Forest Eireann addresses Health and Children Committee in Irish Parliament

Currently in Dublin where my colleague John Mallon is addressing the parliamentary Health and Children Committee on plain packaging.

The Committee has just heard from three tobacco companies – PJ Carrolls, John Player and JTI. Next up, after a break for a Dial vote, is Forest Eireann!

You can watch it live here.

You'll find some tweets about the hearing on our Plain Packs Plain Stupid Twitter feed – @stupid_plan.

More to follow ...

MPs support ban on smoking when children present

BBC News reports:

Car smoking: MPs support ban when children present:

Forest's response:

"We're disappointed but not surprised. The government has been spineless in its response to Labour's initiative.

"Legislation will have very little impact because so few adults still smoke in cars carrying children. Those that do will carry on because it will be very difficult to enforce.

"The overwhelming majority of adult smokers know how to behave towards children and the law should reflect that.

"It shouldn't be used to stigmatise them as potentially unfit parents who can't be trusted to do the right thing without state intervention.

"If you believed everything you heard in the House about the threat to children's health it's a miracle anyone who was a child in the Fifties and Sixties, when a large majority of adults smoked, is still alive.

"Government has banned smoking in public places. Now they're going to ban it in a private place. The home will be next."

I'm now off to do an interview with the BBC News Channel.

After that I'm on Five Live at 23.10 and again on Morning Reports (5.00-5.30).

Somewhere in between I hope to get some sleep.

PS. Things you didn't know. Tony Blackburn told me today that his father was a doctor who smoked 60-a-day.

He added that it wasn't very pleasant when his father smoked in the car (which I can understand) but, to Tony's credit, he was totally impartial on the subject unlike many of his colleagues at the BBC.

Update on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 6:09 by Simon Clark

The gory details:

Delight as MPs back car smoking ban (Press Association)
Smoking in cars carrying children to be a criminal offence (Daily Mail)
MPs vote in favour of banning smoking in cars with child passengers despite opposition (Huffington Post)
David Cameron backs smoking ban in cars carrying children (Guardian)
MPs vote to ban smoking in cars with children (Sky News)
Car smoking ban 'will be brought in' (BBC News)

Get ready to watch Pat Nurse smoking and driving!

Forest has had several requests in recent weeks for smokers who smoke in their car with (or without) children.

The requests have come from television and radio programmes.

We've passed them on via Facebook and Twitter, and contacted people we know. With little success.

If you do smoke in your car with children you probably don't want to broadcast the fact on air. In the current climate you might get lynched.

And if you smoke in your car without children, why bother

Anyway, following a request from BBC News on Friday, Pat Nurse stepped forward and she was filmed on Saturday for the Six and Ten O'Clock News programmes tonight.

What I didn't know when I put her name forward is that Pat has only just recovered from a broken leg.

Here's her description of filming and what she said:

BBC News came, filmed and stayed two hours. They interviewed me at home and as I drove my son's car which I find easiest to drive.

He's a non smoker and said he didn't mind at all if I smoked in it. I can smoke and concentrate while driving but ask me to talk and drive and my concentration is gone. I stalled a few times, bump started, and forgot how to reverse.

The best part of the day, however, was finding out that I can drive with my recovering broken leg and it's the first time I've been off crutches since December 4.

(I wasn't smoking when I had my accident. I tripped while teaching, and then crashed into a whiteboard in front of a class of students.)

The interviewer asked me if I was a member of Forest. I said I was just an ordinary consumer but I supported Forest because it was the only organisation that echoed the consumer's voice and certainly far more accurately than anti-smoker organisations that claim to speak for us.

They wanted my smoking daughter and grandkids to be here while filming took place but I didn't want to expose her or the grandchildren in a national report by a broadcaster I don't trust because it is not known for impartiality on this issue.

My message to government is leave us alone. We've had enough. The vast majority of people are considerate and only a tiny minority of people smoke with kids in cars these days.

