Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

We are taking this forward. Not everyone in the House may be aware that we are obliged to go through a process with Europe, whereby we notify this policy to EU member states and there is a statutory three months during which member states can give a detailed response. If any member state does so, there is a six-month pause. Four states—Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Romania—have given that detailed opinion, and the window has not yet closed. The House might be interested to know that Ireland received eight detailed responses on this subject. That is part of the process.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that she will wait for the evidence before moving forward rather than relying on emotion. She knows that the policy, if implemented, would threaten 1,000 jobs in my constituency. Furthermore, will she agree to await the outcome not only of the evidence from Australia but of the tobacco tax directive that is being pushed through Europe?

[Jane Ellison]

I am encouraged by the evidence from Australia. We have seen some really impressive statistics regarding the cessation of smoking. The Government have not yet made a final decision on the matter, but Health Ministers are on the record as saying that we are minded to move forward on this, and we want to make progress. I regret the loss of jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I know that he will be working hard to assist his constituents in looking for other employment.

Ebola

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I remember working with the right hon. Gentleman on the International Development Select Committee many years ago, when we had many conversations about strengthening the resilience of local health care systems. He is absolutely right to say that that must be our long-term goal, and I will ask the Secretary of State for International Development to write to him to explain how our efforts in Sierra Leone will help to strengthen its local health care system in the long run. The simple point I would make is that this illustrates the dual purpose of our aid budget more powerfully than any example I can remember. First, our aid budget gives humanitarian assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world and, secondly, it protects the population at home in the UK. Those two aims go hand in hand.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and I appreciate having been given an advance copy of it. He mentioned the devolved regions. First, will he tell us which Minister in Northern Ireland will take personal responsibility for this matter? Secondly, he will know that the main point of entry for potential victims of this terrible disease is the Republic of Ireland. What special measures are being put in place to stop people using those points of entry to travel from the Republic to Northern Ireland when there are no apparent protective measures in place?

[Mr Hunt]

The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), has been in touch with Jim Wells in the Northern Ireland Assembly and she will take up that issue. The broader point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) makes is that there are many points of entry into the UK, and it is important for us to recognise that our screening and monitoring process will not catch absolutely everyone who comes from the affected regions. That is why we need to have other plans in place, such as the 111 service, and to have encouragement at every border entry point for people to self-present so that we can protect them better, should they develop symptoms.

Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Those who have spoken against the motion have said that they want people to be honest and that they want the truth, but when they have bandied around quotations from Lord Winston they have obscured the truth. Lord Winston’s position is clear, and he is for this type of research, but he made one thing abundantly plain. He said that this

“is genetic modification and is handed down the generations.”

He was honest and called it what it is. He went on to say:

“It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion or a transplant and an honest statement might be more sensible and encourage public trust.”

We have such anger and confusion about the issue because of that deliberate deceit and dishonesty, and the House should take cognisance of that.

The other tactic that has been deployed is to felon set, to emotionally blackmail and to say to people such as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), “You have inflicted”—these are the words used about her by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—

[Dr Huppert]

indicated dissent.

[Ian Paisley]

Yes, you did. Check Hansard. You said, “You have inflicted this disease on people.”

The debate has got very personal—it has gone into that realm—and people are trying to felon set, to emotionally blackmail, to emotionally charge the debate and to say that people are, to quote another Member, scaring us into opposing this. We must be abundantly clear that such emotional blackmail should be removed from the debate. There should be an honest debate and we should be allowed to discuss the ethics and to put on the table our views, including our moral views.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the complete lack of evidence on the possible outcomes as these children grow up and have their own children, with females passing on their genetic code to children, means that the technique should not be proceeded with at this stage?

[Ian Paisley]

Some of the pre-clinical tests were completed only in June. It is impossible even to read the detail of them, yet we have a mad rush from some people to proceed. I am not standing in the way of that, but saying that we should do so on the basis of solid, sure and grounded evidence, not emotional blackmail and emotionally charged arguments. The evidence therefore becomes critical. We should be allowed to consider it and we should allow the evidence to emerge post-pre-clinical testing and examination.

