Children and Families Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 3 February 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly agrees that the UK Parliament should consider the extension to Northern Ireland of amendments to the Children and Families Bill dealing with the regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety).]

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I welcome the opportunity to respond to a number of the issues that were raised during the debate.

In general, most Members who spoke, including the Committee Chair, supported the proposals in the legislative consent motion.  Quite a number of Members spoke in favour of it. 

Mr Beggs wanted an explanation as to why OFMDFM was making the decision, as opposed to me, and the answer is very simple.  The issue has not been debated in the House heretofore because it came quite quickly, nor, indeed, did it have the opportunity to be debated by the Executive at that point.  Therefore, it was an urgent procedural decision, and it was decided that, in that instance, it would be best left with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister with my support.  They decided that we would proceed with the legislative consent motion.  Given the issues that we have had in the courts previously, it ensures that we have cross-community support so that a Minister is not doing a solo run on the issue.

Most of the issues that were raised were raised by Mr Wilson and Mr Ross, and I propose to respond to some of them.  I see that Mr Wilson is not in his place yet, but I hope that he can make it and that we can deal with a number of the issues.

Before I go to that, I should say that Mr Beggs also raised the issue of security coding.  Security markings will remain on the standardised packaging.  The EU's revision of the tobacco products directive will seek to improve tracking and tracing of tobacco products, and those provisions will be introduced by 2016.

 

I welcome the debate, and I think that it is useful to have such debates in the House.  It is good to be able to hear all of the issues, so that we can give a robust defence of what we are doing.  I believe that we can robustly defend what we are doing.  Mr McNarry also made some points, and I will deal those as well.

There was a strong presumption that there should be evidence and an evidence base on which to do something.  The first element of the evidence is the fact that 25% of people in Northern Ireland smoke.  The next element is that half of those people will die as a result of smoking.  There are 2,300 deaths each year, with 900 from lung cancer, and we cannot afford to ignore that.  The evidence would say that to do nothing is not satisfactory; you need to do something. 

Mr Wilson was somewhat sceptical as to whether efforts heretofore had achieved an awful lot.  The figures do not indicate that that is the case.  In fact, the figures indicate that there has been a dramatic fall in the numbers who smoked previously compared with the numbers who are smoking now.  For example, in 1983, 33% of the total population in Northern Ireland smoked, and today it is 25%; 39% of males smoked and now males account for 28% of smokers;  and 29% of females smoked and that has fallen to 24%.

If one considers that 8% of people who previously smoked do not do so today and that we have a population of 1·8 million, one will see that there are around 150,000 fewer smokers today as a result of the actions that have been taken.  If you want evidence that the actions work, that is your evidence.  There are 150,000 fewer smokers today than there would have been had we just carried on as things were in 1983.

Further evidence of that is that 75,000 of those people would have died as a result of smoking.  Therefore, the argument that we should do nothing because actions do not work anyway does not stand up.  It is wrong, and I am pleased to oppose it robustly.

Photo of Alastair Ross Alastair Ross DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way.  I think that it is a good thing that far fewer people are taking up the habit now than did in the 1980s.  However, does he acknowledge that much of that is down to the fact that nobody now has the excuse of not knowing that smoking will cause them some serious health difficulties and that to use the argument that anybody would take up smoking now because of a glitzy packet is therefore wrong?  What we should be doing is ensuring that we allow adults to take informed decisions for themselves.  The emphasis should be on health campaigns to make people understand the dangers of smoking and why they should not take it up in the first place.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

That is more rehearsing of a previous argument.  I will deal with that in a moment or two.

In terms of evidence, why should Northern Ireland do something more on smoking?  Smoking prevalence in Australia, for example, is around 17%.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

In a moment.

Smoking prevalence is around 17% in California, less than 20% in England, around 20% in Canada, and over 20% in Scotland and Wales.  However, Northern Ireland as a region has the highest smoking levels in the UK.  The concept that the rest of the UK may move to standardised packaging to reduce the prevalence of smoking while Northern Ireland does not do so is not one that we can sustain.  I do not think that that argument is sustainable at all.  We as a region smoke the most.  Everybody else is trying to do something to take people away from smoking.  Are we going to stand alone and be the only part of the British Isles not to have standardised packaging?  That is not a sustainable position to adopt.

