this is bbc news. the headlines: cardinal george pell, the most senior catholic cleric to be found guilty of child sexual abuse, has lost an appeal in australia against his convictions. the former vatican treasurer was jailed for six years in march for abusing two choir boys in a cathedral in melbourne in the 1990s. a record number of wildfires have raged across the amazon this year — 70,000 have already been detected and concern is growing over the environment policies of brazil's president jair bolsonaro. the surge is an 83 per cent increase on last year's figures. pro—government forces in syria are poised to complete their recapture of a key rebel stronghold after five years, following the withdrawal of jihadist and rebel fighters. activists say that syrian and russian air strikes have continued to hit other towns in idlib, the last major rebel stronghold in syria. now on bbc news it's hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. today i'm inside the swiss research laboratories of an international business which makes billions of dollars every year making and selling a highly addictive, potentially lethal product. these laboratories belong to philip morris international, the makers of marlborough and a host of other cigarette brands. my guest today is ceo of the company, andre calantzopoulos. he says he is leading philip morris into a smoke—free future — is that clever strategy or the most outrageous corporate hypocrisy? andre calantzopoulos, welcome to hardtalk.

thanks for having me. i want to begin with a little bit of history — you have been with the philip morris organisation for more than 30 years. you lived through that period in the late 80s, 1990s, when it became clear that philip morris and the other big tobacco companies had systematically lied, deceived and manipulated the public about the nature of cigarettes, the dangers of cigarettes. you chose to stay.

why? first of all, because i think change can come from within. the second thing is, just for clarity, philip morris has stated clearly since 1999 that cigarettes are addictive and cause disease and premature deaths, and then the question is, what we do about this? and what we developed, these products, that can reduce the risks. what is important to understand is first of all people know that cigarettes cause disease and are addictive... let's be very blunt, you are the boss of the biggest international cigarette manufacturer in the world. cigarettes kill people. cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands, millions of people. yes. you sit at the top of a company that

makes and sells cigarettes. first of all, people also buy cigarettes and somebody has to supply them. but the key question is what do we do about reducing the harm of this product. it is important to understand that what causes the problem of cigarettes is not very well—known. it is not tobacco per se, it is not nicotine that, although addictive, is not the direct cause of the diseases. it is combustion. it is the fact that we burn organic matter, like tobacco, that is what causes the toxiness, that causes disease. so as we have now the technology over the last years, we can start developing products for the people that will not wait, that do not combust. i understand that you want to portray philip morris as a company working towards a smoke—free world. i understand that is why you frankly invited us here because this is where you are doing the work on your smoke—free products,

as you call them, but with all respect i need to talk to you also about the core of your business and last year, as i understand your corporate figures, you sold something like 780 billion — billion — cigarettes. correct. you, as the ceo, have to live with the fact that that product is killing people today. 0k. the objective of the company that i set years ago is that we will replace cigarettes as soon as possible with smoke—free alternatives, and this is not portraying the company as such. it is actual fact. we have invested $6 billion in developing and commercialising these product and if you look — a couple of statistics to understand... statistics are important. last year, as i understand it,

almost 90% — 90% of your revenues came from cigarettes. actually, a bit less, but the key thing is that 14% of oui’ revenues came from these new products, and what is more important is 92% of all our expense is in these new products that are smoke—free, and even more important, 60% of any commercial activity we run worldwide, although we're in a few countries yet with the smoke—free alternatives, is on these new products. so, cigarettes will be phased out over time and we will do our best to convince people to switch. let's look at the facts today — you are increasing sales and market share in a whole host of lower—income and middle—income countries. you clearly, as a corporation, have a strategy to maximise cigarette sales in these key, international growth markets, yes?

well, this is not correct. first of all, we have been present in these markets for very many years. there's no new market... no, i didn't say you hadn't been present. i said that you are working very hard to maximise your sales. for example, let's take on example — in indonesia, you've spent millions of dollars launching and promoting a new brand — philip morris bold, you call it — and you clearly want that new product to take market share, to get more cigarettes sold in indonesia. well, first of all, this is — if i talk about the detail of indonesia, this is not a new product, this is an existing product that was renamed just into philip morris because we are consolidating all the brands we have in cigarettes in order to reallocate all the resources we have into the new products, so it is not new. you don't promote, you don't market, you don't spend on advertising unless you want results, unless you want people to be smoking your product

in great numbers. 0k, first of all, there isi billion people that smoke in the world today and somebody is selling them cigarettes. the second thing is, we should not be confusing, in my view, prevalence, so increasing consumption of cigarettes versus brand preference. i don't think we have to teach people what cigarettes are. they know very well what they are. so, if there is any expenditure in commercial terms, and there is very few as i told you, as we move on on cigarettes, to maintain our share of the market because there is no reason, from a business perspective, for as long as cigarettes exist and we have not phased them out, not to give market share to out competitors, and i think that is a normal thing. well, take one more example, the philippines — there is one city in the philippines, balanga, which is trying to impose very strict restrictions on smoking, particularly for young people. philip morris international,

