Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 February 2014

384 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification on an important issue on which, perhaps, you can give me some direction. It is about a situation that has developed, particularly in my area, whereby some 1,139 farmers across Northern Ireland have not received their single farm payment. Payments were due in December, but as yet those farmers have not received payment, which is causing great strain and hardship for those businesses. I feel that the Minister should come here and make a statement on the issue. I would like to hear some direction from you as to how best that can be achieved.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As an experienced Member of the House, Lord Morrow knows that that is an issue for the Minister. Lord Morrow, you now have it on the record, which is important, and I hope that the Minister is listening to what you said. That is where we should leave it. It is an area and an issue for the Minister and her Department.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, a number of Members received in their pigeonhole notification from the Director of Corporate Services that there had been a breach of data security that resulted in the details of the salaries, employment dates and names of a number of employees of Members being released to a third party. The letter states:

"Like any responsible authority, the Assembly Commission has established protocols to deal with such circumstances through its data breach management plan".

It appears that the breach occurred on 24 January, but employees were not notified until either this morning or at the end of last week. Indeed, the casual way in which the notification came to Members — namely, the letter appearing in their pigeonhole — is hardly the act of "any responsible authority".

The point of order that I wish to make is: have you spoken to the Director General to get a report, what action is being taken, and what explanation is there for the delay in informing those whose information was passed to a third party in this way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I go back to Lord Morrow's point of order. The Minister of Agriculture will be in the House today for Question Time. There may be an opportunity to put your concerns to her directly then.

On Mr Wilson's point of order, the Member will know that data protection is a very complex issue. I agree with some of the Member's points, but I would prefer him to come and talk to me about it outside the Chamber. If he has concerns, I encourage him to talk also to the Director General.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard what you said, but these are the details of the employees of every Member who makes pension contributions, so I am not raising a personal issue. This is a serious breach of data protection. I think that the Assembly would like to hear a report from you or the Director General on why it took over a week to inform Members of this security breach and why it was done in such a casual manner.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The issue was fully discussed with the Director General and at our most recent Commission meeting. All Commission members were informed as soon as it happened and have been well kept up to date. Members, our Commission members are fully apprised of the situation. That is where we should leave it because there has been a wide discussion on this involving me, the Director General and, especially, Commission members.

I am not prepared to take further points of order on this. We really need to move on, but, if Members want to talk to me about it, please, please do so outside the Chamber or talk directly to the Director General. All I can say to the entire House is that all our Commission members have been kept totally up to date on the situation. That is really where we should leave it.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is it on this particular issue?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, it is not; it is on the issue of secrecy.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should take his seat. I have given the Member quite a bit of leeway on a point of order that was not a point of order. I say to the whole House that, if any Member has concerns about the issue, please come and talk to us outside the Chamber. These matters are better discussed outside the Chamber, so let us leave it.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to Lord Morrow's point of order, can you confirm that that issue could have been raised today as a question for urgent oral answer to the Agriculture Minister? That is not an easy task, as I often find out. Today, for example, I was refused the right to raise such a question to the Justice Minister about the intended visit of a convicted terrorist and prison escapee to talk about his escape to prisoners in Hydebank Wood. That, to my surprise, was refused, but the type of issue that Lord Morrow raises could surely be raised by virtue of a question for urgent oral answer.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. A number of points of order have been made today. Mr Allister raised the issue of whether Lord Morrow's point of order should have been a question for urgent oral answer. Let me say this to the Member: the Minister will be in the House today for Question Time. That is where it should sit, and that is where it should rest. There will be an opportunity during topical questions to put those particular questions to the Minister. I would have thought that the Members who are raising those points of order would know that the Minister will be in the House this afternoon for Question Time. That is where we should leave the issue.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Ramsey has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak on the subject matter.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Business Office and the Business Committee for facilitating the presentation of this petition. I present it to the House on behalf of the many thousands of people who oppose development proposal 2148, which seeks the closure of the Immaculate Conception College in the Waterside area of my constituency.

As the last post-primary school in the Waterside, its closure will have a catastrophic effect on the local community. Parents are deeply worried about where their children will go. The principal point that parents are making is that they should have the right to chose for their children to be taught at a Christian-based Catholic school. Unfortunately, in Derry, the alternatives for the children who are at the school are St Cecilia's, which is oversubscribed and is an all-girls school, St Mary's, which is oversubscribed, and St Joseph's, which is vastly oversubscribed. The only other alternatives could be in the integrated sector, which parents do not want their children to go to.

We have seen Foyle and Londonderry College making a move. At the time, I met with the governors of the school and argued the case for the college remaining on the city side. They made a choice, which I will defend and support, to move to the Waterside. So, within the next year or two, we will have pupils from the Protestant community being taught in the Waterside and only Catholic pupils being taught in the city side. That is not what we want.

This school epitomises everything that is right about using the estate of a school. We have playgroups, youth clubs, GAA clubs and soccer clubs. We also have the Protestant community from Irish Street making use of community services in the school. It is the hub of good service to the Waterside.

Teachers and staff are deeply unmotivated. Morale is down since the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools made the decision to phase out the school with a view to closure. One can understand parents who hear that being disincentivised from sending their children there. So I am giving a petition to you, Mr Speaker, which I know will be passed on to the Education Minister. I hope that he will be creative and imaginative in looking at some way for the integrity of the Immaculate Conception College, formerly St Brecan's High School, to remain intact through an amalgamation. The school makes a valued contribution to the wider community in the Waterside.

Mr P Ramsey moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Storey.

Committee Membership

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Ms Paula Bradley replace Mr Simon Hamilton as a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. — [Mr Weir.]

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

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.

The Children and Families Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 4 February 2013. The Bill's main purpose is to improve key services for vulnerable children and to support families in achieving a work-life balance.

Although the majority of its provisions apply to England only, an amendment tabled by the Department of Health in London on 16 December 2013 concerns Northern Ireland and therefore must be agreed by the Assembly through a legislative consent motion. The amendment relates to the retail packaging of tobacco products, more commonly referred to as "standardised packaging".

Branding on cigarette packs provides one of the last opportunities for tobacco companies to promote their products. Research shows that branded packs increase the appeal of tobacco products, reduce the impact of health warnings and influence perceptions of product harm. Members may be aware that standardised packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012. Work on similar legislation is already under way in New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland.

The effect of the Department of Health amendment would be to provide a Secretary of State with UK-wide regulation-making powers. The regulations may impose requirements on the appearance of, and markings on, external packaging of tobacco products, as well as the internal packaging and any product wrappers. The aim behind introducing such measures is to prevent the uptake of smoking by children and young people.

Smoking remains one of the most preventable causes of illness and death in our society and is a major contributor to health inequalities. Despite substantial progress being made on tobacco control in recent years, 8% of 11- to 16-year olds in Northern Ireland are regular smokers. Evidence shows that that group is more receptive to tobacco advertising than adults and that young people exposed to tobacco advertising and promotion are more likely to take up smoking. If those children continue to smoke, half of them will face an early death as a result of their addiction. Preventing children from taking up smoking is therefore a key priority for my Department.

I am supportive of any measure that will bring about a reduction in the number of young people smoking. For that reason, I agreed to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the UK-wide consultation on standardised packaging, which ran from April to August 2012. The consultation attracted considerable interest, receiving over 600,000 campaign responses and over 2,400 detailed responses. Members may wish to note that, of the detailed responses provided by individuals or businesses in Northern Ireland, 75% indicated that they support the introduction of standardised packaging.

The consultation summary report was published in July 2013. In the intervening months, the Department of Health in London has been keeping the policy under active consideration. A welcome decision was subsequently made by the Secretary of State for Health in November to commission an independent review of the effect of standardised packaging on public health. Sir Cyril Chantler, an eminent paediatrician, is carrying out the review and is expected to produce his report in March.

The Department of Health has clearly indicated that legislation on the retail packaging of tobacco products will be introduced if the review provides sufficient evidence for that course of action. In order to progress swiftly, it was decided to take advantage of an opportunity offered by the Children and Families Bill to table a Government amendment to take enabling powers for retail packaging. The enabling powers will be enacted if the finding of the Chantler review is that standardised packaging will have a positive impact on health.

The Health Ministers from the devolved Administrations had previously expressed their support for a UK-wide approach to any legislation on the issue. The amendment to the Bill was drafted to allow for that. Members may be interested to hear that similar legislative consent motions have been debated and approved in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is my view that the extension of provisions in the Children and Families Bill presents the best option for ensuring parity across the UK on the timing and content of the legislation on standardised packaging. The UK-wide approach will ensure consistency across the four jurisdictions on the detail of the regulations and how they are implemented.

One of the advantages of this is a reduction of the burden on businesses, particularly for manufacturers of tobacco products. Manufacturers would have one set of requirements to comply with, and one established time frame. It is unlikely that that would be the case were the devolved Administrations to introduce primary legislation separately on this issue. There are also advantages to consider from a public health perspective, including the ability to deliver clear and consistent public health messages across the whole of the UK.

Given the additional time that it would take for primary legislation to be brought before the Assembly, the extension of the relevant provisions to Northern Ireland will also prevent a situation arising whereby our population is exposed to tobacco promotion through packaging for some time after it has been banned in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

I would like to reassure Members that, if they agree to the extension of the amendment to the Children and Families Bill to Northern Ireland, any decision taken by a Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the retail packaging of tobacco can only be undertaken on behalf of Northern Ireland with the consent of our Executive. This ensures that we in Northern Ireland will have a further opportunity to make a decision on the policy issue based on the outcome of the Chantler review. On that basis, I ask the Assembly to support the motion.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I support the motion. The Committee was advised in writing by the Health Department of the proposals to bring forward the legislative consent motion on 9 December 2013. We were then briefed by departmental officials on the issues involved on 15 January 2014. However, at that stage, the legislative consent memorandum had not been cleared by the Executive or laid in the Assembly. The legislative consent memorandum was laid on 24 January, and the Committee considered it formally at its meeting on 29 January 2014. The Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed legislative consent memorandum, and we produced a report, which was made available to all Members last Wednesday.

As the Minister said, the legislative consent motion is being introduced to allow for regulations to be brought in at a later date on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. However, before any of the regulations can be made, the British Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

Evidence clearly shows us that children and teenagers are more receptive to tobacco advertising than adults. Those children who are exposed to tobacco advertising are more likely to take up smoking. It also shows that the branded packs increase the appeal of tobacco products. The Committee understands that an ongoing review in England of the public health implications of introducing standardised packaging is due to report in March 2014. Again, the British Secretary of State will then take a decision on whether to introduce regulations for England on standardised packaging, and we will await with interest to see what decision is taken there.

The Committee took the view that the legislative consent motion would be the most efficient mechanism for introducing legislation on standardised packaging in the North, pending the findings of the review. We felt that it was important that we are not left behind if standardised packaging is introduced in England, Scotland, Wales and, at a future date, the Twenty-six Counties. The motion is important for public health and because of the impact on businesses. As the Minister said, it will reduce the burden on manufacturers if there is one set of requirements and one timetable to comply with.

Although the Committee fully supported the motion, we expressed some concern that the normal procedures and timescales for the legislative consent motion had not been followed. However, we accept that some of the timescales were outside the Department's control. Given the huge significance of this issue, it is important that we show some flexibility. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I support the Minister on this legislative consent motion. We need to keep emphasising the fact that 2,300 people die every year in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking-related diseases. Indeed, 900 of them die as a result of lung cancer. I have had the misfortune recently to lose four friends through lung cancer, all of whom, as it turns out, were ladies. All of them endured the most horrific, long-term and painful death imaginable, and all of them died knowing that they were heavy smokers and were entirely responsible for their condition. That made it particularly difficult for them to accept that they could have done something to avoid it. All of them took up smoking as teenagers and regretted bitterly that they had been lured into accepting smoking as a glamorous, exciting experience. How difficult was it then to accept that the price that they paid for that was a horrific and very unglamorous death?

We know that 83% of all the smokers in Northern Ireland take up the habit before the age of 20, and that, in the United Kingdom as a whole, 200,000 people took up smoking in 2011, the year for which the most recent statistics are available. What is even more frightening is that, in the same year, 100,000 people in the United Kingdom died as a result of smoking, and, of course, 83,000 of those started the habit before they reached the age of 20.

There is absolutely no doubt that, as is presently permitted, the industry is spending millions and millions of pounds creating the most glamorous and eye-attracting type of advertising on its packets. Recently, of course, we had the point-of-display legislation, and, already, in big supermarkets in Northern Ireland, you do not have in your face these cabinets that clearly advertise the glamorous aspect of cigarettes. Eventually, by 2015, all displays will be removed from shops and supermarkets in Northern Ireland. This is part of a raft of measures that have been introduced to try to bring the rising rate, which is, unfortunately, beginning to rise again, of smoking in Northern Ireland under some form of control. We had the very welcome pubs and restaurants legislation that stopped many of us having to sit in a cloud of smoke as we enjoyed a meal. That was introduced, and, of course, there were predictions of Armageddon and that all was going to be doom and gloom, when, in fact, the trade took that on its chin, and now people can enjoy a meal —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Certainly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Would the Member like to tell us whether he regularly sits in pubs inhaling this smoke or did he in the past?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I can tell the honourable Member that I do not sit in pubs and that I do not drink intoxicating liquor. I cannot say, as Dr Paisley can, that alcohol has never touched my lips in my life, but, certainly, less than £5 worth of alcohol has gone down my throat in 56 years, and some of that was adulterated drink that was meant to be orange.

I was referring to pubs and restaurants. Note the "and restaurants". I certainly —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What about sherry trifle?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Sherry trifle is all right, because you are allowed to eat alcohol but not to drink it.

The legislation on pubs and restaurants has been a great success. We have also had the point-of-display advertising ban, which, again, went through the House. We had a ban on vending machines, which has been extremely successful. More recently, we have had the very strong controls that we put on the purchase of cigarettes by underage buyers. So, things are moving in the right direction. The industry has been given time to adapt to these changes. It would be absolutely hypocritical for the Minister to have introduced this raft of changes, some of which his predecessor, Mr McGimpsey, introduced and which, in my opinion, are quite right, if he were still to allow young people to be seduced by an attractive package that says, "If you want to be part of the in-crowd, if you want to be glamorous and to attract members of the opposite sex, smoke cigarettes". That is the message that we are sending out to the young people who are adopting this dreadful habit.

The situation as we know it is that, initially, the Conservative/Liberal coalition in the rest of the United Kingdom had proposed to introduce plain paper packaging. Then, as a result of political pressure from a rising political group in the UK, they pulled back on that. Then, when, quite rightly, there was an uproar saying that they were bowing to extremists on the issue, they decided to commission a review under an eminent academic. Part of that review will look at the situation in Australia, where the ban came in in 2012. I think that the Australian situation is very similar in many respects to that of the United Kingdom. They are both English-speaking countries and are developed nations that have tremendous problems with young people taking up smoking cigarettes.

It will be fascinating to see the results of the plain paper packaging legislation in Australia to see how that goes and whether the statistics, information and research show that it is having an impact. There is already interesting opinion poll research in Australia that shows that young people no longer regard cigarettes as glamorous because, frankly, the packages are quite ugly, and so they should be. All that is on them is the health warning, and the brand of the cigarettes is in very small print.

It is also noticeable that the packaging in Australia before the ban included slimline packets, which were particularly attractive to young girls and sent out the message, "This is how to be in the in-crowd. Smoke cigarettes." Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We will see the results of that research. All the legislative consent motion does is ensure, if the research stacks up and the rest of the United Kingdom goes down that route, that we in Northern Ireland will not lag behind; we will do as the rest of the UK is doing.

In the Irish Republic, there is also a move afoot to introduce plain paper packaging. If we did not have this legislative consent motion, we could have faced the rather ridiculous situation where all the rest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic had plain paper packaging and there was one little island of bright, sparkling, glamorous advertising on the packets just in Northern Ireland. From a practical point of view, that would never have worked. I do not know how the manufacturers could have coped with that situation. I do not know how you could have prevented the ordinary packets leaking out into other parts of the United Kingdom and into the Irish Republic. Therefore, we could not really have run with that particular scenario. So, the situation is that this is permissive legislation. I know that there will be Members here this afternoon who will have concerns about employment in Ballymena, and those are valid concerns, but this will give time for the industry to adjust. It will also mean that any final say on the issue will be with the Executive. The Executive will have to approve it, and they will take into account all the issues outlined by me and others.

As we speak, several dozen underage people in Northern Ireland will take up smoking today. Half of those people will die young because of smoking. Anything that we can do to stop even one young person taking up this dreadful habit has to be a good thing. If cigarettes were invented today and were introduced on the market, they would be banned immediately. They would never be tolerated with what we now know. We owe it to the memory of all the people who will die a needless death this year because of smoking to do something to stop future generations of young people taking up this truly awful habit.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in my role as a member of the Health Committee and stand in favour of the motion. We received evidence on the issue, as the Chair has reflected, and believe that a legislative consent motion should be carried in order to introduce plain packaging here. The reasons are numerous. However, the one that stands out and has been reflected here by colleagues is that the legislation will play a major role in discouraging our young people from taking up smoking in the first place. It is essential that this House actively attempts to reduce the numbers of our young people who smoke, as more and more are taking it up —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Yes, I will.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

He throws out this statement that the evidence that has been produced to the Committee shows that the legislation will dissuade people from taking up smoking. Where does the evidence come from? The only place where this has been tried is Australia. It has not been in even a year yet, so there has been no assessment done of the impact of the legislation. So, where did he get the evidence from?

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Thank you for the intervention. The British Heart Foundation commissioned research and compared the situation in Australia with here. It found that, in Australia, around 48% of young teenagers who were involved in the research were deterred from smoking, and something in the order of 20% here were discouraged or deterred from smoking. That is the British Heart Foundation.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I think that we need to differentiate between research that asks young people, "Would you be less likely to take up smoking if you had standardised packaging?" and evidence. The Member has not quoted any evidence. The point has to be made very clearly that evidence has not yet been produced from where this has been enacted to show that it has a real impact in reducing the numbers of young people who are taking up smoking in the first place.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

My colleagues cannot have their cake and eat it. I was asked whether any research was being done. Of course, research forms the preliminary approach to all these things. Research itself produces some evidence. I am sure that colleagues do political polling and consideration among their membership and the wider public when they consider making moves, as they do from time to time. That produces evidence sufficient for them to move; and I think that it is an appropriate means in this case. This is an important issue, and I think that that is entirely appropriate.

The amendments to the Children and Families Bill being considered at Westminster have a two-pronged approach, as we have been talking about. Of course, you are going to take issue, but the approach is that the amendments will reduce the appeal of cigarettes to younger people by restricting brand. To take that point full on again; if millions of pounds are being spent on a brand and on trying to encourage people, then it would, at least, lead people to suspect that, by removing the brand, the opposite might be the case. Secondly, the prominence of health warnings on the packets will be increased in an attempt to further reinforce the harmful effects of smoking.

In our opinion, the legislative consent motion brought to the House today is the best opportunity to introduce standardised packaging for cigarettes here. The cigarette industry is a multi-billion-pounds one. As I said, cigarette companies pay large sums to refine the advertising of their product. Colour association and symbols also play a large part in luring younger people to take up smoking. It is true that increased tobacco duty means that something in the order of £10 billion is collected in returns to the UK Government, but, as we have also seen through research, smoking-related costs in the UK are in the region of £13 billion. In Northern Ireland alone, £119 million is spent on hospital costs each year to treat smoking-related illnesses. As recent debates that we have had over the past few weeks and months suggest, we must do all in our power to reduce the pressures that are being put on our health service as a result of cigarette smoking.

Mr Wells referred to lung cancer, which is the most common cause of cancer death here. Smoking causes nearly 90% of those fatalities. Some 24% of adults here smoke, which is the largest figure in the UK. Something has to be done. If we are to reduce these statistics then we must actively seek to put in place measures that discourage people from smoking in the first place. There is considerable evidence, which I referred to earlier, particularly from the British Heart Foundation and on the early days of the Australian model. If it is producing some positive results then I think we should be encouraged to follow that lead.

If we do not adopt the legislation then the timescales involved in creating a new piece of legislation that would perform the same function could take an inordinate amount of time. During that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of young people will be encouraged to have a cigarette. That could lead to a long-term addiction, and Mr Wells has eloquently reflected on the impact that that has on many thousands of individuals. Half of all smokers are, sadly, destined to pass due to their long-term addiction.

In summary, the Committee and the SDLP feel that the House should vote in favour of the legislative consent motion on the Children and Families Bill. We support and encourage the Minister and the Department in that regard. Plain packaging is a reasoned, research-supported mechanism for reducing the number of young people who take up smoking. We should all protect future generations from the harmful results of cigarette smoking.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I have just concluded.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I too support the legislative consent motion covering aspects of the Children and Families Bill. It would enable standardised packaging of tobacco products to be brought into effect throughout the UK in a consistent manner. Standardised packaging legislation is designed to reduce the attractiveness of smoking or tobacco packages and increase the prominence of the health warning. The packet itself is an advert and can attract new customers.

Other Members have talked about the word "slim". People may be attracted to a slim cigarette because they think it makes them slim. Nonsense. The damage it does to their health is enormous. I have seen some very sophisticated designs of cigarette packages. You think you are buying perfume. There are very fancy mechanisms to open them. Why do tobacco companies spend so much time and effort in doing that? It is because they know that adverts pay and that the glamour factor pays.

It is widely recognised that standardised packaging could have a significant effect on young people by reducing the numbers being drawn into smoking and, subsequently, addiction. I have not heard the word "addiction" mentioned very often in the debate. Once someone has adopted smoking, it is one of the most difficult habits to break, so it is important that we try to reduce the numbers that catch the habit in the first place.

In moving forward with standardised packaging, it is important that we do not reduce the ability to include security coding on packaging. Enabling manufacturers to continue to do that helps in the fight against counterfeit tobacco manufacturers. I do not see why that cannot not be the case. Counterfeit tobacco avoids tax, and those selling it frequently do not worry whether the person they sell it to is an adult or a young person. They are already trading in an illegal product, and there is no traceability for ingredients.

It would be more efficient to have consistent UK-wide legislation, which would reduce the introductory administrative costs in the UK regions. It would also be more efficient for the industry because, if each UK region were to introduce slightly different legislation, manufacturers would potentially have to produce different batches of cigarettes for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It makes sense that the legislation be introduced consistently, if that is deemed appropriate. I certainly think that it should be. If different types of packaging had to be produced for different parts of the UK, that would add cost to manufacturers and, ultimately, consumers, so there would be no point.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The assumption the Member makes is that, if there were legislation that covered the rest of the UK, manufacturers would still feel obliged to have branded packets here. If the Assembly decided not to follow the rest of the UK, the option would be for manufacturers voluntarily to have unbranded products. Indeed, if his argument that the cost of cigarettes would go up quite substantially is correct, they would probably chose to do so.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

My point is that, if you had to have smaller production runs for a special run for Northern Ireland, there would be additional costs of some sort. If it is introduced on a much wider basis, there should be no significant cost.

Why do I think that it is important? I have not heard other Members for East Antrim refer to the 2,300 deaths a year that are directly attributable to smoking — not as an additional cause but directly attributable to smoking — the 28% of cancer deaths. Smoking increases the risk of a range of other illnesses such as coronary heart disease: smokers are twice as likely to suffer a heart attack. We are talking about trying to prevent new young people being attracted to smoking in those impressionable early years.

Some might say that a wide range of restrictions are already in place and ask why we need more. Northern Ireland has a particular problem. As others stated, almost one quarter of our population are smokers, with the adverse health effects that go with that and the pressures on our health service, which is struggling at present. That figure is staying consistently high, which is of more concern.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Member will be interested to note that it is indicated that smoking costs the health service in Northern Ireland £119 million a year. As was said, there is a direct link between smoking and those who get lung cancer and heart disease. If that £119 million were saved, it would have a dramatic impact on health service provision in Northern Ireland. The Minister is constantly trying to find more money to plug various gaps in funding. If he had that money in the morning, life would be much easier.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member makes an important point. However, I am even more concerned about the quality of life of many people in their latter years, when some of these ailments will strike, and they will be afflicted by ill health because of the addiction that started in their early years.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I wish that he would listen to the logic of his argument. On the one hand, he argued that there are already numerous restrictions on smoking — he did not go through them, but he could, and it would take him some time. Yet, consistently, 25% of people in Northern Ireland smoke, and the figure is rising. Does that not tell him something about the effectiveness of gimmick legislation?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It tells us that we have to do more. I repeat that 2,300 people a year die because of this. Many also fight and struggle and successfully kick the habit in their latter years. Despite that, the number is staying consistently high. In other words, a considerable number of young people take up smoking each year. It is important that we do not allow the advertising on packaging, the images and the glamorous effect to continue. In particular —

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I want to pursue my argument a little further.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Just on that point.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I may give way later.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not debate across the Chamber.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I am particularly concerned about the level of those starting to smoke between the ages of 16 and 19. That number increased between 2008 and 2010 in Northern Ireland from 15% to 21%, I am told. So there is a particular problem of significant numbers of young people smoking, and we are told that about 80% of smokers pick up the habit in those impressionable years. Smoking is highly addictive, so the best defence that we can give is to try to reduce the number of young people who are attracted to smoking in the first place.

I would like to pose a question to the Minister about the wording in the Westminster legislation. I notice that clause 87(12)(a) states that the Secretary of State must:

"obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers".

Clause 87(12)(B) states that the Secretary of State must:

"obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers".

So why does it say that, in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State must:

"obtain the consent of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister"?

I would welcome an explanation from the Minister, if he has been involved in any discussions on that issue.

I commend the range of charities that have highlighted the need to legislate to protect our young people: Cancer Focus, the British Heart Foundation, the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association and Cancer UK. I noticed a particularly concerning video on the Cancer UK website of children giving their reaction to cigarette packaging. This may be of interest to Mr Wilson and Mr Ross. Children were being questioned about their impression of the packaging in front of them. It highlighted the sophistication of the wording used to describe such packaging. They found it attractive. They found it glamorous. It even mentions that they thought some packaging was similar to a children's cartoon image. The packaging is designed to attract new smokers.

There is clear evidence, in my opinion, emerging from Australia that something needs to be done. As others said, plans are afoot in New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As we will have a decision to make on this, would he be prepared to share some of the evidence that he has found from Australia, which may help the Assembly? After six months, have the Australian Government been able to identify how effective that legislation has been?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I would prefer to answer Mr Wilson, and then, perhaps, I will give way.

I note that some 59% of under-18s in Australia thought that the new standardised packaging would make more people of their age less likely to smoke and that 10% of teenagers in the UK make the incorrect assumption that certain cigarette brands are healthier than others. There is clear information. When you have a direction like that, you can choose to ignore it; you can choose to put it off; and you can wait until something definitive happens. Why do the manufacturers put so much effort into their attractive packages? The answer is, of course, to attract someone to purchase their brand and, when they purchase their brand, to start smoking and, ultimately, risk addiction.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Member may find it useful to know that 37 studies have been carried out already in other parts of the world on the impact of plain paper packaging on the demand for cigarettes. Many of those have shown a very clear correlation between plain paper and a reduction in the attractiveness and the take-up of cigarettes. Therefore, some of the work has been done already. However, I accept that the Australian model will be extremely interesting. Mr Wilson need not be too concerned, because the Westminster Government have made it clear that they will wait for the academic report before they make their decision. I hope that, if the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of plain paper packaging, Mr Wilson's concerns will be allayed and he will support it.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I also highlight a recent survey from a charity that indicated that just over one quarter of young people are put off by the current packaging: in other words, three quarters are not put off by the current packaging. That ought to be of concern to everyone. It also indicated that eight out of 10 young people would support the standardisation of packaging with the greater health warning and for the packaging to be less attractive than currently presented.

When first introduced in Australia, the Government indicated that they would reduce the attractiveness and the appeal of tobacco to consumers, particularly young people; increase the noticeability and effectiveness of mandated health warnings; and reduce the ability of the retail packing used by tobacco producers to mislead customers about the harmful effects of smoking or using tobacco products. Surely those reasons are valid also for the United Kingdom.

With approval of the legislation at Westminster, I recognise that an independent review of evidence will occur. I believe that evidence supporting standardisation of packaging will be found. It is right that Northern Ireland could be quickly included in any such national changes that result.

Changing the packaging will not stop anyone purchasing their favourite brand of cigarettes, and those who have a particular brand at present will be able to continue to do so. However, it will reduce the number of our young people who become addicted in the future. Prevention is much better than cure. I support the motion.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

As a member of the Health Committee, I support the comments made by the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Health Committee, other members of the Committee, and the Minister on their efforts to get support for this legislative consent motion. I am a wee bit concerned about the tone of the interjections coming from the other side of the Chamber, and from Mr Wilson in particular. I see that he is writing furiously. He is mad to get in. I suggest to Mr Wilson that, as the Deputy Chair said, if we can, through supporting this legislation, prevent the death of one of our children, whether there is evidence or not, we should go for it. That is what it is all about.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Wait a minute. I have in my head the idea that I will do an Oliver McMullan. When Oliver McMullan rose to speak last week, he advised the Chamber that he would not take any interventions. Therefore, I am going to do as Oliver did. Members will have loads of time to contribute later, and maybe we can cross-examine their comments. That is where we stand.

The Alliance Party is content and happy to support the legislative consent motion. Our children are our most precious asset. We would be failing in our duty if we did not use every avenue and means available to us to educate, encourage and persuade our young people of the danger that tobacco smoking can do to their health. As has been said already, the tobacco habit, or addiction, kills some 2,300 Northern Irish people each year. That is truly shocking — horrendous — and it is preventable if only we could stop young people from starting the filthy habit in the first place.

I use the word "filthy" because — I say this as someone who smoked as a young person — smoking stinks. It affects your lungs, your breath, your clothes, your hands and your home. Nobody wants to be near you, and you almost become an outcast, simply because you got hooked on tobacco by big companies only interested in making money out of your misery. We should wise up, and the sooner, the better.

As has already been done, we express our gratitude to all the local groups and organisations for their dedication in working to inform our young people not to start smoking. Last week, the Public Health Agency's stop smoking bus, supported by Cancer Focus, visited Parliament Buildings, and that was very welcome. The bus is touring Northern Ireland and will hopefully get the message out. We want to give it all the support that we can.

According to Chest, Heart and Stroke — I think that it was the Deputy Chair who informed us of this in an interjection — it costs our health service £119 million each year to treat smoking-related illnesses, illnesses that could be avoided if tobacco products were not as easily available. Of course, there is also the enormous family grief when a loved one is cut down and taken away as a result of smoking.

I support the legislation, and the sooner that it is enacted, the better. I want to say well done to our Executive — all parties included — for agreeing to it. When the lives of our young people are threatened, we can all agree.

The Alliance Party believes that there is overwhelming support for the measure and that the weight of evidence about it reducing smoking, particularly among young people, is very strong. As I said earlier, the conditions caused by smoking are preventable. We should therefore do whatever we can to prevent smoking-related conditions. Most smokers start young, so measures to deter smoking among our young people are especially important. It is recognised that they are particularly influenced by advertising and branding, which makes the proposals on standardised packaging most appropriate. The measures have strong support from the public and are endorsed by experts domestically and internationally, including the British Medical Association (BMA), many cancer-related charities and, indeed, the World Health Organization.

As has been said, many countries around the world have already either introduced standardised packaging or are actively considering it. The measure is set to be introduced in England, Scotland and Wales. It is also to be introduced in the Republic in the very near future. Therefore, for us not to introduce it when all our neighbours are doing so would be strange and, indeed, unforgivable.

I support the legislative consent motion and hope that it gets through as soon as possible.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

This is a serious issue. When the Health Minister indicated the serious health consequences for people who smoke tobacco products, his words should have reiterated the fact to everyone in the Chamber that it is a serious issue.

I say from the outset that I am particularly disturbed by a comment from Mr McCarthy. In his opening remarks, he said that it does not matter whether there is evidence or not. That is an absolutely appalling statement for a Member to make.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Save the life of one kid.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

It is an appalling statement to make. People should be concerned if legislators in the House are stating that we should just ban something and that it does not matter whether there is evidence for doing so. They should be concerned, particularly people in Strangford, if one of their legislators makes such statements. No matter what legislation is introduced in the House, it should be tested robustly. Arguments should be put forward, and we should debate the issue. Legislation that passes through the House without any challenge or debate is not good legislation. It is important to remember that here today.

My opinion does not differ from that of the other Members who have spoken about how dangerous smoking is. I do not smoke, so I am not coming at the argument from a smoker's point of view. I listened to Mr Wells's comments, and I hope that I did not have to be a smoker to be cool or attractive to members of the opposite sex, particularly my wife.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It would take more than that.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Indeed, it probably would.

I do not think that we should patronise young people by saying that they still think that, but that is what some Members have done today.

Any young person growing up in Northern Ireland, or anywhere in the UK or Europe, who is not aware of the dangers of smoking is living under a stone.

There are those who have talked about the glitzy and glamorous tobacco that is currently available. There are pictures on it, and there are messages on it, and we hear, day and daily, the dangers of smoking. So, I do not think that this is a matter of young people not being aware of the dangers. They are aware of the dangers; they should be aware of the dangers. I think that all of us are. I do not think I have ever heard anybody say that it is a good idea to start smoking and that young people should start. It is important to put that on record at the very beginning.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I too share a number of the views that my colleague has raised. At the start, we talked about evidence base. A KPMG report has been released recently which shows that, so far, this has had virtually no impact on new smokers or existing smokers ceasing in Australia. However, in the short time in which the report has been commissioned, there has been a 3% rise in illicit tobacco. Will the Member ponder upon that piece of evidence?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for that contribution. It highlights some of the issues that I want to speak about, but, primarily, it highlights the issue of evidence, because good law should be well evidenced. Since only one country has introduced standardised packaging, and it is far too early to tell the consequences — although I absolutely agree with the Member about some of the early indications of the experience in Australia — we need to ensure that if we are to pass laws, we have them well evidenced. Some of the contributions so far in the debate have not been from a position of knowledge or evidence on the matter, but from a more generalised view of things, without backing those positions up.

Mr Wells and Mr Beggs spoke about a number of measures that have been introduced to combat smoking or to try to prevent people taking up smoking, from bans on advertising to bans on the display of tobacco products in shops to raising the age at which a young person can buy tobacco products. As my colleague Mr Wilson said, there is little evidence that any of this has had a major impact on smoking or on the number of people who have taken up smoking. To that, Mr Beggs said that we, therefore, need to do more. Perhaps it is worth examining the point. When Mr Beggs asks, "Should we do more?", is his endgame that we should be banning tobacco altogether? If it is, that is fine.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Has the Member viewed on the Cancer Research UK website its video of a group of young people being asked to describe what they see in front of them? Has he understood the attractiveness of the current tobacco packaging to young people? If he has, why does he not want to make it less attractive, so that, in future, fewer of them will be attracted to smoking? The Member appears to be doing a classic, "Oh, not an inch; if you take this wee step, then you are going to ban smoking." I have indicated clearly that I believe that those who choose to smoke should be able to continue to buy their product, but in a manner that does not attract new users. They should have the ability to purchase their product.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, the people who legally can buy tobacco products are adults. So, the decision to start smoking is taken by an adult, with all of the information available to them. They see the tobacco products that they buy at the moment, with the health warning on them and, indeed, some of the gruesome images that we have seen already. I fail to understand how extending the size of the gruesome image on the front of the box and removing any colours of branding to differentiate a product will have a major impact.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in one second. If the Member is saying that he does not want to ban tobacco products, he must understand that, as we stand today, they are legal products, and therefore a lot of the legislation that is being passed is trying to prevent what is still a legal product from being available to adults who will decide whether to use those products. I give way to the Member.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member seems unconvinced about the benefits that would come about by reducing the advertising that currently exists on tobacco packaging. I suggest that he speaks to his party colleagues the Health Minister and the vice Chairman of the Health Committee who, having heard the information, have a completely different view than him.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

That is fine. Mr Beggs, I am capable of coming to my own conclusions and asking my own questions about matters; maybe you are not.

The front of every box has the words "smoking kills". If you are an 18-year-old adult deciding whether to pick up a product, and if that product uses the words "smoking kills", you are well aware of its health risks. If we are talking about making something less attractive, I have to say that I think that the packaging is not particularly attractive now. I have never walked into a shop, seen glitzy boxes and decided that I want to be a smoker, because I do not. They can have as many glitzy boxes as they like; I am not, as an adult, going to decide to take up a habit that could ultimately kill me. However, I think that adults should be able to take that decision for themselves.

Let us examine good law and bad law, with good law being evidenced well. My colleague Mr McIlveen talked about the early experiences in Australia. Unintended consequences have been raised any time that standardised packaging comes up. Many laws that are passed have unintended consequences. They come from a good place, but some of the outworkings are not so good. Mr McIlveen talked about the risk of counterfeit tobacco. Around the world, one in nine packets of cigarettes that is smoked is a counterfeit product. In Northern Ireland, that figure is one in five. That means that we have illegal counterfeit tobacco in the market at the moment. There are genuine concerns that, if we move down the line of having standardised packaging, there will be an increase in the number of counterfeit products on the market. I listened to one Member talk about how we can have coding on standardised packaging. I think that that would go some way towards helping to combat counterfeit tobacco.

However, one of the easiest ways to recognise counterfeit packaging is to visually identify it. That is a concern from not just Members but people who are working in organised crime. Indeed, I noted some comments by Peter Sheridan only a few months ago. He is an individual who spent some 30 years in Northern Ireland combating organised crime. He said that it would make it much more difficult for some of the authorities to identify counterfeit products and to remove them from the market. Of course, many of the counterfeit products, or the whites, as they are called, have no health checks on them at all or quality controls, so they are much more dangerous to people's health. If we ended up getting more of those sorts of products in the market, which would be even more damaging to people's health, I think that that is perhaps a sign of where some of the legislation's unintended consequences will have been identified.

A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) published last year said that, in the UK, Northern Ireland is the capital of counterfeit products in not just tobacco but alcohol, clothing, DVDs and all those sorts of things. I think that that is something that we need to pay particular attention to. We do not want to do something that will end up helping counterfeiters and organised gangs to sell their products in Northern Ireland. I know that the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has looked at counterfeit material before.

As I said before, I find some of the language used on glitzy packs to be quite insulting and patronising towards young people. I find quite insulting the idea that a young person who is legally allowed to buy tobacco products at 18 cannot decide for themselves whether a product is going to damage their health.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in one second. It actually demonstrates a drift in not just this legislature but legislatures right across Europe towards paternal politics, whereby we want to take decisions for adults. That is not a particularly useful thing to do. I think that we should empower individuals with the information that they need. I have grave concerns about any individual who claims that, at the age of 18, they do not know the risks that are involved in smoking tobacco products. I will give way to Mr Wells.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the honourable Member accept that 80% of all smokers in Northern Ireland are very keen to give up? They want to stop smoking, but they are finding it extremely difficult. Is it not a bit of a contradiction in terms for society to try to help those people when, every time they look at a cigarette packet, they see that it sends out the message that smoking is acceptable, glamorous and exciting? Surely we have to help those people by making it as unattractive as possible to continue the habit.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I fail to see how looking at a tobacco product now is attractive. There is a massive sign on every packet of cigarettes that states that smoking kills and that smoking will give you lung cancer and has a range of other health implications. There are gruesome pictures on the front of every pack. I fail to see how anybody can determine that sort of packaging as glitzy.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

If that is the case, Mr Ross, why on earth are all the leading cigarette companies spending millions of pounds a year on designing more attractive packaging? On the basis of your argument, that is a total waste of money. When you go into any tobacconist or newsagent, you see that clearly they have spent months developing new packaging. Why? To attract more smokers.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

No. The reason is actually very simple. If you have a legal product and there is a market, you have to differentiate your product from others that are available to the consumer. That is why they look different. It is not about making some sort of glamorous, glitzy packaging that nobody could say no to, because quite frankly, that is not the case. It is to differentiate their product from other products in the marketplace. That is self-evident and, indeed, is the case for any legal product on the market.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his indulgence in giving way. I wonder whether the Member would agree that perhaps one of the ugliest things that most of us have in our pocket at the moment is one of these phones, which, Mr Speaker, is on silent, I can assure you. Does the Member agree that, in an attempt for most of us to make our mobile phones more attractive, companies have jumped onto the fact that cases and holders for them are much more attractive and are a way of making our mobile phones more glamorous? Does the Member agree that there may be a risk with this legislation that we could go back to the days of cigarette cases? We are trying vigorously to discourage young people from taking up smoking, yet, due to the accessories that come onto the market, it could make it more attractive to them.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member makes a very good and valid point: if we make cigarette boxes so unattractive or ugly that nobody would want to carry them around, of course the natural conclusion is that people will simply get a case that they can either slot their tobacco packaging into or that they will put the cigarettes into having taken them out. Individuals who look closely at the experience in Australia will see that there has been quite a growth in cigarette cases there already. That is one of the biggest dangers: that suddenly young people are trying to look cool with tobacco accessories. I think that that is a valid point.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. We are talking about glitzy packaging for cigarettes, but one thing that we have not touched on yet when we talk about targeting young people is that the majority of the young people smoking today are young girls. The numbers are far outstripping that of young boys, who are giving up the habit of smoking. When we look at rolling tobacco and so on, we see that that has not changed. The glitzy packaging on that has not changed, so young people are definitely being targeted. What are your views on the fact that there is an alarming rise in the number of young girls taking up smoking?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I am concerned by that, because I do not think that any young person, whether male or female, should take up smoking. The health implications are as clear as they have ever been: smoking is damaging to one's health. I do not think that I have ever heard anybody saying that young people should take up smoking. Indeed, it is illegal for young people to purchase tobacco products until they are an adult at the age of 18, and I think that that is important.

One of the other issues that we need to examine more closely around standardised packaging — and it is important that do discuss this — is whether, by introducing gruesome plain packaging, we are more likely to get people to stop smoking or we are more likely to see them swap brands. If the packaging is not there to differentiate between products, I think that we will actually see people swapping brands. What we will do is not stop people from smoking but simply make them swap to cheaper brands. That has been acknowledged even by those who support this measure in GB. So, it would not actually have the impact that some say it would.

One of the other bizarre consequences, if we were to introduce plain packaging right across the United Kingdom, is that the most glitzy packages available would be those that would be counterfeit tobacco products coming in from other markets; from the US, for example, or other parts of Europe that will not introduce standardised packaging. The most glitzy packaging will come from other markets where there are no restrictions. Members also have to bear that in mind, particularly if our local market is flooded with coloured tobacco products from China, or places such as that, where we know that there is very little by way of regulation of the content of tobacco products.

I accept that the motion will pass with the overwhelming support of Members across the Chamber. I also accept that the House of Commons will probably vote in favour of introducing standardised packaging across the United Kingdom. However, if we are to do our jobs properly as legislators, and if this legislature is to do its job properly, we have to examine the issues around the introduction of legislation and challenge some of the presumptions made. It is not good enough to stand up and say that this is about saving lives without producing any evidence that that will be the case. This is lazy legislating and is the type of legislating that we should avoid. We should have well-evidenced discussions in the House.

As other Members said, the Executive will take a decision on whether we introduce standardised packaging in Northern Ireland. I hope that they do so after looking at the evidence from elsewhere and examining the unintended consequences. It is not just about the health of individuals but how we ensure that we do not unintentionally help organised criminals to bring in counterfeit products.

It would also be remiss of me if I did not mention the economic impact, not just in the reduced tax take for the Treasury if we get more counterfeit tobacco products in the UK but the impact on jobs in north Antrim, south Antrim and east Antrim. The JTI factory in Ballymena, which employs many people across the Antrim area, has had to cope with legislation from Europe on the size of their tobacco products and on how many cigarettes can be in a box. This is having an impact on its ability to sell what is still is a legal product into other markets.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I will.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member stressed very strongly that the argument should be on the basis of evidence. That is fair enough. Will he give us the figures for the amount of tobacco that is exported from the factory in Ballymena and what is used in the Northern Ireland market? If the argument is that if Northern Ireland goes down this route it will damage hundreds of jobs, then what is the evidence to support that? I do not think that that evidence exists either.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

There is evidence with respect to the cost of tobacco products in other markets in Europe. Some of the regulations brought in mean that it is much cheaper to buy tobacco products in Europe. If you are coming back, even from the heart of the European Union in Belgium, you can buy tobacco products there that are much cheaper, as you do not have to pay the same level of duty, and bring them into Northern Ireland. If we continue to restrict the availability of tobacco products in the UK, more people will import counterfeit tobacco from elsewhere in Europe. That has been clearly demonstrated in the comments of representatives of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and by many in the police.

I hope that we have a serious think about some of the unintended consequences of the legislation. Thank you for listening to my contribution.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also support the motion. It was quite interesting to watch what might be termed internecine warfare on the opposite Benches, albeit it was fairly civilised.

I think that the message is very clear: smoking is bad and, as it says on the package, smoking can kill. Unfortunately, recent surveys have shown that smoking is on the increase here. In a 2010-11 survey, 24% of respondents said that they smoked and, in a survey in 2011-12, 25% of respondents said the same, so smoking is, unfortunately, on the increase.

It has been mentioned by other Members that smoking is the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death. It kills around 2,300 people each year, which is more than 100 people in each of our constituencies; a shocking statistic. Tobacco use is one of the four main modifiable risk factors for many chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cost was mentioned: £119 million a year. However, that does not take into account the cost in human suffering of those who are dying from what may have been preventable diseases and their families.

Mr Wilson's scepticism — possibly his cynicism, I am not sure which —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not a cynic.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Of course not; you have proven that over many years. Look at the evidence. Mr Wells referred to 'Plain Tobacco Packaging: A Systematic Review', which was undertaken as part of the Public Health Research Consortium, which is funded by the Department of Health policy research programme. Some 39 studies were made, providing evidence of the impacts of plain tobacco packaging. The review provided conclusive evidence that the branding and design of tobacco packaging is used to make the product more attractive and target specific audiences, including young people. Branding also distracts attention from the health message on the pack and misleads smokers about the harmfulness of different products. There is growing evidence that standardised tobacco packaging is likely to have most impact on discouraging young people from taking up smoking.

The key findings of the review were that non-smokers and younger people responded more negatively to plain standardised packs than smokers and older people. Nineteen studies examined the perceptions or ratings of the attractiveness of standardised packs. All the studies found that standardised packs were rated as less attractive than branded equivalent packs.

Twelve studies examined perceptions of standardised packs in terms of their perceived quality, taste, smoothness and cheapness. The studies, which compared perceptions of standardised and branded packs, consistently found that standardised packs were perceived to be of poor quality by both adults and children. Thirteen studies examined perceptions of smoker identity and personality attributes associated with standardised packs.

Ten qualitative studies examined appeal, and four key issues were identified as being important: standardised pack colours have negative connotations; standardised packs weaken attachment to brands; standardised packs project a less desirable smoker identity; and standardised packs expose the reality of smoking.

So, much evidence has been garnered. With the legislation, it is important that, as legislators, we take all reasonable measures to prevent the spread of smoking.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

At the start of my contribution, I will say a couple of things about my view on legislation and regulation. Some people judge the Assembly on how many laws it passes, regulations it introduces etc. I do not believe that that ought to be the judgement that people place on a body such as this. As we now see at Westminster and hear from the lobbying of the many people who know how to make the economy work, the less regulation, the better. If you are going to introduce regulation, there ought to be tests for it. Is it simply a response to a well-organised lobby, or is it to address a specific problem? Will it be effective in addressing that problem? In addressing the problem, do you balance it with all the other things and objectives that we, in a democracy, wish to see?

This kind of legislation illustrates the problem. There is a problem with smoking. I am not a smoker. In my time as a public representative, before bans were placed on smoking indoors etc I can remember coming away from many a housing association meeting in east Belfast, and I could hardly find the door of the room. Of course, your clothes, hair and everything else were stinking. I am not a supporter of smoking, but I recognise that a quarter of the population, for one reason or another, wishes to engage in it. It creates health problems, but then so does drinking alcohol.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in a moment or two when I have finished this point. We regularly hear that our A&E provision is inundated at weekends, and many of the problems happen because people present themselves intoxicated with alcohol.

We had discussions recently on the degree of obesity because of people's attraction to fast food. The question is this: how many of these problems do we believe should be addressed by legislation, regulation and tighter restrictions? At what point do the general population say, "Let us make up our own minds rather than you making our minds up for us"? That should be a fundamental point as we start the debate and examine all the issues. I will give way to the Minister.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member said that a quarter of people wish to smoke —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Minister to turn towards the mic.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sorry, Mr Speaker. The Member said that a quarter of people wish to smoke. Actually, 83% of that 25% wish that they did not smoke, and that is a very important element. Many of them choose to smoke when not even an adult. That is what the legislation is about: creating a system whereby it is less attractive for children and young people to take up the most addictive habit and most addictive drug in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me come to that point, which is important. If there are detrimental consequences of smoking, what do you do to discourage people from starting down that road? I heard some Members say that we have to do something. In legislating, it is not good enough that we introduce regulations that are ineffective, or are shown to be ineffective, and then have to keep adding restriction on top of restriction.

I agree with the Minister that, if there is a problem and you believe that you have an answer to it that does not unnecessarily infringe on the other liberties and entitlements that you believe people should have, of course you go for it. To do that, however, you have to have evidence that it works. So far, only one other country in the world has tried plain packaging, and it has not been in place for very long. There is no indication that it has reduced the level of smoking, and, as Mr McIlveen said, it is seen to have detrimental side effects, which were, perhaps, unintended but are, nevertheless, even more damaging.

Mr Brady and Mr — yes, the UTV man, Fearghal McKinney — talked about evidence and research. It is not research; they quoted surveys. People were asked, "Do you find this more attractive?" Listen to the language. "Do you find these branded products more attractive and of higher quality than non-branded products?" It was not, "If you were presented with this, would you stop smoking?" At least, both Members were clear that this was a product comparison. The real question should have been this: "Would this stop you smoking?" rather than, "Would you find this less attractive than this?" That is the weakness of the research that they quoted — it is research, not evidence. The only way to get evidence is to introduce the legislation, practise the thing on the ground and see whether it leads to fewer people smoking.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member said that the only way to have evidence is to introduce the legislation. In every country and society, there are a range of other factors afoot, and perhaps the only way we will know if it works will be if we introduce the legislation in the United Kingdom. Does he not agree?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member, in his speech, talked about that. Yes, we only have one country at the moment in which we can test this. One of the things that the Government in Westminster have said is, "Let's wait and see if, after having the legislation working for a period of time, it does what was intended." There is no evidence to date, but we have research by the Public Health Research Consortium — whatever that is — Cancer UK and Chest, Heart and Stroke quoted.

One of the things that I used to always say to youngsters in school when we were talking about dealing with data was, "Ask yourself what the source of the data is." If people are producing data and are starting off from a certain point of view, of course the questions they ask, the way they interpret the answers to those questions and the way they analyse the data will colour the conclusions that they come to.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in a moment or two.

That is fundamental. All of the data that we have heard quoted today has been from research by people who have a vested interest in showing that, somehow or other, the policy that they wish to pursue would be effective. There is no indication that that policy actually would be effective. Even the questions illustrate that.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am a little bit confused by the line that he is taking. Is he telling the House that organisations such as Cancer Research and Chest, Heart and Stroke are wrong and that what they are putting out is misleading? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that there are no credible statistics on smoking and its effects on health?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, and if the Member had listened to the argument, he would have heard the logic of it. If the DUP came up with research that indicated that 100% of the people in Northern Ireland want the Union flag to fly over the City Hall, I guarantee that Sinn Féin would say, "We can't accept that because it is coming from a point of view that already colours" —

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, let me finish the point. Sinn Féin might say, "Yeah, you produced this, but what question did you ask, how did you interpret that question and who did you put the question to?"

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, let me just finish the point. Those are the kinds of legitimate questions you would ask.

All of the groups — and it is significant — whose research we have had quoted here today have a certain objective. As I pointed out, the research uses one basic question, which has been used as a source of much of what some Members have called "evidence". The question is, "Choose between branded and non-branded and tell us which is more effective." That does not tell you whether people would stop smoking if the only choice that they had was unbranded products. It tells you that they made a choice. That is the point I am making. It is nonsense to ask, "Are you saying that they're wrong, are you saying that they're lying?" No, of course I am not. I am simply saying that they approach research from a particular point of view and that, whilst the questions that they ask and the way they deal with those questions may be legitimate, we have to remember the source of the information.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for giving way. You said that some organisations have vested interests, but of course they have: they are trying to save lives. I am chair of an all-party group on chest, heart and stroke, and we have regular presentations from experts, people who are at the coalface of dealing with the effects of smoking and tobacco use, misuse and abuse. So, the vested interest that they have is to try to save lives and deal with the problems that smoking and tobacco cause daily. They are not necessarily just people who have opinions. They actually deal with the issue daily.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

With all due respect, the debate is not on the effects of smoking but on the most effective way of preventing new clients from coming into the smoking market. Nobody is questioning that the experts are genuine in their desire to stop people dying a horrible death from smoking. The question is this: are we going in a direction that will be effective?

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. In many ways, he has made one of the points that I was going to raise. Does he agree that the debate has become a little bit convoluted, when it is specifically about whether the legislative consent motion, if it comes into law, will in itself be effective? The only emerging evidence is from Australia. The Member mentioned earlier that the two objectives of the legislation in Australia are to stop new smokers coming into the market and to aid with cessation. Does he agree that it is interesting that the lobby in Australia that was dealing specifically with cessation has now fallen silent?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, and I am not surprised. The other research showed what influences people to start smoking in the first place. One of the reasons that smoking is more prevalent among young people from lower socio-economic groups is because their parents are more likely to smoke. Parents are an important influence. Peer pressure is an important influence. Curiosity is an important influence. All the packaging changes in the world will not affect those things. That is why, as other Members mentioned, education is important.

Let me turn to Mr Beggs's point that we should introduce the legislation to try to see what happens. It might be useful to ask what has been the effect of all the other things that we have introduced. There have been advertising bans, which were designed to stop the very thing that people have been talking about; namely, making it seem attractive in many ways. Vending machines have been stopped. People are not allowed to smoke inside pubs and in other public places. There has been a reduction in the ability to display pictures on cigarette packets. There are gory pictures on packets. There are attacks on those who sell cigarettes to people who are underage. Members have accepted that the impact of even all those restrictions has not been to reduce the level of smoking; rather, there has been an increase, with 25% of people consistently still choosing to smoke.

The Minister says that 83% of smokers wish to give up, and I do not dispute his figures. However, if banning advertising, stopping people smoking in public places and all the other measures that we have undertaken have not resulted in people giving up, and, in fact, we now see a small increase, we have to ask ourselves these questions: is this the way to deal with it? Is this kind of legislation effective? As I said in my intervention to Mr Beggs, if it is not effective, there is no point in engaging in gimmicks to placate lobby groups or to pretend that we are doing something. If there is any way in which to undermine legislation and a legislative Assembly, it is to make promises that we can do something and that it will be effective, only then to find that it is not effective.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Member cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot say that the changes will have no possible impact on the number of cigarettes being smoked yet also say that jobs will be lost in Ballymena as a result of the same measures. If they will have no impact, no jobs will be lost.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have not said that yet, but I was going to say it. Now that the Member has warned me that he will intervene on that point, he has given me time to make a number of arguments, which I will do in a moment or two.

All that I am saying is that we cannot run away with the idea, because we already have real, statistical evidence that these kinds of restrictions do not work. Therefore, why do we say that we want to introduce more of the same if it is not going to be effective?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member acknowledge that the job losses will come from the fact that if the market is flooded with counterfeit tobacco products, the legitimate manufacturers of tobacco products will not have as much business? That is where the concern for job losses comes from. Their concern is that standardised packaging will help not just counterfeit products coming in, but illegal products.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That was the point that I was going to make, but I will elaborate on it in a moment or two. Yes?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

It would be helpful if the Member could highlight a little more how standardised packaging assists counterfeit products. As I understand it, packaging can be made for between 5p and 15p, so no matter what one produces it can be replicated. It would be helpful if he could indicate how it might adversely affect the fight against counterfeit packaging, particularly, as I indicated, because it is important that the ability to use security coding continues.

It would also be helpful if the Member would clarify whether he is proposing reversing all the legislation that has been introduced to try to minimise the use of tobacco and its adverse health effects. Is he proposing that smoking should be reintroduced in pubs? What exactly is he saying when he says that all that legislation has not been effective? An important aspect, which he has not taken on board, is that sometimes it takes many years for changes to have a significant effect, particularly when there are large numbers of people who are addicted to the consumption of tobacco.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will deal with the Member's last point first. It does take many years, but some of these measures have been in place for many years and have not had any impact. None of the measures that I have highlighted were introduced yesterday; some of them were introduced 10 years ago. How many years is many years? To say that we should wait and see is an easy argument for the Member to make. How long do we have to wait and see? If that is the case, why is he so willing to readily quote surveys or research that has been done on legislation that has been in place only for six months in Australia? He cannot have it both ways; either it takes a long time to work or it does not.

He also asked whether I wanted to reverse the legislation that is there. Once legislation is introduced, especially legislation in this kind of field, whether it is effective or not, it is always very difficult to reverse it. I am not suggesting that it should be reversed. All I am saying is that it has proved to be pretty ineffective, and on the basis of his figures, not mine. You do not simply keep adding on to ineffective legislation.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

The last point is about the issue of whether we should continue with branding. Anyone who has done business studies will know that one of the purposes of branding and advertising of that nature is that it is defensive. It is not about getting new people in; it is about defending your product against similar products. That is one of the reasons why companies want to keep their particular brands. It is not, as the Member suggested, to make them so glitzy that people going to buy cigarettes think they are buying perfume. Many daft arguments were made in this debate, but the Member said that people thought they were buying perfume and when they opened it up, lo and behold there was 20 fags in it. In the name of goodness, if we have to reduce ourselves to those kinds of arguments, it shows how flimsy they are.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the Member giving way. I have listened intently throughout his contribution and that of Mr Ross, and I have some degree of sympathy for the arguments that have been made about people's choice of a particular brand. He has stated clearly that we need evidence, and that is something that, hopefully, the Minister will touch on when he is winding up.

The Member will be aware that an amendment has been passed in the House of Lords to ban smoking in cars where there are children. That is an area where there is irrefutable evidence of the damage that passive smoking causes to those young people who have no choice but to suffer what is inflicted upon them when they are travelling in a vehicle. The vast majority of smokers are responsible in that way, but there are some, as Members will know when they see them driving past, who smoke with a child in the infant's seat. Members will know of the impact that that has on the child's immune system. Where there is irrefutable evidence, as there is on that issue, will he encourage the Minister to take forward a particular piece of work when we have to deal with this in the future?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me answer this question first. If the Member had been listening carefully at the start, he would have heard me say that there are a number of tests that you should apply to any legislation. The first is whether it addresses the problem and the second is whether it does so effectively. The third test is to ask this: does it have an impact on other things that, in a democracy, we expect people to have an entitlement to, that is, the freedom to make certain choices? There is also the question about the enforceability of any legislation to consider. I have to ask, on smoking in cars, where do you stop? Would it extend to smoking in people's homes etc? Also, how enforceable is such legislation? I think that we have to put that kind of decision in the context of a whole lot of other issues that one would consider when introducing legislation here.

Since I have not given way to Mr Wells and I took an intervention from the previous Member to ask, I will take Mr Wells's intervention.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member is in fine form, I have to say. Once again, he has proved himself to be one of the finest orators ever to have been in this Chamber. However, he made a point earlier that I must refute in the nicest possible way. He said that the branding of cigarette packets is intended to move customers within the existing brands rather than to attract new smokers. Where that argument falls down flat on its face is that 100,000 people die in the United Kingdom every year as a direct result of smoking, so the industry has to attract 100,000 more people a year to take up the habit to keep up its production levels. That is the problem, and, each year, 100,000 people are taking up smoking in the United Kingdom. So, it must be working.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Again, if the Member had listened to the point that I made, he would know that some of the surveys and research have shown that new people are recruited for reasons such as parental example, peer pressure, curiosity and a whole range of other things. So, it cannot be put down purely to packaging. I have no evidence for this but neither does he, so I am not saying that there is not an element of that that is due to branding. All that I can say, however, is that given that, along with the name of the particular company, gory details are given on each package about the effect that smoking will have on you, I doubt very much whether packaging, in whatever shape or form it takes, will have the impact of attracting new customers.

That brings me to my last point, which is on employment. I will not dwell on it, because Mr Allister raised the issue anyway. I am sorry, it was Mr Ross; I said Mr Allister.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

He gets blamed for a lot of things.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I can blame him for a lot of things, but not this.

There will be an impact, and that will be that we will make it easier for criminals who sell cigarettes without paying tax and where the quality is not monitored, making them far, far more deadly. That will also impact on employment here in Northern Ireland. Do not forget that, in my constituency, there are hundreds of people who are employed in Ballymena in well-paid jobs. Those people's jobs will be affected not as result of stopping people smoking but as a result of switching people to the criminal gangs who import cheap cigarettes and sell them on the market.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I did not want to interrupt the Member during his contribution, but, before I call Mr McNarry, I remind the Member, for the second or maybe the third occasion, that he should call Members by their proper name. I am talking about the comment referring to Mr McKinney as "the UTV man". Mr McKinney deserves the same respect in this Chamber as every other Member. Once again, I say that to the whole House.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I was going to refer to "what's his name?" over there, but I am not going there. [Laughter.] I heard the debate, and it has been very interesting. Members have talked about a promotion for a cottage industry to make cigarette cases. That is not a bad idea, despite the fact that the product and those who use it are called stinkers. The Member is not here, but he called them stinkers. I take personal exception to that. It also appears that young girls are hooked on cigarettes because of glitzy packaging, and I will return to that.

We then moved into what could be called rights issues. We covered criminality and the illicit selling, off the back of a lorry, I take it, and into the mix, quite rightly, was the issue of jobs. Those of us who have had representation from the cigarette manufacturers know that they make the case on the basis of what Mr Wilson said, which is that it was purely for their jobs. That is what they manufacture, and they were making that case on the basis of their product. I think that that is fair enough.

Perhaps one could have some fun in this debate by weaving in tree-huggers, wind farm suckers or climate change whingers. It seems to me that those people find themselves appropriately in the lobby of fag bashers. They are the same people, coming from the same direction. Those same people seem to keep a distance and have very strong views that are anti-fracking. So, there is a mobilisation of people who seem to want to get into this type of thing, and they seem to be — they do not just seem to be; they are — making issues where I fail to see the issues.

I could also express irritation at the bellyaching about health costs, which says nothing about taxes paid and even less on departmental expenditure on wastage, not just in the Department of Health but throughout the Executive. Yet, some will not allow the debate to tread into the economics of it.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I will, surely.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Will the Member accept evidence presented earlier that some £10 billion is collected from tax returns in the UK, but £13 billion is expended on healthcare related to smoking?

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I thank Mr McKinney for his intervention. I understand that there is no abuse of the revenue figures. I accept that they are correct, but I must say to the Member that I do not have the same confidence in accepting the figures about expenditure, because they come from many areas —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I will, certainly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

He makes a very important point there. That £13 billion also has a notional figure for the cost of people dying, lost production and that kind of thing. Once we enter into those realms, it is not a like-for-like comparison, whereas he pointed out that we know the actual figures for tax revenue.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I think that the House has got that message throughout the debate; or, at least, I hope that it has. As always happens, figures are bandied about, and, with all due respect to Mr Wilson, he used to do the same when he was Finance Minister, and they did not always stack up.

Let us be clear: smoking is not good for your health. What does it say on the packet that I bought this morning? It says, and let us do the money bit, "UK duty paid." So, it did not fall off the back of a lorry. I paid my duty. It says, "Smoking causes ageing of the skin." So much for the macho ads for men's cosmetics and skincare that seem to appear in the middle of rugby matches. The packet says that smoking will damage your skin. I would like the Minister to refer in any summing up to how it damages your skin.

Finally, of course, the big message is that smoking kills. Nothing could be clearer. Here is a package that does not look glamorous or seductive to me or to anyone else. It shows a clear message — smoking kills. What it tells me is the brand that I want to smoke as a smoker, which I bought this morning. I should add, so that I do not disappoint the Minister, that I am a reducing smoker. That is a compliment to him for badgering me at times about smoking at all. I am doing my best to reduce in order to acknowledge and recognise the hospital staff and consultants, who I help to pay for, who helped me in a difficult situation not so long ago. I am grateful to them.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Again? I will.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Does the Member accept that much of what we heard this morning, particularly from the Benches here, and in what he has just talked about, is an emphasis on brand and that brand sells? In this case, the brand sells cigarettes; and in this case, cigarettes kill.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

I will come to that in a minute, if Mr McKinney will be just a wee bit patient. I am going to support the motion because I have read what it says. There is a message in the motion, and it is an exercise in an outcome that is beneficial to our young people.

I say to some others, and to Mr Wells who is not here, that the nanny state that he wishes for is not for me, nor is it an equaliser for the life as he sees it. It is far from it. He talks about seduction and glamour as if they are some kind of selling aids. I can tell him that they are not persuasive factors to a smoker, which leads me to ask the Minister about one point on plain packaging. I have read out what is written on the current packaging. If I may, I will refer to the blue bit without the brand. The brand comes in blue, red and green. The blue colour tells me its strength. How will the proposed packaging show the strength of the cigarette inside the pack? How will the strength be shown to the purchaser, irrespective of their age? The strength of a cigarette is an important factor to many smokers when choosing to buy the packet that they buy.

I heard the talk about evidence, first from Mr McKinney. I say to those who are proposing that evidence and making it a point, if evidence is so —

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

OK, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

I say to the Member: if the evidence being presented is so strong, why not make cigarette selling illegal? If your case is so strong and you have all the evidence — and I do not think you have — do the honourable thing for children and others and make cigarette selling illegal. I will end there.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Mitchel McLaughlin] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development whether he plans to introduce choice-based lettings as part of his review of the social housing allocation system. (AQO 5425/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Currently, I have no such plans. My Department commissioned research from the universities of Ulster and Cambridge to review the current allocation system, look at best practice elsewhere and bring forward recommendations. One recommendation is for choice-based letting. My Department is seeking views on that and the other recommendations at a series of public events. The academics recommend choice-based letting on the grounds of its success in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland in promoting consumer choice, shortening relet times, reducing refusals and improving tenancy sustainment. I will, however, wish to hear further evidence and the views of stakeholders before bringing forward any policy proposals.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. At Committee level, all parties agreed that choice-based letting would not be feasible, particularly given the nature of housing in the North. Does the Minister agree that it would not work in areas of high demand?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It is important to look at things on the basis of evidence. I commissioned the research, but it was undertaken by independent academics. We must look at what they produced after a detailed analysis of the market and what can be done elsewhere. It is one of a number of suggestions. We need to talk to stakeholders and a range of interest groups, look at the evidence and then make a judgement. I do not want to make a judgement until I have seen all the evidence, which as yet I have not seen. There are GB regions in which there is high demand, and it seems to work there. At present, however, I have no view either way. I am simply seeking views so that I can formulate an opinion in due course.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever lettings take place, the principle of need will be at the very core of the letting of any property and that the process will be fair, open and transparent?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I can indeed assure the Member of both those points. It is absolutely fundamental that the allocation of housing should be on the basis of need. The system should be clear, transparent and fully understood. We need a system that is fair and is seen to be fair. I am determined to ensure that that happens as we move forward.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Apologies to the Minister for not being present for the first question. Will he explain why he felt that it was time for such a fundamental review of the allocation system?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The current allocation system has been in place since 2000, so, after 14 years, the time is right for a review of its operation. The system has many shortcomings, including a lack of transparency, perceptions of point chasing and queue-jumping, and a high level of refusals, so there are weaknesses. The system asks applicants to specify areas of choice at the very local level of common landlord area, which is often only a number of streets. In effect, that can restrict people's choices, lead to unrealistic expectations of when they might be housed and exclude people from being considered for possibly suitable properties adjacent to their area of choice. The fact that a number of academics from here and GB who have looked at this put forward a series of recommendations suggests that it was timely to look at a review of the allocation system.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the reasons for previous underspends in the social housing development programme. (AQO 5426/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Department did not declare any underspends in the social housing development programme in the monitoring rounds this year. The programme is on target to deliver all of the planned units for 2013-14, and, in fact, the target may well be exceeded. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, however, was able to realise efficiency and other savings in the Bamford aspects of the programme and declared these to the Department in the last January monitoring round. I am glad to report that those funds have been successfully utilised by the co-ownership scheme to enable applicants to purchase a home and thereby help the wider economy and construction industry.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he considering any changes to the policy or its implementation that would make the provision even more effective?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am indeed looking at how the social housing development programme is delivered. We are delivering on target, but I want to go beyond the target and see what more we can do to ensure the delivery of more social houses. A number of pieces of work have been and are being undertaken. The first of those was the performance and delivery unit (PEDU) report on the delivery of social housing.

The second is work to identify issues that were brought up in the PEDU report. Many of its recommendations have been implemented and some are being implemented.

Thirdly, we are looking at the issues identified by housing associations as an obstacle to their delivering more. A range of potential major difficulties has been raised, including the slowness of planning and issues with site acquisition. Sometimes, there are issues with the provision of water and sewerage supplies to sites and the capacity of housing associations to deliver. In the past few days, examples have been brought to my attention of housing associations identifying themselves as undertaking a scheme that they were allocated but pulling out at the last minute because they did not have the capacity to deliver it.

So there are a number of issues there, and officials are working to ensure that we get a more efficient and effective delivery mechanism that is better tuned, fit for purpose and will, therefore, enable us to go beyond our targets.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. How many social houses have been delivered since he became Minister in 2011?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. My Department is responsible for implementing the current Programme for Government commitment to deliver 8,000 new social and affordable homes by 2015. By the end of the last financial year, we were well ahead of target, with 4,389 new homes delivered, of which 2,789 are social housing. The plan is to deliver a further 1,275 social houses this year, and plans that I approved in December will result in 2,000 more starting next year. So the Programme for Government target will be achieved.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Is it not the case that the quota for social housing newbuilds is not the most challenging and has been reduced in the past two years? Minister, have you considered or would you consider creating a special task force to address the dire housing waiting lists in parts of Northern Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

First, the target was set by the Northern Ireland Executive and endorsed, across the board, as part of the Programme for Government. It is, therefore, one that we are achieving, and I am glad to be able to report that. However, as I indicated in answer to a previous supplementary question, I want to go beyond that. There are a number of weaknesses in the current delivery system. I have identified a few of them, but there are others. I will give this very specific example: a housing association had a scheme that was half finished but could not finish it off for virtually six months because there were issues around the water and sewerage connections for the houses. That sort of delay is unacceptable.

There are issues around site acquisition for housing associations, which is why we have, in a sense, front-loaded the system this year by ensuring that there was a substantial amount of site acquisition at the end of the financial year so that we could move forward into the next year with the sites already acquired. It is that sort of forward planning. There is also an issue around the capacity of our housing associations. Quite a number of them are not really involved in house building; they are simply maintaining their existing stock. The number of houses is largely being delivered by about five housing associations out of the whole range, and those housing associations are right at their limit. We need to see how we can ensure that there is greater capacity in the system, and that is why I have been doing the work. It is not only the PEDU report; there are all the other issues, and I have mentioned a few. We are looking very closely to see what can be done to speed up the system so that we can achieve a lot more.

