Smoking in cars: Government stands firm for now

The House of Lords has been debating amendments to the Children and Families Bill.

One of the amendments would ban smoking in cars with children.

Thanks to Twitter and the British Lung Foundation (@lunguk) I've been able to follow the debate online.

To its credit, the Government - including the PM - has been clear that it doesn't want to legislate.

Here are some tweets quoting Government health spokesman Earl Howe:

Earl Howe "the government isn't convinced that creating new criminal offences is the right approach" #smokingincars

Earl Howe questioning how #smokingincars with children ban could be enforced "would be a cause of concern for police"

Earl Howe "the government firmly believes that we should be continuing a non-legislative approach" #smokingincars

Earl Howe "we are not complacent but we are yet to be convinced that legislation is most effective solution" #smokingincars

I understand that all amendments were withdrawn following today's debate but they could still be voted on next month.

I may not be the Government's number one fan but it's good to see ministers adopting a sensible, even laisse faire, approach to legislation.

First plain packaging, now smoking in cars. Let's hope this is the start of a new era in politics. (I wish!)

The Spectator Cigar Smoker of the Year Award Dinner 2013

It's the morning after the night before.

I woke up in a budget hotel overlooking a flyover, a busy roundabout and a 24-hour McDonald's.

The hotel is modern, clean and soulless but, more important, it's a short walk from Boisdale of Canary Wharf where the inaugural Spectator Cigar Smoker of the Year Award Dinner took place last night.

The event was the brainchild of Boisdale MD Ranald Macdonald, who is a member of Forest's Supporters' Council alongside David Hockney, Joe Jackson and Oscar-winning screenwriter Ronald Harwood.

Thanks to Ranald we have a close relationship with Boisdale which has hosted a number of Forest events including, most recently, The Freedom Dinner in July.

Ranald was keen to get Forest on board so I agreed to present an award for Best Cigar Terrace.

A few weeks ago I feared the worse. Tickets were priced at £250 a head (£199 for members of the Boisdale Jazz and Cigar Club) and I questioned who would pay that much for a drinks reception and a three-course dinner.

Well, with the enthusiastic support of the Spectator, there was a full house - 240 guests squeezed into every corner of the restaurant.

They included Nancy Dell'olio, David Soul and Simon Le Bon. Not quite the Hollywood heavyweights Ranald originally envisaged but messages of support from Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger - which were read out on stage - suggest his dream could be realised next year.

Spectator supremo Andrew Neil was MC and there was a Forest connection there too because Andrew was the guest speaker at our Revolt In Style dinner at The Savoy in 2007, shortly before the smoking ban was introduced.

On that occasion he warned us that he couldn't make a political speech because of his BBC contract. He then launched into one of the best libertarian speeches I have ever heard. Respect!

Ironically, word reached me that The Spectator was wary of Forest's involvement in the Cigar Smoker of the Year Dinner because they didn't want it to be a political event!

Anyway, you're no doubt wondering who won Cigar Smoker of the Year 2013. I can reveal it was Duran Duran's Simon Le Bon who gave a short, inaudible speech that suggested he was as surprised as anyone.

Best Cigar Terrace went to ... I'm damned if I can remember.

Oh yes, it was awarded jointly to The Wellesley, a luxury boutique hotel in Knightsbridge, and the Garden Room at the Lanesborough Hotel, also in Knightsbridge.

Forest, I should add, had nothing to do with the awards. I've never been to The Wellesley and the only time I went to the Lanesborough it cost me a fortune in drinks.

Anyway, congratulations to Ranald for organising such a successful event. Next year, with the inclusion of a few more household names, it might get more publicity.

Update: I woke up feeling a bit ropey, if I'm honest, but my phone rang, duty called, and at 8:05 I found myself on BBC Radio Lincolnshire arguing with Alistair Martin, press and campaigns manager for the British Lung Foundation.

Not the best start to the day. Now, please leave me alone ...

PS. To mark last night's event Brian Monteith wrote this article for The Free Society - Smoking a cigar is a political statement.

Perhaps the Spectator would publish it?

Ireland edges towards plain packs

The Irish Government today announced that public hearings will be held on proposals to introduce plain packaging.

Full story here.

Forest Eireann responded:

Campaigners have vowed to challenge proposals to increase the size of health warnings and remove branding on tobacco packs.

The Cabinet today approved the General Scheme for the Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2013 and referred it to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health for review.

John Mallon, spokesman for the smokers' group Forest Eireann, said:

"Plain packaging is gesture politics designed to distract attention from more important issues facing the health service.

"We intend to challenge the Bill and we will be writing to Health Committee chairman Jerry Buttimer to request an opportunity to give evidence on behalf of the consumer.

"There is no evidence that plain packs will stop children smoking or reduce smoking rates among adults.

"The most common reasons children start smoking is because of peer pressure or the influence of family members. Packaging has nothing to do with it.

"The introduction of standardised packs in Australia last year has had no discernible effect on the sale or consumption of tobacco. Illicit trade, however, has increased, as many people said it would.

"Ireland already has a huge problem with illicit tobacco. Plain packaging could make things worse and that will have unintended consequences for children and adult consumers."

I'll keep you posted.

Update: Reilly braced for tobacco 'fight' (Irish Independent), Tobacco industry to 'fight tooth and nail' (Irish Examiner)

Smoking in cars with children is inconsiderate but don't ban it

I've just done back-to-back interviews on the subject of smoking in cars with children.

According to the British Lung Foundation, which is campaigning to ban smoking in cars with children, more than 430,000 children aged 11-15 in England are exposed to second-hand smoke in their family cars at least once a week.

Frankly, I shall treat these figures with the same contempt I had for the "estimates" and calculations that suggested 11,000 non-smokers died each year from the effects of passive smoking before the introduction of the smoking ban.

I just don't believe them.

In my opinion smoking in cars with children is inconsiderate but that's no reason to ban it. A 2010 poll of 1,000 smokers found that 84 per cent of adults wouldn't dream of lighting a cigarette in a car if a child was present.

Earlier this year researchers in Ireland observed 2,230 drivers in Dublin and found that just 31 drivers (1.39 per cent) were smoking while driving and only one child was exposed to tobacco smoke.

Dublin is not unlike many towns and cities in Britain and I believe that if the same survey was conducted in the UK we would get a similar result.

Times have changed and the behaviour of most smokers has changed too. Legislation will make little or no difference apart from making it easier to take the "next logical step" towards a total ban on smoking in cars.

This morning I went head-to-head with BLF spokesman Dr John Moore-Gillon. Twice.

It was noticeable that on the second occasion he spent a disproportionate amount of time talking about Forest and our links with the tobacco industry.

I was quite flattered, actually, because he said he'd been following Forest for 30 years. He's been reading our website too.

Of course, this all distracted from the subject of the interview but perhaps that was the intention. When your message is weak try and discredit the opposition with playground comments such as "Who would you believe ...?" etc etc.

Anyway, here's Forest's full response to the BLF:

The smokers’ group Forest has urged the government to reject calls to ban smoking in cars with children.

According to new figures released by the British Lung Foundation, “around 185,000 children between the ages of 11-15 in England are exposed to “potentially toxic concentrations of second-hand smoke in their family car every day or most days”,

Responding to the BLF’s “data analysis”, Simon Clark, director of Forest, said:

“We believe these figures are extremely misleading. They are estimates based on questionable calculations.

“According to surveys, only a very small number of adults still smoke in cars with children present. It’s inconsiderate and most adults recognise that.

“Legislation is disproportionate to the problem. It would be very difficult to enforce and would be a huge waste of police resources.

“Education has to be better than coercion.”

See: Thousands of children 'driven in smoky cars' (BBC News), More than 430,000 children travel in smoke-filled cars every week (Daily Mirror)

That seems to be the extent of the coverage. If I worked for the BLF I'd be disappointed. Perhaps news editors are growing tired of this flim flam.

Update: Someone called Chloe Hamilton (no, I've never heard of her either) has written an article for the Independent (A message to those who smoke in cars with children - there is no excuse for your selfish habit).

She mentions Forest, but not in a good way. You might like to comment.

Out of South Africa

I haven't written about my trip to Cape Town because I've been pushed for time.

I can't let it pass without comment though because it was my first visit to Africa – North or South.

The size of this vast continent only dawned on me when we crossed the Med and left Europe behind. Two and a half hours into our flight and there were still nine to go.

Curiously, when we landed the next morning I didn't feel 6,000 miles from home. The time difference helped. It was only two hours ahead of the UK.

The weather also did its best to make us feel at ease. I'm told it was very hot the weekend before I arrived but while I was there it was like an English summer – warm and sunny one day, cool and overcast the next. We even had the odd spot of rain.

Echoes of Britannia were everywhere – the language, driving on the left. I even spotted a red post box outside our hotel.

The Mount Nelson Hotel, where we stayed, was named after Lord Nelson (not Nelson Mandela!). Afternoon tea in the lounge was in the best English country house tradition. There were scores of sandwiches and cakes, with tea served in delicate china cups. I resisted until the final afternoon.

We went to Cape Town because it was the venue for the fourth Global Network Tobacco Forum. Organised by the trade journal Tobacco Reporter, GTNF brings together a wide range of people from the tobacco industry and beyond. It's conducted according to Chatham House rules so I can't repeat what was said or who was present, although a list of speakers ('Look Who's Talking') is available online.

I can however talk freely about myself. This year I was involved in two sessions. The first was a panel discussion about the nanny state. There were six speakers – including some familiar names – so I only had a few minutes to argue that nanny has become a bully.

The term 'bully state', I explained, was coined by restaurateur Ranald Macdonald following a Forest reception - Politics and Prohibition - in Bournemouth in 2006. The previous evening Ranald had been 'arrested' and charged with "inciting people to enjoy themselves". One of the most laid-back people I know, Ranald had protested vehemently, "This isn't a nanny state, it's a bully state!"

I then brandished a copy of The Bully State: The End of Tolerance, written by Brian Monteith and published by Forest (via The Free Society) in 2009. From that I quoted Eamonn Butler, co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute:

"The line between nannying and oppression has become no wider than a cigarette paper. Not that you will be allowed to buy one of those."

Someone later described the session as a "libertarian love-in". I can't imagine what he meant but you'd laugh if you knew who it was.

On the second day of the conference I gave a presentation called 'Taking Liberties: Consumers' Rights'. I requested the session because I felt that previous GNTF conferences hadn't given sufficient weight to the consumer.

I was given 40 minutes and I chose to talk about Forest, smokers’ rights, the history of smokers' groups and their relationship with the tobacco industry, the importance of working with consumers, and our vision of the future.

I also posed a number of questions. Does the industry do enough to support the consumer? What is the purpose of groups such as Forest and what value do they offer? What purpose would an international network of consumer groups serve?

The presentation featured three Forest videos (total running time: 15 minutes) plus images from Dan Donovan's 90 Smokers project, so it was a bit of a gallop.

An interesting point about Dan's 2007 project is that every smoker featured would now be committing an offence because the photographs were all taken in areas now designated as 'enclosed public places' - pubs, bars, work vehicles, even a bus shelter. Now that's what I call a bully state.

Two of the videos were filmed at Forest events - the 2013 Freedom Dinner and the Save Our Pubs and Clubs reception at the House of Commons in 2010. The third was Welcome to Nanny Town which helped launch the Hands Off Our Packs campaign in 2012.

