No rain in Spain (warmly recommended)

Just back from a week in Spain.

We stayed at Ikos, a resort near Malaga in Andalusia, although the nearest town was Estepona, which we visited on Wednesday.

The old town (above) was interesting. Over the last two decades there has been a huge project to revitalise what was apparently quite a run down area.

From what we saw the local authorities have done a great job, demonstrating that conservation and modernisation are not mutually exclusive.

Other than visiting Estepona, however, we stayed within the resort because the one place we really wanted to visit - Granada - was too far unless we stayed overnight.

This was our third holiday at an Ikos resort, the two previous ones having been at Dassia in Corfu (which I wrote about here and here).

Ikos is a Greek company but most of the guests in Corfu and Spain have been British. There were a few Germans and one or two Americans, and on Thursday we spoke to an elderly, Flemish-speaking couple from Belgium.

Apparently, apart from a day trip to Hastings, they had never been anywhere outside Belgium until their first Ikos holiday a few years ago.

This was their third trip to Ikos Andalusia (it only opened in 2021) and they have two more booked for later this year.

But Andalusia isn’t their favourite destination. That’s Ikos Aria on the Greek island of Kos, but it’s also the smallest which may explain why it’s harder to book.

Anyway, a clue to their many recent visits may be the fact that the husband revealed that his wife isn’t well, although she played this down.

He added that she shouldn’t be drinking but his wife just laughed and we all clinked glasses. (We were on adjacent tables having lunch.)

Finally, since our last visit to Ikos Dassia in Corfu in 2021, the company has ditched its fleet of Minis in favour of Model 3 Teslas.

Guests are offered the complimentary use of a car for one day so I can see the appeal of the deal to Tesla - thousands of potential customers being given what is, in effect, an extended test drive.

Unfortunately, on the day we had pre-booked our courtesy car, I had to do some unforeseen work (it always happens!), so I still haven’t driven a Tesla, or any other electric vehicle.

The good news is that fuel prices are coming down so I will stick with my diesel SUV for the foreseeable.

PS. The week before we arrived it rained heavily, apparently. Fortunately, apart from the occasional overcast sky, we enjoyed bright sunshine and an average daytime temperature of 24 or 25 degrees.

Warmly recommended.

ASH and Labour singing from the same hymn sheet

The Government has announced additional measures to crack down on children vaping.

No problem with that but what caught my attention was the remarkable similarity between the statements issued by Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting, and the CEO of ASH, Deborah Arnott.

According to Streeting, “This new announcement is a baby step when we need urgent action now.”

Echoing his words, Arnott said the proposals were “baby steps not the tough action that’s needed”.

Coincidence, or a sign of things to come?

Question time

The CEO of Philip Morris International popped up in London yesterday.

The subject of Jacek Olczak’s breakfast briefing in Westminster was ‘the impact of inaction when it comes to addressing smoking rates worldwide’.

The exact location was the new and rather splendid UnHerd Club, a short stroll from Parliament Square and the Palace of Westminster.

I stumbled upon it last month because it’s almost directly opposite Policy Exchange where public health minister Neil O’Brien unveiled the Government’s new tobacco control policies.

Guests at the UnHerd Club yesterday included journalists from the Daily Mail and Financial Times, but I know that only because the individuals concerned were tweeting from the event.

(Photos suggested there were 15-20 people in the room.)

Forest wasn’t invited, sadly, so I had to follow Olczak’s somewhat predictable comments on Twitter.

However, after posting a series of tweets (ten in total over 15 minutes), the @InsidePMI Twitter account suddenly went quiet, which was odd because the last tweet finished with this invitation:

We're open for your questions, ask below ⬇️

I didn’t need a second invitation so I quickly sent the following:

Tobacco harm reduction is an honourable goal and giving consumers a choice of reduced risks products is the right thing to do, but why won’t you also stand up for adults who know the health risks yet enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit? Do their rights no longer matter to you?

That was at 9:28 yesterday and 24 hours later we’re still waiting for a response.

