| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 962
so doing. I hope that the Government will consider the case carefully and that, where appropriate, the DBRW will also be asked for assistance.10.20 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : I have the pleasure of living within the catchment area of Mid Wales Development. I have resided there all my life. George Borrow, a well-known Englishman who travelled Wales from north to south many decades ago said, on passing through our village :
"This is an area where men will live when crows will die". I have had the privilege to live in a part of Wales which I am so proud.
I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in their deliberations to say thank you for the excellent work done by Mid Wales Development over the years. I remember the early 1950s when it all came about. A few county councillors from Cardigan, Montgomery, Meirionnydd, Brecon and Radnor got together because they were worried about the rate of depopulation from mid-Wales. Many young people were leaving and I remember one alderman getting up in the county council and saying, "I remember the turn of the century when the population of Cardiganshire was at its highest. Here we are 50 years later, and the population is dwindling." I am delighted that, 40 years later, mid-Wales is thriving. That is due to the excellent work of those pioneers who thought to set up a development board for rural Wales.
We have made a few mistakes. I do not blame the Tory Government of the early 1970s or the Labour Government of the late 1960s. The Bill concerning the rural development board that was introduced by the Labour Government in the 1960s was intended to ensure that agriculture came under the remit of the DBRW.
Unfortunately, the Bill went too far and an element of compulsion was introduced. For example, a farmer who wanted to sell a piece of land or his farm had to gain permission of the chairman of the development board. Many of us fought hard against that incursion on the liberties of the individual. We won our case, rightly so, in 1969. I am sure that that problem was an oversight by the then Labour Government. The Tory Government of 1970 decided to abolish the previous legislation. In the late 1970s a new Bill was introduced by the then Labour Government and accepted. We are by now united in our belief that the board has done excellent work.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to agriculture and I believe that the Government and the Secretary of State should take another look at the board's remit, which should include agriculture within the catchment area of mid-Wales. Mid-Wales has been transformed. Let us imagine what would have happened to our language, culture and economy if we had not had the board in mid-Wales. If we are all so committed to the Development Board for Rural Wales and the excellent work of the Welsh Development Agency, so complimentary of the Welsh Office and want to see all those organisations flourish, we should all be united in our deliberations. If those organisations are doing such excellent work for the people of Wales, we should have a Welsh Assembly to ensure that they all get together to look after the interests of the Welsh people.
To be fair to him, the Secretary of State is a good Welshman, as is the shadow Secretary of State, the hon.
Column 963
Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has Wales at heart. They should get together and think seriously of bringing forward proposals as good as those suggested by our forefathers for the development of rural Wales, so that, by the turn of the century, we can have our own Parliament run by our own people to look after our own interests.10.26 pm
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : While the Bill simply raises the legal limits on the financing of the Development Board for Rural Wales, it does not, of itself, give new money. It is right and proper that it should be seized on as an opportunity to discuss the Government's strategies towards rural Wales.
There have been several useful contributions to tonight's debate, not least that of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who emphasised the unity of purpose and aspiration that exists in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and others rightly referred to the importance of public transport.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), while sounding like an express train without tracks, illustrated the confusion and despair that arise at times of industrial closure. He should address his strictures to the guilty men in the Cabinet who have been responsible for this country's economic plight. The reply to his crocodile tears was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who highlighted the fact that a new Prime Minister moves into No. 10 Downing street as the country moves into a recession which he has helped to create. The effect of that recession on the rural economy has been, and will be, devastating, and we cannot ignore that in the context of tonight's debate.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) rightly highlighted the need for a balance of ages in the communities of rural Wales and his suggestions about the support of family farms and the place of tourism in the economy of rural Wales were constructive and should be followed up. I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to those comments.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) contained much that was unexceptionable. He appears to have time to attend the Monet exhibition as well as lecturing in Scotland and was as petty as ever in his references to the Labour party. He should have more confidence in my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) as well as the imminence of a Labour Government who would certainly not only retain the Development Board for Rural Wales established by a previous Labour Government, but provide the proper economic and social framework within which its work will be greatly enhanced. If he has any doubts about the future of the board, I suggest that he checks the Government's intentions. There is certainly no doubt of the Labour party's intentions, but he is always kinder to the Conservative party than to the Labour party. I welcomed the Secretary of State's remarks about the importance of close co- operation between all the organisations involved. I hope that he will take that policy wider than he did in his introduction. He also spoke of sustaining communities in the most vulnerable districts and the high proportion of elderly people in the rural
Column 964
communities, which requires the Government, as well as improving the economy, to give resources to the social infrastructure. The Secretary of State also spoke about the importance of agriculture. Research by economists at Aberystwyth suggests that Britain could lose about 12,000 jobs in agriculture and another 12, 000 in related employment. That underlines the importance of the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales in stimulating other sectors of the rural economy to create compensating employment opportunities. The development of high-tech industries which can operate in rural areas brings opportunities but also brings a need for adequate training. The rural areas face difficulties about such training because of failures throughout the economy.As the Secretary of State said, the board has adopted a smaller scale and more diffuse approach. He called it the western approach. The board also encourages a more economically self-sustaining approach. That is important because, as Trawsfynydd reminds us, large-scale industries in rural areas can have a distorting and destabilising effect on the rural economy.
