Updates on Plenary

[rich64]

Oct 9, 2013 6:59:06 GMT barrynorton said:

Oct 9, 2013 1:11:00 GMT kibbster said:

Secondly, there are some parts of the amendment that went through that remain as unacceptable as meds reclassification would have been - and that includes the ridiculous limit of 30mg/ml. This is simply not acceptable, and continues to fail on the legal principle of proportionality (and quite possibly, also on non-discrimination). Here in the UK, we have had a limit of 7.2% (72mg/ml) for retail sales direct to consumers for years (since 1972, actually! Wink) 

That's a good point. Does anyone know in which act this was enacted, and what the thinking was behind the 7.2% limit?

Poisons act 1972 (anything over 7.5%  (not sure why 7.2% is being quoted as the limit) is deemed to be a controlled substance and requires a paper trail...eg from manufacturer to farmer for pesticide products)

[barrynorton]

Nice one. I should know better how to search for this, knowing the guys who made this system:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/66

[rich64]

Oct 9, 2013 10:48:41 GMT barrynorton said:

Nice one. I should know better how to search for this, knowing the guys who made this system:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/66

I was reading up on it a while back barry and it really is worth looking at the fine print, the rules for over 7.5% useage in certain circumstances is surprisingly easy to get a licence for(eg farmers only need to explain use and sign the suppliers poison register.....(Nb:i think its an outdated pesticide nowadays but justy an example)

[barrynorton]

I'm still struggling to find 7.5% in legislation, though it's clear in notes, e.g.:

www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/Withdrawal-and-Restrictions

[Ron]

Just got this email


Many thanks for contacting me regarding the Tobacco Products Directive, specifically concerning electronic cigarettes.



You may have seen in the news that this Directive came before the European Parliament yesterday (8th October).



I am pleased to inform you that Liberal Democrat MEPs won a major victory for e-cigarette users when the European Parliament backed their amendment which will ensure electronic cigarettes are available for sale on the same basis as tobacco cigarettes and not regulated as medicines as the Labour MEP leading on the legislation wanted.



Our amendment noted that electronic cigarettes have a major role to play in reducing tobacco-related deaths although they should meet product safety standards with restrictions on advertising and marketing. However, pharmaceutical licensing would increase their cost and reduce their availability, so I am extremely pleased that we won support for this amendment.



Attempts must not be made to find a compromise between the European Parliament and national governments in the EU Council of Ministers.



I hope you are as pleased as I am about this victory.



Yours sincerely,



Catherine Bearder MEP



Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for the South East of England

Constituency Office

27 Park End Street

Oxford

OX1 1HU

[phone]

www.bearder.eu

[OneDay]

ron I just got the same email.

I see the party-political points scoring has all ready begun

"I am pleased to inform you that Liberal Democrat MEPs won a major victory for e-cigarette users..."

[inigomontoya]

I don't think they even need to 'score points' - McAvan already rules out one party with duality issues.

[barrynorton]

Same typo too? (I'm guessing it's meant to read: Attempts must now be made)

[4madcats]

Oct 9, 2013 10:53:43 GMT barrynorton said:

I'm still struggling to find 7.5% in legislation, though it's clear in notes, e.g.:

www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/Withdrawal-and-Restrictions

You'll only find reference to 7.5% as an exemption to the Poisons Act 1972, this is the clearest doc I've found & you need to look at Schedule 4, group 2 special exemptions but good luck finding out where the 7.5% came from.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/218/pdfs/uksi_19820218_en.pdf

[barrynorton]

Oct 9, 2013 10:53:43 GMT barrynorton said:

I'm still struggling to find 7.5% in legislation, though it's clear in notes, e.g.:

www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/Withdrawal-and-Restrictions

Sorry to quote myself, but the earliest I can find (over lunch) 7.5% in print is on p521 of The Poisions Rules 1982:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/218/pdfs/uksi_19820218_en.pdf

Can someone please help?

[barrynorton]

Oct 9, 2013 11:54:17 GMT 4madcats said:

You'll only find reference to 7.5% as an exemption to the Poisons Act 1972, this is the clearest doc I've found & you need to look at Schedule 4, group 2 special exemptions but good luck finding out where the 7.5% came from.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/218/pdfs/uksi_19820218_en.pdf

Haha, you just beat me to it 

Found it 30 minutes ago, but I was looking for an HTML version (something my friends over at TSO haven't produced yet on leg.gov.uk)

[barrynorton]

So, until someone does produce something earlier I'd suggest that claiming pre-EU membership exemption (i.e. in the 1972 Act) is a false claim on our part.

[C&C]

Oct 9, 2013 10:35:35 GMT barrynorton said:

What people also generally don't realise about EU directives is that the UK often pushes them and then over-implements them. The Daily Mail don't tell you that, they'd prefer you to believe it's foreigners telling us which bananas we can sell.

 It is your responsibility to British industry not to legislate beyond the European agreement.

Totally agree with this. EU legislation trumps UK legislation, always. Short of leaving the EU we will be bound by this directive.

EU directives set the minimum standards that must be complied with. The UK Government must not over implement this when compiling UK legislation to comply with the directive.

[barrynorton]

Here's a copy of the letter just sent to my MP:

I should first like to thank your party, and the MEPs allied thereto, for the victory in yesterday's European Parliament vote on the EU Tobacco Products Directive. Specifically I am relieved about the passing of the amendment on electronic cigarettes, which would largely exempt these from wholly inappropriate medical regulation.

In the next stage of the trilogue, during which it is my understanding that national governments are given chance to negotiate on the directive, I strongly urge your party to defend our national industry, there being several profitable UK SMEs involved in the manufacture and sales of these devices and their supplies including nicotine-bearing 'e-liquids' and their ingredient parts.

I should like to bring to your attention to the retail of supplies for 'DIY' e-liquids. By these means many people, including those with a background in scientific research as I have, are enabled to create liquids for personal vapourisation with an absolute surety of their chemical composition. This is an important consideration, given that the single most frequently cited piece of research by the those standing in opposition to electronic cigarettes concerns rogue ingredients in nicotine vapour.

Furthermore I should like to draw your attention to our long-standing national legislation governing nicotine-bearing ingredients. In particular, the Poison Rules 1982 defines the limits for nicotine sales under the Poisons Act 1972:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/218/pdfs/uksi_19820218_en.pdf

There is a discrepancy here with the amended Tobacco Products Directive, which has exempted only up to a 30mg/ml concentration, whereas our national legislation allows for 7.5% by weight, which is more than double this.

It is therefore an argument for inter-state free-trade that we should insist on raising this limit in the Directive in line with our own existing legislation.

Furthermore, at the national level the MHRA had previously announced its intention to class electronic cigarettes as a medical device. In light of the European agreements these plans must now be dropped both as a threat to our own nationally-established industry, but also under respect for the free trade rights of our fellow EU states.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Barry Norton

[barrynorton]

Also sent to all the London MEPs with the party-neutral amended first paragraph:

I should first like to express my broad admiration for the decisions taken on electronic cigarettes in yesterday's European Parliament vote on the EU Tobacco Products Directive. Specifically I am relieved about the passing of the amendment that would largely exempt these from wholly inappropriate medical regulation.