Smoking in cars with children - media battle lines are drawn

Labour wants to ban smoking in cars with children.

The party has tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill which peers will vote on later today.

Hence I'm on BBC Breakfast at 7.40.

That's the 'good' news.

The bad news is I've had to drive to Salford which meant getting up at three o'clock.

I've also been booked to do the following radio interviews, although one or two may be rescheduled to allow for the telly:

0635 BBC Merseyside
0708 BBC Five Live
0715 BBC Humberside
0722 BBC Essex
0730 BBC Stoke
0738 BBC Berkshire
0752 BBC Shropshire
0800 BBC Manchester
0808 BBC Cumbria
0815 BBC Cambridge
0822 BBC Coventry and Warwickshire
0830 BBC Devon
0838 BBC Hereford and Worcestershire
0845 BBC London
0852 BBC Nottingham

I also recorded a soundbite for Sky News yesterday that should be broadcast as part of a news package today.

Thankfully there's a small team of us in action.

Ian Dunt, editor of politics.co.uk, is on ITV's Daybreak. Chris Snowdon is on Five Live's Morning Reports and BBC Radio Wales, and Dave Atherton is on BBC WM.

There will be more, I'm sure.

I'll keep you posted.

Update: Still in Manchester.

Also did:

0900 BBC Cornwall
0908 BBC Suffolk
0915 BBC Humberside
0922 BBC Sheffield
1030 BBC Oxford

Did BBC News Channel at 11.30.

I'm on ITV Lunchtime News at 1.30 (with Labour's Luciana Berger). Also recorded a soundbite for ITV Evening News.

Doing LBC at 3.00pm.

I believe Chris (or Ian Dunt) is doing Channel 5 News tonight.

Take that - behind the scenes at Sky News

Don't you just hate it when you record a soundbite (or interview), it goes well, and they ask you to do it again?

Earlier today I did a short piece for Sky News to be broadcast tomorrow as part of a package about smoking in cars with children.

(Labour is putting forward an amendment to the Children and Families Bill that would ban it. Peers will discuss that and a government amendment on plain packaging. It's going to be a long day.)

I had to sit in a small dark studio with bright lights illuminating my chair. I felt like I was on Mastermind.

Facing me, reporter Anish Joshi invited me to say whatever it was I had to say.

I did and it was perfect.

(Honestly, you've no idea how rare that is. If I'd been the director I would have leapt from my chair and shouted, "That's a wrap!")

"That was great," said Ashish, "but can you do it again in two parts in case I have to cut it?"

Take two was terrible. I stopped, like a horse gone lame.

"Try again," said Ashish.

Take three was OK but not as good as the first one.

"Thanks," said Ashish. "That'll do."

Actors say some of their best work ends up on the cutting room floor. Tomorrow I may find out exactly how that feels.

John Mallon, duke of hazard

Update on John Mallon's tour of Ireland.

Last week John gave interviews to Red FM, 96 FM and the Evening Echo (all Cork); KCLR 96FM (Kilkenny); Tipp FM (Tipperary); Midlands FM (Tullamore); and Ocean FM (Sligo).

He was also interviewed – on the phone – by Northern Sound, CRC FM (Co Mayo), and Phoenix Radio (Dublin).

Yesterday John drove to Tralee where he was interviewed for 20 minutes on Radio Kerry.

Irish radio is quite different to our own broadcasting culture where most items are in the region of two or three minutes and you are lucky to get more than one or two soundbites.

Today, for example, I am travelling into London from Cambridgeshire, a round trip of three hours, door-to-door, for an interview with Sky News.

If I get more than 10-20 seconds of airtime I'll be lucky.

Anyway, John is writing about his latest media tour on the Forest Eireann blog and I loved this passage from the post he sent me last night:

At two points on the road to Kerry I got stuck behind a pair of tractors and both forced me down to 30kph for five or six miles each time. It's madness on a main road but there was just no passing the blasted things. On the way back, though, about two miles out from Tralee, the heavens opened and the rain was horrendous. It has been years since I've seen anything like it. It was dangerous to go above 40kph and it took over an hour to get to Killarney, the rain continuing half the way to Cork too.

Almost blind with the rain I found what I thought was a safe spot to pull over and call Joe Duffy [presenter of Liveline on RTE1]. Incredibly, a squad car pulled up behind me and a grumpy uniform told me in the window that I was causing a hazard and moved me on. The 'basket' followed me for an hour, bumper to bumper, and didn't depart until I was back in Cork County.

See: Raining in the Kingdom.

We've revised John's tour and instead of Limerick, Galway and Ballyhaunis we're sending him to Dublin (via Belfast, possibly) where NGOs are giving evidence to the Oireachtas Health Committee on Thursday.

The west coast leg of the tour is now scheduled next week. Watch this space.

Children and Families Bill hijacked by political expediency

Smokers face a double whammy this week.

On Wednesday in the House of Lords peers will debate amendments to the Children and Families Bill.

As you know, the Government has introduced an amendment that would enable it to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco without the need for separate legislation.

There is no guarantee that plain packs will be implemented because the arguments - and the evidence - are still bring evaluated. Should Number Ten choose to do so, however, the legislation could be triggered at any time.

Forest - together with many other organisations, I'm sure - has been busy sending briefing notes to peers ahead of Wednesday's debate but the outcome is fairly predictable.

The situation probably calls for ASH's famous Smoke and mirrors "confidence trick" but I'm finding it hard to be as optimistic or as cynical, depending on your point of view.

Anyway, it gets worse.

Today (H/T Sheila) the Sunday Times reports that Labour will try to pass another amendment to the Children and Families Bill that will ban smoking in cars with children.

We briefed peers on this issue last year and thought we had won the argument, or a stay of execution.

The worst thing is, neither amendment has anything to do with public health. It's politics, pure and simple.

The Government was concerned the Children and Families Bill was being hijacked by supporters of plain packs led by Labour so it introduced its own amendment to avoid an embarrassing 'defeat'.

Labour, in response, is trying to regain the political high ground with its amendment on smoking in cars.

It will be interesting to see how the Government responds. Will they instruct Conservative and Lib Dem peers to vote against Labour's amendment, will they be given a free vote (unlike the plain packaging amendment) or will the Government introduce its own smoking in cars amendment?

Extraordinary how a bill designed to protect children from a fate far worse than exposure to cigarette packs and ETS has been hijacked by Government and Opposition for reasons of political expediency.

Anyway, no peace for the wicked. I shall now spend the rest of the day working on yet another briefing note in the hope that some peers will reject this pathetic posturing.

PS. On reflection I may just send Tory peers my Conservative Home article, published last year - Bob Blackman is wrong. We don’t need a smoking ban in cars to protect children.

I could also send them Forest's submission opposing a previous smoking in cars amendment to the Children and Families Bill.

See also: Amendment to ban smoking in cars with children is withdrawn.

They never give up, do they?

Should children be banned from using e-cigarettes?

The sale of e-cigs to under 18s in England is going to be banned.

The Government is also going to follow Scotland's example and make the purchase of cigarettes for children a criminal offence.

Last night, just as I was sitting down with my family to watch The Great Gatsby, I got a call from a researcher on Five Live's Stephen Nolan Show.

I was told they were discussing the issues with Professor John Ashton, president of the Faculty for Public Health, and Robert West, Professor of Health Psychology and Director of Tobacco Studies at the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London.

What were Forest's views, she asked?

I explained we supported a ban on proxy purchasing and as for e-cigs we are against excessive regulation but in this instance we wouldn't oppose legislation because we couldn't defend their use by under 18s.

There was a pause.

"Can you hang on a moment? I've just got to speak to a colleague."

When she came back it was to say 'Thanks but no thanks'. Apparently my views were too similar to those of Ashton and West.

Well, I listened to the programme from 11.00pm, when the subject was due to be broadcast, but there was nothing on e-cigarettes (or tobacco) until 11.35 when there was a short discussion with some e-cig guy (whose name I didn't catch) and Edwina Currie, who was there to review the papers but took the opportunity to warn about the dangers of nicotine.

I don't know if they were on earlier but there was no sign of John Ashton or Robert West. As a result the discussion was extremely underpowered. Instead of a proper discussion or debate it felt like filler.

I told the researcher she would struggle to find a spokesman for any group or body who would go on air and defend the sale of e-cigarettes to children and so it proved.

Not even the e-cig guy was prepared to do that.

Nevertheless, I've seen tweets this morning (yes, you, Dick Puddlecote!) that suggest strong opposition to the proposed legislation.

So my question this morning is: 'Should under 18s be banned from buying e-cigarettes?'

I'd be interested to hear your response.

Smoke Spots: enjoy it while you can

Uninteresting fact.

For 17 years Simon Chapman (see previous post) was deputy editor and editor of the BMJ’s Tobacco Control.

On Tuesday Tobacco Control posted an article (paper?) arguing that Imperial Tobacco's Smoke Spots website is "inconsistent with FCTC's ban on directly or indirectly promoting tobacco use".

According to this logic, if anyone highlights a smoker-friendly venue – Boisdale, for example – they are "promoting tobacco use".

I can see the argument - just - but it's pretty twisted. You may as well argue that cigarette bins promote tobacco use. (Update: I know, I know, some councils do.)

Like cig bins, Smoke Spots isn't targeting non-smokers. It's quite clearly aimed at existing adult smokers, people who have made an informed decision to smoke and want to find somewhere where they can socialise without being made to feel unwelcome or uncomfortable.

What about the rights of smokers to (a) smoke in some public/private places, and (b) assemble freely with other smokers?

Should they be denied information that allows them to do so because, "directly or indirectly", it promotes tobacco use?

Smoke Spots is a great site, by the way. Enjoy it while you can.

See Smoke spots: promoting smoking with social media (Tobacco Control)

Prime time for e-cigarettes in Ireland

Ireland is waking up to e-cigarettes.

This morning the Irish Times asks, 'Is vaping safer than smoking?'.

Intellicig (part of the CN Creative Group, "a bioscience company committed to the development of the next era of nicotine products") reports that:

The phones are hopping on Liveline, Joe Duffy can’t believe the amount of people calling him to tell their stories of how they made the switch to electronic e-cigarettes … E-cigs are fast becoming the alternative of choice for many smokers throughout Ireland.

Last night Prime Time, RTE's flagship current affairs programme, even featured a debate on the subject.

Guests included Kathleen O'Meara of the Irish Cancer Society, someone representing the pharmacists (I'll have to check his name and organisation), and Clive Bates, former director of ASH and a leading e-cig campaigner, on a link from London.

John Mallon, our man in Ireland, reports:

They played a tape of a doctor claiming that e-cigs are a stepping stone to smoking, that far from quitting smokers are using both to get around the bans and restrictions, and that no research has been done into them.

Bates wiped the floor with him, explaining we know EXACTLY what goes into them and that they are 99-100 per cent safer than smoking. He went on to suggest that the big loser was Big Pharma.

Credit where credit's due, "Bates was good!" says John. O'Meara however was "quieter than normal".

Meanwhile, in the words of Intellicig, here are some reasons for switching to e-cigarettes:

• Significantly less harmful chemicals compared to smoking cigarettes
• Much cheaper. Save up to 80%.
• Smoke anywhere
• No need to smell like an ashtray
• No tobacco or no smoke tar
• Cleaner smoking experience

"No need to smell like an ashtray"? Charming. I know lots of smokers and none of them smell like ashtrays.

If the e-cig industry could cut out these unnecessary comments it would help them enormously, I would suggest. Politely.

One other thing. In my previous post I highlighted the fact that e-cig campaigners want e-cigarettes removed from the Tobacco Products Directive.

Perfectly understandable.

Then again, the e-cig industry doesn't help itself by consistently using words like "smoke" ("smoke anywhere") and "smoking" ("cleaner smoking experience") to promote itself.

I understand why they do it but it's a bit rich to use the language of combustibles and then complain when the product is included in legislation designed to regulate combustibles.

They can't have it both ways.

PS. To view the Prime Time debate click here. It begins at 13:32.

The other guest in Prime Time's Dublin studio was the Secretary-General of the Irish Pharmacy Union. Needless to say, both he and O'Meara were in favour of medicinal regulation for e-cigs.

ECCA et al: e-cigs can "rid the world of tobacco"

Over the weekend I spoke to several journalists about e-cigarettes.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of time I have spent supporting their use.

I have criticised councils, hospitals and others who want to see them banned, and I have attacked those who want their sale, promotion or manufacture severely restricted.

This evening, via this blog, I read a letter from eleven e-cig associations that allegedly represent the "vapers of Europe".

One of them is the Electronic Cigarette Consumer Association of the United Kingdom, better known as ECCA UK.

The letter calls on MEPs to "remove from the TPD [Tobacco Products Directive] any reference that treats electronic cigarettes as tobacco products".

Fair enough. What bothered me was this:

All recent evidence shows that [electronic cigarettes] should be welcomed and encouraged as a unique opportunity potentially to rid the world of tobacco [my italics].

So that's the end game, is it?

While Forest supports the development of e-cigs and other nicotine delivery systems because we are committed to choice, ECCA, their allies and their cheerleaders in the blogosphere sound more like Tobacco Control every day.

Who could have predicted that?!