Parenting and culture is changing which means that smoking in cars will be gone naturally within this generation. The government doesn't need to make a law to stop that which isn't happening and is dying out.

Education is always the best way forward. Government should be pleased that our culture is changing without the need of heavy handed laws in knee jerk response to propaganda.

The vote on smoking in cars appears to have been delayed by an hour or two but we should get the result tonight.

In the meantime watch Pat smoking (while driving) on tonight's BBC News!

Update: OK, they didn't show her driving, merely smoking in her own home. And she got, oh, 15 seconds.

But, as I always say, better to be involved than not.

PM and Boris jump on the banned wagon

So, when it became clear that a majority of MPs were going to support a ban on smoking in cars carrying children, what did Dave and Boris do?

They jumped on the fast-moving bandwagon.

Writing in today's Telegraph the Mayor of London wrote, 'Banning smoking in cars is bizarre, intrusive – and right'.

Needless to say Boris's words are everywhere, at home and abroad, just as he intended:

Boris Johnson backs bid to ban smoking in cars(ITV News)
Boris backs ban on smoking with child in car (Sky News)
London Mayor Boris backs smoking ban in cars (AFP)

To the best of my knowledge Boris has never commented on this subject before. To call it opportunistic is an understatement.

You might have thought David Cameron would see an opportunity to demonstrate some backbone and stick to his belief that legislation was a step too far.

Not a bit of it.

Within hours the PM had thrown the towel in and joined the dream team of Luciana Berger, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and virtually every Labour MP:

David Cameron backs smoking ban n cars carrying children (Guardian)

You couldn't make it up.

Meanwhile, like King Canute, I continue to drag myself from one London studio to another ...

Wet with a capital 'W' – the unacceptably grey face of the parliamentary Tory party

I'm proud to admit I'm a big fan of Jacob Rees Mogg.

It began when I saw him on Have I Got News For You last year. There have been some real car crash moments on that programme involving MPs of all parties, but Rees Mogg survived with his dignity intact and possibly enhanced.

He was sharp, humorous and – most important – self-deprecating.

At the Conservative party conference in Manchester he was on the panel at a meeting organised by the Adam Smith Institute.

The other panellists were Mark Wallace (Conservative Home), James Delingpole and Alex Massie, but for me it was Rees Mogg who shone.

He came across as thoughtful, conservative (yet socially liberal) – and serious. Listening to him I thought, "If only Boris could be like that."

Anyway, Rees Mogg has written a really rather wonderful article for the Mail on Sunday. I urge you to read it:

Sorry Nanny, here's why I CAN'T vote for a ban on smoking in front of the children: MP's defiance as Commons prepares to vote on cigarettes in cars

What a contrast with the sad apology for a Conservative MP I met in Bristol on Friday.

Like me, Chris Skidmore (above, right) was a guest on Sunday Politics West.

On a personal level he was very pleasant. Before recording started he introduced himself and we had a brief chat, mostly about the weather.

We didn't talk about banning smoking in cars with children but when the producer came to take us to the studio I asked, "How are you voting on Monday?"

"For," he replied.

Fair enough. If he feels strongly and has some good arguments for a ban that are clearly his own I can accept that.

However, when asked by presenter David Garmston how he would vote, and why, a blank look came over his face. It was as if he was on autopilot.

He uttered a few platitudes but nothing to suggest he had a genuine view of his own. Going through the motions is the best way to describe it. A zombie would have shown more passion.

Crucially there was little to distinguish Skidmore's opinion from that of Jo McCarron, the Labour candidate for Kingswood, who was also on the programme.

The only real difference between them was McCarron's bright red dress. (Skidmore was wearing a suit with a white shirt and no tie. Significantly the suit was grey.)

Kingswood is a marginal seat. Unless Tory MPs like Skidmore put some clear blue ideological water between them and their opponents, how can the Conservative party hope to win an overall majority next year?