It’s not as if they were overwhelmed with questions on Twitter either. Apart from ours, there was just one other, posted at 20:09 last night.

So why invite questions and then not answer or even acknowledge a perfectly reasonable query? Seriously, why bother?

Update: I’ve just discovered that ‘Impact of Inaction’ was also a LinkedIn online event. (Wish I’d known.)

Lots of supportive comments from around the world (albeit many of the ‘Hi all’ variety) but only two or three actual questions, including:

Can you just stop selling cigarettes?

Answer:

Discontinuing cigarette sales without addressing the demand for cigarettes would not put an end to smoking. It simply would result in competitors and the illicit trade filling the market space. We are fully committed to doing all we can to ensure that #smokefree products that are scientifically substantiated to be less harmful replace cigarettes as soon as possible.

And:

What is the approach or actions PMI is taking VS the countries that deny the benefit of RRP products?

Answer:

Great question, Farid. Our responsibility is to deliver a #smokefree future by investing in better alternatives for adults who would otherwise continue smoking. But we are asking regulators around the world to take urgent action to explore how best to reduce smoking rates faster. A successful strategy should focus on the scientific data and enable access to and accurate information about smoke-free alternatives. Only a more open-minded approach which complements existing tobacco control measures with tobacco harm reduction can accelerate an end to cigarettes.

I won’t hold my breath but perhaps they could now answer my question.

Update: You can read PMI’s press release here:

”Cigarettes belong in museums,” says Philip Morris International CEO in speech in London (Business Wire)

Peer review

Further to my previous post, the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill continued its tortuous path through Parliament yesterday.

It was the 14th and final day of the committee stage in the House of Lords and the fact that the three smoking-related amendments were numbered 458, 459, and 461 indicates just how many amendments there were in total.

Some, in my view, have little to do with the main purpose of the Bill but have been tabled simply to advance the personal obsessions of various parliamentarians.

For example, the aim of the three amendments tabled by Lord Young of Cookham and listed above is to either restrict or ban smoking in licensed pavement areas.

What this has to do with levelling-up or regeneration I’ve no idea but, as I mentioned yesterday, the concept is so vague it’s open to a multitude of interpretations by parliamentarians and campaigners with an axe to grind.

In recent years the anti-smoking lobby has generally had the floor to itself in parliamentary 'debates'. Yesterday however there was a particularly robust response from two peers, former Boris Johnson advisor Lord Moylan, and Baroness Fox, better known to readers of this blog as Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas.

Here are some quotes from their speeches. First, Lord Moylan:

“I cannot sit down without referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. No chance goes by in your Lordships’ House for him to propose something restrictive of smoking without him dashing at it very much like a ferret up a trouser leg. Here we are again with yet another restrictive amendment proposed on smoking, and it is purely vindictive and entirely punitive ...

“One of the problems with these vindictive approaches is that the people who make them simply do not understand smokers. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who I think said that she “loathed smoking”, possibly does not want to understand them; she just wants to give vent to the loathing. I do not know ...

“I very much hope that the Minister who, in the course of this Committee, has developed a great deftness at turning away suggestions made by Members of your Lordships’ House, maintains that deftness in respect of this amendment and finds a way of saying that this is not an appropriate place for the Government to pursue yet more vindictive legislation against smokers.”

Claire's speech included these passages:

“One of the advantages of this spilling out of café society on to pavements is that it has allowed smokers and vapers to have a coffee or a drink alongside a cigarette, which I consider—shock, horror—to be all very civilised. It is certainly better than huddling outside in doorways ...

“Amendment 459 goes the full hog and states: ‘Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited’. It seems that an attempt is being made to use this Bill as a backdoor route to banning smoking in public places per se ...

“Tobacco smoke in outdoor areas is highly diluted and dissipates quickly in atmospheric conditions. I worry about moves towards such punitive restrictions on people smoking outside, when all they are doing is indulging in a legal, personal activity. Do we need to over-regulate in such a fashion?