A recent House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities report makes strong reference to the need for coherence in planning. In its conclusion the report refers to the Development Board for Rural Wales and states that it is one of three United Kingdom bodies which
"have proved successful in promoting diversification of the rural economy and remain the proper vehicles through which to channel public support for rural economy and social development." I emphasise the words "and social development" and I shall return to them.
The report also states :
"The Government should provide broad strategic guidance on the way in which the countryside should develop. Without such guidance rural policies will continue to suffer from lack of integration, lack of targeting and an imbalance in resource allocation . There is a need for greater institutional coordination at local level".
Hon Members will be aware of concern about the lack of a coherent approach to marina developments in Wales. I highlight that as an example of an area where the Secretary of State should build in greater co-operation and adopt a slightly wider approach than he showed in his speech. He will be aware that the Countryside Commission report for 1990 speaks of the importance of a policy for marinas. It states :
"It is essential to develop policy in this area, in response to the burgeoning number of proposals received."
It is an example of one form of development which needs a coherent approach.
As a result of pressure, over the past 18 months the Wales Tourist Board brought together the statutory bodies and local authorities. It did that with the public blessing of the Minister of State, Welsh Office who commented favourably on that co-ordinated approach. I am delighted that he did so. Nine months of discussion resulted in a statement of policy being drawn up, and that is to the advantage of development and conservation alike. A strategic all-Wales approach instead of a sporadic approach is precisely what is needed in this and in approaches to other forms of development and planning. I understand that the report was ready at Easter but that the Welsh Development Agency declined to sign the statement that was drawn up, even though it was involved in the whole process. I understand that they obtained
Column 965
concessions for their point of view, which is the whole point of a consultative process. I also understand that no clear and public explanation has been given for that refusal to sign.The Secretary of State and his colleagues should ensure that the statement is published as soon as possible. They should urge the chairmen of the two bodies to appreciate that they need to become involved as full parties in the process. The Secretary of State should reaffirm the Government's support for this process and he should tell us how the Welsh Office will ensure a sustainable and sensitive strategy that can be implemented with authority and not just left as an aspiration which can be shelved and ignored in the development of future policies.
I am pleased that many professional bodies are increasingly willing to look outside their own narrow or special interests. For example, but for today's debate I would have been speaking to the conference of the Association of Countryside Rangers which this year meets in Wales. Its conference concentrates on new roles in the community of the countryside and the strengthening of links between communities and their surroundings. As well as ideas for looking at working and needs of communities and practical projects, it is trying to develop "a wider appreciation of the network of agencies and individuals involved in countryside care and how to build working relationships with them."
That is wise and practical, and it is the approach that the Government must urge on their agencies. However, these issues of conservation and development can be resolved only if a partnership approach is made unavoidable. That should involve not only farmers, conservationists and landowners sitting down together to work out policy approaches, but residents, local authorities, developers, development corporations and Government Departments.
That is too uncomfortable an interface to be achieved on a voluntary basis, except in the most unusual of circumstances because most of the groups mentioned will avoid the difficult bits of co-operation if they can, on the understandable and reasonable ground that they are too busy getting on with the job to spend the time, unless they are assured of proper results that will mean something to everybody involved, leading to coherent, long-term approaches to the countryside.
We look to the Secretary of State for an assurance that he will not take short cuts or easy ways so that development in the countryside looks dynamic, while ignoring the views and voices of everybody involved. That warning is necessary because the Government have gone down that road, and the experience of several urban development corporations in England proved the dangers that can arise if development is encouraged in isolation from the interests of the community.
