Deguara vs Deguara

Some years ago, I quit smoking once and for all. I am proud of it and prouder to be able to say "No" when offered a cigarette. I hate eating out and having someone smoking next to me. Nowadays, I hate the unpleasant poignant lingering smell of cigarettes on my clothes.

I am very well aware of the dangers of smoking to anyone's health and the health hazards that exist for passive smokers. Statistics show that at least one death a day is attributed to smoking. Today, a relatively high percentage of medical cases referred to our hospital are directly or indirectly related to smoking.

So far, we have not been successful in curbing cigarette smoking in Malta in spite of different programmes initiated by the Health Promotion Department. What we have noticed in recent years is a shift in the culture of cigarette smoking; fewer men and boys; more women, especially teenage females. Increase in Customs duty on cigarettes has had negligible or no effect at all on the number of smokers. The awareness campaign on the danger of smoking has failed. We need to be innovative in our approach.

It was with this aim in mind that, in 1997, the Health Promotion Department implemented the concept of advertising, free of charge, restaurants and other entertainment outlets where smoking was not allowed. Being innovative does not entail adopting a dictatorial attitude. Unfortunately, the regulations put forward by the minister of health to curb smoking in a number of places were doomed to fail from inception. Not much or no consultation at all took place prior to issuing the new regulations to ban smoking in most closed areas. The minister of health was criticised by the Chamber of Commerce, the MHRA and the GRTU for the methods he used to implement the regulations without consultation. Some even attributed this to arrogance. Gone are the days where policies are based solely on "dialogue".

Minister Louis Deguara's stance even irked Parliamentary Secretary Edwin Vassallo who was reported as saying that "had there been consultation with stakeholders, the smoking ban controversy would have been avoided". Mr Vassallo also implied that his colleague still has to understand that consultation is necessary all the time. Mr Vassallo was quoted as saying that "it should be the right work practice for whoever is in politics to consult all stakeholders from the very start of any decision process... We can't keep imposing our decisions from our offices".

When interviewed by one of the local English language Sunday papers, I had slammed the minister for the way he introduced the new regulations. I criticised the government for pressing these new regulations without consulting all the stakeholders. I had recommended a different approach of campaigning against tobacco smoking. Moreover, I drew the minister's attention that, in certain circumstances, "there are also facilities available to eliminate smoke... you don't necessarily have to prohibit smoking because you can reduce smoke in the air to normal levels through such technology".

Dr Deguara was defiant... he chose non-cooperation. In his article (February 27) he wrote: "So we will remain firm on these restrictions". He took anyone who criticised him to task.

He even went so far as to claim that I "smelled blood and thought it politically wise that it was now opportune to intervene" and that I believed that "in so doing he (I) will garner political points".

The regulations also proposed a ban on tobacco smoking in public places such as hospitals.

On March 2, I tabled a parliamentary question (No. 4738) to the minister of health to which he replied that Mount Carmel Hospital is exempted from these regulations. I tried to find this exemption in these regulations but found none. This reflects the chaotic process of the drafting of these regulations.

The minister kept mum on the criticism coming squarely from all quarters. The minister did not even react to his colleague's remark (Mr Vassallo's) that the new regulations were just imposition without any consultation.

This is not a one off accusation levelled to the minister of health. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be the last unless there is a change in attitude. It is the rule (and not the exception) that Dr Deguara chooses to impose his diktat without any discussions with all stakeholders.

A few weeks ago, the ministry of health issued the new regulations for pharmacies. Just a few hours later, the Chamber of Pharmacists and the GRTU accused the minister with arrogance and claimed that no prior discussions had taken place. A further accusation levelled out by the two constituted bodies was that the new regulations were not according to what they had been led to expect just a year ago, prior to the EU referendum and the general election!

Another case of imposition without discussion dates back to July 2001. At that time, the government had also promised to open immediate discussions with the hospital employees on their future conditions of work at Mater Dei Hospital. So far, no official discussions have taken place with the stakeholders.

One wonders if Dr Deguara believes in dialogue and consultation prior to taking action. When challenged with confrontation, the minister simply gives in. Now, he is discussing with pharmacy owners on the new pharmacy regulations.

The minister has also forgotten all about "remaining firm on these restrictions" on the smoking regulations and had to make a U-turn.

Minister Deguara has now postponed part of the regulations and has implemented what I had recommended on a personal basis, notwithstanding the accusation he addressed to me.

Dialogue and consultation are not a weakness. Procrastination is. Arrogance and imposition are reminiscent of political extremities.