your company, has joined forces with a couple of other big tobacco companies to fight the ordinances put in place in that filipino city. why have you done that? ok, the particular case of philippines is that the restriction is such that, essentially, there is no place that you can sell any cigarettes in the city and there is a national law about... if you want a smoke—free world, mr cala ntzopoulos, presumably you are in favour of that. this is covering all tobacco products, let's be clear, and i want also to clarify that if we don't differentiate cigarettes from the rest of the smoke—free products, many of the. restrictive or... but with respect, we're talking about cigarettes here. in the philippines... let me finish. ..there's people smoking cigarettes, and you are trying to stop a filipino city, which is trying to restrict public smoking. you tell me you want a smoke—free world. these two things do not add up. i think it's one city,

very small, and we should look at the big picture. we have not engaged in litigation for many years. if i may say so, you are the ceo of the company. this is about a mindset. i began by asking you about the litigation in the united states, which followed on from your bosses at the time lying repeatedly about the dangers of cigarettes, about the fact they knew cigarettes were addictive and potentially lethal and they covered it up. my question to you today is — have you learned nothing? why are you still using lawyers at vast expense to try to stop controls on smoking cigarettes? well, first of all, again, there is very few cases, and in this particular case, it is just the way the law is written is eliminating all possible tobacco products, future and current, from sales. but it seems to me you're yet to address the moral issues behind the fact your company still sells upwards of 750 billion cigarettes a year.

it is a question in the end of corporate morality and leadership. let me quote to you george butterworth, director of cancer uk. "the best way," he says, "that philip morris could help people stop smoking is to stop making cigarettes." that's simple, isn't it? very, but absolutely not logical, because if philip morris stops selling cigarettes tomorrow, do you think people stop smoking or that will help public health? somebody else will sell the cigarettes. i think it would have a massive impact — a massive impact on the global debate about the future of smoking. you could tell me that other companies would fill in behind you, that they would take your business. that, in the short run, may be true, but imagine if you showed

the leadership to say, "you know what? "my rhetoric about a smoke—free future isn'tjust words. "we tomorrow are going to stop making cigarettes." just imagine how powerful that would be. our objective is to phase out cigarettes as soon as possible, but there are people... with respect, we've already established, from your work in the world, particularly the poorer countries of this world, that is not true. you are expanding your sales and your markets. we are not expending ourselves, i'm sorry. in some countries, you are. we are present in these countries. there's no expansion of sales. actually, cigarette sales are declining everywhere in the world, and we are going to accelerate this decline by selling to the people that don't quit these products. i mean, i don't think philip morris or any tobacco company of today has invented cigarettes and tobacco smoke. there are people who use these products whether we exist or not, and they will continue using them. i mean, we had the same discussion on cannabis. the fact that there was no company selling cannabis,

there was no advertising, there was nothing, people still used it. so can we become real and understand that people have will and they take decisions, and our job is to convince them to kick the habit of cigarettes and the best for them is to quit. but we also have to... but if they don't, we have to give them alternatives. as observers of your company, we too have to be real and realistic, and what we see is that almost 90% of your revenues still come from cigarettes, we see that your overall revenues are into the hundreds of billions of dollars, your own remuneration package — correct me if i'm wrong — around $15 million or $16 million per year. you are so heavily invested in cigarettes that you cannot afford to walk away from them. 0n the contrary. we are walking away from them. all i'm saying is i don't think that if we stop selling cigarettes tomorrow, because i get this question logically sometimes, this is going to move an iota the needle on public health.

0n the contrary. there will have even illicit cigarettes and not an illicit industry selling them. so, my objective here is to phase them out, as i said at the beginning, i'm doing everything we can as a company who is totally focused on these products, the new products, the alternatives and we want to phase out cigarettes, and if governments or regulators play the game, we can get there very fast. the world health organization, which you have tried to sort of work with, ironically, they want nothing to do with you. they have said the tobacco industry has a long history of systematic, aggressive, sustained and well—resourced opposition to tobacco control measures. that continues. "their goal is to weaken tobacco controls. " that's the world health organization. yes, the world health organization and, in particular, the framework convention for tobacco control,

talk about who as, generally, i think they are still struggling to move between ideology and the belief that only through the restrictions we are going to resolve the problem. whilst they're admitting that despite all the measures and restrictions in 2025, we still have 1 billion people. and starting to use a little bit of scientific approach into their thinking, and my view again is — and put the company behind — is we have to continue restricting cigarettes, we need to differentiate the smoke—free products that have the potential to reduce the harm, and once we differentiate these two and we stop selling tobacco is bad and no matter what, nicotine is bad, then you can have different regulatory regimes. this lab that we're in right now, this whole building, which is devoted to finding new ways of people consuming nicotine — you called it smoke—free, you imply that, frankly, somehow it's the healthy alternative — it's not healthy at all, is it?

