The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Fatal Motion Tabled In House Of Lords To Stop E-Cigarette Regulations

Discussion in 'EU Legislation' started by Toby, May 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. Toby

    Toby Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Dec 10, 2008
    York UK
    URGENT:
    see at bottom of post for link to petition - needs to be done today!

    Fatal Motion Tabled In House Of Lords To Stop E-Cigarette Regulations


    Lord Callanan to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, laid before the House on 22 April, be annulled on the grounds that its 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 (SI 2015/507)

    House Of Lords Vote Would Scupper TPD

    Petition set up to support the Motion. It already has over 3,000 signatures. Please help to get more for it if you can:
    David Cameron MP: Support Parliamentary moves to block crazy e-cigarette regulations
     
    • Like Like x 10
  2. OldBatty

    OldBatty Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Nov 28, 2014
    North Georgia USA
    Will it help to sign if you do not live in the UK?
     
  3. TheotherSteveS

    TheotherSteveS Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 14, 2015
    London, England
    it can't hurt anything. international support might be seen as powerful medicine!!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Toby

    Toby Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Dec 10, 2008
    York UK
    In the House of Lords Lord Callanan has put down a motion which if passed would stop implementation of the TPD in the UK. This is a critical development.

    Why this is different?

    Lord Callanan: is a hugely experienced senior politician. In the European Parliament he led the successful efforts by which MEPs blocked compulsory medicinal regulation that would have wiped out of vaping. Nobody has been more effective at defending vaping than him.

    Procedural: unless Lord Callanan is forced by pressure from Downing Street to withdraw his motion there will be a debate and a vote. Under parliamentary rules if the Lords agree to this motion the statutory instrument implementing the TPD in the UK will fall. Such procedures are called “fatal motions” because the regulations get killed outright and do not go back to the Commons. (For geeks: the Lords have until 10 June to vote against this delegated legislation. That will be the end of the 40 days of “praying time” during which a successful motion can block the statutory instrument. This is the case even though the law has previously gone into effect as the TPD will on 20 May.)

    Politics: the Lords are strongly against the TPD rules on vaping as was shown in last week’s debate. (Lords debate)

    Government and Opposition: they know there are severe problems with the TPD’s rules on vaping. Government officials have acknowledged that they could increase smoking and the health minister told the Lords that he hoped enforcement would be lax. The shadow minister said that he could not understand why e-cigarettes were included in the TPD and described opposition to vaping as “bonkers”. Two years ago his boss, Jeremy Corbyn, signed a parliamentary motion against the TPD rules on vaping.

    Momentum: as politicians see increasing vaper pressure they are already trying to be creative in finding a solution. Technically the EU could start “infraction proceedings” against the UK for not fully implementing Article 20 but this would look very bad. Brussels wants to make friends not encourage anti-EU sentiment.

    Why we could succeed:

    There are more of us: In 2013 when vaper power helped swing the day in the European Parliament there were 1.3 million vapers in the UK. Now there are 2.8 million of us.
    Political concern: Westminster and Brussels have reason to be helpful. The politicians are seeing the evidence that some of the rules are no longer fit for purpose. More fundamentally they do not want vapers to decide their referendum votes on this issue.

    What you can do?

    If ever there was a day for vaper power this is it. So let us respectfully urge our leaders to use the opportunity of Lord Callanan’s motion to rethink the specific problems we have with TPD.

    Tweet: send your support for the ‪#‎LordsVapeVote‬ to @Number10gov @jeremycorbyn @MartinCallanan

    Petition: here is one ready to go: https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-support-parliamen…

    Final Thought

    When vapers work together they are an unstoppable force. If we do not take today’s opportunity presented by Lord Callanan’s gutsy initiative then we might literally have to wait until around 2026 for the next Tobacco Products Directive to be implemented for even a chance of improvement.

    So wait ten years - or tweet today like you have never tweeted before.