“This Bill has been packaged as empowering local decision-making. Can we note that local authorities already have the powers at their discretion to regulate smoking in licensed premises and on pavements outside pubs, bars and restaurants with exterior tables and seating?

“How can we justify using this Bill to bring in central government legislation that threatens that if pubs and cafés do not ban smoking outside, no licence will be given to them? This seems wholly disproportionate ...

“It goes against the spirit of a levelling-up Bill when you have an imposition from the top of a kind of ‘we know best approach’ to local matters and individual matters such as smoking, and it will grate with many people.”

For now the Government is (quite rightly) refusing to change the existing policy that was adopted as part of the Business and Planning Bill in 2020. According to deputy leader of the House of Lords, The Rt Hon Earl Howe:

"With respect to Amendment 458, we are aware anecdotally of conditions which would, for example, require that licensed furniture be removed when not in use, and conditions which go further than our national smoke-free condition. We consider that local authorities have local knowledge and appropriate powers to impose such conditions should they consider it necessary. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to create national conditions for these issues, as there are circumstances where it may not be necessary or appropriate.”

“I turn next to Amendment 459 tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The streamlined pavement licence provisions under debate may be granted, as he will know, subject to any condition that the local authority considers reasonable, as set out in Section 5(1) of the Business and Planning Act 2020. As he rightly mentioned, we are aware that a number of councils across the country, including Manchester and Newcastle, have put in place local conditions that ban smoking in pavement licence areas. We believe it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them, using local knowledge and the powers that they already have to impose conditions.

“But that is not all. Any licences granted under temporary pavement licence provisions will be subject to a smoke-free condition whereby the premises will need to make reasonable provision for seating outdoors where smoking is not permitted. This condition ensures that customers have greater choice so that smokers and non-smokers are able to sit outside. As I have indicated, local authorities are also able to consider setting their own local conditions where appropriate and where local decision-makers believe that it is reasonable to do so.

Given the laws already in place to ‘protect’ non-smokers, you might think that would be an end to it. Not a bit of it. Worse, the disturbing level of misinformation in parliament has to be heard to be believed and will no doubt be repeated at the report stage, if these amendments proceed.

Take, for example, the contribution yesterday of Lib Dem peer Baroness Northover, about whom I have written before. (See Lesson in hypocrisy, and Lib Dem peer bidding to extend smoking ban to outside areas thanks ASH for its "assistance".)

Bearing in mind we are talking about smoking in the open air, for which there is little if any evidence of harm to non-smokers, I have highlighted, in italics, some of her more outrageous statements. (Where's BBC Verify when you need it?)

Here’s her speech in full:

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 459, led by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I have attached my name. As noble Lords will know, this amendment has strong cross-party support, and countering smoking has long had cross-party support in this House. The amendment seeks to ensure that all pavement licences are smoke free. I hear what noble Lords have said about such licences, and this amendment would apply if a pavement licence is granted. It seeks to ensure that the rules inside a bar, restaurant or café apply equally to their outdoor area.

These outdoor areas were expanded in the pandemic so that there was more space between people; outdoors thus became an extension of indoors. The same smoke-free rules that apply inside should apply outside, for exactly the same reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the Local Government Association agrees. That makes these areas more family friendly, and I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that the LGA argues that it makes it easier to implement if this is applied nationally.

The Government have had several opportunities to make pavement licences 100% smoke free over the last three years and have opted not to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has specified those instances. This is despite the clear evidence of the health harms of second-hand smoke, strong public support for smoke-free pavement licences and examples from various councils, including Manchester, of this measure being introduced successfully.

The public health case for this policy is very clear. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Associated health effects include stroke, lung cancer and coronary heart disease. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has just spoken, probably gave up to protect his health. We are seeking to protect others’ as well.

If we continue to allow smoking in pavement seating, passers-by, customers, staff and above all children will keep being exposed to significant amounts of tobacco smoke. The risk is particularly acute for staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, specified, who have no choice but to be exposed to people smoking when they work. Of course, children are particularly susceptible to harm from second-hand smoke; we all know that. In Canada, where most provinces have had laws to implement smoke-free patios outside hospitality venues for years, these laws have been popular, easy to enforce and had a positive impact on health. Where smoke-free patios were introduced, second-hand smoke exposure went down by almost a quarter.