I could have picked several other Forest videos because I can only think of one that doesn't feature interviews with real people. The point I was trying to make was that products are important but people matter too and in my view the tobacco industry is guilty sometimes of overlooking the importance of the consumer and the need to defend their rights and interests.

The fact that very few people attended the session (I was competing with discussions on packaging and illicit trade) rather proved my point.

Hard to believe, in view of today's grey, overcast sky, but nine days ago I was whale-watching on a boat in brilliant sunshine.

It followed a two-hour drive to the coast via a mountain pass. When we arrived we were given our instructions - don't lean too far over the side, hold on to the hand rails etc. We then boarded the boat and took our seats on the small open upper deck where we would get a better view.

Once we were clear of the harbour it was quite choppy and until we found our sea legs the boat was like a bucking bronco. Two people had to return to the lower deck and one was physically sick. (Not me, I enjoyed it!)

Eventually, after some false alarms (seals mostly), we saw a whale - followed by another and another. They weren't enormous and they didn't dive or flip their tail fin in the air. Instead they moved quite slowly, like small submarines, with only their back and the top of their head visible.

Once you've seen one whale you've seen 'em all - in my opinion. I was interested to learn though that some whales live for 150 or 200 years - with nothing to entertain them apart from boatloads of humans straining to take a picture on their smartphones and digital cameras.

Back on shore, following lunch in the appropriately named Harbour Restaurant, we visited a local vineyard to sample some wine. Unfortunately our schedule - which originally included two more vineyards - was cut short because some people had to catch a flight. Next time I'll organise my own transport.

Ann, who runs the office in Cambridge where Forest has its HQ, is South African. Before I went to Cape Town she suggested some things I should do if I had time:

Try to take a walk through the Gardens to the Houses of Parliament and the museums that are in the area. The Castle is also very interesting.

Hire a car if there is time and take a drive along the coast Sea Point, Bantry Bay, Clifton, Camps Bay and over Chapman’s Peak. Table Mountain on one side and the ocean on the other, it's very beautiful.

Visit Groot Constantia or Buitenverwagting. Klein Constantia is nearby too, very small but worth a visit. They are very old, established wine estates in the Cape Town area. Uitsig, a wine estate/hotel with three of the best restaurants in Cape Town, is also in this area which is called Constantia. Lunch at La Colombe, Uitsig or the River Cafe on the Uitsig estate.

A drive to the winelands, about 1.5 hours out of Cape Town is well worth doing. Franschhoek or Stellenbosch are the most historical and nicest towns to spend time in. Stellenbosch has many examples of the Cape Dutch architecture and lots of historical buildings and museums.

Franschhoek are where the French Huguenots settled so there is a French influence to the place. Franschhoek is known as the gourmet area of South Africa with many excellent restaurants, some very expensive, some very reasonable, most are good. There are wine estates all along the roads in and around Franschhoek and Stellenbosch and you can stop and visit at most of them without an appointment.

Go to the Waterfront where the harbour is. Lots of shops, restaurants, bars and live African music.

Needless to say I did hardly any of those things. That's the problem with business trips. Spare time is limited and most things are organised for you. Alternatively you're with a group of people who may not want to do the same things as you. I'm not complaining, that's just how it is.

Reading Ann's notes again, however, I'm tempted to go back and make a proper holiday of it.

Smokers are voters too

Here's our advertisement for the The Spectator Cigar Smoker of the Year Award Dinner programme.

The event is at Boisdale of Canary Wharf on Tuesday (November 19) and on behalf of Forest I'm presenting an award for Best Cigar Terrace.

A few weeks ago word got back to me that the Spectator was reluctant for Forest to be involved because "it's not a political event".

And there was I, a reader for 36 years, thinking the Spectator was a political magazine!

Unfortunately successive governments have made smoking a political issue – a point I intend to make when I present the Best Cigar Terrace award (assuming I'm not dragged off stage first).

Anyway we decided to sneak the line 'Smokers are voters too' into the programme ad.

Do you think they'll notice?

