1

25 July 2014

This submission has been prepared by:

Mark Quinlan
Policy Team
UKIP
Moss House
15-16 Brooks Mews
London W1K 4DS

Tel: 020 7408 1300
E-mail: mark.quinlan@ukip.org





































2

Memorandum by UKIP

INTRODUCTION

UKIP welcomes the opportunity to respond to the second consultation on the
introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products.

SUMMARY

UKIP is recommending:

That Her Majestys Government does not proceed with its plan to
implement plain packaging of cigarettes, as there is no empirical evidence in the
public domain that suggests that doing so would positively impact public health
outcomes. This measure is not evidence-based and for that reason alone, will fail.

Added to which, the obvious consequences, legal challenges and costs
have not been considered by Her Majestys Government.

UKIP opposes Her Majestys Governments intention to introduce plain
packaging of tobacco products, as it infringes the principle of personal choice. Not
that the government should need reminding, thats how free societies work. Free
people make free choices.



























3

RESPONSES IN FULL

1. It is an undeniably true that tobacco products carry risks to health and that the
highly addictive nature of nicotine is a major obstacle to reducing smoking
prevalence. Although UK smoking rates have halved since the main health risks
were first identified and reported in the 1950s, approximately ten million people in the
UK smoke just over one in five of the adult population.
1
UKIP fully supports
measures, such as educational programmes, which help to prevent children from
taking up smoking.

2. It should be noted that the public health community and its quangocracy are
unanimous in the belief that evidence supporting the introduction of plain packaging
of tobacco products is conclusive. Indeed, the Association of Directors of Public
Health in their submission to this consultation have stated: ADPH strongly believes
that there is extensive evidence to support the case for immediate action by
Government on standardised packaging for tobacco products
2
On 3 April 2014,
shadow health secretary Luciana Berger stated: There is an overwhelming body of
evidence in favour of standardised packaging and there can be no excuse for further
delay.
3


3. The Department of Health has stated that it requires strong and convincing
evidence showing the health benefits
4
of plain packaging, principally that plain
packaging would improve public health by reducing the use of tobacco
5
and in
particular deter young people from starting to smoke.
6
The Department has
repeatedly stated that no such evidence exists, and the Department of Health-
commissioned Stirling Review of the evidence for plain packaging established
exactly this point.

4. However, to describe the current evidence base supporting the case for plain
packaging as modest, would be an understatement. Sir Cyril Chantlers April 2014
review examined the same theoretical studies and surveys that were already in the
public domain, yet conveniently arrived at a different conclusion to the governments
own 2013 findings. And let us be clear, Sir Cyrils review produced no new evidence
supporting the theory that the plain packaging of tobacco works.
7


5. The carefully qualified conclusion of Sir Cyrils report was: there is
sufficient evidence derived from independent sources that the introduction of

1
Action on Smoking and Health http://ash.org.uk/information/facts-and-stats/fact-sheets
2
http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ADPH-submission-to-Chantler-Review-on-
Standardised-Packaging-of-Tobacco.pdf
3
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/81576858315/reponse-to-government-statement-on-the-standardised
4
Andy Burnham. Letter to Tessa Jowell, 9 November 2009 http://www.tessajowell.net/
uploads/22c61588-4799-bcf4-f1f7-c20ab4661d68.pdf
5
Department of Health, Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products, 16 April 2012 (the
Consultation Document), paragraph 1.1: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-
of-tobacco-products
6
Department of Health, Impact Assessment number 3080, Standardised packaging for tobacco products, 5
March 2012 (the Impact Assessment), paragraph 19: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/
standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products
7
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035-TSO-2901853-Chantler-Review-ACCESSIBLE.PDF
4

standardised packaging as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control
measures would be very likely over time to contribute to a modest but important
reduction in smoking prevalence especially in children and young adults. Hardly a
ringing endorsement.

6. By contrast, on 3 April 2014, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Public Health Jane Ellison, MP told the House of Commons: Mr Speaker, Sir Cyrils
report makes a compelling case that if standardised packaging were introduced it
would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health and that these health
benefits would include health benefits for children.
8
Clearly Sir Cyrils report made
no such claim, but by such means, does the truth operate independently from the
facts.

7. However, there is a body of evidence in the public domain which strongly
suggests that Sir Cyrils judgement may have been mistaken. On 1 December 2012,
Australia became the worlds first country to introduce standardised packaging for
tobacco products and in consequence, a picture has emerged, radically different to
the one being espoused by the public health community.

