Consultation Bias

On 24^th November 2005 a report on the consultation was published and it is difficult to assess exactly who responded but the attitudes chart shows only 10% against the proposals. It also shows that out of 57000 responses 50,500 were from individuals and over 4,000 from people running licensed properties. The licensees made up 80% of the antis. -----80% of the 5689 leaves only 1138 or 2% of individuals against the proposals. No mention is made of individuals responding from the pro-smoking group FOREST but it must be assumed that a large proportion of the 1138 responses were generated by the group This results in an astoundingly low figure of submissions from individual smokers.

Further clarification comes from the mention of many responses in the form of pro-forma letters or emails.

Cancer Research UK presented a petition with 17,500 signatures and 7,200 emails. Fresh- Smokefree North East and ASH North West had a postcard campaign that added another 2,800 to give a total from the main sources of 27,500 pro responses. It is hard to imagine that other organised groups such as ASH throughout the rest of the country failed to respond in great numbers. As mentioned previously ASH were sufficiently active to provide almost half the responses to a previous consultation
See the list of the organisations which were sent a copy of the consultation at the bottom of this link
(Remember ASH was established in 1971 by the Royal College of Physicians AND ASH receives funds for projects undertaken to further the objectives of the organisation. Currently, funds are provided by the British Heart Foundation (BHF), Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health.) http://www.ash.org.uk/html/about/Strategic%20Plan%202005-08.doc . Cancer Research UK and ASH commissioned Polls that have since proved seriously wide of the mark and additional evidence in Vol 1 shows they also sponsored research by LACORS. All these groups provided very acceptable evidence to the Committee.

There is little that indicates the consultation document reached much further than health authorities, anti-smoking lobby groups, tobacco manufacturers or the licensing trade. How was the consultation promoted to ensure that it truly satisfied the Code of Practice?

THE CONSULTATION IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.

REMEMBER -The Cabinet Office code of practice demands -  Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

The Bill is a Health Bill promoted from policy coming from the ‘guardians of our health’, the Department of Health.  Their job is to promote Health and to do this a large network of action groups have been set up and are supported by the Department and Health Authorities. The DoH are charged with promoting their opinions but sceptics might suggest this could be to the expense of detached and objective proposals and to factors outside their area of expertise.

An interesting exercise is to look at some of the results of the consultation that are downloadable from http://www.publications.parliament.uk .

Further thoughts of collusion or bias might be apparent when considering the finacing of health groups. There must be lots of available information about this but just for starters
SECTION 64 GRANTS 2004/5
ASH - £168,000 --- BH Foundation - £32,000 --- Cancer Research UK - £72,000 --- Roy Castle L C - £44,000