Nice chap he may be, but Chris Skidmore is wet with a capital 'W'.

Contrast his supine, anonymous performance with that of Jacob Rees Mogg and you have the reason why so many Tory voters are in despair.

PS. I probably shouldn't reveal this, because it can happen to anyone, but during recording McCarron made a rookie mistake.

She lost her train of thought, a wild look came into her eyes, and she stopped mid-sentence, saying, "I've lost my thread."

I've done it many times myself in recorded interviews and the reporter will always let you do it again.

However, the regional section of Sunday Politics West is recorded 'as live' 48 hours in advance which means they don't normally edit or re-record if someone makes a mistake.

Unless you're the presenter, of course.

McCarron was quite distressed, and I felt for her. When I left, after the recording had finished, I got the impression a 'conversation' was taking place.

Well, I watched the programme today and I'm pleased to say they edited the offending section out.

I hope they do the same if, touch wood, a similar calamity happens to me!

£2.5 million - that's how much Smokefree South West costs the public per year

Further to my previous post, Dick Puddlecote writes:

Listen carefully, you might just hear a gravy train coming off the rails down in the South West ...

DP then lists the public health teams/local authorities who contributed a whopping £2.5 to Smokefree South West in 2010/11.

(In 2012, in addition to what I imagine was a very similar sum, SFSW also received £450,000 to run Plain Packs Protect, the most obvious example of political lobbying, and government lobbying government, I have ever seen.)

Note that Dick had to make a series of Freedom of Information requests to get these figures because Smokefree South West sure as hell didn't post them on their website.

He adds:

Congratulations to the councils concerned for recognising that this is something which shouldn't be consuming such a large proportion of our taxes.

Seeing as so many other groups have so much to say on tobacco control, let them put their own money up instead of ripping off the public and getting their pharma industry lobbying done at our expense.

Full post: Turning off the tax tap (Dick Puddlecote)

Smokefree South West battles to retain local authority funding

Yesterday I travelled to Bristol to record an interview for BBC1's Sunday Politics West, to be broadcast tomorrow.

On Wednesday a producer rang to tell me that councils in Bristol, Gloucestershire and Somerset have been reviewing the financial support they give Smokefree South West.

One council has decided to stop funding the group, another has cut its funding, and a third is considering its position.

Would I like to come on the programme and comment?

The six-minute item, recorded 'as live', featured a short film on the subject followed by a studio discussion with me and Fiona Andrews, chief executive of Smokefree South West.

Back against the wall (for a change), Fiona was on feisty form.

When we were ushered on to the set she produced a handful of cigarette packs, including those 'lipstick' packs I've never seen outside of a TV studio, and plonked them on the table in full view of the cameras.

Her intention was obvious.

"I thought we were here to discuss Smokefree South West, not plain packaging," I protested mildly.

Presenter David Garmston (on previous experience an unlikely ally) appeared to agree because he asked her to remove them.

That was probably the last time he and I agreed on anything.

When the interview began he introduced me as director of the "pro-smoking" group Forest, which is "funded by the tobacco industry".

On at least two occasions he referred to "your industry" and "your brands".

Each time I had to make the point that I didn't represent the tobacco companies to which he responded, "But they fund you, don't they?"

Had I been quicker on my feet I would have said, "Yes, and as a TV licence payer I fund you, but you don't represent me." But I didn't.

Instead I had to waste precious seconds setting the record straight when all I wanted to do was talk about Smokefree South West!!

Anyway, cut to the chase.

Fiona talked about the work Smokefree South West does while I tried to question why we need a regional anti-smoking group when central government spends millions of pounds on anti-smoking campaigns and we also have ASH and other tobacco control groups doing the same work.

I could, I suppose, have listed some of them – Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation, British Medical Association ... the list is endless.

I could also have mentioned GASP, a Bristol-based smoking cessation company that began life as a pressure group but is now a successful commercial operation that doesn't need public money (as far as I know).

