House rules

Hugely enjoyable evening at the House of Commons on Wednesday as Forest hosted a reception to highlight opposition to the Government’s generational tobacco ban.

Numbers were restricted by the size of the venue but we had a full house including MPs, peers, and parliamentary researchers.

Other guests included representatives of various think tanks and pressure groups including the Institute of Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute, TaxPayers Alliance, Consumer Choice Center, Students for Liberty, LSE Hayek Society, and Blue Beyond, a grassroots initiative that engages with young Conservatives.

The day didn’t start well, though, because shortly after I set off to drive to London I got a call from the office of Philip Davies MP.

Philip was sponsoring the event but eight hours before guests were due to arrive - including two from Edinburgh - his office told me there had been a ‘cock-up’ and he was double-booked.

Without a sponsor - who has to be present throughout - the event could not go ahead.

I was assured that a replacement would be found but an hour later I was none the wiser and fearing the worst.

Eventually I got the call I was praying for. Giles Watling, the Conservative MP for Clacton in Essex, had agreed to step in and the event was back on.

Phew!

But that wasn’t the end of the drama. When we arrived at the Palace of Westminster, we were carrying two background banners (each one two metres long when rolled up), plus flyers and beer mats.

One of the banners featured a caricature of Rishi Sunak - the same illustration we have been using throughout our campaign against the generational tobacco ban - and we were told by a member of the security team:

“You can’t have a banner with the prime minister pushing a pram.” 



Seriously? Clearly, these jobsworths are unaware of Britain's centuries old tradition of using caricatures of politicians to make a serious political point.

Anyway, as a result of this our banner was confiscated and I had to pick it up the following day from lost property. (More on that later.)

Fortunately, our flyers and beer mats - which featured the same caricature of the prime minister - were less conspicuous and weren’t spotted so we managed to slip them through security without further mishap.

And so to the reception which began at 7.15 and was supposed to end at 9.00 but it was closer to 10.00 before the last guests left.

Describing the event as ‘lively, going on boisterous at times’, journalist George Gay noted that:

The UK’s proposed generational tobacco products ban was variously described as nuts, insane, ludicrous, mad, illiberal, impractical and petty minded by speakers …

Those speakers were Giles Watling, Baroness Fox, Reem Ibrahim (communications officer at the IEA), and me.

Something else we agreed on was that the Government has far more important things to focus on, at home and abroad, than prohibiting adults from purchasing tobacco. As George also wrote:

Watling, a non-smoker but at one time a 60-Marlboro-a-day man, described the proposed ban as insane and said it was not good for the Conservative Party. There were better things that it should be doing than this piece of legislation.

The idea that there were more important things for the government to be doing was taken up forcefully by Baroness Fox of Buckley, who sits in the House of Lords as a non-affiliated life peer.

After outlining some of the huge and urgent domestic and international issues facing the government, she said she found it unbelievable that the prime minister had dedicated precious legislative time and energy on the most ludicrous anti-smoking law.

You can read George’s full report here (Defending liberty), while Guido has the banner story here.

Postscript: When I returned to get the banner the following day, I had to explain to two policemen at the Cromwell Green entrance what my business was.

I explained what had happened and the nature of the banner and found myself, a 64-year-old man, being given a mini lecture by a policeman half my age on why a banner with an illustration of the prime minister pushing a pram wasn’t suitable to take in to parliament.

For most of my life I have been very respectful of the police, but my patience is wearing thin. In this instance, if the banner wasn’t a security risk, or clearly offensive, I resented being lectured like a naughty schoolboy.

Far more offensive and inflammatory placards and banners have appeared outside Parliament and on the streets of London in recent weeks, and the police invariably turn a blind eye.

But taking a banner with a light-hearted caricature of the PM into parliament for a private event? Unacceptable!

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

Good grief. Never mind the Nanny State. Welcome to the Stasi State.

You are guilty of making fun of our Great Glorious Big Brother, comrade.