well, it is much, much healthier than smoking cigarettes. but it's still bad, right? we never said the risk—free products are zero risk. we have to be very clear to the people who smoke. so, why are you investing $6 billion in a product, which you admit with me is still bad, highly addictive and that you think, all things being equal, people should not use? cigarettes are 100% of the risk relating to using nicotine because the delivery system, as i explained, has combustion so will create toxins. the best thing is for people to quit nicotine altogether, but there is1 billion people don't. one of the points here is that your new product, your smoke—free tobacco — it comes in a sort of tobacco stick, a cigarette stick, which is put into an electronic machine, which you inhale, but it's heated rather than burnt tobacco — right.

so, all of the medical analysis shows that there are still toxins ingested into the body through that product. correct. and you're telling me you've invested $6 billion in this product because it is better than cigarettes. because it is better than cigarettes. but why not invest that money in programmes to get people to quit tobacco, even to use nicotine patches, which do not have the toxin problem that your new product has. there are all sorts of alternatives, but you still want to make your profits from selling people nicotine, highly addictive, your words, and tobacco. ok, i think there is a lot of investment and a lot of bombarding almost of smokers to quit. but reality is they don't. so do what we do about it? that is the question. sorry — when you say bombarding, you are suggesting that... not us, but everybody else. you are suggesting that is a negative, are you? that people are...

no, that's very — it's very positive, but i am trying to say what we do, but we also have to measure outcomes. so far, we are told smokers, you should quit. we run campaigns, not only us, the entire world. we increased taxes. governments, everybody. you can't see the cigarettes anywhere. you can't have any advertising. and still people start and still people continue. so my view is we have to continue on this avenue and if governments want to cooperate with us, i am more than willing to invest financially, because if we do it on our own, we are accused of some subliminal way of influencing people, and we did it in the past, but on the other side, we should offer people alternatives. this is something that is accepted in any other industry. there is no zero—impact product on earth. i mean, solar panels are not zero impact on the environment. we just saying they are better than burning coal. so we should help people to adopt them. we talk about electric cars. so, why do we —

i understand the emotion — but why, when it comes to 1 billion people who smoke, alternatives should not exist? do you understand why so many people accuse you of the most grotesque corporate hypocrisy? because at the same time as you talk about your commitment to this smoke—free product, you — and i come back to it — are selling hundreds of billions of cigarettes every single year, and making vast profits, not because of your smoke—free products, but because of your cigarettes. well... is that hypocrisy? first of all, people can accuse us of anything because accusing and criticising, i think it is free. doing something is important, so i think we are doing something. we are investing money in new products. now, the action on smoking and health campaign has calculated that between 2005 and 2030 — that is a 25—year span — 130 million people in the middle— and lower—income countries will be killed by smoking.

is that on your conscience? well, first of all, i... do you feel that in your own conscience? i think what is important is to understand, first of all, these new products, we started four years ago. they are already 13% of our revenues, 14% last year and we are progressing, we are almost 20% in the second quarter of this year. we have already 11 million people that would continue to smoke, that switched to this product. so, i think that's progress. if people want cigarettes — and i said that before — they will not find it, i mean, people started smoking tobacco before any industry existed. it is the same thing like saying, you know, alcohol is due to existing companies. alcohol was invented by the ba bylonians. there is something in people that want these kind of products.

the question is how we make them less and less harmful and help people quit cigarettes because that's the 100% risk today. and i think we should not have a conversation on — can we develop a product that has zero risk? yes, ideally, iwould love to have a product that replaces cigarettes with zero risk, but then you should not contain anything, including nicotine, it's hot air. so nobody‘s going to switch to this. the thing is how you find the golden compromise that reduces the risk and the probability of disease quite substantially, and at the same time as adopted by people. it is not me and people who criticise — are going to change anything in this world. it is convincing the people who smoke to do something different. that is where we should focus, sometimes the debate on the conversation. i understand your corporate strategy. let us end with a simple question. when will philip morris international — your company, the biggest cigarette tobacco company in the world — when will your company no longer make and sell any cigarettes?