    **Everyone please feel free to adapt this note and publish it as you see fit**

    In my eyes its our very last chance to put some pressure on the powers to be. Why not give it a shot!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Maytwin

    Maytwin Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 28, 2011
    SW France
    Signed :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Benji_Rock

    Benji_Rock Full Member

    Dec 4, 2015
    Signed!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Layzee Vaper

    Layzee Vaper Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 27, 2015
    Signed :) Looks like things are starting to move in a more positive direction for vaping in the UK. At last it is getting a more positive spin in the UK media. Hopefully the general public will see the massive gain in terms of public health.:)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Robino1

    Robino1 Resting in Peace ECF Veteran

    Signed and Tweeted! Good Luck!! We are SOOOOOOO Rooting for the UK!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Toby

    Toby Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Dec 10, 2008
    York UK
    Now at 22,900 supporters. :)

    It started from scratch this morning.

    Thanks for any and all of your support! :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. sonicbomb

    sonicbomb Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 17, 2015
    1187 Hunterwasser
    signed
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Toby

    Toby Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Dec 10, 2008
    York UK
    • Like Like x 1
  12. balbecdaze

    balbecdaze Full Member

    Nov 29, 2013
    Bristol, UK
    • Like Like x 2
  13. BuGlen

    BuGlen Divergent ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 6, 2012
    Tampa, Florida
    Signed and shared with friends and family. Don't know how much leverage the signatures for those of us outside the EU will be, but we're all in this fight together.
     
  14. Katya

    Katya ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Feb 23, 2010
    SoCal
    Signed--and good luck!
     
  15. Toby

    Toby Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Dec 10, 2008
    York UK
    Lord Callanan's contribution to the 'take note' discussion on 10th May.

    Lord Callanan (Con)

    "My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend for introducing this debate. I have a great sense of déjà vu because I was one of the people in the European Parliament that he referred to, who helped achieve the original decision against this directive’s restrictions on e-cigarettes. I was also the shadow rapporteur for my group and part of the European Parliament negotiating team that sat until about 11.30 pm in the Berlaymont, with the Commission chairing the meeting and the Council on the other side of the table, thrashing out the messy compromise that we see before us now in the tobacco products directive. Again, I have no difficulties with the vast majority of the directive; my concern was with the articles on e-cigarettes.

    Before I started working on this, I had no particular knowledge of the subject. But when any dossier is placed before you, the first thing you do is read the various publications available and listen to all the lobbying and advice and you are also contacted by constituents. I was first alerted to the issue when my email inbox started filling up with literally hundreds of emails from people all over the country—and, indeed, Europe—concerned that these magical devices they had used to give up smoking were going to be banned or severely restricted. Together with a number of MEPs from all sides—including members of both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party in the UK—we started a campaign to improve the directive.

    I have to say that we were not particularly helped by Department of Health officials. I tried to speak to Ministers many times to find out who was behind the restrictions and why there was such a campaign against something which so self-evidently provides great public health benefits and harm-reduction measures, but I never got a clear answer. I was pointed to a recording of a former public health Minister appearing in front of the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons. When she was asked why she voted for this directive on behalf of the Government, she turned to her officials and said “I think the e-cigarette provisions were removed from it, weren’t they?”—which showed a worrying lack of understanding of what she was voting for on behalf of the Government.

    Nevertheless, we ended up with this directive. It was a messy compromise and it is very badly worded, but it is a lot better than it could have been had we not campaigned on it. My noble friend Lord Ridley is quite right to point out the somewhat murky role of various pharmaceutical interests in the production of the directive. When I asked questions in the Commission and the Council—it seemed to me self-evident that these devices were brilliant for reducing tobacco smoking, which I thought was what we all wanted—I asked why they were even in the directive in the first place, given that it is called a tobacco products directive and e-cigarettes are not tobacco products in any sense of the word. The answer I received many times was that this was argued for by the pharmaceutical industry, which would have an awful lot to lose if e-cigarettes supplanted or replaced nicotine patches and gum. I do not know the truth of that, but it seems that it was very successful in getting what it wanted.