8. In 2013, sales of cigarettes in Australia rose by 0.3 per cent. A study by the
accounting firm KPMG reported a 154 per cent rise in the sale of illicit, branded
cigarettes.
9
Official Australian government figures also show that the number of
seizures of illicit tobacco rose by 60 per cent between 2011/12 and 2012/13, with
183 tonnes of tobacco and 200 million cigarettes intercepted.
10


9. This data demonstrates that plain packaging has not had a positive effect on
public health and if anything, has distorted the cigarette market, leading to
unintended outcomes, such as smokers buying more cigarettes from the lowest
market segment and, industry data suggests, pushing up sales and frustrating health
policies.
11


10. KPMGs study Illicit Tobacco in Australia (2013) indicates there has been a
growth in the consumption of illicit tobacco in Australia. As a proportion of total
consumption, this represents an increase from 11.8% in 2012 to 13.3%.
12
In
consequence, the Australian Government now has to ponder the wider implications
of its decision, given the increase in the illicit tobacco market and A$1billion in lost
taxes.

11. Sir Cyril stated in his review: I am not convinced by the tobacco industrys
argument that standardised packaging would increase the illicit market, especially in
counterfeit cigarettes.
13
Unfortunately for Sir Cyril, his review was the victim of poor

8
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chantler-report-on-standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products
9
http://www.ecta.org/IMG/pdf/kpmg_report_on_illicit_trade_australia_4_nov_2013.pdf
10
Australian Government (2013) Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2012-13
11
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/plain-wrong-here-are-the-facts-cheap-smokes-are-
on-the-rise-since-plain-packaging/story-fn59nokw-1226958089150?nk=363816a835ccf3998fb27cbc5ad55ed5
12
https://www.imperial-
tobacco.com/assets/files/cms/KPMG_FY2013_Illicit_Trade_Report___FINAL___11_April_2014.pdf
13
P6, Standardised packaging of tobacco: Report of the independent review undertaken by Sir Cyril Chantler.
5

timing. Had he waited a while, he would have had access to the above evidence
from the Australian experiment, which directly contradicts his reports conclusions.

12. The illicit trade in tobacco products currently costs the UK up to 3.1 billion a
year in lost revenue. Plain packaging will worsen this, creating new opportunities for
illicit traders to provide counterfeit products (plain or branded) and other illicit
tobacco products. Plain packs will be cheaper and easier to fake than branded ones,
and plain packaging will also make it more difficult to identify counterfeit product.
14


13. The Dept of Healths 2012 Impact Assessment on plain packaging (which was
given an amber rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee), stated: For tobacco
control policies to be justified, the impact on smoking behaviour and the consequent
improvement in health need to be sufficiently large to justify the related costs and A
policy to introduce standardised tobacco packaging would need to be justified and be
based on expected benefits over and above existing tobacco control measures. The
present course of action has conveniently ignored these stipulations.
15


14. It should also be noted that internationally, there is significant opposition to
plain packaging, due to its undermining of intellectual property rights. Several
countries have already filed complaints with the World Trade Organisation against
Australia, with a further 35 countries prepared to join the dispute as third parties.
These legal challenges remain unresolved. It has been calculated that the British
government could be liable for compensation claims estimated to amount to as much
as 5 billion.

15. Were plain packaging to be introduced (despite the absence of any empirical
evidence supporting such a course of action), a precedent for plain packaging of a
whole range of consumer products would have been established, the consequences
of which, have not been considered by Her Majestys Government.

16. It should also be noted that the Chantler review was limited to the possible
effects of plain packaging on smoking prevalence and that it did not examine, or
consider the effects of introducing plain packaging on a whole range of potential
problems, such as: intellectual property rights, counterfeiting, smuggling, tax
evasion, or trade disputes. Not having considered any of those issues, it should be
stated that policy formulation, without reviewing economic and social costs is at best,
reckless.

17. In order to maintain proper control over our lives, the ever-watchful nanny
state is obsessed with watching and monitoring us. It never sleeps, because it must
constantly find new bastions to conquer. Once the plain packaging of tobacco has
been implemented, then alcohol, fast food and sugary drinks will receive the same
treatment in due course, just as surely as night follows day.


14

http://www.jti.co.jp/corporate/enterprise/tobacco/import_opinion/packaging_consultation/JTI_response.pdf
15
Amber rated IAs are considered to be fit for purpose on the condition that changes are made to the IA to
respond to the concerns raised in the opinion. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/green-and-amber-
rated-impact-assessment-opinions
6

18. The proposed introduction of plain packaging for tobacco may be taken as a
further example of the relentless interference of the state in the private lives of the
British People. As recently as 1 July 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister stated: For too
long new laws have taken away your freedom, interfered in everyday life and made it
difficult for businesses to get on
16
- How soon those who acquire power change
their tune. In summary, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this further
consultation is merely a fig-leaf, to support a decision that Her Majestys Government
has already taken and to that extent, may well be considered a nugatory exercise.

16
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/your-freedom--6