Photo of Fearghal McKinney Fearghal McKinney Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Minister for giving way and for bringing to the House the statistics that, in the period, 150,000 people are now not smoking and that, as a result, 75,000 people have not died.  Does he accept that, given the nature of passive smoking, the number of people living longer could in fact be bigger?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Certainly, passive smoking is a major issue.  I remember watching 'Record Breakers' as a child.  Roy Castle, who was a great presenter, died from passive smoking.  He raised the issue of passive smoking.  Mr Givan quite rightly raised the issue of people smoking in cars containing children.  I have heard people argue that it is a civil liberty that people are entitled to smoke, which it is.  However, let me make this very clear:  I do not regard it as a civil liberty to blow smoke around a confined space in which there are young children.  That is not a civil liberty, and we should do something about it.  I note that Westminster is looking at the issue.  We will have to do that in due course, and, for me, the sooner, the better.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.  He will know that, a number of years ago, I brought such a motion to the House, and he pledged his support.  Will he now give an undertaking that, if Westminster does not act, he will?  I know that he looked at consulting on it, but this is a chance.  I wholeheartedly agree with and support him, unlike some of his colleagues who are a little less enthusiastic about the measures that he is speaking for.  I support the Minister on this action.  Smoking has been and will continue to be one of the greatest challenges to public health, unless we do something about it.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

Members should remind themselves of what it is that we are discussing.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Thank you for reminding us of that, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.  It is certainly something that I am very keen to see happening, because it is wholly wrong that young children are exposed to second-hand smoke in that way.  I think it is very irresponsible, and it is something that we can do something reasonable about, and we can take these issues into account.

We have recognised the prevalence of smoking in Northern Ireland; we have recognised the consequence of it, which is lost lives; and we recognise the benefits of engaging in campaigns, because they have reduced the levels of smoking thus far.  We are now looking at next steps. 

What can be done?  The argument has been made, and made very strongly, that only one country, Australia, has introduced plain packaging and that, therefore, the evidence base is not strong for us to pursue this with the knowledge that it will reduce the number of people smoking in future years.  Quite rightly, the evidence from Australia is not particularly strong at this time, because it has been in place for only around 14 months.  However, the evidence that has emerged from it, certainly at an early stage, is that smokers have less satisfaction with their cigarettes because they perceive them to be of poorer quality. 

A further study was carried out in New South Wales, which showed a 78% increase in the number of calls to Quitline in the months after standardised packaging was introduced.  So, there is evidence from Australia that it is having some impact on smokers.  However, what we are targeting here, with standardised packaging, is not actually smokers.  We are targeting younger people to ensure that they do not get the habit of taking nicotine.

I think that it was Mr Ross who talked about not patronising young people.  That is important.  Our office is beside Lisburn college.  We see many young people out smoking, so I carried out some investigations of my own as to why a young person still takes up smoking, in spite of all of the evidence that is available.  It is seen to be cool, it is seen to be trendy and there are people in films who are cool that smoke, and so forth.  So, there are still a considerable number of things encouraging young people to smoke, in spite of everything that is being said.  Peer pressure, of course, is an element of it. 

Then, of course, there is a message put out there, and it is not an official advertisement, that, because smoking can suppress your appetite, it helps you to control your weight.  Girls in particular want to be thin, and so forth.  That is one of the reasons why the number of female smokers is not going down to the same extent as the number of male smokers is going down.  We need to challenge those perceptions.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I will, in a moment.  We need to challenge those perceptions and ensure that young people get the message.

I have a bit of grey matter up here now; I have a bit of grey hair, and so forth, but I can still remember being young.  I can remember thinking, "You know what?  We are indestructible.  We can do anything".  I know full well that when the young people of today are taking that cigarette, they are not thinking about having lung cancer when they are 30, 40 or 50 years of age; they are not thinking of having a heart attack; they are not thinking of strokes; they are not thinking of mouth and oral cancer; they are not thinking of all of those things that can kill them, in spite of the fact that it says "Smoking kills" on the packets.  In fact, many of them do not see the packet when they take their first cigarette.  In spite of the fact that it says that, many young people will still take up smoking because they see somebody else doing it.  Of course, the colourful packaging, particularly the wee dinky ones that they have for the girls — the slim fits and all of that there — is an element of the branding of cigarettes.

Photo of David McNarry David McNarry UKIP

I thank the Minister for giving way.  He talks about, and has rightly produced, some startling figures and statistics.  In the debate, however, there seems to be an absence of how many young people are actually attracted to taking up smoking.  The proposed legislation might be introduced.  Would the Minister be able to give an undertaking to the House that, 12 months after its introduction, he will be able to give an assessment to the House of how many young people have not taken up smoking because of the introduction of the legislation on the packaging?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP 3:45, 3 February 2014

I accept that the arguments that we are making are less evidence based and more research based.  Australia is the only country that has moved ahead on this, so in the context of how this is happening across many parts of the world, we are at an early point of policy formation.  The Western World always moves ahead of the rest on these issues.  To that extent, research work is being carried out that will indicate whether people are less or more likely to take up smoking.  A lot of that is very subjective.  So, I accept all that.

When you are looking at these things and weighing them up, you look at the potential upsides and downsides.  The potential upside is that cigarettes become less attractive to young people.  They will be less visual.  Mr Ross is maybe too young to remember cigarette advertising, and maybe Mr Wilson is too old.  I am in the middle, and I remember it.  I remember following the Circuit of Ireland, and there were really cool guys going about in their brilliant looking Rothmans jackets.  I remember the Marlborough advertisements with the wild west scene and all that.  Those are all things that still stand out in my mind, which is a demonstration of how skilled the cigarette industry was at getting its message across.  Now it has to be much more subtle, but it is still hugely skilled at getting its message across.  The reason why it is opposed to standardised packaging is because we would take another tool out of its advertising armoury.  Why would the cigarette industry be opposed to this if it did not work anyway?  That is the argument that was made earlier.  However, it would still be selling as many cigarettes.

The upside is having fewer young people starting smoking.  That is a huge benefit.  If young people start smoking, they will have a life of it, given that the vast majority of people start when they are teenagers.  The downsides include the potential loss of business.  I do not think that that argument was made particularly clearly, and people diluted it by saying that it does not work anyway.  All the evidence is that the factories here in Northern Ireland that manufacture cigarettes export most of them.  So, whatever decision we take in Northern Ireland, it will have a modest effect, if any, on the local tobacco industry. 

The issue of —

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

To bring absolute clarity to that point, is the Minister saying that he therefore anticipates that any cigarettes that are produced for export will not be in plain packaging?

I also ask him to bring clarity to a second point.  Will the localised plain packaging still carry the anti-smoking message?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I thank the Member for the intervention.  On the first issue, plain packaging would apply only to the countries where it is legislated for.  So, the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in branded packaging would continue for the countries that do not have legislation.  Currently, the only such country is Australia.  The Republic of Ireland and the rest of Great Britain are considering this, as are we.  So, in that respect, plain packaging would apply only to us and Australia.  It would have no impact whatsoever on the branding on exports because no other country has legislated for it.  However, I suppose that there is a fear that, if it has an impact, other countries will introduce it, so there could be some consequence.  The benefit, if it has an impact, however, is that many fewer people will be smoking.  Huge benefits will be derived from that, because there is nothing good health-wise that can be said about smoking.

The second element that Mr Allister raised was —

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

Will the plain packaging still carry an anti-smoking message?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Yes, thanks for reminding me.  Yes, in fact, the messages will become larger.  So, in that respect, that message will be got across in a more powerful way.  I do not believe that the downsides vis-à-vis the upsides of proceeding with this have been well argued. 

Mr McNarry asked how smoking can affect your skin, because it said that on the packet of cigarettes that he got this morning.  He is doing well.  I would encourage him to do more, but he is doing well in reducing his cigarettes.  Smoking accelerates overall ageing of the skin, causing wrinkles by narrowing the small blood vessels in the outer layers of the skin, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen and nutrients that can get to the skin.  It also damages connective fibres like collagen.  You are a very fresh octogenarian, Mr McNarry.  You see many people — sometimes when you see people on television — and immediately realise that they are a smoker never having met them because you can see damage done to their skin as a consequence of their smoking cigarettes. 

This debate has been useful, albeit that this is not a day for decisions.  This is purely enabling us to participate in what might happen in the rest of the United Kingdom.  Again, we go back to the evidence base.  The Chantler report that has been commissioned will be the evidence base for taking this to the next stage.  So, we are not saying at this point that all of the evidence exists, but we have asked for a course of work to be done so that we can potentially move to a further stage.  That is what this is about; it is about Northern Ireland being part of what everybody else in the United Kingdom is doing, and indeed, in the British Isles, because the Republic of Ireland is doing it.  It is putting us in the same position as everybody else on these islands.  I think that it is imperative that we do it and it is something that we cannot avoid.

Photo of Jim Wells Jim Wells DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I apologise to him for speaking when he was speaking.  All attempts to convert Mr Wilson have failed, but we will keep working at him.  Has the Minister had any direct contact with his colleague in the Republic, Dr Reilly, the Minister, as to the progress that the Irish are making on this?  Obviously, if the rest of the United Kingdom went down the line of not introducing plain packaging, but the Irish Republic did, that would undoubtedly raise issues for Northern Ireland.  Do we know where we stand as far as the Republic is concerned?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I have not had a recent update, but I know that Dr Reilly is very keen to proceed with this.  It is something that he considers a high priority.  He is a former general practitioner and can see the real benefits of reducing smoking because he has seen the damage that has been inflicted in many of his cases over the years.  That is a course of work that they are doing, and I hope that they will proceed.  I understand that they have a Bill in the making, so that is making progress, and that will be left to the Dáil. 

I commend the legislative consent motion to the House.  I know that everybody can vote for it, because it is, as has been explained, an enabling motion.  This is not decision day, as such, but it will ensure that we do not fall behind the rest of the United Kingdom.  I warmly welcome the opportunity to have had this debate because we have been able to get some facts and figures out to the public.  That will ensure that more people hear about the damage that smoking does and hopefully dissuade more young people from taking up smoking in the first instance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees that the UK Parliament should consider the extension to Northern Ireland of amendments to the Children and Families Bill dealing with the regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products.

Photo of Kieran McCarthy Kieran McCarthy Alliance

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.  I understand that reference was made to a comment that I made during my speech, and I was accused of referring to smokers as "stinkers".  I said that:

"I use the word "filthy" because ... smoking stinks.  It affects your lungs, your breath, your clothes, your hands".

I did not call any smokers "stinkers".

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

OK.  You have it on the record.