Politics in the guilt lane

First the Government backed down over minimum pricing for alcohol. Then it retreated on plain packaging for cigarettes. Now ministers have thought twice about a proposed ban on confectionery and fattening foods being displayed at supermarket checkouts – the ''guilt lanes’’ aimed at luring in shoppers as they head to the till. 

The latest volte-face announced last week was a surprise as Anna Soubry, the public health minister, had only recently lambasted retailers, saying that they had a duty to help people make healthy choices on food. 

In response to their critics, ministers argue that this ''light-touch’’ approach is evidence of them challenging the nanny state so beloved of Labour, and encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives and their health. They want people to make healthy choices, but they don’t want to force them. This rather misses the point. The tobacco, sugar, and alcohol industries employ people who are experts in the psychological manipulation of consumers. It’s hardly a level playing field. That’s why tough action on the promotion of alcohol, cigarettes and unhealthy food is needed. 

Take supermarket layouts: they are cynically devised. The reason that sweets are by the checkout is because, after a long shop, tired and frazzled, this is the moment that the average parent is least resistant to their children pestering for sweets. After shopping, people are hungry, their blood sugar is low and they’ve been thinking about food. Their bodies are primed to eat, and as they stand in a queue, what do they see? 

Ministers insist that the reason they’ve decided not to act is because of a lack of data that the proposed measures would have any impact. This is demonstrably untrue. Let’s look at minimum pricing for alcohol: Home Office minister Jeremy Browne said there was not enough ''concrete evidence’’ that the move would reduce the level of problem drinking. 

Well I don’t know who he’s been listening to, but it isn’t the World Health Organisation. The WHO European Action Plan 2012-2020, endorsed by member states, including Britain, in September 2011, argues that a minimum price would reduce harm caused by alcohol. The WHO is very clear why: ''Of all alcohol policy measures, the evidence is strongest for the impact of alcohol prices as an incentive to reduce heavy drinking occasions and regular harmful drinking. 

“The gains are greatest for younger and heavier drinkers and for the wellbeing of people exposed to the heavy drinking of others,” the WHO says in a report. 

The research on the benefits of plain packing of cigarettes is equally compelling: a major review by the Cancer Council of Australia, where the idea was introduced, showed that plain packaging made smokers cut down and think more about quitting. Documents produced by the tobacco industry and released as a result of lawsuits show that it has been preparing for this battle for more than 20 years. 

So why has the Government changed its mind? Doesn’t it point to one conclusion: that the tobacco, alcohol and sugar industries still have the power, and money, to persuade ministers to backtrack? 

Perhaps it is naive to expect the political elite to be independent of big business and to prioritise the nation’s health. But what, to my mind, is unforgivable is the dishonesty. By all means allow businessmen to lobby – but at least be up front about it. Don’t insult our intelligence. Don’t hide behind disingenuous statements about ''lack of evidence’’, or boast of ideologies. 

Those critics who dare to highlight conflicts of interest like this are dismissed as conspiracy theorists. But back in 2010, food and drinks manufacturers were invited by the Department of Health to help draft government policy on obesity, alcohol and diet-related diseases. This caused uproar. Doctors’ concerns were pooh-poohed by the then health secretary, Andrew Lansley, and yet, in the light of recent events, they seem entirely justified. 

It now doesn’t seem quite so mad to suggest that U-turns in public health policy are linked to the unhealthy influence of multinational companies. In the case of cigarette packaging, the tobacco industry funded a coalition of newsagents and retailers to petition the Government to halt their plans. It’s clearly paid off. Is it just a coincidence – as No 10 insists – that Lynton Crosby, the Tories’ chief election strategist, happens to own a consultant agency whose clients include tobacco giant Philip Morris International? 

When this issue was put to David Cameron on The Andrew Marr Show last week, he fudged the answer. But Sheila Gunn, who served as communications chief for John Major’s administration, noted on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme how uncomfortable the PM looked. 

The Department of Health continues to insist that its decisions are taken in our best interests. Well, I’m not at all convinced. 

I don’t care where the new NHS chief comes from 

According to Sir Malcolm Grant, the chairman of NHS England, the much-criticised outgoing boss of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, could be replaced by someone from outside Britain. Head-hunters Odgers Berndtson have been appointed to consider candidates from across the globe. 

Sir Malcolm said he saw an ''opportunity to break from the past and to consider candidates who may not have had any NHS or health-related experience’’. Looking beyond our shores is hardly innovative. If it weren’t for workers from overseas, the health service would collapse. Around 87,000 of the 660,000 nurses in the NHS are from abroad, mainly from the Philippines, Australia, South Africa and India. The percentage is higher for support staff, cleaners and porters. I don’t care where the new head of the NHS comes from. I just want him or her to be good. 

What would Twiggy wear? 

I do love Twiggy. Not only has she managed an incredible, enduring career, she comes across as someone who hasn’t let it all go to her head. 

There’s something refreshing about her honesty. In a recent magazine interview she said that although she hasn’t had plastic surgery yet, she wouldn’t rule it out. She said she’d never have Botox, though, because it made people look like ''munchkins’’. I know what she means. 

I do hope Twigs never has plastic surgery. 

On a shopping trip with my mum last year, we spotted her and had a discreet, admiring gawp. She was so elegant and stylish, with such a warm smile, the lines on her face seemed immaterial. My mum has taken her as her inspiration and applies the WWTW rule: What would Twiggy wear? She was a trendsetter for her generation in the 1960s and now she’s a trailblazer for them in old age, too.

Max Pemberton’s latest book, 'The Doctor Will See You Now’ is published by Hodder./Telegraph