There have been two public consultations and I heard one Member dismissing them, saying that all the letters were the same. I can tell the House this: if the letters had all been the same and the majority view had been the other way, the same Member would not have been saying that tonight. He would be saying, “Oh look, the public are with us. The consultation’s there.” The Department of Health consultation is against this proposal and so is the consultation by the HFEA. The ComRes polling moved dramatically between February and August from a wafer-thin majority of 35% of people in favour of the proposal to an overwhelming majority of 55% or so opposed to it. That is a huge landslide.

Honesty should return into the centre of the debate and we should have a full, frank discussion. Let me be clear about my position, as people will ask about the ethical position. I come from a moral stance. I share the psalmist’s view that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. We should stand in awe of that and praise the great creator for it, but that should not preclude us from having a proper debate. Other Members have mentioned colleagues or constituents who have had children brought in front of them and I, too, have a constituent who wheeled a little child in front of me. Her words ring in my ears today. Despite all the hurt, all the heartache and all the pressure, tears and anguish for that family, the words of the mother were very clear, “Ian, I would not change this for one moment.”

NHS Investigations (Jimmy Savile)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely right. The case that my hon. Friend mentions was a real tragedy because that person suffered very real psychological harm in subsequent years as a result of what they were told by the cleaner. There are two points. First, we cannot necessarily corroborate, but we can see a pattern. What is impressive about these investigations is the fact that the investigators say time after time that although it is not possible to prove that these things happened, they believe that they did happen because the evidence was credible. On one or two occasions, they say that they are not sure, but in the vast majority of cases, they thought that the evidence was credible. Secondly, there will continue to be times when offences are alleged, but it is not possible to prove them in a court of law. The big lesson to be learnt is that that does not mean no action should be taken. We must do what it takes to protect patients.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s statement. Does he agree that the fear of litigation by NHS practitioners appears to be one of the reasons why the system does not lend itself to the provision of a good listening ear, and, indeed, one of the reasons why a compassionate response to that listening is not always forthcoming? What practical steps can be taken to ensure that, at an early stage, practitioners actually listen to complaints?

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I also place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for making available an early copy of the report so that we could study it? The Minister said that there is compelling evidence, but Sir Cyril Chantler’s report says that he has

“not seen evidence that allows me to quantify the size of the likely impact of standardised packaging”,

other than a “modest” reduction.

Will the Minister now commit to awaiting the outcome of the Home Affairs Committee report on illicit trade, which will be important in determining the impact of the policy? Will she also consider the outcome of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on illicit trade, which showed that illicit trade is on the increase and is costing this Government billions of pounds a year? Finally, will the Minister have a word with and say something to 1,000 of my constituents who have been put on notice by today’s decision that they are not valued and that their jobs are over because of this Government?

[Jane Ellison]

I have already said quite a lot about illicit trade. It is mentioned in the report, which the hon. Gentleman has obviously had a chance to look at. He quoted the word “modest” but, as I said just a moment ago, even a modest impact on a major killer is very important. As a Health Minister, I regularly answer parliamentary questions and letters from colleagues throughout the House on issues that affect far fewer children than 4,000 a year. We have spoken privately and exchanged correspondence on the issue of jobs. The impact assessment will reflect on it and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a submission to the final consultation.

Children and Families Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

Actually it is neither of those two things. Technical amendments are needed to the wording of what was passed in another place and the Government’s view was that the House needed the chance to consider something that was legally workable. I will cover that in a bit more detail later.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister not agree that this is actually premature and that we should await the outcome of the Sir Cyril Chantler review? That is an independent review and we should not try to shape his opinion in advance of it. In a famous statement in this House on 12 July last year—a date I will always remember—it was made clear that this was about gathering evidence. Surely we should await the gathering of evidence before we put legislation in place that will allow the implementation of something for which there may not be sufficient evidence.

[Jane Ellison]

I will discuss that point in more detail in a moment. We have had these discussions before. The Government are seeking regulation-making powers, but we will await the outcome of the independent Chantler review. Ministers will take all other factors into consideration at that time before making a decision.

I want to set out the key elements of the Government amendments. Let me start with standardised tobacco packaging. As I told the House on 28 November last year, we have asked Sir Cyril Chantler for an independent view of the public health evidence on standardised packaging of tobacco products. Sir Cyril’s report is due in March. During debates in the House, many hon. Members have told me that the evidence base for standardised packaging continues to grow. The Government will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised by this policy, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to do so, including public health benefit.

We have therefore introduced provisions that would give Ministers the power to make regulations to standardise the packaging of tobacco products, should a decision be taken by the Government to do so. Ministers would be able to regulate internal and external packaging and any other associated materials included with a tobacco product, including the cellophane or other outer wrapper of a cigarette pack. The powers will extend to other forms of tobacco such as hand-rolling tobacco.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister has touched on two important points. One involves the packaging rights of companies. Is there anything in the legislation that would enable compensation to be granted to those companies if the Government chose to remove their trademarks and branding rights? I understand that, under European law, billions of pounds of compensation could be payable in those circumstances. Secondly, will the Minister clarify whether the Chantler review—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but I am sure that he will wish to be brief, as many people wish to speak in the debate.

[Ian Paisley]

I apologise for the longevity of my intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but these important issues affect many jobs in my constituency. My second point involves the illicit trade in tobacco products. Will the Minister tell us whether that will be covered by the Chantler review?

[Jane Ellison]

As I said in my earlier statement to the House, the Chantler review is looking specifically at the public health aspects of these matters. Sir Cyril is perfectly free to look at whatever he wants, but those are his terms of reference. Other issues will be considered in the round when Ministers come to make their decisions. Those issues were of course fully explored during the consultation that took place before the review.

The amendment sets out the elements of tobacco packaging that could be regulated—for example, the use of colour, branding or logos, the materials used and the texture, size and shape of the packaging. It also sets out the aspects of the tobacco product itself that could be regulated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

We have been discussing the issue earlier today, but we will look in more detail at that sort of detail when the House has voted on the principle of this and we have the view of both Houses. Today, the House is examining the principle, not detailed regulations, which would need to be brought forward and which would be subject to the affirmative resolution.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Minister helping us to get to the bottom of this. I understand that under rule 148 of The Highway Code a driver is prohibited from smoking, eating, drinking, doing a crossword or listening to a loud radio at the wheel, for very obvious reasons. If that is the case—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we have got the message. The hon. Gentleman has had two interventions. We are going very well, so let us not challenge the Minister too much so early on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker]

My concern about the Lords amendment is that we are in danger of criminalising otherwise very loving parents. We should guard against that. It would be appalling if people who have been good parents in every other way found themselves being criminalised as a result of smoking in a car when their children were present.

I hear the argument about seat belts and it is perfectly and entirely reasonable for the Government to set the terms of their use on the road. If the Government decide that someone who wants to drive on a road has to wear a seat belt, that is highly reasonable. I suggest that, if the Government really are determined to press ahead with banning smoking in cars, that is exactly what they should do: they should ban the consumption of alcohol in cars by any person of any age and ban smoking in cars by any person of any age. That would be a much more honest approach, because, as I have said, if we go down this road we will be criminalising hundreds of thousands of parents. Will a repeat offender—someone who has been penalised three or four times—have their children taken into care because they are deemed to be an abusive parent?

There is an enormous degree of hypocrisy in this House. I am pleased to say that I am a teetotal non-smoker. There are many people in this place who want to ban smoking because they think it is not done by very nice people, but they are much more relaxed about alcohol because of their own habits. If Members are genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they need to realise that alcohol is the problem, not tobacco. Hundreds of thousands of children have their lives blighted by alcoholic parents and the problems associated with alcohol, yet we never talk about that in this House, because some Members think, “We, as nice people, drink.” I am extremely concerned about the direction of travel.

My final point—I know that others want to speak—is that we will drive another wedge between the police and those they are policing if we implement this provision. It is nonsense. We will expect the police to intervene and that will further widen the gap between them and those they are policing. That should be avoided and we should be very careful about widening that gap.

[Ian Paisley]

Like a number of Members, I am deeply concerned that this provision means that Parliament will slowly but surely become a farce. If Parliament wants to start legislating on issues for reasons of good public relations, this provision is a good idea. However, if we peel it back and look at the evidence, we will see that it is not essential.

We should take time to reflect on the evidence in favour of the Lords amendments. On legislating to prevent people from smoking in cars when children are present, let us be clear that the law, under rule 148 of The Highway Code, currently prevents a driver from smoking in any vehicle. He or she should not smoke in any vehicle when driving, so Lords amendment 125 is about the behaviour of passengers and not necessarily that of the driver. That will make it even more difficult for the enforcer—the police officer—to determine the actions and age of those smoking in a vehicle. We should be in the business of making good, sound and solid legislation, and I do not believe that this provision has been properly thought out. It should be taken back to the drawing board and we should consider who the passenger is and who the provision will affect.

The issue of enforcement is utterly critical, because the police are already not properly resourced to do the job they are currently asked to do in combating real criminals. If we set up another criminal class in the community, we will have to ask the police to go after them. Some police officers will take great joy in going after a soft-touch conviction, but that is missing the point and we have to recognise that the police would not have sufficient resources to tackle the issue.

The crux of the matter is: how many people actually engage in smoking in a vehicle when there is a child present? All we have heard from Members on both Front Benches is a guesstimate, not facts. When New Zealand carried out a similar action, it found that 0.13% of people smoked in a vehicle with a child present. We are asking this nation to legislate on something that is an incredibly minor problem.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about rule 148 of The Highway Code. It is, in fact, only advisory with regard to avoiding distractions such as smoking and playing loud music in vehicles. It is not mandatory in the sense the hon. Gentleman might have been suggesting.

[Ian Paisley]

I was not suggesting that it was mandatory, but it does say that people should not do it. Rule 148 is very clear that people should not do a crossword, read a map, eat a sandwich or smoke while driving.

That takes us back to the crux of the matter. A person who lights up and smokes in front of a child—I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this—is a prat, in my view, and we as a House should not be legislating on that, but educating. What we should really be engaging in is educating people. We do not require legislation to educate people not to be prats and to be sensible.

The number of people involved is minuscule, so is it right that this House is taking time, money and effort to legislate on such a minor problem? I do not believe it is.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the number of people smoking in cars with children present is minuscule, but he has produced no evidence to back that up in relation to the UK. If the number is so minuscule, why is the provision so disproportionate and excessive and how would it make enforcement impossible in the way he suggests?

[Ian Paisley]

Let me take one of the facts raised by Labour tonight. According to tobacco consumption rates in the United Kingdom, 22% of people smoke in the Liverpool district, but according to the statistic put in front of us tonight, 25% of all children are subject to being in front of smokers. The number of people smoking is, therefore, higher than the Government statistics show. We need more clarity on the stats being put about by Members on both sides of the House. Labour and Government Front Benchers should wait, as they said they would in November, for the outcome of the Cyril Chantler independent review. If we wait for the gathering of evidence that we can all accept, we will be in a much stronger position to make the decision we are making tonight.

I am also concerned about the plain packaging measures, which will decimate an industry. There is not sufficient evidence to show that they will do what everyone wants them to do, which is to stop people smoking. A pound store I visited sells boxes for people to put their fags in. It is even possible to get ones that say “Vote Labour” or “Vote Conservative” on them. Believe you me, Mr Deputy Speaker: whenever cigarettes are sold in the future under this provision, these boxes will be given out freely by certain companies because they will take away the one warning that we do know is important, which is that smoking kills. Tonight we are putting in place an opportunity for people to cover cigarettes with no warning whatsoever.

The biggest problem that this country faces on tobacco is the illicit trade: 25% of all cigarettes smoked in the United Kingdom tonight will have been smuggled by criminals. We as a House should do something, on a united basis, to wipe out such criminal empires, instead of making it easy for them by giving them plain cigarette packages that are simpler to print, smuggle and get into the hands of children. That should be our real cause and health concern.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to support Lords amendment 125 for the very simple reason that children have no choice about getting into a car. Every day, up and down this country, children are told to get into a car by their parents or guardians; they have no choice. I think that we should operate on the basis of the “Do no harm” principle. The facts are clear: 165,000 incidents of childhood disease are caused every year by passive smoking. Not all car journeys are short: a close family member of mine was made to get into a car and to travel many hours to go on holiday while a pipe was smoked in the car. Despite protests, that pipe continued to be smoked.

On enforcement, many laws are not properly enforced—like all hon. Members, I want full enforcement—but is anyone saying that we should abandon the law against driving while holding a mobile to one’s ear because it is not always properly enforced? I have written to my police force to ask how many convictions they have had for people holding a phone to their ear.

Yes, in a perfect world we would change this situation through education, and of course we should refrain from banning things unless we have to, but the fact is that too many children—an estimated 185,000 every day—have to put up with it. Against their will—they have no choice—they are told to get into a small metal unit. We are here to speak up for those who have no voice, which is why I am proud to support the measure tonight.

Tobacco Packaging

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I agree completely. That demonstrates the failure of the tobacco industry to stop the illicit trade, even under the current advertising arrangements for packaging.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that more than 1,000 people in my constituency are directly employed by the tobacco industry, which creates huge employment opportunities for my constituents. Why will he not just be honest and say that we should ban smoking altogether and make it illegal? That is the direction of travel he is taking. We are hearing all this nonsense about different colours, subliminal messages and messages written on cigarettes; let us cut the nonsense. Why will he not be honest with the House and say that he wants to ban smoking altogether?

[Bob Blackman]

I am not one of those who wants to ban particular substances. If someone wants to put a cigarette in their mouth, set light to it and attempt to kill themselves, that is their choice. They have the freedom to do so. All I say is, “Don’t breathe that smoke over me, don’t breathe it over children, don’t inflict it on others.”

Tobacco Products (Plain Packaging)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Government face a choice: to make policy on the basis of emotion—indeed, of emotional blackmail—or to make it on the basis of evidence. I welcome the recent statement by the Government that they will look at and assess the evidence, then take a decision on that basis. That is an eminently sensible way to approach making policy.

Other Members do themselves a disservice if they take a particular position on the sale, manufacture and distribution of tobacco, saying that those activities are somehow aligned with those of child killers, cancer pushers and drug dealers. That is the import of what is being said today about people who wish to defend an industry that employs 66,000 people in this country. If we put it out of business, it will not reduce the consumption or sale of cigarettes by one; they will simply be manufactured in other countries and imported here, and they will continue to be smoked here.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the statistics that have been given here today, and despite all the health warnings and pictures on cigarettes, 200,000 people are still recruited into the cigarette industry every year? It is evident that the packaging—the shape and colour, and what is on it—does not deter people from smoking.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I shall deal with the evidence on three issues. First, the Republic of Ireland has the tightest, harshest laws on public smoking. When it introduced those laws 10 years ago—it set the trend on this—smoking stood at 30% of the public. After 10 years of enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, today the number of people who smoke in the Republic of Ireland is 30%. There has not been one single change to consumption, yet we are told that this drive is all about reducing consumption. It does not actually work.

How do we address consumption? We do what the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) says: educate young people. In Germany, they have done that and consumption has fallen to 16%. Why? Because they educated the very young and persuaded people that smoking was not the course of action they should take. They educated them away from cigarettes. They also do another thing: they enforce. In other words, an adult cannot go into a shop, buy fags and give them to a 16-year-old. They enforce against adults who do that. Unfortunately, many people in this country go into shops and purchase cigarettes, or purchase illicit trade cigarettes out of the back of someone’s car, and then give them to young people. We should enforce against that.

I also want to deal with the myth about illicit trade. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) should know much better. To suggest that HMRC is on top of the illicit trade in this country is to put one’s head in the sand. Last year, HMRC gave evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs about illicit trade, and tobacco was dealt with. HMRC is fighting a tsunami of counterfeit trade in this country.

In my country, 25% of all cigarettes smoked are illegal. In Scotland, the figure is about 27%. If we are pretending today that the authorities are on top of the issue, we are absolutely, totally and completely wrong. We have to recognise that counterfeiters are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of their job being made easier. They will be able to get a simpler package cover that is standardised across the whole UK and push it out across the UK, getting people to smoke brands that are counterfeit and illicitly brought into the country. Remember that the people doing that are not Sunday school teachers; they are serious organised criminals who are involved in serious criminal endeavours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Ignatius Loyola, who founded the Jesuits, said:

“Give me the boy at seven and I will give you the man.”

I think that the strapline for the tobacco advertising industry is, “Give me the child smoker at 12 and I will give you the early grave.”

The advertising industry is finely honed. It uses psychology, science, art, craft and design to get a message across. It is not just happenstance or chance; the packages that cigarettes come in are dedicated to capturing hearts and minds. I am holding one—this is what we are talking about here today. This is a “super-slim” cigarette. What 12-year-old girl would not like to be super slim? It is a fine, elegant-looking bullet—or cancer stick. See this other one I am holding up. Guess who it is aimed at—14-year-olds. These packages will be responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths of UK citizens over the next few decades. It is the most pernicious form of advertising in the country.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I remind him that in 2008 the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said in a statement to the House that:

“there is no evidence base that”

plain packaging

“actually reduces the number of young children smoking.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 945.]

He had sought to introduce the policy himself, but then dismissed it.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right. Labour did many good things. We curtailed advertising. We introduced the ban on smoking in public places. But we did not do enough and we need to do more. When I spoke about this package at an anti-smoking do in Parliament, JTI—Japan Tobacco International—had a spy in the room and wrote to me afterwards, saying, “Mr Ruane, you’ve got it all wrong. These are called 14s because there are 14 cigarettes inside the packet.” It was a Miss Laura Oates who castigated me and she went on to criticise the Labour Government for not doing enough on proxy purchasing.

I agree: I think that we should take up Miss Laura Oates’s cry for more pressure on the tobacco industry and concentrate on that. This is just one step in the campaign to cut and then eliminate smoking in the UK. Thanks go to Laura Oates for suggesting other campaigns as well. I think that we should have a whole string of them over the next 10 years. It should be a long-term policy to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken, so I will follow the Chair’s mandate and not give way.

Other people are lobbying against the policy, such as Unite the Union. I took part in a debate during the recess on BBC Radio Bristol with a shop steward from the tobacco packaging factory in east Bristol. He said that if legislation went ahead that factory would lose hundreds of jobs. I say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that I see no problem at all with being a constituency MP—Imperial Tobacco, one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, is based in Bristol—and arguing against the tobacco trade, because tobacco kills people in my city and kills people from poorer communities. It is a public health tragedy that smoking now disproportionately affects poorer people in society. The middle classes have largely followed all the health warnings and given up smoking.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Stephen Williams]

As I mentioned the hon. Gentleman, I will give way.

[Ian Paisley]

I have no problem with that, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he takes the same approach to the alcohol trade. I accept that cigarettes kill, but that is not the argument. The argument is about illicit trade and the impact on jobs and employment. That is where the argument is and where we need to look. We need to get the evidence that shows that plain packaging will do what it says on the tin: stop people from smoking; it will not.

[Stephen Williams]

There is a big difference between alcohol and tobacco: alcohol consumed in moderation will not kill someone; smoking tobacco, whatever the strength, over a long period, will shorten your life. That is a fundamental difference.

As hon. Members have said, tobacco is already one of the most regulated trades. So why regulate further? Because regulation has been proven to work. Over the past 50 years, with restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and points of display, health warnings and NHS cessation programmes, we have seen the rate of smoking drop from more than half of adult males in the late 1960s, when I was born, to about one-fifth now. We know that state intervention works, but tobacco companies need a new generation of susceptible young minds to take up the addiction.

I am deeply disappointed with my Government for stalling. I know that the Minister’s heart is in the right place and I feel for her on this occasion. The Government have not acted, so there is an opportunity for Parliament. I remember Patricia Hewitt in the previous Parliament defending, almost until the last minute, the partial ban on smoking in public places. That Parliament imposed a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places. I hope that this House or the House of Lords will act in the same way in this Parliament.

Tobacco Packaging

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I agree that the state does not have a right to interfere willy-nilly, but of course standardised packaging does not prevent anybody from buying cigarettes or inhibit their right to smoke cigarettes if that is their choice, so with respect to my hon. Friend, this is not a nanny state argument at all. The packaging would be affected, but people would remain free, as ever, to buy cigarettes and to smoke them.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the Government on their courageous and brave decision to do the right thing, and I would encourage the Minister to keep on changing in this matter. She has protected 1,000 jobs directly in my constituency today as a result of this, and for that I am truly grateful. But may I also say that with clarion certainty today, we now have a statement from the Government that policy in this area will be based on evidence, not emotion. That is incredibly important, in order that we can get to sensible decisions. On that basis, turning to the tobacco directive, will the Minister now agree for her officials to meet me and industry representatives who employ people in my constituency, given that the Minister’s Department has already met with Ms Linda McAvan, the MEP and reporter, on the tobacco directive, because it is only fair that we have proper, full, evidence-based debate on this matter?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I do not agree on this matter. Of course, we have not made a decision; that is the whole point. We are waiting to see the evidence as it emerges from Australia before we make a decision. I am more than happy to meet him again, as I have done in the past, but I can tell him: I am not going to meet those whose business is to trade and to manufacture tobacco. It is bad; it is horrible stuff. It kills people. It does great damage to people’s health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful for those comments. I know that the Republic’s Minister for Health is a firm advocate of standardised packaging. In fact, I think that if he could he would go even further and make tobacco illegal. I hope that he will not mind me saying that in public, but I believe it is his view. It is an absolute pleasure to work with him. We learn from each other. At the various European Union Health Ministers’ meetings we exchange ideas and experiences. That is why—I keep saying it, but it is absolutely right—we must wait and see the evidence as it emerges from Australia.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can I correct what I consider to be misleading information? How can it be the case that the Government have not met representatives of the tobacco industry when I have accompanied them to meet the Government every year since I have been a Member of Parliament and the previous Member of Parliament for North Antrim has accompanied them to meet the Government for the past 30 years? Can that be corrected in some way, because I believe that it was misleading the House to assert that there would be no such meeting?

EU Working Time Directive (NHS)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Brady, for giving me the opportunity to speak unexpectedly early in the debate; I really appreciate it. The European working time directive is a complete disaster. Those are the words not of some amateur politician, someone on the street, a journalist or a headline maker, but of the president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Thompson. He has described the European working time directive as “a complete disaster” for both patient care and the quality of training. He said:

“We are not providing the service or the training that we require. I cannot overemphasise the damage to service provision and to training.”

The directive is a complete disaster in terms of providing a service to the people who need it the most—the vulnerable and the sick. It is a complete disaster to the physicians who are the lifeblood of the NHS; and a complete disaster to the future of our hospital structure.

In September 2010, the European working time directive impacted on hospital rotas. The Royal College of Physicians criticised “the reliance on locums” in rural hospitals in particular. It said that

“a service opt-out or modification should continue to be pressed for.”

The Causeway hospital in my constituency faces losing its accident and emergency department, which is the only such facility in one of the most rural parts of Northern Ireland. The area has one of the largest inflows of tourists at certain times of the year. Why is the department going to close? It is going to close not because it is useless or there is no demand, but because of its over-reliance on locums, which is a direct result of the European working time directive. It is a complete disaster for our rural hospitals. It is a complete disaster in terms of sickness leave among doctors. The report of the Royal College of Physicians, which was published in April 2010, shows that sickness leave has soared since the European working time directive was introduced. It says:

“The apparent rise in sickness rates of junior doctors since the introduction of the European Working Time Directive highlights the additional stresses that are being put upon trainees by new rotas.”

Let us not mince our words: this is a complete disaster. Let us be honest and say it as it is. As far as the NHS is concerned, the European working time directive has failed and we need to get a better plan or structure in place that coincides with the needs of patients and with the ability of our physicians to deliver the best care service in the world. The sooner that we call this as it is the better.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that the effects of the working time directive on our respective constituents is one reason why an increasing number of people are reaching the conclusion that we would be better off out of the European Union?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me. He is a mind reader. He seems to be able to find something that perhaps we are all agreed on. If the directive is a complete disaster; if it is starving our patients of good care and our junior doctors and senior physicians of being able to deliver what they are brilliant at delivering, we should address the problem at its root. The root cause is that we have a poison in the body politic of this kingdom. We are being regulated by people who do not live in this kingdom, do not care about this kingdom, are not part of this kingdom or do not have the needs of this kingdom at their heart, and we should stand up and recognise that. The over-regulatory practice that is being put upon us by Brussels is destroying this country. The sooner that we realise that, the better, and the sooner that the Government realise that and recognise that they should address the root cause of the problem, the better for us all.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman should just come off the fence. I have to declare that I was a member of the European Parliament for 10 years and served alongside his father. On two occasions, I attended an employment committee meeting in Brussels and saw Labour Ministers pleading with representatives to not allow the various connotations of the directive to flow through. Back in 2004, when the Commission opened up its first rethinking of this process, Labour Ministers came to the Parliament to plead with their MEPs not to vote to insist that this went ahead and to plead with the rest of the Parliament to allow Britain to do the right thing for its own people.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman gives us a valuable insight, or an inside track, into what the horse trading is really like in Brussels. This is not about the needs of the constituency or of the people, but about horse trading. It is about what we can achieve here to solve something in Brussels, Lithuania or Greece that is completely unrelated to the health needs of this nation. That horse-trading mentality is failing this nation. The insight that the hon. Gentleman provides is useful, and I am glad that he has come out from the shadows of Europe and, like me, is standing here in this Parliament. I know the happy times that he spent with my father when he was in Europe.

Other nations do not gild the lily as we do. We are pretty special at gilding the lily. We can really implement regulations like no one else. Why do the Government do it? Every other European nation seems to interpret the European working time directive in whatever way they want and get away with it. I am amazed that Ireland—the other bit—has been able to interpret the directive its way and get away with it. Surely, if it can say that training is not part of being a doctor, we too can find the flexibility—a word used by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie)—necessary to make this work for us. Let us use the F-word; let us be flexible and get this right for our patients, our hospitals and our services.

In Lithuania, there is poor EWTD compliance because of the recession, so it can get away with it. Greece, too, has got away with not implementing the European working time directive because of its poor economic financial state. Surely, we can get away with implementing the European directive our way, and in a way that is flexible for our people and for our country. Apparently, Portugal is fully EWTD-compliant. However, many doctors and surgeons there now work more than their contracts say that they should. Surely, if the rest of Europe can find a way to be flexible to suit the needs of their people, it is not beyond the kith of men or beyond our wonderful Health Minister who is here today and our wonderful Department of Health to come up with a way to make the directive flexible for our people, for our nation, for our kingdom and—most importantly—for the needs of our patients, and to allow our doctors to deliver the service that they need to deliver?

I believe that we have a complete erosion of fundamental realities when we look at how the EWTD is being implemented to the destruction of the delivery of service and patient care. I hope that the Minister and the Department are listening to a voice that is coming across from all this kingdom, which says that the directive needs to be changed and changed fast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

Sixty hours would be a start—65 is what most people seem to be calling for. It is about getting a balance. We do not want to go back to the 80, 90 or 100-hour working week, but nor do we want to face the consequences of the 48 or 56-hour working week. There is a balance to be struck, and I would be very interested to hear what the Minister thinks can be done. This debate is obviously an interesting one because it can go down a European direction, which I know a Health Minister cannot say very much about today. However I would be interested to hear what he has to say about the NHS in his capacity as a Health Minister.

[Ian Paisley]

There is also the issue of bean counting. We must be very careful, because this debate is about delivering something to the patient and ensuring that the team around the patient, including the doctors, co-ordinate their work to meet the needs of the patient. If we get into very strict bean counting—whether we are talking about 48 hours, 60 hours or whatever—and do not recognise that this is about a patient-centred service, we will keep having more and more of these problems that we have discussed. That is the critical issue, and why we need the flexibility.

[Chris Skidmore]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Patient-led care is where we must get to. That is why we are all here; that is what the Health and Social Care Act 2012 will deliver. I am sure that we will all be working further to ensure that the patient is placed at the heart of the NHS.