Rather than setting up a task force, we have already done the analysis of how we could deliver more. That is being worked on to see that we address the issues that have been identified.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the current level of rent arrears within the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. (AQO 5427/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Housing Executive has advised that, at 5 January 2014, the current level of rent arrears was £11·3 million for domestic dwellings.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his very direct answer. Will he tell us what proportion of rent arrears owed to the Housing Executive is comprised of individual arrears at a high level and what percentage of its tenants in arrears have agreed budget plans with the Housing Executive.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not have to hand the figures for those very detailed points that the Member raised. I am more than happy to provide the Member with those details, but I do not have that with me and available today.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The non-implementation of welfare reform has implications not just for benefit recipients but non-benefit recipients. Will the Minister outline the extent of the rent arrears problem in the private sector, where welfare reform through housing benefit has been carried out already?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member raises an interesting point. Private rented sector tenants have already experienced housing benefit changes. That was prior to all the changes yet to come. It was several years ago, in April 2011, and we are almost three years on from that. At that time, changes included how local housing allowance rates were calculated and the introduction of a shared accommodation rate for single people aged 34 and under. Research carried out by Sheffield Hallam University on the housing impact of welfare reform in the private rented sector was published in the late part of last year. That research showed that, despite the changes implemented in the private sector through those earlier reforms, few claimants surveyed were in arrears. Those who were in arrears stated that those arrears were caused by a change in circumstances rather than the changes to housing benefit. They indicated that they had been able to meet the shortfall by reducing expenditure in other areas. In fact, there was evidence that the changes introduced at that time had the effect of driving down rents in the private sector, because landlords were particularly willing to reduce rents for existing claimants. There is also evidence to indicate that most of those affected are simply managing their money differently. Therefore, the anticipated level of difficulty that there might have been in the private rented sector has not necessarily materialised.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the number of house repossessions in each of the past three years. (AQO 5428/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department does not hold information on the number of houses repossessed each year in Northern Ireland. However, the Department of Justice issues quarterly statistics on the number of writs and summonses issued for mortgage possession actions. The statistics show that the number of writs and summonses issued was 3,903 in 2010; 3,588 in 2011; 3,732 in 2012; and 2,899 up until September last year. A total of 3,004 cases were disposed of by the courts in 2010; 2,698 in 2011; 3,157 in 2012; and 2,025 up until September 2013.

It should be noted that not all cases disposed of result in a possession order or in the enforcement of that order to evict the householder. For example, in some cases, an arrangement may be agreed between the householder and lender. Furthermore, lenders granted a possession order by the courts have up to 12 years in which to enforce it. Therefore, the number of possession orders granted in any given year may not translate into the number of enforcements or, indeed, evictions.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Behind every one of the repossessions is an individual or a family, many of whom have suffered the trauma of their home being taken away from them. At a time when the Executive continue to squander money left, right and centre, does the Minister still believe that a mortgage rescue scheme like the one in England, Scotland and Wales would be too expensive?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I will pass over the general criticism that the Member directed towards every Department, including her colleague's Regional Development Department.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Especially.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The point has been made that it was probably especially directed at her colleague Mr Kennedy's Department. I am sure that he will be very upset and deeply hurt by that criticism from a Member of his own party.

I have sympathy for the concept of a mortgage rescue scheme. However, in reality, I believe that it would help only a small proportion of those facing repossession and be extremely expensive to operate. It is estimated that a full proposed rescue scheme would cost more than £8 million over a two-year period and enable direct intervention for only 72 rescues in each of the two years. Therefore, the number of cases addressed would be extremely small. Those are all real cases of people facing real situations, and I do not want in any way to minimise or detract from that. However, the numbers that you would be able to help are extremely limited.

I am conscious that, when allocating money, the Executive have to weigh up all the needs and priorities for the people of Northern Ireland, be they education, health or whatever. The numbers that a scheme would help could be extremely small. Nevertheless, as the Member will be aware, we have set up the housing repossession task force to look at a whole range of issues around repossessions.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire cad iad an comhráití a bhí aige leis an earnáil airgeadais agus leis an earnáil tithíochta ó thaobh sealbhóirí tithe agus tionóntaí a chosaint.

The Minister said that he has put in place a task force. Has he had any discussions with the financial sector to examine ways in which homeowners and tenants can be protected from repossessions?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It will be helpful if I set out what we are doing to help to address the repossession issue. The fact of the matter is that my Department cannot resolve what is an underlying problem, or range of problems, leading to possible home repossessions. As I said, I empathise with those who find themselves in that distressing situation, with the prospect of court action. We have established the housing repossession task force to investigate what the impact is and what further action might be taken, if there is the possibility of doing something further. Indeed, the Member is looking at the goodwill and generosity of spirit of some of our financial institutions. I noticed that he was almost shaking his head when I referred to those terms.

Through that task force, we are trying to harness the experience and the expertise available from all the stakeholders to identify ways in which government and others can assist in alleviating the problems. The first meeting of that task force is scheduled for tomorrow, with the aim of producing outline recommendations by the month of June. That is in addition to the funding we give to the mortgage debt advice service and, of course, as a support for mortgage interest. All those things are in place. I ask the Member to bear with me while we get the response from the task force. There seems to be a fondness for task forces over there in that corner.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his responses so far. In relation to house repossessions, can the Minister tell us of the level of demand for the mortgage debt advice service and what it has achieved?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The formal contract for the mortgage debt advice service commenced in May 2011. Since then, the service has experienced demand at a level well above that originally envisaged. In 2011-12, the service provided advice and assistance to 1,310 clients, directly preventing homelessness for 280 households and providing representation and advocacy services, such as negotiation with lenders and attendance at court, for 804 clients. In 2012-13, it assisted 1,695 clients, directly preventing homelessness for 434 households and providing representative and advocacy services for 774. In 2013-14, up to December, it assisted 1,126 clients, preventing homelessness for 249 and providing representation and advocacy for 490. So, I think that that gives some indication of the extent of the excellent work that is being done by the mortgage debt advice service.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister for Social Development how many homes have benefited from the boiler replacement scheme including its precursor pilot scheme. (AQO 5429/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Over the 16 months in which the current boiler replacement scheme has been in operation, 10,103 homes have had their old, inefficient boiler replaced. The scheme is not due to finish until March 2015, and, by that time, we aim to have helped 24,000 homes replace their boiler.

The pilot boiler replacement scheme, which was launched in June 2011 and finished on 31 March 2012, assisted 1,743 homes to replace their boiler. Therefore, over the two schemes, to date, we have helped almost 12,000 homes and made a significant difference to the energy efficiency in those homes.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers today. It is also right to welcome the initiative and to put on record our thanks to the Minister and DSD for going a long way to addressing fuel poverty. Can the Minister provide details on the amount of grant that has been paid out and the average cost of each installation to each property?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for the question, because it helps to give a better picture of the profile of the programme. Twenty-nine per cent of the applicants received the maximum allowable grant of £1,000; 39% received a grant of £700; 14% received a grant of £500; and only 18% received a grant of £400. So a significant number, almost 30%, received the maximum allowable grant, and they were folk on lower incomes. That indicates, I think, that the scheme is being directed to those who are most in need.

The average cost of installations is £1,587 for oil to oil; £1,853 for oil to oil with controls; £1,522 for wood pellet; £1,908 for gas to gas; £2,212 for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to gas; £1,826 for LPG to LPG; and £2,191 for oil to gas. So, the cost of the installation is very much dependent on the type of change that the individual chooses.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. How many homes does he hope will be included in the scheme next year? What budget allocation is he hoping for to continue the good work on boiler replacement?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The initial amount that was set aside for the scheme over the three-year period was £12 million. I was able to secure an additional £6 million from the European regional development fund, so the overall package over the three years is £18 million. It is difficult to tie an amount to a specific year, because you have a process that may well span months, in which people make an application, that is processed, and they might then not even get the installation done for a number of months. That means that there can be a delay at the applicant's choice. It is hard for me to pin down what exactly would be spent in a particular 12-month period, but, if you are looking at the overall period over the three years, £18 million has been set aside for it.

The aim is to have a total of 24,000 installations over the three-year period. If I had to set an average figure, because of the reasons that I set out, around 8,000 boilers would be installed for vulnerable households over that period.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Ross Hussey is not in his place.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

7. asked the Minister for Social Development for his assessment of the performance of the current chair of the Housing Executive, in particular in relation to the allocation of funds in the social housing sector. (AQO 5431/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The chairman of the Housing Executive, Donald Hoodless, has a wealth of experience in social housing. When I appointed him in November 2012, he took on an incredibly difficult job. Since then, he has shown his determination to put in place clear governance and assurance systems to tackle the issues and to make the organisational changes that are required to ensure that appropriate services are delivered to tenants, along with value for public money.

I do not forget that he has inherited some extremely difficult legacy problems. In response to those, he has worked clearly and methodically to identify all the issues, particularly in the area of contract management. He has put and still is putting in place measures and procedures to deal with those and to reform the systems, the processes and, indeed, the culture of the organisation to ensure that they will not recur in the future. That is all within the parameters of good governance and achieving value for money. I am confident that the chairman has demonstrated clear leadership in that regard and that he is taking the right steps to address what have been endemic and long-standing procedural and cultural issues.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. I hear what he said, but is he still not aware that the Housing Executive has underspent in all aspects of its housing budget at a time of growing waiting lists and problems with maintenance? Does the Minister not think, even given what he has said about the chair, that the chair should resign in the light of that?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As I indicated in answer to Mr Nesbitt, the underspends were not really in the social housing development programme. We are on target there. The issues arose primarily in planned maintenance and so on. The fact is that the weaknesses in contract management by the Housing Executive have been the cause of those underspends. In a number of areas, work had to be put on hold because contracts were not properly managed and difficulties arose of which we are all aware. Those weaknesses in contract management by the Housing Executive go back eight, nine or 10 years, well before the current chairman's tenure.

I welcome the fact that the current chairman has acknowledged that there is a problem. There was a state of denial for a long time in the Housing Executive about the fact that contracts were being managed and monitored so badly. Not only has he identified and acknowledged the problem but he is now putting in place the necessary measures to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again. Both the chair and the vice-chair have brought a level of experience and expertise that was seriously wanting at that top level in the organisation.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That brings us to the end of the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development for his view of the recent comments on housing need from the SDLP’s Dolores Kelly. (AQT 641/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. Mrs Kelly made a statement that was issued on 15 January in cooperation with the Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) project, a lobby group in north Belfast. She said of north Belfast in the course of her contribution:

"Any objective analysis or examination of the facts" —

this was in the context of north Belfast —

"can come to only one conclusion — Catholics in need of housing are being discriminated against. ... The conditions that the people of north Belfast have been subjected to are intolerable and would not be accepted in any other functioning democracy."

I again emphasise her words:

"Catholics in need of housing are being discriminated against."

She went on to say that it:

"is nothing short of 21st century gerrymandering."

I want to put on record today the actual figures for north Belfast, not the myths that have been manufactured and peddled by the SDLP and republicans and the dissidents who were out on the streets of Belfast on Saturday — I think that about 50 of them turned up for their rally. The truth of the matter is that they have manufactured and peddled myths. The facts are these: there is no disadvantage, and there is no discrimination. The waiting lists in the North Belfast constituency as of September of last year were as follows: 2,059 Protestants on the waiting list and 1,986 Roman Catholics. The waiting list in North Belfast was a list —

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Massaged.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad that the Member across the way has said that the figures are massaged —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Minister's time is up.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

What she is doing, in that case, is accusing the Housing Executive of massaging the figures, because those are the Housing Executive's own figures. If she wants to look at —