E-Lites in Lily Allen's new video

I've met Mike Ryan, chairman of E-Lites, twice recently.

He was at the E-Cigarette Summit in London on Tuesday.

A few days earlier we had a long chat at another event and he let slip that E-Lites were going to feature in a forthcoming Lily Allen video.

The video was released this week and has attracted a lot of publicity, but for reasons other than product placement.

Described by the Guardian as a "sweary, controversy-stirring ode to gender inequality", 'Hard Out Here' was allegedly "created specifically to drum up controversy, engage a debate and represent the now".

If so it's succeeded. See Lily Allen denies accusations that Hard Out Here music video is racist (Guardian), and Why people are angry about Lily Allen's new video (Time).

With all the arguments about sexism and race, the presence of E-Lites might have gone unnoticed. Not a bit of it.

Marketing reports that E-Lites secures product placement 'first' in Lily Allen's 'Hard Out Here' video.

Meanwhile the New Statesman (which sent a journalist to the E-Cigarette Summit) has listed "five things you need to know about Lily Allen's [new] video". One of them is 'You need electronic cigarettes':

Product placement became legal in 2010, but has kept itself fairly low key since the law changed. There’s no denying that electronic cigarettes E-Lites are after the demographic who know and love Lily Allen’s music videos. Proper bitches smoke electronic cigarettes ...

Released two days ago the video has already been viewed almost three million times.

Mike Ryan and the rest of the E-Lites team must be thrilled.

The E-Cigarette Summit - another view

Went to the E-Cigarette Summit at the Royal Society in London on Tuesday.

I anticipated an informative but dry and probably humourless event with the focus on the product rather than the consumer.

How wrong I was.

One or two sessions had me struggling to stay awake but overall it was far more interesting (and entertaining) than I expected.

Any concern that the event would become a vehicle for tobacco control to set the agenda on e-cigs was quickly dispelled.

Public health campaigners were out in force but the e-cig community was well represented too.

According to a summary of attendees, delegates were split into three groups: commercial, not-for-profit, consumer and media (a rather odd pairing).

The biggest groups were the commercial and not-for-profit organisations. The former were categorised as tobacco, pharmaceutical, e-cigarette and financial/marketing/investment.

Of these four groups the e-cig industry had the most delegates, followed by Big Pharma, financial/marketing/investment, and Big Tobacco.

There was also a strong international flavour to the event with delegates from across Europe and America.

The speakers and panellists were reasonably well balanced between those who favour the precautionary principle and those who want light touch regulation to encourage the development of the new technology.

Not every opinion was represented. Those who believe that all long-term nicotine use should be stopped or discouraged had either stayed away or were keeping very quiet.

I won't bore you with all the health stuff but it's safe to say that those who did attend agreed that e-cigs offer a safer alternative to smoking tobacco. Beyond that the discussion got a bit more heated.

Jeremy Mean, a mild mannered civil servant who works for the MHRA which wants to medicinalise e-cigs, took the brunt of people's frustration that the product might be regulated disproportionately.

Nicotine, he argued, is "medicinal by function". The idea that nicotine - an addictive but largely harmless drug - should be treated as a stimulant much like caffeine didn't impress him.

Although Mean and the MHRA received sustained criticism, the only really sour note of the day came from Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, who tore into the tobacco companies with the help of selected quotes and an advertisement that were decades old.

It was fun however to watch her squabble with Clive Bates, her predecessor at ASH and now a leading advocate of e-cigs.

As soon as Clive finished his own presentation Deborah was on her feet pointing out that she, not he, was the current head of ASH. It's something she clearly feels prickly about.

I've had my differences of opinion with Clive but I've always respected him and he was impressive again on Tuesday.

He was the only key speaker who showed real passion for the product, and concern for the consumer – "Nothing meets the needs of all smokers", "These are real people", and so on.

Oddly enough I used the same line, "These are real people", in a presentation on consumers' rights last week. Perhaps we should get together and launch a consumer group for smokers and vapers. I don't smoke and Clive doesn't vape. Perfect.