my... when? i just want a time frame. let me finish. as soon as possible, but i cannot do this on my own. i don't have the power to wake up in the morning and convince the 160 million people that use cigarettes to move out of cigarettes or switch. who am i and who is anybody that criticises this world to say that we can tell1 billion people what to do, and in the flip of a finger, they will do it? it takes a lot of hard work. as a corporation, you must have a vision, and what is your vision? when? when will there no longer... i think that's changing. by 2025, we already want to have 40% of our revenues in these products, and if we get accelerated regulation, we can go much faster. so, i wouldn't mind, ten years, moving out of cigarettes, in five years, moving out of cigarettes. the way i see it is very simple — we create — to differentiate these products, we create a proper regulation like the us fda has, then we incentivise people through fiscal and other measures, and at the right moment when we have

all these new products, these cigarettes at 50%, 60% of the market, we can go to supply side measures, cap and trade, nicotine reduction like the fda said, or elimination in the cigarettes, and then accelerate this region without creating all of the unintended consequences. for that to be achieved, you need collaboration between government, the ngos and philip morris or whomever of goodwill, not this adversarial relationship that confuses completely the smokers and doesn't make anybody quit. final thought — you have spent 3a years in the big tobacco industry. are you proud of your industry? i think i am proud of what we achieved as a company over time in these years, because, again, our products are well known to cause disease, as i said, but there are also people

who use them, 0k. and somebody has to supply. otherwise, we will be three—quarters illegal industry, like we had with marijuana and now we are legalising. so we have to admit sometimes that, as i said, people who smoke have free will. they don't take their decisions because somebody else tells them to do it. and we have to respect this free will when we're trying to convince them out of the cigarettes. i am very proud that we invested a lot of money over the last few years to develop this product, and i know the past is not — it doesn't give us, you know, a lot of credibility at this stage. all i am saying is we have to forget a little bit the debates between us, ngo, sometimes who, and we can have this debate, but it should be focused on how we take the 1 billion smokers out of the habit of smoking and stop shooting over their heads. we have to stop right there, but andre calantzopoulos, i thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you very much, stephen.

thank you very much! thank you. hello there. it looks like we're going to see a return to some summery weather finally. high pressure establishing itself over the near continent will send southerly winds our way and we'll tap into that warmth, which will be building over the continent. today, though, it looks like we still have some weather fronts, weather systems to contend with, which will bring wet and windy weather, mainly to the north and the west if the uk. you can see this deep area of low pressure slowly making inroads as the day wears on. but we start, for many of us, with higher pressure, plenty of sunshine

around this morning. one or two showers will develop ahead of this rain band for northern england into wales and the midlands, the odd heavier one but it turns wet and windy for northern ireland, much of northern and western scotland. gusts of wind 50, maybe 55mph in exposure and a breezy day further south and east. but better chance of seeing sunshine here with 22 or 23 degrees being the high. during wednesday night, that weather front moves southwards and eastwards, tending to fizzle out as it does so. but patchy rain across central portions of the uk with blustery showers following on behind, generally a clear and a dry night across the south and east. you can see double—figure values for all starting thursday morning. so, warmer than it's been the last few nights. so, we've got a north—south divide on thursday. low pressure to the north, high pressure building to the south. that weak weather front will continue to fizzle out but we'll see further fronts pushing to northern ireland, parts of scotland and northern england through the day thanks to that area of low pressure anchored to the north of scotland. it will be quite windy here,

but further south and east, again, better chance of seeing lighter winds and more sunshine. and we'll start to tap into the warmth on the near continent, 2a, maybe 25 degrees, but the high teens further north. now, this area of high pressure really starts to establish itself over the near continent. southerly winds dig in and start to push those weather fronts to the north of the uk. so, there'll be a gradual process on friday where we will see the clouds thinning and breaking and the rain diverted towards the north of scotland. elsewhere, variable cloud, but some good spells of sunshine and we're really tapping into the warmth over the near continent with temperatures in the high 20s celsius in the south and east, even the low 20s further north. into the start of the weekend, it looks like those weather fronts will be away from the uk. so most places should be dry with variable cloud. plenty of sunshine. winds coming to the south or the south—east. a much warmer day for all. the low—to—mid 20s celsius in the north, perhaps high 20s in the south—east side,

so it's certainly warming up across the board with temperatures probably best across the south and east. it looks like this fine spell will last, for many of us, into next week.

this is the briefing. i'm ben bland. our top stories: australia's cardinal pell will remain injail for child sexual abuse crimes, after his appeal is rejected by a majority of the two to 1, the court of appeal has dismissed cardinal george pell‘s appeal against his conviction for the commission of sexual offences. borisjohnson prepares to meet german chancellor angela merkel, as he tries to persuade europe to agree a brexit deal. president trump says he's postponing a trip to denmark because the prime minister has rebuffed his offer to buy greenland. britain's top bosses have a big paycut but still earn more than a hundred times the salary of average workers.