Steel Sector

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This is not a time to play party politics; it is a time for everybody to come together and do the best thing by Britain’s steel industry.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister just said that there is no excuse not to buy and every reason to buy British steel, so what discussions has she had with her colleagues in the MOD about procuring British steel for defence contracts? In particular, has she discussed the future of Sheffield Forgemasters, which is vital if we are to procure a new generation of nuclear submarines?

[Anna Soubry]

The short answers are yes and yes. The value of Sheffield Forgemasters is not lost on anybody, especially those concerned about the future of our defence sector.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The harsh reality is that all the steel industries in this country are losing huge amounts of money. Some companies are regularly losing £700 million per year. That is the reality, but we are determined not to lose the steel industry in this country, so we now have to find the solutions to save it.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I do not question the Minister’s efforts, but she has clearly been hung out to dry by the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary. Many small companies in the north-east are affected by this closure. Has the Department drawn up a register of where they are, and what measures will she put in place to help those small companies that are creditors?

[Anna Soubry]

I always give a straight answer to a question. I honestly do not know the answer, but I will make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman and everybody else who is concerned. I must make it clear, however, that I, the Business Secretary and the Prime Minister are as one on this.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

So that is her view now. With great respect to Dr Atkins, I do not agree with her and I will—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

Hang on—I’m going to make the argument before I get intervened on again. I have been very generous.

The ombudsman will look at service complaints and the Bill seeks to ensure that complaints by individuals with a grievance will be dealt with fairly and expeditiously and that justice will be done. In my view, the ombudsman should not look at any wider issues that may come up. I will give an example to support my argument.

Let us say that three people in a unit make a complaint about bullying and it is found that that complaint is justified. As a result, there is redress and the two individuals who have bullied them are punished by being removed from their posts or demoted. That is the end of the matter and it never gets to the ombudsman, who knows nothing about it because justice has been done.

What if, however, the three complainants feel that justice has not been done because their complaint has not been upheld and they believe that there has been maladministration in the way in which it has been handled? They would then go to the ombudsman, who would look at whether the complaint has been the subject of maladministration. The ombudsman might then say, “I have found that there has been maladministration and as a result of my findings I am making the following recommendations to the Defence Council.” If, at any stage of her investigation, she believes that there has been systemic, systematic bullying in that particular unit, she can go to the service chiefs, any Minister, media or Member of Parliament and say, “I think there’s a lot of bullying going on in this unit. This is outrageous and wrong and I want you to do something about it.”

It should not be the ombudsman’s job, however, to then conduct an inquiry into that bullying. That is the job of the armed forces or perhaps some other body. The ombudsman’s job is to make sure that we have a good, efficient and fair complaints system. With all due respect, that is what the ombudsman should be concentrating on where they should be using their resources. If they start to investigate a systemic or systematic form of bullying in a particular unit, it is my respectful submission that they would be way out of their remit and treading on to the territory of others. That does not mean that I am being by any means soft on the complaint, because the ombudsman is the person who will highlight it, but it is for others, not the service complaints ombudsman, to decide on a full inquiry and make sure that proper action is taken. That is my argument.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept that, but the hon. Lady is wrong. My understanding of Dr Atkins’s views is exactly the same as that of the Defence Committee Chair. Since her appointment she has pushed the boundaries. If the ombudsman is going to look just at maladministration, may I suggest that the Minister speaks to Lynn Farr from Daniel’s Trust and other families who have worked with Susan Atkins? The Minister might have great faith in the ability of some of the senior military to make major changes—cultural change and actual change—but that will not be done without an external body at least giving them a gentle push.

[Anna Soubry]

But the gentle push exactly is the service complaints ombudsman. If they find that there is bullying or harassment in a particular place—in a unit or whatever it may be—they have the ability to make sure everybody is aware of what is going on, but I do not believe it is then their job to investigate it. That would be a diminution of their work, which is to look at complaints, and make sure that individual grievances have full access to a system that works expeditiously and gets to the point of justice. She can raise these concerns—there is nothing to stop her—which is why I was such a great supporter of Nicola Williams, because she will absolutely be robust. However, such an investigation is not and should not be the ombudsman’s job, especially given the resources available to the ombudsman; their job is to look at the service complaints and deal with those individual grievances. I could be cheeky and say that if the hon. Gentleman thought this was such a great idea, why did he not do it in 13 years, but that might be a little underhand—

[Mr Jones]

I will tell you why I did not do it.

[Anna Soubry]

And I will hear the hon. Gentleman. But if such an investigation is what he wants, somebody else should do it. It should not be in this Bill and it is not for this ombudsman; this is about service complaints.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I was going to take the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if the two of them are going to fight, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister asks why we did not do this in 13 years, but she just needs to look at my record, including my time on the last Defence Committee, and at the last Labour Government’s record, to know the answer. I argued for this, as did the Select Committee, back in 2004, but, as she knows, those in the chain of command do not like radical change. I see this as a process—we are getting to where we should have been 10 years ago—but I must say that the most vociferous arguments against bringing this in over 10 years ago came from the Conservative Front Benchers.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for the factual explanation that has been given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I was talking about the fact that the person who is complained against should have the right to have their side heard, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point. When somebody dies suddenly—especially if they have taken their own life, which is what we are talking about here, and if it is thought that there is some link between their doing so and an allegation they have made—that is serious stuff. That is why it is right that, first, there would be a service inquiry and secondly, and arguably even more importantly, there would be a full coroner’s inquest.

I do not know whether many Members have had the opportunity of attending a coroner’s inquest, but when there is a great coroner—I saw one in my county of Nottinghamshire, working on an important case with which I will not trouble the House—one can see their power. The coroner does not necessarily say that a certain person is responsible for a death, but they investigate all matters leading up to the unexpected death and have extensive powers, including being able to take evidence from people on oath. I am content that in the terrible event that somebody who has made a complaint has taken their own life, and in which it is thought that there is a link, there already exists an excellent and rigorous system that ensures that justice is done, and that is the coronial system.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am glad that the Minister has so much confidence in the coroners system. I accept that where it works well, it works well, but she also knows that there are some absolutely appalling coroners in this country. May I suggest that she looks at Mr Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut? It shows what happened to the families and how the MOD acted, and we hope that things have changed, but I would certainly argue against the idea that there is somehow a universal standard for the coroners service across the country.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sure that there are perhaps one or two bad coroners, but overwhelmingly the vast majority are outstanding and excellent and do an exceptionally good job. I might be wrong, and I will be corrected if I am, but I think that in the case of Deepcut none of the young people who died had made a complaint. Therefore, they would not have come into this system because they had not made a complaint. Although there might be a good argument that in those cases the coroner had not done a thorough job—I do not know that—we must remember that the Bill is about the complaints system. It starts with an individual making a complaint or raising a grievance on which they seek redress. We are in grave danger of not understanding what the system is and the huge distinction between the other existing processes that can ensure that we get to the root of the problem, find out what happened and make sure that justice is done.

The Bill is small and tightly focused and makes important and much-needed changes. The Select Committee on Defence published its report on the Bill on 23 October and it makes a number of recommendations on how the Bill might be amended. I am open and always have been—my door is always open, and anybody within reason can come and see me. It may be that some of those recommendations can be adopted in Committee. They will certainly be debated. With one or two of those proposals, we have identified the problem we seek to solve, but the method by which we solve it is the difficulty. I do not want overly prescriptive legislation. In defence matters, if we legislate for things and want to change them, it is difficult to get another Bill in Parliament to do so.

We have a duty to ensure that our servicemen and women know that their grievances are taken seriously and dealt with quickly, and that no complaint will be dismissed out of hand. We have a duty to ensure that we can fund those organisations that support our armed forces and their families wherever they are based. The Bill delivers the changes our brave servicemen and women deserve, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

It is not just a coronial system because there are also service inquiries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those investigations are robust and thorough?

[Mr Jones]

They are. However, the important point about the ombudsman—this is what is great about the service complaints commissioner—is that it is outside the chain of command, independently looking inwards. That is not to say that it would always be critical. On some issues, Susan Atkins has not been critical and has supported changes that have taken place in our armed forces. I give credit to the service chiefs for bringing forward some of those changes. If, in a modern age, we want a system that is going to be robust and seen to be fair, it is very important to have that element of independence. That is especially true for bullying. We know that on occasion bullying is an isolated incident, but there have also been examples of where it is part of the chain of command and responsible for the culture that exists in some areas.

The Bill gives the ombudsman power to investigate where it sees fit, but we must understand what powers it would have and what it could do with what it finds. Yes, it can report to the Defence Council, but without any further powers or the ability to make changes, the onus in terms of the defence budget might be to ignore what the ombudsman says. We must clarify that point in the Bill.

As I have said, some recommendations can be made, but we need a method to ensure that reports and findings do not sit on a shelf, and that the Minister of the day, or the Defence Council, does not reject or simply note them. That would undermine not only the role of the service complaints ombudsman, but its independence. People who go to the ombudsman expect to get a fair hearing and to know that something will be done about their complaint.

It is vital that any new system works to the benefit of those who come to rely on it and that the Bill does not impose any unnecessary barriers on individuals and families making a complaint. The current Service Complaints Commissioner has been highly critical of the Army for the length of time it takes to deal with the complaints. Any system must obviously have robust time limits, but the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State will set time limits within which the individual must lodge a complaint. That time limit must not be less than six weeks after the date on which the individual receives their decision from their internal complaints system. In an ideal world that might be a simple system, but the nature of service life might lead to a situation where those time limits cannot be met. If that was the case, people would be time-bound when bringing forward a complaint. I think we need to consider that issue in Committee, and see whether we can allow some flexibility in the way that complaints are brought forward, so that someone does not miss taking a complaint forward because of the time limit.

The ombudsman service must be independent from the chain of command and the armed forces, and must be trusted by the people it is investigating. It must also be seen by servicemen and women lower down the chain of command as a process that is clearly independent.

This is a bit like déjà-vu, because I remember when the Service Complaints Commissioner was being appointed that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was one of the—well, he could certainly be described as a dinosaur if not even worse—people who said that the end of the earth was going to come if the service ombudsman was not someone with a military background. It is clear that service personnel cannot hold that post, but I would also be reluctant to have anyone with a direct service background. Certainly the criticism levelled at Dr Atkins when she was first appointed was unfair and has—quite rightly—been proved wrong given the effective way that she got to know quickly how the armed forces work, and the way that she got the support and good will of people at all levels. It is important that the ombudsman is not seen as part of the old boys’ network—interestingly, the first two have been women.

On representation, occasionally those who lodge a complaint, or who speak of an injustice but never enter the complaints system, cannot see the complaint through—we have already heard about people who die before their complaint is heard. In these rare cases, it is sometimes important to family members that the complaint continues, and if someone makes a complaint against an individual, that individual will still have an opportunity to put forward a defence, albeit in the absence of the accuser. Also, many complaints relate to matters of service pay. In these cases, no one is required to make a defence, so it seems only fair that they be allowed to continue to conclusion. To stop such a case would be totally unfair. All cases should be pursued as a matter of due diligence to allow the ombudsman to oversee the entire system.

This touches on something else the Service Complaints Commissioner has done. A complaint might throw up inconsistencies in areas of policy that need addressing, and just because someone dies, it does not necessarily mean the wider implications do not need addressing either by the chain of command or more widely.

[Mr Jones]

That is a very important point. I was a member of the Defence Select Committee when it looked into Deepcut—as, too, was the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). We could not help but think that the way the families were dealt with was truly shocking, both in terms of basic human decency and because it meant that, unfortunately, the truth could never be arrived at. That was unfortunate for the families, obviously, and for members of the armed forces who were accused of things they clearly did not do.

We have made progress, however, thanks to the Service Complaints Commissioner and this new Bill. The important thing is independent oversight. Individuals are not going to continue with a course of action if they know it is leading to deaths in the armed forces. We know there will be tragedies in the armed forces, on the battlefield and in training, given the robust and difficult training regime, and when they happen, it is important, for the sake of the families, that we get all the information early on; that the matter be dealt with compassionately; and that things be put right early on, if mistakes were made.

I think there has been a change in this country—certainly in respect of local authorities and health boards, for example—and sometimes there is a culture of arguing why something should stay the same. However, if people say sorry early on and admit to mistakes, while it will always be difficult for families, at least they would know what happened. If so, lessons can be learned and measures put in place to militate against such things happening again, which will at least give some comfort to the families.

[Anna Soubry]

We do not disagree on what we want to achieve, and the hon. Gentleman has put it extremely well. I would not demur from anything he said about the need to ensure that the families feel that things have been properly looked at, lessons learned and so forth. Is that not a question of ensuring that we have rigorous investigations into deaths, which is different from the complaints system through which individuals’ grievances are rigorously looked at to get justice? I would suggest that the two are very different. Does he agree?

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not. I suggest the Minister go away and read Mr Justice Blake’s report. In these situations, the issues conflate. In the Deepcut case and that of Lynn Farr’s son, who died in a training exercise in Catterick, part of the problem was the individual instance and how the individuals died, but there were broader issues surrounding the duty of care in training. I am not saying that training should be downgraded—I know Mrs Farr was not for that—but if we look at Daniel Farr’s case and how he was dealt with, we see a needless death that could have been avoided. If issues about the training regime at Catterick had been raised earlier, we could have avoided certain deaths. The two aspects come together. I am all for rigorous investigations of deaths when they occur, but I also want to ensure that if it is possible to avoid getting to that stage in the first place, we actually achieve that.

Let me deal now with the armed forces charities, to which the Minister referred. The second part of the Bill relates to the financial assistance and benefits given to armed forces personnel. Let me put on record that we welcome this. As the Minister knows, I have worked with an array of armed forces charities over many years and they do a fantastic job on behalf of servicemen and women and their families and veterans. We must be sure that they are able to continue that work. The Bill covers two main points in this area, and it has been difficult to know how best to administer them. In fairness to the present Government, they have tried their best to get the funding out to those groups. Clause 4 attempts to put the provisions on some type of proper footing. Many charities, especially the smaller ones, rely on the grants and support they get from the Government.

We also want to ensure that there is robust scrutiny of how the money is spent. The Minister will have been exposed to the internal politics of the veteran community and doubtless has some of the scars from which I still suffer today. It is important to ensure that the system is transparent and fair and that we get not only good value for money, but effective value for money, so that the support goes to the right causes. Some of the smaller charities should be supported. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are some fantastic very small charities with very small capacities that nevertheless have a great effect in the support they provide to the armed forces.

In conclusion, we welcome the Bill. We will seek to improve it in Committee. The introduction of the Service Complaints Commissioner has, I think, seen a marked change in how the senior military and our armed services operate, and the system has protected those we ask to serve on our behalf. We will not oppose Second Reading, but, as I say, we will put forward amendments in Committee to try to improve and empower the role of the service complaints ombudsman. I see this as a journey. I have certainly dealt with this issue right through my parliamentary career. I thought I had escaped armed services legislation when I became a Minister, but lo and behold, it came back to bite me again. If we do this correctly, we can have a system of which we can be proud for not only protecting the individuals who serve in our armed forces, but upholding the highest levels of integrity and respect, which I know the service chiefs and the whole House would want to uphold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I was going to label the hon. Gentleman a dinosaur, but he is obviously on the new progressive wing of the Conservative party.

[Anna Soubry]

You’re so tribal!

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I am—I wear that badge with honour.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is completely right. Without some external push, oversight or, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) said, light shone on the process, there will be no change. That is what the ombudsman will provide.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on an excellent report on the Bill. He raises a fair point: if there is disagreement, people should say so. The chain of command must say what, if anything, it objects to. It should not say it behind closed doors but should come out into the light.

I look forward to the Committee stage. We shall table amendments and I hope that we will get the ombudsman that not only this House needs but that the servicemen and women who serve our nation with pride and bravery need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I know that he wrote to the Ministry of Defence only last week; in fact, I saw the letter this morning. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter, because I think it may not be quite as simple as it appears at first blush. I am sure we can find a way of resolving it and am happy to meet both him and, of course, his constituent.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

First, may I declare an interest as a Commonwealth War Graves Commissioner? The question that has just been asked relates to the confusion between MOD graves and Commonwealth war graves. Is the Minister aware that the MOD maintains large numbers of non-commissioned headstones in Germany? Will she have a look at what plans are in place to maintain those graves post-2014, after the British Army withdraws from Germany?

[Anna Soubry]

The simple and short answer is yes, I am more than happy to look at that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The ombudsman will play a huge part in making sure that all our services, notably the Army, now really do improve their statistics, but there are other measures that we need to introduce by way of legislation. The system needs to change, and I am confident that the sorts of proposals that Dr Atkins has come up with, many of which, if not all of them, I support, as do others, will make the sort of progress that we really now must see.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I add my thanks to Susan Atkins, who has done a great job in establishing the service complaints ombudsman. The Minister mentioned the ombudsman, and it was welcomed across the House when the Government announced that they would go down that route. Can the Minister tell me the exact time scale? Will legislative time be found in the next Session to ensure that the ombudsman is in place before the next general election?

[Anna Soubry]

I think we all know that I cannot say, even if I knew, whether any such legislative moves will be made in the Queen’s Speech.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Anna Soubry]

That is what I am told. If my hon. Friend is saying that it is not true, we will get it sorted out and we will find out. My information is that there have been two payments. He misses the point about the American system, which is that it is means-tested, while ours is not. I have made my point about Canada, where the scheme applied to 900 personnel involved in a clean-up after a radiation leak. I would therefore suggest that there is no comparison to be made in relation to nuclear test veterans.

On the science, my hon. Friend relies on one report, and I have made my comments about it. I rely on three reports, which have been done over many years, and I know of no one who challenges their findings.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being here earlier, but I was in another meeting. Does the Minister agree that the issue with the Rowland study, which I have read on several occasions, is that although it found radiation could, in some cases, cause chromosome abnormality, it did not—this is the important next step—show that those chromosomal changes led to cancer?

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing that information. That is another compelling argument in relation to the science.

I want to make it absolutely clear that it gives no one any pleasure to stand up and to have to talk about these things, because it sounds as if no one cares. On the contrary, those of us who do not agree with my hon. Friend and the £25 million fund that he advances do so not because we do not care, but because we know what the science says and because—I certainly take this view—we have to set this issue in the context of all our veterans, so that we do justice by everyone. We must always be careful not to be seen in any way to single out one group and put it above another.

I really take issue with the idea that we are somehow being shameful, or that we are in any way wrong, in our attitude to our nuclear test veterans. That is not the case. The existing scheme is good, fair and, arguably, generous, and it is one we should be proud of. Of course one could always argue that anyone in receipt of any form of compensation or benefit should have more, but what we have at the moment is fair and generous.

Let me come on to our scheme, because it is important to put on the record that any veteran who believes they have suffered ill health due to service has the right to apply for no-fault compensation. We therefore have a no-fault compensation scheme under the war pensions scheme. Where there is reliable evidence that disablement is due to service, a war pension is awarded, with the benefit of reasonable doubt always given to the claimant. Nuclear test veterans are no different, and war pensions are paid to claimants for disorders accepted in principle as being caused by radiation, where the evidence raises a reasonable doubt of service-related radiation exposure. In addition, awards are made automatically to nuclear test veterans who developed certain leukaemias within 25 years of participating in the tests. For some, therefore, there is an automatic entitlement, which is absolutely right. Again, that begins to move us up that so-called league table, if, as some would argue, such a table exists.

It should be noted, however, that in May this year the first-tier tribunal, the war pensions and armed forces compensation chamber, delivered a decision in a group action of 14 nuclear test veterans’ war pension appeals. The majority of the appeals were rejected. The tribunal found material exposure where appellants undertook work in forward areas or otherwise came into contact with radiation, but not in relation to the majority of the bystander appellants. The decisions of the tribunal support the MOD’s current policy relating to claims for a war pension made by nuclear test veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think that that is the strongest of cases. We know what the science tells us. If the view is advanced that the group of veterans in question—and I pay tribute to their service—should have the money just because they did that work on the country’s behalf, I can hear that being advanced by all manner of other veterans groups with equal force.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When I was a Minister, I authorised a settlement proposal, because in my opinion large amounts of public money should not be wasted on lawyers when the case could be settled without the question of liability. Unfortunately, the settlement that I authorised was rejected by the lawyers involved. I am sorry, but I think that it was the individual veterans’ best chance of getting a large amount of compensation. The figure stretched to several million pounds.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—there is no harm in my calling him that—who raises an important point, which has already been explored, quite properly. I was shocked by it. I do not know the details, but I have experience as a criminal barrister and know that every lawyer is under a duty to consult the client first. No lawyer ever makes the decision—although, apparently, in the case in question, very unusually, that was what happened. The client provides the instructions and makes the decision. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should talk about those events after the debate. I should like to know more.

I was talking about a case that went to the Court of Appeal, where the general merits of the claims were found to be extremely weak. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2012, on a majority decision, in favour of the MOD. Significantly, all the justices, even those dissenting, recognised that the veterans would face extreme difficulties proving causation. That brings us back to the science.

The MOD continues to recognise the concerns of nuclear test veterans—I am always prepared to listen and like to think that I have an open mind, although I have spoken frankly this afternoon. However, there is no medical or legal evidence to support calls for compensation of the veterans as a group—and I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay says about seeking a benevolent fund, not a compensation fund. Any veteran who believes that service has had an impact on their health can submit a war pension claim. Where the evidence supports their claim, we will provide financial compensation. However, recent legal cases have shown that the incidence of that is far lower than many veterans organisations claim.

The argument for a £25 million benevolent fund to compensate veterans and family members affected by ionising radiation is flawed. The UK’s existing health, social and welfare support for its citizens and the specific support for all veterans make it unnecessary. Indeed, when we consider the public investment in the NHS and in the social and welfare fields, it can be argued that the financial value of that support far exceeds the monetary value of any compensation payment that the Government would pay.

Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevan Jones

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I agree.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a first for this Government to determine policy by waiting to see what the Australians do. What time period will there be for the consultation? Has the Minister’s position on this issue, and that of her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), changed?

[Anna Soubry]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with waiting to see what happens with the introduction of the legislation in Australia. The hon. Gentleman knows that the aim of standardised packaging is to dissuade young people from taking it up.

[Mr Jones]

How long?

[Anna Soubry]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s first question first, after which I will move on to the next one. That is the aim of the introduction of standardised packaging. If a good experiment is up and running that will produce evidence, what could be a more sensible thing for Government to do? As to the length of time, I cannot answer that question, because we have to wait and see the evidence as it emerges. I thought that we might see some sort of change quite quickly in Australia, but we have not seen it yet; I am surprised about that. I am afraid it is a case of “How long is a piece of string?” We have to wait and see how the evidence emerges.