Fortunately, the world is changing, as others have said, and smoking is no longer the norm. In the United Kingdom, this House over the last 20 years or so has led the way by helping to reduce smoking — for example, by banning smoking in public in settings, and the noble Earl played his part in that. In 2019, the Government set themselves the worthy ambition of seeking to reduce the number of smokers to below 5% of the population by 2030. While the Government have announced some measures to help deliver this ambition, we are still waiting for the comprehensive strategy needed. Expanding the number of outdoor spaces that are smoke free helps to deliver what the Government say they wish to do.

It’s hard to know where to begin with this but here are a few thoughts:

One, the pandemic is over so, even if there was an argument for banning smoking outside pubs, cafes and restaurants during Covid so that the outdoors became an extension of the indoors, there is no such argument now because if you want to avoid exposure to any level of tobacco smoke it’s very simple - stay inside and leave the smokers to light up in peace outside where they are harming no-one except, possibly, themselves.

Two, arguing that ‘The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke’ is a ludicrous bar to set because it’s very difficult to prove there’s a risk-free level of exposure to almost anything. Instead, turn it round and show us the evidence that there’s an ‘acute’ risk to staff (or even children) exposed to tobacco smoke outdoors. Prove it and you’ll have my attention but you’ll struggle because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no significant evidence of harm caused by smoking outside.

Three, why should a ban on smoking outside cafes, bars and restaurants be imposed nationally when every location is different? This is a local not a national issue. Let local authorities (and businesses) decide.

Four, why should the hospitality industry be burdened with helping the Government achieve its foolish ‘Smokefree 2030’ target? The only reason for government to ban smoking outside is if there is clear and consistent evidence of harm to non-smokers and there isn’t.

I could go on.

Hansard has a transcript of the session here. You can also watch Claire's contribution here and Daniel Moylan's here.

Prohibition by stealth

I shall be keeping one eye on the House of Lords this afternoon.

The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill is currently at the committee stage, having started in the House of Commons in May last year.

According to the Government:

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, introduced to Parliament on May 11 last year, will put the foundations in place for delivering this agenda and ensuring all parts of the country share equally in our nation’s success.

In particular, the Government aims to give 'local leaders and communities the tools they need to make better places'.

A weakness of the Government's levelling-up concept is that it's open to a wide range of interpretations, so it's no surprise that a small group of anti-smoking peers have grasped the opportunity to pursue their own narrow agenda.

For example, two (identical) amendments concerning pavement licences (to serve food and drink) would make it a condition that:

... where the furniture to be put on the relevant highway consists of seating for use by persons for the purpose of consuming food or drink, the licence-holder must ensure that smoking or vaping does not affect others.

An explanatory statement adds that:

This amendment would allow a local authority to require that furniture is removed from the highway when it is not in use, as well as imposing a condition to require the licensee to prevent smoke-drift affecting those in the vicinity.

A third amendment goes even further and states, bluntly:

Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited.

In case there is any doubt, the accompanying statement declares:

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all pavement licences are smoke free.

If this sounds familiar it's because a very similar tactic was adopted when the Government introduced the Business and Planning Bill in the summer of 2020, the aim of which was to reduce red tape and help businesses recover from the impact of the first Covid lockdown.

The hospitality industry had suffered very badly during lockdown and with restrictions still in place that limited the number of customers who could be accommodated indoors, the Government wanted to encourage new outdoor seating areas that nevertheless had to be licensed.

It seems a lifetime ago now but you may recall that a handful of anti-smoking peers attempted to hijack the Business and Planning Bill in much the same way they are now targeting the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill.

I won't go over it again – you can read about it here (Business and Planning Bill – amendment to ban smoking in outside pavement areas withdrawn as Government backs choice) – but I think we can chalk up what happened as a small but important victory.

Twelve months later, still dwelling on their defeat, Lord Faulkner of Worcester tabled a 'regret motion' that read:

That this House regrets that the Regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100 per cent smoke-free pavement licences, which have been implemented over the last year in a diverse range of local authorities and which have received strong public support.

Sadly for Lord Faulkner, expressing regret was all he and his chums could do because the regulations (which appear to have worked rather well) remained unaltered.

See also: Happy anniversary to the Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences)!

And so to this afternoon and the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill. We don't know for sure whether peers will get as far as amendments 458, 459 and 461, but I'll let you know.

Nothing however will be decided today because after the committee stage the Bill has to go to the report stage (also in the Lords), and then a third reading.

After that it will go back to the House of Commons where the Government and MPs will consider the amendments that have been voted on and passed by peers before, eventually, the Bill receives Royal Assent.

You can see, though, how easy it is for prohibition (in this case a ban on smoking in licenced pavement areas outside pubs, cafes and restaurants) to be introduced by stealth with little or no public discussion or debate. (Did you know about these amendments?)

If the amendments progress rest assured we will make as much noise as we can, just as we did with the Business and Planning Bill in 2020.

I'll keep you posted.

See also: Tobacco control campaigners try to hijack Health and Care Bill (October 2021).

Calls for tougher regulation on vaping met with silence from vaping advocacy groups

Busy week for ASH.

After releasing figures that are said to show that the economic cost of smoking in England is £14bn a year (see previous post), the anti-smoking group has today published headline results for its 2023 vaping surveys.

Designed 'to inform responses to the government consultation on how to reduce youth vaping which closes on 6th June', they conclude that there was:

• No significant change between 2022 and 2023 in the proportion of 11-17 year olds currently vaping or smoking

• However, trying vaping once or twice is up by 50% on last year

• Disposable (single use) e-cigarettes are the vape of choice for children currently vaping

• Corner shops are the main source of purchase and child awareness of instore promotion has grown significantly since last year

Yet even though ASH admits that 'fears that vaping is leading a whole generation to be addicted to nicotine are not justified by the evidence to date', they're still pushing for tougher regulations on vaping.

According to CEO Deborah Arnott (who on Tuesday addressed the E-Cigarette Summit US where she is treated like a latter-day oracle):

We need to stem the tide of child vape experimentation and the Government’s investment in a crackdown on illegal underage sales of vapes is a vital first step. But enforcement on its own won’t do the trick without tougher regulation to address the child friendly promotion of these cheap and attractive products.

The ASH youth survey demonstrates the rapid growth of instore promotion of vapes, using brightly coloured pack displays, reminiscent of cigarette displays from yesteryear. The evidence is clear, government needs to take strong action to prevent the marketing of vapes to children.”

In what appears to be a coordinated campaign, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) was quick to add its own pennyworth, with a press release embargoed (I imagine) to match that of ASH:

Currently, there are no restrictions regarding the packaging or placement of vapes within retail premises. Although it is advised that retailers keep vapes out of reach of children, there is no legal requirement for retailers to do so.

Rather than being marketed as an adult smoking cessation aid, the present regime of unrestricted displays and packaging has resulted in bright, colourful and attractive displays of products which are clearly aimed at the youth market.

Neither ASH nor CTSI spelled out the 'tougher regulation' they have in mind. The Local Government Association, however, was less coy:

To tackle this issue and ensure vaping is kept out of reach of children, vapes should be sold in plain packaging and be out-of-sight behind the counter.

In other words, just like tobacco.

Unfortunately Forest was alerted to the story yesterday evening, too late to do much about it. Nevertheless, we issued this response:

"Millions of adults have successfully quit smoking by switching to e-cigarettes. Convenience, availability, and attractive displays are a key part of this transformation.

"Tougher regulations on the packaging and placement of vapes in shops could seriously undermine attempts to encourage many more adults to switch to a reduced risk product."

"The best way to reduce underage sales of e-cigarettes is to insist on proof of age verification at the point of sale, and impose stiff penalties on retailers who break the law by selling vapes to anyone under 18.

