[Guest post by Baroness Tyler]
Debates over banning smoking in cars with children have shown a quite legitimate difference of opinion about how to apply liberal principles in an such an area, as illustrated when Nick Clegg shared his views on Thursday’s Call Clegg.
Debates over banning smoking in cars with children have shown a quite legitimate difference of opinion about how to apply liberal principles in an such an area, as illustrated when Nick Clegg shared his views on Thursday’s Call Clegg.
Much
of the ensuing media and blog debate -including on Lib Dem Voice -has focussed
on whether it’s right to legislate about what people do in private cars and
whether this isn’t too great an intrusion by the “nanny state” into the private realm.
Whilst some of the debate in the Lords this week addressed that point, much of it was to do with whether such a ban would be enforceable. Indeed the Government argued against it – and then lost the vote – not so much on the grounds of the desirability of such a ban but on its workability.
Banning smoking in cars with children is above all a child protection measure – a noble liberal ideal - and the very reason we were debating it as part of the Children and Families Bill.
Whilst some of the debate in the Lords this week addressed that point, much of it was to do with whether such a ban would be enforceable. Indeed the Government argued against it – and then lost the vote – not so much on the grounds of the desirability of such a ban but on its workability.
For
some months I have been working with a group of cross party backbench peers in
the Lords and a coalition of charities on all this. We tabled amendments in the
Children and Families Bill to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco
products and to ban smoking in cars when children are present. We were
absolutely delighted when – in response to our cross party amendment which
received widespread support across the House at Committee Stage – the
Government changed its position and at Report Stage tabled its own amendment
introducing enabling legislation for standardised packaging, following an
independent review of the evidence base by Sir Cyril Chantler.
I
recently had the privilege of meeting with Nicola Roxon, the former Australian
Minister for Health who was instrumental in the implementation of standardised
packaging in Australia. She explained the beneficial impact that standardised
packaging was having in no longer portraying smoking to young people as cool,
glamorous and a “must have” accessory, but a much less desirable- and truthful
– image. This is already starting to reduce take up, critically as part of a
wider tobacco control strategy.
That’s
why I’m pleased that the Government is now introducing at Third Reading this
Wednesday new amendments on proxy purchasing and requiring an age of sale of 18
for e-cigarettes. We’ve got the makings of a really good tobacco control
package here, but a ban on smoking in cars with children would strengthen that
strategy.
Banning smoking in cars with children is above all a child protection measure – a noble liberal ideal - and the very reason we were debating it as part of the Children and Families Bill.
As
a nation we have come to recognise the harm that passive smoking can do, and we
have made laudable strides in tackling its effects, banning smoking in public
spaces, on public transport and in work vehicles.
There
is one glaring omission though – every day, children across England are exposed
to dangerously high levels of smoke when travelling in the family car – more
than 430,000 children every week according to the British Lung Foundation.
It seems an unjust anomaly, especially as those we are excluding from protection are among the most vulnerable in society, those who may be too young to understand the risks of passive smoking, or feel unable to ask the adult they’re travelling with to stop.
It seems an unjust anomaly, especially as those we are excluding from protection are among the most vulnerable in society, those who may be too young to understand the risks of passive smoking, or feel unable to ask the adult they’re travelling with to stop.
In
the debates so far we often hear people talking about the so-called “rights of
smokers” – but who is speaking up for the rights of the child? Yes every parent can smoke if they want
to, but surely every child should have the right to be in a safe environment.
Being
exposed to smoking in the car is different to being exposed in the home; the
space is more confined and children cannot move away from the smoke, which is
far more concentrated and therefore toxic than in the home.
Children often have little or no control over the smoking behaviour or adults around them. The health statistics also speak for themselves – 165,000 new cases of disease among children each year (such as asthma, bronchitis and reduced lung function) as a direct result of being exposed to second-hand smoke.
Children often have little or no control over the smoking behaviour or adults around them. The health statistics also speak for themselves – 165,000 new cases of disease among children each year (such as asthma, bronchitis and reduced lung function) as a direct result of being exposed to second-hand smoke.
What parent would want to expose their
child to such a toxic atmosphere with long-term adverse effects on their
health? The answer is of course very few. There is huge public support for this
ban. A recent survey found that 80% of the public support this ban and 86% of
children.
On
enforcement the police already have a number of duties relating to private
vehicles, including the need to monitor the wearing of seatbelts, the
intoxication levels of the driver, the use of mobile phones and the use of
child safety seats and restraints. It’s worth noting that the latter - another
child protection measure, is being enforced relatively successfully.
In
Australia, seven out of eight states have adopted legislation banning smoking
in cars when children are present. Queensland, Southern Australia and Western
Australia use a combination of police and tobacco control officers to enforce
the law, which is carried out alongside existing vehicle monitoring duties and
hence doesn’t create an additional drain on police resources. This could well
provide the basis for a feasible model in the UK. In short where there’s a
political will, there’s a way.
Others
have argued that we should rely on public education campaigns rather than
legislation. But as was demonstrated with seatbelt-wearing, efforts to inform
and change behaviour are far more effective when backed by legislation. Indeed seat
belt wearing rages increased in the UK from 25% to an amazing 91% after
legislation was introduced alongside public awareness campaigns.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please note before commenting: Please read our comments policy (in the right-hand column of this blog). Comments that break this policy will not be accepted. In particular, we insist on everyone using their real, full name. If you have registered with Google using only your first name or a pseudonym, please put your full name at the end of your comment.
Oh, and we are not at home to Mr(s) Angry. Before you comment, read the post in full and any linked content, then pause, make a pot of tea, reflect, deliberate, make another pot of tea, then respond intelligently and courteously.