House of Commons Scrutiny Committee questions Under Secretary of Public Health Soubry

Time for opposition parties to challenge government on the Tobacco Products Directive. So eager was Anna Soubry to get the Tobacco Products Directive in Europe through that she went to Luxembourg and took part in all the deliberations, without clearing any of her positions with the Scrutiny Committee. She requested a waiver from scrutiny from the relevant committees, which was allowed by the House of Lords committee(!) but disallowed by the House of Commons committee, which said that there was not sufficient time to debate.

She explains her reasoning for this debacle in the video below, in committee, where she has been called up to answer questions as to how she came to over-ride its scrutiny:

Ms Soubry states fairly bluntly that the legislative outcomes were far more important to her than anything else. Committee members don't seem very impressed with the low priority she places on following parliamentary procedures. They have her apology on record, but it looks as if investigations will be ongoing.

Not only did she give a national position on the Tobacco Products Directive without UK Members of Parliament being able to debate them, but she failed for the preceding six months to keep the committee advised of progress. She thereby contributed significantly to the fact that time ran out for proper scrutiny and debate.

This is open and unembarrassed abuse of process – Soubry says she feels the committee ought to be grateful to her setting out to create conditions whereby the UK government will be able to come back and introduce plain packaging. She somehow attempts to make the case that her abuse of the parliamentary process was designed to protect Westminster's sovereignty.

Will the UK opposition start asking pointed questions?

Perhaps it is time to start writing letters. This seems about the level of debate on tobacco legislation: Why Labour should keep asking Cameron the Lynton Crosby question (New Statesman).

No new evidence? New petition launched

Four years ago the European Commission published an indoor air quality standard entitled:

Ventilation for non-residential buildings - Performance

requirements for ventilation and room-conditioning systems

The document refers to smoking several times. One example:

The level of air quality required, and the method of classification applied shall be specified. Whether smoking is allowed or not is an important input. The necessary air flow rates to achieve the specified requirements shall be calculated. If nothing is declared, the rates of outdoor air per person for Indoor Air Quality category IDA 2 can be used as a default.

The European Commission, the details of whose forthcoming (and rather savage) revised tobacco directive have been leaked to the press, have published evidence that tobacco smoke can be dealt with in the same way as any other toxin. In essence this is (1) establishing a safe air quality standard; (2) advising how to remove the toxins in cases where the air quality standard is breached.

Somehow in spite of having published this guidance on air quality, the European Commission has adopted an authoritarian stance recommending smoking bans in all indoor workplaces everywhere in Europe, as if there were no other solution available to a mild toxicity problem.

PE 01451, Review of smoking ban

The smoking ban in Scotland is based on this extreme position, and the new petition PE 01451 asks the Scottish Parliament to request the Scottish Government to take seriously the existence of a European standard that should enable smoking rooms to operate.

A FOI request established that the Scottish Government had no record of this standard as of last summer, even though it was published in 2008. It is therefore new evidence, which the Parliament did not have access to when the legislation went through in 2005. All they had (or all they paid attention to) was the mantras 'there is no safe level of secondary smoke' and 'ventilation doesn't work'.