges for the PM to meet some of the tobacco people. He would then see what jolly good chaps they are, and how genuinely concerned about health risks. In my view, there cannot be anything seriously wrong with BTG, for instance: they have an ex-Permanent Secretary on their Board. And it has been suggested that they could well need another, in the fullness of time. [This suggests that hints had been dropped to Sir Noel himself Ed.]
2) I think we might raise some questions about our junior Minister, Dr Peter Thorn. He is a highly intelligent, very imaginative Minister. But he is inexperienced, and not at all even-handed. Unfortunately, he comes to his post with severe bias: he is a doctor and, as such, he is unable to take the broader view. His sole point is keeping people alive. Seeing patients die must have, regrettably, distorted his judgement. It is understandable, of course, but emotional responses are a great handicap to cool decision-making.
I look forward to hearing your conclusions. I think it is vital that Sir Humphrey takes some immediate action.
Noel
[Sir Humphrey considered this correspondence very carefully, and made the following note in his private diary Ed.]
Thursday 18 May
I shall be meeting the PM after the weekend, and must have a strategy on this tobacco matter.
I believe that the key lies in Noels comment that we are a free society. Therefore people should be free to make their own decisions. Government should not be a nursemaid. We do not want the Nanny State.
The only drawback to this view is that it is also an argument for legalizing the sale of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, arsenic and gelignite.
My strategy, therefore, is as follows: When Hacker was Minister for Administrative Affairs he accompanied me not only to Glyndebourne as the guest of the BTG, but also Wimbledon, Lords, the opera and the ballet.
At The Sleeping Beauty one might have thought he was auditioning for the title role. He has no interest at all in the arts, which is why using sponsorship to save the arts from the Arts Council is likely to be an unproductive line of argument. At the ballet he kept quiet, apart from his snoring. When Act IV of the Wagner started at the Garden he asked why they were playing extra time. And he referred to Act V as injury time. A total philistine.
But I digress. It seems that he is implicated in receiving tobacco hospitality worth hundreds of pounds, if not thousands, from the BTG. If this were to leak, shocking though a leak might be, it could be a grave embarrassment for him.
[Sir Humphrey overestimated his threat. At the meeting four days later hacker was able to deal with it with an ease that surprised the Cabinet Secretary Ed.]
SIR BERNARD WOOLLEY RECALLS [in conversation with the Editors]: