That meeting in full
Thursday, May 21, 2009 
Apologies for not posting this before. I got back from Edinburgh late last night and I've been in meetings in London all day.
Wednesday's meeting of the Scottish Parliament's Health & Sport Committee went much as expected. We filed in, took our seats, argued our corner for 90 minutes, and trooped out again.
I was one of eight witnesses. Between us we represented consumers, vending machine operators, wholesalers and retailers (including publicans). A single tobacco company (JTI) was also represented.
One or two thought it was quite a tough session but I've experienced worse. Far worse. In fact, once we got started I quite enjoyed it. It helped being one of eight. If there are only one or two of you there's far more pressure. You're in the spotlight and there's very little time to think between questions.
The "roundtable" nature of the meeting helped too. It was less confrontational and we could choose when to enter the discussion, rather than being put on the spot.
That said, my favourite moment (from a personal point of view) was when Labour's Helen Eadie asked if I would retract my claim that a ban on vending machines was "extreme". She seemed to think that because the idea is enshrined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that makes it all right.
Until then I had been rather restrained. I couldn't miss this opportunity, though, so I launched into a short rant about politicians and their need to ban things. When I finished the Convenor (Christine Grahame) paused and said, drily, "So the answer is 'No'." It got a laugh.
The other highlight (for me) was when the SNP's Dr Ian McKee predictably raised the issue of funding. "I am pleased to say," I said, "that Forest gets donations from Imperial, British American Tobacco and JTI."
After the meeting I took the liberty of seeking him out for a quick word, which went something like this:
"Dr McKee, I was very happy to answer your question about funding. I wonder, though, if you could ask ASH Scotland, when they appear before the committee next week, how much money they get from the taxpayer."
Tune in, folks - but don't hold your breath.
The Press & Journal has a short report on yesterday's meeting HERE. Or you can view the entire proceedings HERE.
Reader Comments (6)
You did well Simon. I too was taken aback when funding came into it and they didn't like when it was stated that 'funding' was irrelevant at this meeting, or words to that effect. They also don't like being questioned themselves, do they, the barstewards!
Once again, well done.
Simon. Only those financed by tobacco companies were invited and when somebody asked why a group, who were not so financed, were not invited, Christine Grahame replied that it was upto the Committee who are invited. I believed this was done so it could be said that only tobacco financed groups oppose the ban.
2.21 mins in, Trading Standards admit that test purchasing did not start until 2005 in Scotland. so there is NO evidence that there is widespread purchasing by under 18s. Because it happens in England does not mean it happens in Scotland. Why introduce a law to put cigarettes under the counter and ban machines in Scotland when there is NO evidence it will make any difference.
Chas, perhaps it is the POWER - nothing to do with because we need to, but purely because WE CAN!
I think this applies to many other things too that power hungry politicians 'make law' and/or 'ban'.
So, let me get this straight.
You think that implying that the committee are 'extremists' actually helps your cause? Having a rant may have been gratifying for you, and
you'll no doubt receive hearty congrats from posters here for stickin' it to da man, righteous style, but it also had the obvious effect of slamming shut several doors that you might have been able to pry open.
And you go to an evidence hearing with an SNP convenor, to provide evidence on a bill proposed by an SNP Government, in *Scotland* and yet you say to the committee that you don't know any stats and figures for Scotland...?
That's weak, and if JTI or whomever are funding you to the tune of £250k, then you should spend more of it on useful lobbying stuff like, y'know, research, and less on lunches at the Boisdale.
You do know how the important-man-who-flys-up-from-London-to-tell-us-what-to-do is viewed here?
It was a tough crowd, granted. But work the detail with a tough crowd, the research, and the gaps in it. Don't try to bludgeon them over the head with red-faced rants. I thought you were supposed to be good at this kind of thing?
I hope that the likes of ASH are asked about their funding.