But time was limited.

Instead I found myself saying, in a raised voice, "You're just duplicating their work!"

The problem of public money being used to lobby government came up but the interview had become a bit of a bun fight and I can't remember exactly what was said.

I mentioned transparency, pointing out that while Forest has always been very open about the source of our funding, the same isn't true of Smokefree South West.

In fact, it took a Freedom of Information request before we found out how they funded their Plain Packs Protect campaign (see Public money used to lobby government on plain packaging).

In response, Fiona insisted that the information is on their website.

Well, I had a look the other day and I couldn't see anything. (I mentioned this to the Sunday Politics West producer who told me he had looked as well and could't find anything either.)

Anyway, Fiona insisted the information was there so I've had another look. Under 'About Us' it reads:

Smokefree South West is commissioned by 15 Public Health teams based in local authorities across the region.

"Commissioned" could mean "funded", I suppose, so why not say so? And perhaps Smokefree South West could spell out exactly how much money they get annually from these "Public Health teams".

It's council tax payers' money, after all. I think they have a right to know, even though the Sunday Politics film made a point of saying that the cost to the local community is just 30p per person.

Add it up across the region, though, and it's a tidy sum. Exactly how much I don't know because the Smokefree South West website doesn't say, but I'm sure, with a few FOI requests, we could find out.

The issue however is this:

What is the point of Smokefree South West? Or Tobacco Free Futures (formerly Smokefree North West)? Or Fresh (formerly Smokefree North East)?

What additional value do any of these groups offer that is not already covered by ASH, Cancer Research, the British Medical Association etc and central government which pumps millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into a variety of tobacco control campaigns?

Why should people have to pay for anti-smoking campaigns twice – once through income tax, and again through their council tax?

Worse, a lot of this money is being spent on campaigns that effectively lobby the Department of Health to introduce policies that it already supports or is considering.

The good news is that some councils are finally getting wise to the problem and are questioning this waste (or abuse) of public funds.

Hats off to the local councillors who have seen through the propaganda. Hopefully, more local authorities follow suit.

Meanwhile, if Smokefree South West is running short of money this year I suggest they approach the pharmaceutical industry for support.

If they offer any value to the tobacco control industry I'm sure Big Pharma will be happy to plug the funding gap.

If Big P declines the message will be loud and clear – Smokefree South West has no USP. It has no positive purpose and merely exists to replicate the work of others and abuse its position by lobbying central government to legislate on plain packaging and other matters.

PS. From the archive – Tobacco control campaign "victim of sabotage" (May 2012). Yeah, right.

Coming up ... Wet with a capital 'W', the Tory MP I met on Sunday Politics West.

Motoring editor fails to read his own paper shock

On Wednesday I reported that Eddie Cunningham, motoring editor at the Irish Independent, wanted drivers who smoke in cars with "others" present to face "massive fines, possibly bans".

So our man in Ireland wrote a letter and submitted it to the Indo. It was published yesterday and reads:

Your motoring editor Eddie Cunningham writes: "I may be wrong, but there appears to [be] a lot of people smoking in cars. More than before, I am inclined to think."

Mr Cunningham says there should be a "blitz of massive fines, possibly bans, for anyone found smoking while others are in the car with them".

We don't condone smoking in cars with children present. It's inconsiderate at best, but the number of people doing it has fallen dramatically. Legislation, accompanied by fines and other penalties, would be a huge and unnecessary over-reaction.

Perhaps I could refer Mr Cunningham and your readers to a study by the UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population, which involved observing 2,230 drivers over three time periods in two Dublin locations.

The study found the prevalence of mobile telephone use was 2.56pc and just 1.39pc for smoking.

This was reported by the Irish Independent on April 10, 2013, under the headline, 'Ban on smoking in cars would have little impact, says study'.

Sadly they censored the punchline:

I'm surprised your motoring editor hasn't read it.

I wonder why.