allen
Postman
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 915
My email to Chris Graying. MP
Dear Mr Grayling,
I read with despondency your comment stating the paragraphs of the TPD relating to e-cigarettes “have been carefully considered by the appropriate Committees of the House”. I strongly believe they have not and have come into force due to the appropriate person not properly discussing them with the appropriate committees and, in fact, not actually realising what she was voting on.
A forum I believe to be a reliable source summarises as follows:
· The European Scrutiny Committee which is supposed to review EU legislation was “overridden” (I understand this means ignored) by the junior health minister Anna Soubry MP.
· Anna Sourby failed to follow procedure and talk about her decision with other government departments.
· Anna, misled the Committee when she told it that e-cigarettes “fell out of the Directive.” E-cigarettes were in the Directive - and sadly remain there.
So please do reconsider your answer. I would strongly urge all our elected representatives to accept that parts of this legislation should not exist as, in addition to the above points,
· they were drafted before the findings of the relevant research became available
· They are contrary to advice being given to the government by their own advisors
I would ask you to give some time and consideration to Lord Callanan’s regret motion as HE is listening to the RCP and PHE and I think they do know what they’re talking about.
“Lord Callanan to move that this House regrets that the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 place restrictions on product choice and advertising of vaping devices were devised before evidence had accumulated that vaping was enabling many people to quit smoking, run counter to advice from the Royal College of Physicians to promote vaping and are so severe that they could force vapers back to smoking and create a black market with harmful products; and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw them (SI 2015/507).”
I would be grateful if you would please watch a 3 minute video of Ann Soubry presenting her evidence.
I believe her demeanour and stumbling answers show just how little she understood of what she had voted on and/or an awareness of how much she had chosen to bypass procedures that exist for very good reasons.
I apologise for this next part being so long – but I think her answers speak volumes.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/c591-i/c59101.htm
The following are quotes of Anna Soubry MP on 17th July 2013
Q89 Stephen Phillips: It is for you how you give your evidence, Minister, but I think that if you had come in at the beginning and said, "That’s why the scrutiny was overridden," in those clear terms, we would have had a much easier ride for the last 20 minutes.
Anna Soubry: I did say that.
Andrew Black: Yes. We were in a position where we needed to settle on the Government’s policy with respect to a wide range of matters within the dossier. That took time in terms of the negotiations with other Government Departments. It is regrettable that we were only able to come to you-
Q45 Stephen Phillips: Mr Black, that is not really a matter for you. Let us deal with the negotiations with other Government Departments. Why did the write-round take so long that this Committee heard nothing for six months after it had reported?
Anna Soubry: There were two matters that were happening. One is that the MHRA-
Stephen Phillips: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Anna Soubry: Yes. Along with the Department, they were looking at e-cigarettes: electronic cigarettes. There was a debate going on as to whether or not they should be registered medicinal products. It is a genuine debate. That was going on, and that was potentially part of the Directive at one time. I believe that is right.
Andrew Black: That is right.
Anna Soubry: Yes. So there was all of that. In fact, I think in the end it fell out of the Directive.
.
.
.
.
Chair: If you could just bear in mind that this whole question of consensuses has been looked at by our European scrutiny and within our inquiry. Simon Hix from VoteWatch at the London School of Economics has given some very interesting evidence to us on this question of the extent to which decisions get taken by consensus on some kind of-as I would put it-amorphous decision-making process that is behind closed doors. People arrive at decisions simply because there is not a specific vote. Now, I just put that on the record, because Michael Connarty wants to ask another question.
Q75 Michael Connarty: Do you accept that by reaching a general approach, you basically took a decision? In other words, you closed off the possibility of a change in the approach of the Health Council in reaching a general approach. You accept that is in fact a political decision in favour of the proposed Directive. That is what you reached: you reached a general approach. Is that correct?
Andrew Black: It was a general approach that was reached. I am sorry; I do not understand your question.
Anna Soubry: I do not understand.
Michael Connarty: I am just getting clear that the Minister accepts that what was done was that you made a political decision to support the Directive.
Anna Soubry: No, there was a series of negotiations right up until the last moment.