"The government should enforce existing laws before introducing new regulations that could be counter-productive."

See 'Forest rejects calls for tougher regulations on vaping'.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, Cork County Council last week passed a motion calling for a workplace vaping ban that would include pubs, bars and restaurants.

Although it's not on the cards any time soon, I need hardly remind readers that the smoking bans introduced in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were heavily influenced by the Republic of Ireland, which was the first country in the world to introduce a comprehensive workplace smoking ban.

Of course, vaping is already banned in many enclosed 'public' places, if not by law then at the behest of the property owner or landlord.

And when they're not banning it, some hospitals are trying to restrict vaping to the old outdoor smoking shelters.

It's not a great leap, therefore, to imagine 'tougher regulation' being introduced to ban vaping in all public places. Not now, perhaps, but within the next decade, and it will start in enclosed public places and then extend to any outdoor place where children might be present.

It's probably just a matter of time, which makes the silence from vaping advocacy groups even more baffling.

I can't explain it. Perhaps they're too busy trying to 'beat smoking'. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for.

Shhh, economic cost of smoking falls by £3bn (according to ASH)

Figures released this week by Action on Smoking and Health calculate that the economic cost of smoking in England is £14bn a year.

According to ASH, £6.6bn is lost to smoking-related unemployment, £6.1bn to smoking-related lost earnings, and £1.3bn in smoking-related early deaths.

Goodness knows how they calculate all this (they must be up all night with their abacus), but the previous figure, published in January 2022, was £17bn so, according to ASH's own calculations, the cost of smoking to the economy has fallen by £3bn!

Not that ASH mentioned this, of course, because it doesn’t fit the narrative that smoking is an increasing financial burden on society, even as smoking rates fall. (Last year ASH claimed the economic cost of smoking was £5bn more than previously estimated.)

Either way, I’d take all these figures with a pinch of salt because it reminds me of a passage from Murder A Cigarette, the 1998 book co-written by the late Lord Harris, co-founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs in the Fifties and chairman of Forest from 1987 until his death in 2006.

According to Ralph:

If laymen dare to question any of these guesstimates and projections, the sophisticated statisticians take refuge behind their computers which have been heavily programmed to incorporate a variety of elaborate assumptions and statistical techniques.

And since researchers have discovered that the bigger the reported risk the better the chance of attracting funding and getting their results published (known in the trade as ‘publication bias’), they have exerted much ingenuity in what is known as ‘data dredging’ – that is, torturing the statistics until they confess!

He was writing about the number of lives allegedly lost to passive smoking, but he could just as easily have been writing about the economic cost of smoking.

I’ll leave it to you to judge.

See: £14bn a year up in smoke – economic toll of smoking in England revealed (May 16, 2023)

Smoking costs society £17bn – £5bn more than previously estimated (January 14, 2022)

How Labour’s lifestyle socialism could change Britain

Did I miss anything while I was at TabExpo last week?

Not really, unless you count this. According to MailOnline:

Labour wants to completely ban smoking if it wins the next election, a frontbencher confirmed today.

Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said that following the example of New Zealand was 'desirable' and that there was a public 'appetite' to act.

Quizzed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Streeting said he was keen to adopt a plan that was workable if Labour won the next election.

It sounds dramatic but we’ve heard it before which is why, apart from the Mail, Streeting’s comments were largely ignored by other publications and broadcasters.

I suspect the lack of interest was partly due to the fact that former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, speaking to The Times’ Health Commission, said something very similar only a few weeks ago.

Nor was this the first time Streeting had expressed interest in New Zealand's tobacco control policy that will ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008.

Interviewed by The Times in January, Labour's shadow health secretary told the paper he was ready to take on the "libertarian right" over smoking:

New Zealand has introduced a law which means that nobody now under the age of 14 will ever be permitted to buy cigarettes, and [Streeting] is interested in doing something similar here.

Asked about it by Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One the following day, Streeting confirmed that Labour ‘would consult on banning the sale and purchase of cigarettes as part of a “radical” package of measures to stamp out smoking’.

On that occasion his comments were widely reported, as I wrote here, but I struggled to detect much enthusiasm or support from senior Labour colleagues.

So was he running solo? Hard to say, but apart from a bullish response to ITV’s Robert Peston - who asked him in March whether “Reducing smoking and vaping is a priority for you?”, to which Streeting replied, “100 per cent” - nothing more was heard from him on the subject until Friday.

Even the announcement, last month, of the Government's new tobacco control policies failed to generate a response from Labour’s shadow health secretary, which was odd because, at the very least, you might have expected a reaction to the Government's rejection of the New Zealand model which he had expressed so much interest in.

But no. I heard not a peep either from Streeting or any other member of the shadow cabinet that week. Even when he popped up on a succession of Sunday politics programmes a few days later, he said nothing about tobacco control (although he might say he wasn't asked).

Which brings us to his comments on the Today programme last week.

The first thing to be said is that, had it not been for MailOnline, they would probably have disappeared without trace because most of what little reaction there was was only in response to the Mail report.

(I searched for the relevant clip on the Today programme’s Twitter account but found nothing.)

There was however the bizarre sight of GB News' presenter Mark Dolan lighting and smoking a cigarette live on air in protest.

However, before we add Dolan, an "avowed non-smoker", to the guest list for future Forest events, I'm not sure that these words were especially helpful:

"I pledge to take up up this filthy habit, just to annoy them. Arrest me!"

More seriously, we'll keep a close eye on how this develops and I would suggest that, if you live in a Labour held constituency, you should write to your MP, making your views known.

I'm still not sure whether Streeting’s comments reflect official Labour policy or if he’s flying a kite to test public and media opinion, but the threat of a New Zealand style ban should be taken seriously, even if it isn’t included in the party’s election manifesto.

Readers will recall that the 2005 Labour manifesto committed the party to banning smoking in enclosed public places but with important exemptions for private members’ clubs and pubs that didn’t serve food.

And look what happened. Within 18 months of the election the Blair Government had reneged on that proposal and introduced a comprehensive ban despite public opinion being against a complete ban in pubs and clubs.

At least voters have been forewarned of Labour’s intentions should they win the next election, and it's important to note that possible interventions go much further than smoking.

As this MailOnline headline yesterday made clear:

Votes for EU citizens and children, legal right to WFH, bosses barred from emailing staff outside office hours, a total ban on smoking ... and a four-day week in the public sector: How Keir Starmer's New Labour 'on steroids' could change the face of Britain

The problem is that the Tories are so muddled, and have so little political identity at present, it’s hard to imagine enough people wanting to keep them in power for another term.

On the other hand, the alternative (a majority Labour government or a Labour-Lib Dem coalition) will almost certainly be even worse, policy wise, because that Mail headline may exaggerate the threat but it doesn’t lie.

Another scenario is that the Tories – not for the first time – decide to steal some of Labour's policies in the belief that it might reduce Labour's threat.

That would be a mistake, in my opinion. The only way the Conservatives have any chance of winning the election is by putting clear blue water between them and Labour. (Let's leave the Lib Dems out of this.)

One way they can do that is by giving voters a clear choice between the type of lifestyle socialism advocated by Labour (with the state increasingly micro-managing our lives), and a less regulated society that rejects further government intervention.

Unfortunately, such are the many challenges currently facing the country - from inflation and housing to education and immigration - I can’t see any party grasping the nettle and making the case for less intervention any time soon.

The Conservative Government’s current tobacco control policies, which focus on the promotion of vaping as a less harmful alternative to smoking, are (thankfully) relatively benign, but we can’t be certain that will remain the case.

ASH, for example, continues to bang the drum for a tobacco levy, and I'm sure raising the age of sale, introducing a tobacco licence, and reducing the number of shops that sell tobacco are still future goals.

So be warned. The combination of an ambitious health secretary and an interventionist Labour government could change the landscape very quickly indeed.