Return to: Home | Life & Society | Health

Q&A: Duncan Bannatyne

Sean Carey

Published 06 November 2009

The entrepreneur discusses his philanthropy and anti-smoking campaigning

Duncan Bannatyne, 60, the Dragons' Den star, is one of the UK's leading entrepreneurs with an estimated £320 million fortune. He is also a leading philanthropist and is a Trustee of Comic Relief. He is president of the charity No Smoking Day, as well as Quit's UK Children's Champion. Here he talks to Sean Carey about cigarette smoking in the UK and Africa.

Not everyone who is a former smoker becomes an anti-smoking activist. What's the motivation?

Well, although I used to smoke I now find that other people's smoking affects me quite a lot - it makes me cough, makes my eyes sting and all the rest of it. So I'm very aware of it at a personal level. But I have long been very concerned about the effect of cigarette smoke on young children's health. So when I was approached to become president of No Smoking Day in 2008, and earlier this year to become Quit's UK Children's Champion, I jumped at the chance. I'm just lucky that I have a public profile because of my television work. It comes in very useful for these sorts of campaigns.

Some people regard smoking tobacco as a fundamental human right and argue that any attempt to control the consumption of cigarettes by consenting adults is a restriction on human liberty. How do you respond?

I think in many ways they are right. Smokers should be allowed to go into a locked room and have as many cigarettes as they want, and then come out again when they've finished. But they have no right to smoke in front of children, or other adults who for one reason or another don't like cigarette smoke. But there's a point here which is often missing from the argument put forward by libertarians; when I speak to smokers I find that the vast majority would like to stop but for one reason or another find that they can't. They're victims in other words-- they're no longer freely choosing to smoke but are simply addicted to tobacco.

So what do you say to them?

I tell smokers that the only way to give up is by using a lot of willpower and by remembering that cigarettes are not only damaging their health but also cost a lot of money. I know that it's not easy -- I smoked for five years and it was only on the fifth time of trying to give up that I was successful. But I know from personal experience that going about one's daily business without gagging for a cigarette is fantastic -- life's just so much better without tobacco.

How does championing anti-smoking initiatives compare to the day job?

The big difference is that I don't make any money out of it. And another difference is that I get a lot of stick because of it. For example, the smokers' lobby group, Forest, wrote an article on their website a few weeks ago with the headline, "Ban Bannatyne" before launching a personal attack on me.

On the other hand, occasionally someone will come up to me and say that I played a part in inspiring them to give up cigarettes which is wonderful. And I take great satisfaction from the fact that in the UK the number of smokers is constantly falling -- it's less than 20 per cent of the adult population at the moment. The big challenge now is to stop children under the age of 18 taking up the habit. In the UK the tobacco companies don't sell cigarettes to children but they know very well that children smoke and don't do anything to prevent it, so it's up to the rest of us to help in any way we can.

Do you think that the UK government has done enough in terms of anti-smoking initiatives?

No, it hasn't. The authorities in England were a year behind those in Scotland banning smoking in pubs and they're still lagging behind. For example, there's no sensible reason why cigarettes should still be sold in vending machines where children can get access to them or why they are still on open display behind the tills in shops and supermarkets. In some European countries like Ireland, for example, they are locked away which I think is the way forward. I also think that it's crazy that it's still legal in this country that someone can drive a car with a newborn baby strapped in it and smoke as many cigarettes as they want without consideration for the infant's health. We should follow the lead set by some Australian states like New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania and make that sort of behaviour illegal.

As an entrepreneur you will appreciate that the tobacco industry remains economically and politically very powerful. Because of increasing restrictions in many Western countries, it will look to markets overseas, especially where regulations governing tobacco use and sales are weak or non-existent, to maintain or even increase profits. What to do?

In many African countries like Nigeria, Malawi and Mauritius, cigarette smoking is promoted through the use of advertising billboards and sponsorship of music concerts where free cigarettes are handed out. I found when I visited Malawi that often there is no age restriction on those attending these concerts or, if there is, there is no one on the door making sure that young people cannot get in.