Q76 Michael Connarty: But when you reached a general approach, you accept that was a decision to support the Directive?
.
.
.
.
Q79 Michael Connarty: You discussed this within the Health Ministry, with other health Ministers.
Anna Soubry: No. Discussed what?
Q80 Michael Connarty: The purpose of doing this. Many other things are in this Directive, but one of the reasons you keep repeating-you repeated it from the beginning-was to give your Government the option of bringing in plain packaging.
Anna Soubry: That is right.
Q81 Michael Connarty: You discussed this within the Health Ministry with other Ministers in the prayer meetings that you have, which I took part in when I was a PPS in Government, where you talk to civil servants and then you talk about politics. Did you discuss this with the other Ministers?
Anna Soubry: I have not had any face-to-face discussions about this particular aspect.
.
.
.
.
Michael Connarty: No, I did not ask you that question. That is why I am interrupting you. I asked you a question, and you are answering a different question.
Anna Soubry: I do not understand the question, then.
Michael Connarty: If I ask you a question, I expect an answer to my question, not your question.
Anna Soubry: You ask me the question, and I will answer it.
Q82 Michael Connarty: The question is quite simple. In relation to plain packaging, had you had discussions? You said how important it was in your decision to go ahead with this. You keep repeating that; it is on the record. Did you discuss it with other Health Ministers? Did you discuss it with other members of the Government?
Anna Soubry: Did I discuss what?
.
.
.
.
Anna Soubry: I have not had any face-to-face discussions with any Ministers in the Department of Health about this Directive and the Government’s position on standardised packaging.
My opinion is that the sections of the TPD relating to e-cigarettes / vapourisers fly in the face of the advice of PHE and the RCP who have voiced an opinion that they will have an adverse impact on public health. As such, I believe they are not fit for purpose. Moreover, these paragraphs should not be in force as it almost seems they were allowed in as a direct result of a lack of awareness / understanding of one person who did not follow policy / procedure / protocol. This took place so blatantly one has to ask whether this was driven by any particular motive.
Please support Lord Callanan
Many thanks for your time
Allen
Dear Mr Grayling,
I read with despondency your comment stating the paragraphs of the TPD relating to e-cigarettes “have been carefully considered by the appropriate Committees of the House”. I strongly believe they have not and have come into force due to the appropriate person not properly discussing them with the appropriate committees and, in fact, not actually realising what she was voting on.
A forum I believe to be a reliable source summarises as follows:
· The European Scrutiny Committee which is supposed to review EU legislation was “overridden” (I understand this means ignored) by the junior health minister Anna Soubry MP.
· Anna Sourby failed to follow procedure and talk about her decision with other government departments.
· Anna, misled the Committee when she told it that e-cigarettes “fell out of the Directive.” E-cigarettes were in the Directive - and sadly remain there.
So please do reconsider your answer. I would strongly urge all our elected representatives to accept that parts of this legislation should not exist as, in addition to the above points,
· they were drafted before the findings of the relevant research became available
· They are contrary to advice being given to the government by their own advisors
I would ask you to give some time and consideration to Lord Callanan’s regret motion as HE is listening to the RCP and PHE and I think they do know what they’re talking about.
“Lord Callanan to move that this House regrets that the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 place restrictions on product choice and advertising of vaping devices were devised before evidence had accumulated that vaping was enabling many people to quit smoking, run counter to advice from the Royal College of Physicians to promote vaping and are so severe that they could force vapers back to smoking and create a black market with harmful products; and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw them (SI 2015/507).”
I would be grateful if you would please watch a 3 minute video of Ann Soubry presenting her evidence.
I believe her demeanour and stumbling answers show just how little she understood of what she had voted on and/or an awareness of how much she had chosen to bypass procedures that exist for very good reasons.
I apologise for this next part being so long – but I think her answers speak volumes.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeuleg/c591-i/c59101.htm
The following are quotes of Anna Soubry MP on 17th July 2013
Q89 Stephen Phillips: It is for you how you give your evidence, Minister, but I think that if you had come in at the beginning and said, "That’s why the scrutiny was overridden," in those clear terms, we would have had a much easier ride for the last 20 minutes.
Anna Soubry: I did say that.
Andrew Black: Yes. We were in a position where we needed to settle on the Government’s policy with respect to a wide range of matters within the dossier. That took time in terms of the negotiations with other Government Departments. It is regrettable that we were only able to come to you-
Q45 Stephen Phillips: Mr Black, that is not really a matter for you. Let us deal with the negotiations with other Government Departments. Why did the write-round take so long that this Committee heard nothing for six months after it had reported?
Anna Soubry: There were two matters that were happening. One is that the MHRA-
Stephen Phillips: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
Anna Soubry: Yes. Along with the Department, they were looking at e-cigarettes: electronic cigarettes. There was a debate going on as to whether or not they should be registered medicinal products. It is a genuine debate. That was going on, and that was potentially part of the Directive at one time. I believe that is right.
Andrew Black: That is right.
Anna Soubry: Yes. So there was all of that. In fact, I think in the end it fell out of the Directive.
.
.
.
.
Chair: If you could just bear in mind that this whole question of consensuses has been looked at by our European scrutiny and within our inquiry. Simon Hix from VoteWatch at the London School of Economics has given some very interesting evidence to us on this question of the extent to which decisions get taken by consensus on some kind of-as I would put it-amorphous decision-making process that is behind closed doors. People arrive at decisions simply because there is not a specific vote. Now, I just put that on the record, because Michael Connarty wants to ask another question.
Q75 Michael Connarty: Do you accept that by reaching a general approach, you basically took a decision? In other words, you closed off the possibility of a change in the approach of the Health Council in reaching a general approach. You accept that is in fact a political decision in favour of the proposed Directive. That is what you reached: you reached a general approach. Is that correct?
Andrew Black: It was a general approach that was reached. I am sorry; I do not understand your question.
Anna Soubry: I do not understand.
Michael Connarty: I am just getting clear that the Minister accepts that what was done was that you made a political decision to support the Directive.
Anna Soubry: No, there was a series of negotiations right up until the last moment.
Q76 Michael Connarty: But when you reached a general approach, you accept that was a decision to support the Directive?
.
.
.
.
Q79 Michael Connarty: You discussed this within the Health Ministry, with other health Ministers.
Anna Soubry: No. Discussed what?
Q80 Michael Connarty: The purpose of doing this. Many other things are in this Directive, but one of the reasons you keep repeating-you repeated it from the beginning-was to give your Government the option of bringing in plain packaging.
Anna Soubry: That is right.
Q81 Michael Connarty: You discussed this within the Health Ministry with other Ministers in the prayer meetings that you have, which I took part in when I was a PPS in Government, where you talk to civil servants and then you talk about politics. Did you discuss this with the other Ministers?
Anna Soubry: I have not had any face-to-face discussions about this particular aspect.
.
.
.
.
Michael Connarty: No, I did not ask you that question. That is why I am interrupting you. I asked you a question, and you are answering a different question.
Anna Soubry: I do not understand the question, then.
Michael Connarty: If I ask you a question, I expect an answer to my question, not your question.
Anna Soubry: You ask me the question, and I will answer it.
Q82 Michael Connarty: The question is quite simple. In relation to plain packaging, had you had discussions? You said how important it was in your decision to go ahead with this. You keep repeating that; it is on the record. Did you discuss it with other Health Ministers? Did you discuss it with other members of the Government?
Anna Soubry: Did I discuss what?
.
.
.
.
Anna Soubry: I have not had any face-to-face discussions with any Ministers in the Department of Health about this Directive and the Government’s position on standardised packaging.
My opinion is that the sections of the TPD relating to e-cigarettes / vapourisers fly in the face of the advice of PHE and the RCP who have voiced an opinion that they will have an adverse impact on public health. As such, I believe they are not fit for purpose. Moreover, these paragraphs should not be in force as it almost seems they were allowed in as a direct result of a lack of awareness / understanding of one person who did not follow policy / procedure / protocol. This took place so blatantly one has to ask whether this was driven by any particular motive.
Please support Lord Callanan
Many thanks for your time
Allen
Last edited:
