Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kevin Barron

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evans]

That is exactly what is going to happen, and I think one hon. Member intervened to say that that is part of the evidence from Australia. A lot of people like brands, such as Benson & Hedges or Regal, but others will go for the own-brand—whatever is cheaper. If it is £1 cheaper than the more expensive brands, that is what they will go for. Some people, I swear, will smoke the dust off the floor if it is sold at £1 cheaper than a branded pack. The point my hon. Friend raises therefore has got to be looked at as a possibly unintended consequence of bringing in standardised packaging.

I visited Clitheroe grammar school a few months ago and the issue of why the Government have delayed introducing standardised packaging was mentioned. I thought about it for a while and then I said to the pupil concerned, “Right: how much cannabis and ecstasy is consumed in the UK?” The pupil said, “Oh, quite a lot,” to which I said, “I think you’re probably right. Do us a favour: describe to me the packaging on cannabis or ecstasy.”

I ask Members to think about that for a second. What is the packaging for cannabis or ecstasy? There is no packaging. They come in foil or see-through bags, or in an envelope, perhaps. Clearly, people are not buying these products because of the packaging, standardised or otherwise. They buy them because they want them. That is a strong counter-argument to the proposal to get rid of branding.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Surely the answer to the question is that if those things were legal, health warnings would be on them, and quite right, too.

[Mr Evans]

Certainly there is no health warning on cannabis and ecstasy, and we know they kill a lot of people.

Code of Conduct

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kevin Barron

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, before the amendment is pressed, I ask Members to remember my offer to look at the code of conduct and ensure that any commissioner—this current one or any in the future—would have to come to the House before considering any of the issues referred to in the amendment.

The current code states in paragraph 15:

“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”

There is no mention in that paragraph of personal and private lives, or, indeed, of public lives, although they are mentioned in other parts of the code. The provision has never been enacted in such a way and I fear that if the House goes down the route of accepting that people’s personal and private lives are not covered by the code of conduct, that will be a step back. It seems to me that the House would be better advised to consider the genuine proposals that anybody wanting to look into someone’s private and personal life would have to come to the Committee to do so. This House should have confidence in its Members who sit on Committees and in the fact that we have an independent commissioner whom we appoint, whose terms and conditions we set and who is independent of us. It should have confidence in a Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that operates in a non-party political way that was unanimous in saying we should accept the paper before us. We certainly are not unanimous in accepting the amendment. The House should have confidence in itself that if the commissioner or the Committee ever did something wholly wrong, the House could reject that.

Let me finish by saying to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on the Front Bench, who mentioned morals, that this is not about morals. I can tell the House, as the Chairman of the Committee, that if the commissioner came to me with a report about morals I would go around the Committee first before I would discuss the memorandum before us. It is not something we should do or that would be acceptable to Parliament or the general public. However, there are circumstances and occasions on which Members have gone overboard but have not been covered by the code. I genuinely think it would be wrong for us to agree to the amendment today. We can look at the guidance and these issues more widely if need be, but what is proposed would be a backward step. If the amendment is accepted the code will be weaker than the code I have in my hand. I genuinely think we should not do that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Walker, do you intend to press this to a vote?

Ministerial Statements

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kevin Barron

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Is Mr Kevin Barron not standing?

[Mr Barron]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Then I call Robert Syms.

National Health Service

Debate between Nigel Evans and Kevin Barron

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, I took part in this debate and I asked the Minister a question and requested him to answer it in his winding-up speech. Yet he will not even acknowledge that I spoke in the debate. Is there anything you can do, Mr Deputy Speaker, to help Back Benchers keep the Executive in check?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Absolutely nothing. I am sure, however, that the Minister will have heard the point.