What I have also observed in these countries is that among the very poor a single cigarette might be passed around by five or six children which means that they're all likely to develop the habit. In Mauritius, for example, I came across examples of children as young as five who were smoking which was truly shocking -- these kids had absolutely no idea that cigarettes could damage their health. And it was interesting that the warnings printed on the side of cigarette packets in Mauritius were often in tiny letters and in English which is not the language spoken there. But it's not all one-way traffic -- the Nigerian government is suing the tobacco companies. Whether they will win or not I don't know, but I hope that more developing countries will follow their example.

Is there any evidence that some tobacco companies are worse than others in the sales and marketing tactics that they employ in the developing world?

I think that they are all a pretty bad lot. However, I notice that a lot of people at the top of the tobacco companies are often not smokers themselves, although they seem quite happy to con other people and take their money from them. But what I can't understand is why they are so focused on cigarettes and don't have any other plans for the future even when sales are likely to fall in the long run. If I was running those companies I wouldn't try and sell cigarettes in Africa for a penny a time but instead diversify into hotels, shopping centres, or health clubs, where there is a lot more money to be made. So even from a business point of view it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are all sorts of opportunities out there -- there's really no need for anyone to sell cigarettes to earn a living.

Dr Sean Carey is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism (CRONEM) at Roehampton University and Fellow of the Young Foundation.

 

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

4 comments from readers

helend498
07 November 2009 at 00:05

A further question for Duncan Bannatyne.

Which data are you referring to when you state that adult smoking rates are falling in the UK and are now below 20%?

The last official data showed that rates had remained static since the blanket smoking ban (after years of reduction) and had in some areas icreased.

If this is to continue the UK will end up like Ireland with smoking rates having increased by 4% overall since their blanket ban.

Rates have continued to fall in many of the other EU countries where catering for both non-smokers and smokers is the norm. It appears that in the countries where heavy-handed tactics are used, the opposite occurs.

I'm only pointing out the trends of official data and so feel right to question your anti-smoking opinion which goes against the official statistics.

If you really wish to reduce smoking rates then you should adopt tactics that have been proven to work.

Your suggestions are not backed by any evidence, and the blanket smoking ban has been proven to reverse previous downward trends in smoking prevalence.

I look forward to your reply with the official data backing up your figures

Dave Atherton
07 November 2009 at 05:17

Duncan Bannatyne's intolerant, self opinionation masks an ignorance of the facts. Firstly we have had a relentless barrage of anti smoking laws and propaganda, and I am afraid smoking rates are either stable or have gone up slightly to 22.5% of the population.

"The damning publication from the NHS Information Centre states there was “no significant difference” in the number of people who smoked before and after the law changed in 2007."

In Ireland smoking has risen from 29% to 33% of the population.

“Despite hikes in tobacco tax, the smoking ban and a new law against the public display of cigarettes for sale, the number of smokers has steadily risen since 2007 when 29pc of the population smoked.”

Youth smoking in Scotland has risen too, alas I do not have any statistics for England and Wales but in the age group 16-24 has risen from 25% to 31%.

“In 2004 the number of young smokers in Scotland had fallen to just 25% but by 2007 that figure was 31%.”

Alas the state sponsored nannies and bullies have consumed vast amounts of taxpayers money, for no effect. Youngsters now think smoking is cool and rebellious, well done Duncan.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/related-38108-nhs-inf...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/smoking-rate-soars-u...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7791012.stm

Dave Atherton
07 November 2009 at 05:20

When it comes to second hand smoke (SHS) the facts get in the way of a good story. Just to confirm that smoking in this country reached its peak in 1948 when 66% of the population smoked and is now 22.5%. Asthma however has risen three fold in that time, SHS is not a cause of asthma, but more probably industrial pollution and car exhaust fumes that belch out of Duncan’s car. I am aware of two studies into children of smokers and in both say it is protective. Yes, asthma is seen less in families that smoke and the factor is between 30%-80%.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

"MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand.

"We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.

"The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. "Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them."

http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_link...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 11422156

Fergwoo
10 November 2009 at 19:07

the professional style of the above blogs, not to mention the reactionary speed as well as the amount of data produced hint very strongly to me that these are not penned by non-self-interested people, or 'entities'. Having had some contact with the tobbaco industry and their apologists their speed and efficacy never fail to impress.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Was the pre-Budget report fair?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker