‘Here we go again’, was the thought resonating through my
mind as I stood outside the Senedd in a cold and windy Cardiff Bay. Having a
last minute vape, I pondered the meeting that was about to come. A meeting with
the Chair of the Health & Social Care Committee – and also the very first
time that a Labour AM had agreed to meet with me. For that reason alone, I was
not sure whether I was going to be going into a hostile environment or not.
Entering the Senedd, I went through the usual ‘Airport’
Security procedures and made my way in to announce my arrival. Then followed a
15 minute wait before I was finally collected and taken to a small meeting room
deep in the bowels of the Senedd Building.
David Rees AM arrived, a few minutes later than planned due
to an overrunning previous meeting. We shook hands and exchanged greetings and
then we got right down to it. The silence that first greeted me led me to
believe that this could be a hard meeting to get through. However, I needn’t
have worried about that as it turned out.
I kicked off the meeting by explaining why I was there and
why I think that Mark Drakeford’s plans for a Ban on Vaping in Enclosed Public
Spaces are both flawed and wrong, quickly rattling through all the points I
have raised many times in meetings with other AM’s. I also made a point of
mentioning to David that he was the first Labour AM that had agreed to meet with
me. This brought a smile to David’s face and finally the ice was broken.
David explained to me that he had been reticent to meet with
me (at first) due to his intent to stay completely neutral to the issue as he
knew it was eventually going to come before the HSCC anyway.
I informed him that I was not there to influence him. I just
wanted him to understand why Drakeford’s plans are flawed and present the
counter-argument and evidence which proved Drakeford’s plans to be flawed. I
also presented David with a few examples of the kind of evidence I have in my
possession. This included the recent article from Cancer Research UK which was
highly supportive of eCigarettes, the ‘Vitality’ article on the ‘myths’ of
eCigarettes (most of which are what Drakeford relies upon), Professor Linda
Bauld’s excellent eCigarette article recently published in The Guardian
newspaper, Derek Yach's recent article in The Spectator magazine (where he took the WHO to task), and Clive Bates' highly informative briefing on eCigarettes.
I made David very aware that I hold much more evidence such
as this, but I was wary of overloading him with information, and that he was
free to take away the information and read it at his own leisure. Whether he
will do that I cannot say, but I sincerely hope that he does read the material
provided.
The CRUK article in particular was discussed in detail as
Mark Drakeford had quoted CRUK as an example in his initial introduction of the
Public Health White Paper. I was at pains to point out to David about how CRUK’s
stance on eCigarettes had changed over the last year as they reviewed the
evidence. So much so that they were now supportive of eCigarettes rather than
negative toward them as they had been only a year ago. This was, I suggested,
evidence of how the science and the evidence was stacking up in ever greater
levels in support of eCigarettes.
I also informed him how the Scottish Government have decided
not to proceed (for the time being) with any Ban on Vaping in Enclosed Public
Spaces having heard the evidence and because they also chose to publically engage with
interested parties. This was in stark contrast to the way that Mark Drakeford
had proceeded. I also reminded him that they had decided against banning Vaping
in Westminster having reviewed the evidence.
Finally, I handed David copies of the response to the White
Paper that were submitted by both ASH Wales and the RCP. David admitted that he
had already seen the ASH Wales response, but that he had not seen the RCP
response.
We moved on to discussing the responses to the White Paper
from the general public. It was here that I was astonished to learn that
whenever ‘templated’ responses are received, they are treated as just one
response – just as if it has been received from one organisation. I disagreed
with this view, but David assured me that is the way all consultation
responses are collated – whether at Welsh level, or indeed at UK level.
So, the lesson to be learned from that is that people should
NOT use template responses to consultations. Individually prepared responses
(such as the one I had submitted) would treated as separate responses, but template
responses are ALWAYS treated as a single response – no matter how many are
received.
From here, I asked David to explain what the next steps are.
This is where I learned a great deal about the process that will be followed.
The White Paper will not go to the HSCC until it has been
formally published. David stated that it is expected (but not guaranteed) that
this will happen before the Summer recess. At this point a ‘Call For Evidence’
will be issued publically.
The interesting part about the ‘Call For Evidence’ is that
ANYONE can respond to this. That means Doctors, Scientists, Trade Bodies,
Organisations and even individuals (including the general public) can respond
with evidence for or against the proposals. This is something I had not
previously known. I had always expected that only the AM’s involved in HSCC
could call on individuals or organisations for evidence at this stage, however
it appears that is not the case. To that end, I have been added to the mailing list
at the Welsh Government so that I will be informed when the ‘Call For Evidence’
happens.
Stage 2 is where the HSCC collate the responses received
during the ‘Call For Evidence’ and can then suggest changes, amendments or
removals to the proposals.
At Stage 3 (if I recall correctly), AM’s can either agree or
disagree on the content and/or refer it back to the HSCC.
Finally, Stage 4 is the point at which the Proposals are
voted upon by the entire Assembly. No changes are allowed at this point.
Whatever is contained in the proposed Legislation is either approved or
rejected in a vote. That vote is on the Legislation (as it stands at that
point) in its entirety. This means that an AM may only agree with parts of the
legislation (for example, they may agree with Minimum Unit Pricing for Alcohol
and with the Tobacco Register, but not with the proposals on eCigarettes), but
must decide for himself/herself whether to vote to pass the Legislation as a
whole, or reject it. If it is passed, it comes into Law, if it is rejected it
fails.
If this sounds familiar, then it is probably because you remember how the process for the TPD in the European Parliament
progressed. The White Paper in Wales will go through the exact same steps.
This sounded like a lot of steps to me and I queried David on
the timescales. He admitted that he expects that the whole process would not
likely get to Stage 4 much before March 2016. If his estimate is correct (and I
have no reason to doubt him), then there is still a long way to go in this
legislation.
As you may imagine, these discussions took quite a bit of
time to occur and we did overrun the allotted time of 30 minutes by quite some
way. However, I felt it was a very worthwhile meeting. David patiently listened
to my ‘arguments’ against Mark Drakeford’s proposals on eCigarettes and
enlightened me on how he see the whole process progressing.
I also informed David of the Breakfast Briefing that Professor Linda Bauld will be holding for the AM's at the Senedd on the 25th March 2015. I urged him to attend that briefing and to inform other AM's to attend.
I would like to thank David Rees AM for taking the time to
meet with me and for the enlightening and friendly discussion.