E-cigarettes, he added, are "disruptive" to the tobacco industry but they are also disruptive to the public health industry because the product challenges their "anti-corporate bias" and their "model of tobacco control".

He was clearly enjoying himself.

In contrast to her predecessor's ebullient performance there were times when Deborah seemed to be chewing on a wasp seasoned with lemon.

Her presentation included a tobacco advertisement featuring a good looking man and a beautiful woman. The man was holding a cigarette and the caption read, 'Blow in her face and she'll follow you anywhere'.

I'm not sure what response Deborah was hoping to get (a sharp intake of breath, perhaps, or shocked silence) but that line got one of the biggest laughs of the day.

If the E-Cigarette Summit was about the future someone really should have told Deborah. She and ASH are stuck in the past, fighting battles with the tobacco companies that are well past their sell-by date.

As for those pesky e-cigs, they are potentially highly addictive, she warned. Toxic too. And they could renormalise smoking.

She doesn't want to ban them but ASH want e-cigs advertised to smokers only. (How's that going to work?)

Honestly, when Deborah is in this mood I wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift with her.

As it happens I bumped into her very briefly at lunch. She expressed mock surprise that I was at a conference on "harm reduction".

I tried to explain that I was there because a lot of smokers (who don't want to quit) use e-cigs when they're not allowed to light up – in pubs and other enclosed public places – but I don't think she was listening.

In her mind, and those of many tobacco control campaigners, e-cigs have one use only – as a smoking cessation aid. The idea that someone might want to smoke and/or vape for pleasure is anathema to them.

It's anathema to many vapers too. Lorien Raine, representing the Electronic Cigarette Consumer Association (ECCA), declared that smoking tobacco in public is now completely "inappropriate".

Really?

Lorien was responding to a complaint by a public health worker who said she felt ill as a result of people vaping in the conference room.

The guy sitting directly in front of me was vaping, but discreetly. Two rows further forward however a man with an enormous handlebar moustache was exhaling significant clouds of vapour.

The public health worker said that exposure to the vapour (passive vaping?) had given her a headache and the smell had made her nauseous.

I was closer than her to the vapers. I got the faintest whiff from the guy sitting in front of me, and nothing from the man with the handlebar moustache.

As for the vapour, it disappeared within seconds of being exhaled, much like tobacco smoke although the slight fug one associates with tobacco smoke was entirely absent.

A comment that deserved a response but didn't get one (because no-one apart from me seemed to hear it) was uttered by Professor Robert West, director of tobacco studies for Cancer Research.

According to West, the "advent of new technology" should make us consider the "other side of the coin". He didn't use the word (they rarely do) but I'm certain he meant prohibition.

In other words, if there is a safer alternative to smoking tobacco, why would governments allow tobacco to remain legal?

As I say, no-one questioned him on this but it wouldn't surprise me if the idea came up again. In fact, if you were an e-cigarette company you might actively lobby for just such an outcome.

Anyway, it was a very well-organised event that attracted a wide range of interested parties and some interesting speakers.

What interests me is how those parties will move forward. Will they split down traditional lines or will new alliances develop?

We know tobacco control is divided on e-cigs, but smokers and vapers are too (more's the pity).

I suspect that new alliances will emerge. Watch this space.

PS. Quote of the day came from "e-cig aficionado" David Dorn:

"Every smoker is different ... every vaper is also different".

To prove his point about vapers he invited those in the audience to hold aloft the device they use to vape.

A small sea of hands went up and each one was clasping a completely different device.

Over-regulate or medicinalise e-cigs, said Dorn, and you'll destroy innovation because small e-cig companies won't have the resources to research, develop and get a license to sell every device they invent.

See also: E-cigarette summit (Velvet Glove Iron Fist), E-cigarette summit review (Ashtray Blog)

Update: Lorien has responded in the comments below.