In respect of the community and the responsibilities for the social infrastructure, I emphasise the importance of the health service to economic development. This has been stressed to me by people in mid-Wales when I have had discussions with them. There is evidence that it is a consideration for firms considering relocation. Mid-Wales has the hospital at Bronglais in Aberystwyth, and certain issues about the hospital service in the eastern part of mid-Wales need to be addressed. There are problems if people have to look over the border to England for their
Column 966
hospitals services, or to the extreme western point of mid-Wales, Aberystwyth, for their treatment. This is especially true when treatment has to be over a considerable time, and that is again related to transport problems.Community care is extremely important, and we shall be entering difficult times in this because of the delay in its implementation. These problems will hit urban areas, but they will be writ large in rural areas because of communications and the demographic changes to which several hon. Members have referred. Education, training and public transport are all part of the pattern, but I underline the fact that the DBRW has a responsibility for social development. The difficulty comes in how that responsibility is discharged, and what finances will be available to it. In a budget of nearly £20 million, there will be a reduction in the statutory authority social grant over the next few years.
It is interesting to contrast what happened in the last year or two with what happened under the last Labour Government. The latest annual report, for 1988-89, like all Government publications, is a rather more flashy document than its predecessors, but in it the chairman refers to
"improved social facilities that accompany and depend on economic development."
Up to a point, that is true, but social facilities do not depend on economic development. As I have already said, economic development depends on social infrastructure. The statement in the accounts reflects a pious claim for business growth to be
"supported by a corresponding growth in social opportunities." The board's social policy cannot match that aspiration with the sums of money available. It is nonsense to suggest that the DBRW can compensate for the ills of Government policy.
Genuine social infrastructure work and the development of community facilities are needed, not just by means of grants to the village halls and small community facilities, but by means of help for the social infrastructure. Perhaps that should be from the work of other Government agencies and perhaps it should be developed by the DBRW. Either way, it needs to be developed. I stress again the interdependency of policies for development and policies for society as a whole.
I contrast that with the first annual report which was presented to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), which made strong reference to social development powers--much stronger than has been the case in subsequent reports. It said :
"The board's task is one of social as well as economic development."
The expenditure in that year was £250,000 in the first year's part- year budget--very significant in comparison with the £6 million which was the second year budget, when that element of the board's spending rose to nearly £1 million, £996,941 in the first two years. Therefore, despite the growth in the budget, there has been a real cut and a cut in the percentage of the budget in respect of the social and social infrastructure responsibilities of the DBRW. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside with a breakdown of where the finances will go within the board's work, will the Secretary of State tell
Column 967
us how much will go to address the social infrastructure of the rural areas and where his other policies will pull in resources to that end?Finally, I underline again that successive Conservative Governments have steadily eroded the planning system in Britain, which has particular importance in rural Wales. I appeal to the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to halt that process. Structure plans and local plans have been replaced by strategic guidance and unitary development plans. But the guidance is neither strategic nor particularly useful to local authorities seeking to reconcile the demands of their communities and wider regional and national priorities. It is not good enough for the Government to take a short-term view, following market demands and neglecting the important task of long-term planning.
I ask the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to avoid the worst of this by ensuring that the DBRW takes a co-operative approach in which development is sensitive to the community and to the environment, and to give us an assurance that the Government's resources and the policies that he operates in the Welsh Office will complement community development as a whole as well as seeking new jobs for the rural communities of Wales.
10.42 pm
Mr. David Hunt : This has been an interesting debate with some excellent contributions. I think that we have had nine speeches and several interventions, and we have covered a lot of ground. We have managed to cover care in the community and the health service as well as education, social services and all the other aspects of life in Wales.
But our prime purpose has been the DBRW, and one thing that has come across --I am delighted that it has--is the respect and admiration that we all have for the work of all those involved in the board and the illustrious predecessors of Glyn Davies in Leslie Morgan and the late Emrys Roberts. A number of tributes have been paid and I thank hon. Members for their kind words about the board's work. We are proud of the tremendous commitment of all those involved. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked me about figures. With regard to the special rural action programme, the areas covered by the additional £1 million for that programme include, first, workshops and enterprise centres ; secondly, enterprise stimulation, which includes local business expansion schemes, workshop promotion, training, branded farmgate shop schemes, practical research and work with schools and industry ; and, thirdly, social, which includes community agents and special rural social development, with emphasis on improved quality of life and increased access to facilities. The precise allocations will be decided by the board according to the priorities that it determines.
The hon. Gentleman knows the way in which the board currently allocates its resources. One main area is running costs and salaries, fees and charges for professional services, computer and estate management, research, promotion and publicity--which amount to more than £5 million. Capital expenditure on land, factories and other construction amounts to £1.3 million in the current year. Construction and site works, particularly in respect of
Column 968
advanced factories, amounts to nearly £6 million. Grants to discretionary and public bodies, and cultural and welfare services total nearly £2 million.The hon. Gentleman asked about the north-south link, and made what I like to think was an affectionate acknowledgement of the troubles that I am experiencing in travelling between north and south Wales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State--and to his travels--and to the sharp focus that he has brought to the importance of making improvements all the time through imaginative schemes. Significant improvements have already been made to the A483 and the A470, and other schemes already under construction include the Llanidloes bypass and the Felinfach-Brecon bypass improvement, which will continue to upgrade those routes.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who raised a number of important issues--one of which was mentioned by several other hon. Members. I refer to the synergy with the Welsh Development Agency. We are particularly fortunate that support for rural development is provided by my Department and a number of other public agencies under the wing of the Welsh Office, such as the WDA and Welsh tourist board, as well as the Development Board for Rural Wales.
The WDA recently published a policy document, entitled "Rural Prosperity", and the proposals detailed in that publication will help to achieve further improvements in the prosperity of, and quality of life in, those rural communities for which the WDA has
responsibility. I make particular reference to the words of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). It is important to realise the seriousness with which the WDA takes its responsibilities for those parts of rural Wales for which it has particular obligations.
The creation of a rural affairs division in the WDA is a worthwhile and welcome development, and shows clearly that the agency is cognisant of the unique problems and challenges of rural areas. That innovation will help to provide the right impetus in holding back the drift of young people to the big cities, by providing them with high-quality jobs within their own communities.
Like the development board, the WDA will work closely with local authorities and local people in those initiatives. It is that synergy that will make such schemes successful. To ensure further success, I stress the need--as did my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn--for people and organisations, public and private, to work closely together. I am confident that that will be the case, which will ensure greater achievements.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Laura Ashley. If there are points that I am unable to cover in the time available, I shall of course respond in much more detail to hon. Members in correspondence. My hon. Friend mentioned boundaries, as did the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. Although as Secretary of State for Wales I have power, by virtue of section 1(2) of the main Act, to extend the board's boundaries, until now it has always been considered that it would not be right to do so. I recall that the issue was studied by the financial management review in 1986, and it concluded that any extension to the board's territory would merely dilute its efficiency and resources. We must always bear in mind how important it is to focus, and to have a focus. However, the question of extending the territory of the Development Board for Rural Wales is,
Column 969
and will be, kept under continual review, and I shall arrange for it to be reconsidered as part of the board's financial and management policy review in 1991.The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) raised some important issues, and quoted a number of important statistics. The only trouble was that they differed from some of the statistics that I quoted. Before I comment further on that, I should like time to reflect on the derivation of his statistics and to verify my own. I believe that mine were correct. He raised a number of important points, and I should like to respond to him in due course. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) mentioned a problem which is hidden in the statistics--unemployed young people. That was a very important point. He also raised the question whether the Development Board for Rural Wales should have a more specific project for abattoir provision. I have spoken to the chairman of the board, and I know that it recognises the strategic importance of approved abattoirs come 1992. However, it has no current plans under way to develop an abattoir in mid-Wales. The hon. Gentleman referred to the application at Three Cocks, Brecon. That application for an integrated meat processing plant at Three Cocks was submitted by the DBRW in 1989. Subsequently it had to be withdrawn, as the landowner was unwilling to sell. I know that the board is willing to respond positively to any approach from an operator.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) asked about the future of the DBRW. We should not bring forward this legislation if it were not clear that the board has a future, and there are no plans whatsoever to alter the present statutory arrangements for the agencies in Wales. They are doing an excellent job. Very committed people operate within them, and I see no reason to disturb the arrangements. However, I hope that he recognises that it is necessary continually to review their functioning and operation to ensure that they deliver an efficient and effective service within their remit. As for the nuclear power station, the problem is several years away, but the north-west Wales training and enterprise council is already starting exploratory discussions with the industry about possible retraining of workers, and I think that that is a proper way to deal with the matter.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that I know that the DBRW recognises that its remit does not cover agriculture, because that is a matter for the Department of Agriculture within the Welsh Office. However, the role of agriculture is significant in a rural area such as ours. The board has told me that it seeks to build other businesses to help to ensure alternative jobs for those who might previously have formed the agricultural work force. I am reassured that the board is intensifying and focusing its efforts to find ways of adding value to existing agricultural production and to funding alternative work.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made several points about railways and rail links. I am not going to duck out of answering his points, but I shall arrange for them to be brought to the attention of those specifically involved and my right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Transport.
Column 970
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn spoke of Welsh Lamb Enterprise. As I said yesterday at the winter fair, it is important for the industry to support Welsh Lamb Enterprise and for all farmers to pay the levy. I hope that the initiatives that we have announced will enable us to focus in a more specific way, particularly at international fairs, on the quality of Welsh produce and to get across the clear message that if one buys Welsh food and produce, one buys quality. Quality means a great deal in today's markets.The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made a series of points. I am not sure that it would be a good idea to answer all of them now, but I shall deal with a couple. I recently met representatives of the Wales tourist board and the issue of the marina review group was raised. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in May 1989 the Wales tourist board, with the Welsh Development Agency, set up the marina review group, or, as some would prefer it to be known, the harbour redevelopment review group. It included representatives of the WDA, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Sports Council for Wales, the National Rivers Authority, the national park authorities, the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly--I stress that word to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North--of Welsh Counties.
On reading the list of bodies involved, one might be a little troubled about whether agreement would be reached because many interests are represented. I am aware that it is proving difficult to come up with a policy that is acceptable to all the participating bodies. That is a matter for the group members. I have made the members of the Wales tourist board aware that I await the outcome of the group's deliberations with great interest. Obviously we would like some form of agreement to be reached.
Mr. Michael : Will the Secretary of State reassure me? Does he agree that it is important for the development bodies to participate fully and to reconcile the interests of development, conservation and the other bodies to which he referred? I accept that perfection is difficult to achieve, but the process needs all the organisations to engage in an attempt to find an appropriate way forward.
Mr. Hunt : I dare say that if I were to receive a note from somewhere, it would tell me to be extremely careful about how I respond. I have planning responsibilities that I have to exercise in a quasi-judicial capacity. When we are talking about a set of strategic policy principles on marina developments in Wales, I must be careful. As I said, it is a matter for the group members, but I await the result of the deliberations with great interest. On social policy, I agree with several of the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. If one examines the purpose of a Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, one sees that it is vital to seek every possible way of strengthening communities. If we allow communities to weaken, it puts pressure on all the infrasture, social and otherwise. That is why social policy is important. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that when I consider overall policy I shall bear his comments in mind.
Column 971
A range of issues has been raised in the context of an important Bill that extends the limit for the Development Board for Rural Wales, and I commend its proposals to the House.Question put and agreed to .
Bill read a Second time .
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mr. David Hunt.]
Column 972
DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR RURAL WALES BILL [MONEY] Queen's Recommendation having been signified --
Resolved ,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Development Board for Rural Wales Bill, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of money provided by Parliament, the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund resulting from the increase to £175 million of the limit specified in section 12 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976.-- [Mr. David Hunt.]
Column 973
Tobacco Products (Advertising)11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : I beg to move
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6071/90 on the advertising of tobacco products and the supplementary explanatory memoranda submitted by the Department of Health on 19 July 1990 and 26th October 1990.
The document proposes a system of statutory regulation of tobacco advertising in the press and on poster displays. The formal proposal was set out by the Commission in a draft directive published on 26 April, the main contents of which would achieve three purposes : first, it would require, by law, that all advertisements in the press and on posters should contain a health warning ; secondly, it prescribes in article 3 that the content of the advertisement should simply be a representation of the package of the tobacco product ; and, thirdly, it would require, again by law, that no tobacco advertisement should appear in a publication designed for distribution to a readership of under-18s.
Since the original directive was tabled by the Commission, some amendments have been proposed, particularly to article 3, which specifies that an advertisement could take the form of only a representation of a cigarette package. The effect of the amendments were described in the supplementary explanatory memorandum dated 26 October which was issued by my noble Friend Baroness Hooper. I should like to give the House a few more details of the revised approach, which is now proposed on an informal basis, to the type of advertisement that would be allowed under the proposed formulation. The revised draft--it is not yet an official proposal from the Commission, which is why it has not been presented formally to the House--would require that advertising should comply with the following rules : first, that it should not be aimed specifically at young people nor depicit heroes, personalities or situations likely to attract young people ; secondly, it should not link the consumption of tobacco products with physical prowess ; thirdly, it should not create the impression that the consumption of tobacco products contributes to social or sexual success ; fourthly, it should not claim that tobacco products have therapeutic qualities or that tobacco is a stimulant, a sedative or a means of resolving personal conflicts ; fifthly, it should not present abstinence or a desire to stop or moderate the consumption of tobacco products in a negative light ; and, sixthly, it should not place emphasis on tar or nicotine content as being a positive quality of the product.
Those regulations would replace the requirement in the original draft that a tobacco advertisment could take the form of only a representation of the cigarette package. If the Commission tabled that alternative formulation of article 3, the revised draft directive would much more closely correspond with the approach of our voluntary code on tobacco advertising.
Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North) : I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend because I am sure that we realise the significance of his points about the way in which advertising should be presented. Does he agree with me about the fundamental flaw in the original and the amended drafts? It is not so much the question of how
Column 974
advertising should be presented in different countries as the fact that it is nonsense to suggest harmonisation of advertising when the ownership and operation of tobacco companies varies from a free enterprise economy in one country to a Government monopoly in another.Mr. Dorrell : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with that specific point later. I have described the amendment to the original draft directive which it is expected the Commission may be willing to table. It would move from a system of regulation based on describing the type of advertisement that is acceptable towards a system of describing the type of advertisement that is unacceptable, which more closely corresponds with our voluntary code. To the extent that the revised form of article 3 brings the draft more closely into line with our voluntary code, we regard it is an improvement, but substantial objections to the Commission's approach remain. The first objection to the Commission's approach is simple and is based on the Government's doubt about the basis on which the Commission is introducing the proposal. One need not be committed to any dogma to ask, if someone wishes to impose a new obligation or to restrict an activity, on what legal authority that regulation is being introduced. The Commission claims that the directive is being introduced on the basis of article 100A of the treaty, which is directed towards removing barriers to trade and the completion of the internal market.
I do not believe that the Commission can, in truth, maintain the argument that the directive is based on article 100A and can be justified on those terms. That claim is bogus for two reasons. First, even if the directive is accepted and implemented throughout the Community, we will not have created an internal market with the same rules in force throughout the Community. The directive specifically envisages the possibility of two different regimes governing tobacco advertising--the possibility of a ban in some countries and regulations that satisfy the directive in others. It would not create an internal market. On that basis alone, the Commission's claim to justify the directive under article 100A fails.
Secondly, one must be pragmatic and ask whether the Commission can justify introducing a directive under article 100A to remove barriers to trade in terms of any improvement in trade that would follow. We are talking about a directive which is designed to remove a supposed barrier to trade in the printed word. To justify that approach, the Commission would have to show that there was an existing barrier to trade, based on different advertising practices covering tobacco products.
I do not believe that the Commission could show that that is a significant inhibition on the trade in printed journals. The United Kingdom press circulates freely in Italy, although there is in force in Italy a total ban on the advertising of tobacco products. It is not an effective inhibition of trade in the Community. Even the most convinced supporter of the Commission's approach must recognise that by far the most important inhibition of trade in the printed word is not different advertising regimes, but the fact that most Community countries speak different languages from their neighbours. I do not think, therefore, that the Commission can justify the proposal on the ground that it removes trade barriers--which is the only basis on which it can justify introducing the directive under article 100A.
Column 975
I am forced to conclude that the real reason has nothing to do with removing trade barriers, and nothing to do with the substance of article 100A, but is connected with the Commission's ambitions relating to health and social policy. Let me explain why the Government do not accept its approach. First, the Commission clearly has no competence to direct any member state on issues of health and social policy : indeed, it has said explicitly that it embraces the principle that it calls subsidiarity, and recognises that health policy is properly a matter for national rather than Community decision-making. But even if we put that argument aside and consider the issue on its merits rather than the legalities, the Commission's approach to introducing statutory controls on tobacco advertising is misconceived. I believe that the evidence shows this country's voluntary arrangement to achieve health policy objectives more effectively.One reason why our approach is more effective is that all the principles that would restrict the type of advertising that would be allowed under article 3 are already in force under our voluntary code, and we also apply additional restrictions. It would be impossible to design a statutory framework that would allow the introduction of such restrictions in the legalistic language that the statute requires. We have, for example, an agreement with the industry that poster advertising should be allowed only up to 50 per cent. of the 1980 level of spend. The industry has agreed to impose that restriction on itself ; but I challenge anyone to frame it in language that would satisfy parliamentary draftsmen or, indeed, the House were it to be submitted as a legislative proposal.
In the same terms, our existing voluntary code restricts the right--that is, the industry voluntarily restricts its own right--to advertise tobacco near schools. Those are two examples of self-imposed restrictions that are not encompassed in the statutory code suggested by the Commission.
I do not want to rely entirely on assertion. Let us examine the record of the different approaches to tobacco advertising in the Community. I do not think that it is merely coincidence that the two Community countries that have achieved the biggest reduction in cigarette consumption over the period between 1975 and 1987 are two of the countries that tackle the problem with voluntary agreements. Over those 12 years, the United Kingdom experienced a 29 per cent reduction ; the Netherlands, which also operates a voluntary agreement, experienced a reduction of 41 per cent.
That is the record of voluntary agreements. However, not one of the four countries of the Community which have imposed or proposed a ban on advertising or consumption recorded a fall in consumption. In all the four countries there was growth in consumption over the four years when we saw a 29 per cent. reduction and the Dutch saw one of 41 per cent. Over the same period consumption increased by 7 per cent. in Portugal, 5 per cent. in France, 8 per cent. in Italy and 11 per cent. in Spain. Track records do not support the assertion of those who suggest that the more heavy-handed legalistic approach is a more effective way of securing our health policy objectives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) suggested, there is an interesting correlation between the four countries to which I have referred. Each one has imposed a ban on advertising, or proposes to do so, but each has an effective state monopoly of production.
Column 976
There is no local production that is not state-owned. The evidence shows that a total ban is ineffective, and the fact that such a ban is imposed or proposed only in countries where cigarette production is effectively a state monopoly must raise questions about the bona fides of the basis on which their Governments support a legalistic ban on advertising.At the Council of Ministers meeting next Monday we shall oppose the proposals, even if they are submitted in their amended form. First, we do not believe that they can be justified as measures to liberalise trade. We do not accept that any inhibitions to trade arise from the printed word. We do not believe, therefore, that the Commission has competence to tell us, on health policy grounds, to introduce the restrictions. Leaving aside competence, we believe that the evidence demonstrates that we have been presented with an undesirable way of approaching the problem on health policy grounds. 11.18 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : The Minister's speech was disappointing, because it did not sound in any respect like one that should be made by a health Minister. We are, of course, dealing with an important issue of public health. The Minister said that one of the key considerations is the legal authority that the directive purports to introduce. Surely the key consideration is whether it is a good idea to restrict or even ban the advertising of tobacco. It is not one of constitutional niceties, which is what detained the Minister and concerned him throughout his speech.
The Minister referred to why other European countries support the measure and sought to pick holes in their records. I have two criticisms on that score. First, the question for us is whether it is a good idea to support the measure. Secondly, I question the relevance of relating advertising and smoking levels in a vacuum. Surely we should relate also price and health education, for example, which have an effect on the consumption of tobacco. I think that the Minister trivialised the complexity of the factors that bear on whether people smoke tobacco. It might have suited the Minister's case, but it is a pity that he began the debate on that basis. This is not- -or should not be--a party political matter. No doubt some Opposition Members disagree with our party policy on this matter and no doubt many Conservative Members who are waiting to speak will disagree with the Government's approach. The most important aspect of the directive is that it would replace the United Kingdom voluntary agreement with a legal system of controls. It does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
We need to move on from the constitutional niceties and remind ourselves of the background to the directive. The dangers of smoking have not always been known. One can go round hospitals and see people who are now terminally ill because they became addicted to smoking when tobacco was given out as part of their naval rations. One can also meet people with chronic bronchitis who remember being given a cigarette at the surgery by their general practitioner to help them to relax.
Although the dangers of smoking have not always been known, they are known now. The trouble is that public policy lags behind scientific knowledge and public opinion on this issue. Both smoking and non-smoking parents alike do not want their children to begin to smoke and 80
Column 977
per cent. of those who currently smoke have tried to give up and would like to give up. I do not know who the Minister thinks that he is defending with his constitutional niceties except the tobacco industry--Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) rose--
| Next Section
| Home Page |