    I completely agree with all the points made by my noble friends, but I have two additional points to make. First, on advertising, the Royal College of Physicians has a proud history at the heart of tobacco control. Since its first report, Smoking and Health, in 1962, it has been an intellectual leader in the field and is worth listening to. When the headline on the press release on its latest report states in bold,

    “Promote e-cigarettes widely as substitute for smoking”,

    one would hope that the Government would get the message that its 21 world-renowned authors are trying to put across. But we would be wrong if we thought that, for the regulations that the department wants us to approve are not about the promotion of e-cigarettes but about the suppression of information about them.

    Paragraph 176 of the department’s impact assessment forecasts that the EU rules will reduce e-cigarette advertising by 90%. How are smokers supposed to hear about e-cigarettes? In paragraph 167, the department nonchalantly claims that cutting advertising will in fact not reduce the number of smokers switching to e-cigarettes. We have heard this old argument many times before—not from health officials but from tobacco company executives trying to pretend that advertising smoking would somehow not increase the amount of smoking.

    The messages that we give really matter. In the complex decisions that smokers make every day about whether to smoke or consume nicotine through much cleaner forms, their perceptions of the relative risks of these products are crucial. The Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England and Action on Smoking and Health have all raised deep concerns about how smokers perceive e-cigarettes to be much more risky than they actually are. It is very interesting that Action on Smoking and Health should now say that, because I recall that that was not the message that it was giving when we dealt with the directive.

    We are certainly not going to give that message by banning 90% of advertising, nor by insisting on e-cigarette packaging carrying big health warnings, which is what the Government are asking us to approve in these regulations. The Royal College of Physicians described the imposition of these warnings as “illogical”, bearing in mind that nicotine patch boxes do not have to warn of the dangers of nicotine.

    Much of the problem stems from media reporting of junk science. The worst example was a headline in the Telegraph in December, which screamed:

    “E-cigarettes are no safer than smoking tobacco”.

    It was a nonsense report based on, as I said, junk science.

    The second point that I want to raise concerns novel tobacco products. A number of new products have been introduced in this category, particularly products called “heat-not-burn”. These are very interesting developments, and a range of other alternative products is also in development. Some of the ones coming to market contain tobacco, but they work by heating it and not burning it. The absence of combustion is key. We all know that, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has said, harm from smoking comes primarily through the toxins produced by the burning of tobacco. In 1976, Professor Michael Russell wrote:

    “People smoke for the nicotine but they die from the tar”.

    That was reflected in the title of the recent study by the Royal College of Physicians on e-cigarettes, Nicotine without Smoke. With such technological developments, and a new regulatory basis with the introduction of the TPD, are the Government looking at the opportunities to be had from the available range of products, in addition to e-cigarettes, as part of a harm reduction agenda in the new tobacco control plan?

    This is truly a terrible piece of legislation, and I plead guilty for the part I played in helping to produce it in the first place. However, it is not too late to undo some of that harm and to help encourage the taking up of e-cigarettes and, consequently, a reduction in tobacco consumption. Instead of trying to restrict e-cigarettes, the Government should in fact be trying positively to encourage them."
     
    • Like Like x 5
  16. BoostAddict

    BoostAddict Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 21, 2015
    Virginia
    Signed...Hope it helps!
     
  17. Katya

    Katya ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Feb 23, 2010
    SoCal
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Benji_Rock

    Benji_Rock Full Member

    Dec 4, 2015
    The petition seems to have stagnated. It grew very quickly but now not much activity at all. Why is this, and what can we do?
     
  19. Katya

    Katya ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Feb 23, 2010
    SoCal
    WOOT!

    Only 246 needed to reach 50,000!!!!

    We can do it!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Maytwin

    Maytwin Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 28, 2011
    SW France
    Now at 50,183 :)
     
    • Like Like x 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice