| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When I raised a point of order with you yesterday about the barbaric practice of shackling pregnant women, I inadvertently referred to the Home Secretary as "odious". Of course, I meant the practice, so I unreservedly withdraw the remark.
Madam Speaker: The House is grateful to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order with you on behalf of a number of my hon. Friends who have been in the House for a long time. May we have your guidance on the changing use of personal statements in this House? The Chair must find itself in a very difficult position when a senior Minister asks to make a personal statement-- by tradition and definition, a statement not subject to questions, to scrutiny or to challenge at the time of delivery.
As an hon. Member who has, alas, been required himself to make a personal statement, I know that the rules required a Back Bencher to grovel, and a Minister almost always to end up resigning from office. That was the quid pro quo for not being subject to challenge or to questions.
What the House witnessed yesterday was an exercise in self-justification, unchallenged and unchallengeable. If that happens again, the personal statement will become little more than a device for ministerial escape and an unlovely pouring of blame on to civil servants who cannot answer for themselves.
My complaint is the stronger because it would not occur to me to ask questions about women prisoners in England; but some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), tell me that they would have liked to ask questions.
Should not statements--especially truculently delivered statements--be open to question and not provide a ministerial escape route? This is a House of Commons point, not a party point.
Madam Speaker:
I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point in some detail. The House has, however, entrusted me with complete discretion as to whether to allow any Member to make a personal statement. I am quite satisfied that, in allowing the Minister of State, Home Office to give a personal explanation on one strictly circumscribed aspect of the matter in question about which she had previously misinformed the House, and to apologise to the House for so doing, I was not breaking any new ground.
What happened was, incidentally, fully in line with the new version of the document "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster explained to the House on 2 November last, at column 456. That requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. Nothing which occurred yesterday will prevent Members from pursuing the main issue, or indeed, if they wish, the subsidiary issue, by all parliamentary means available.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 25 May 1994, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made an unreserved apology to the House for misleading it over tabling amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In an extensive article in Sunday's edition of The Observer, she not only said that she did not understand why she had had to make an apology, but added that she had had nothing to apologise for. In the same article, she called into question your own involvement at that time.
Is that not discourteous to the Speaker, and is it not within the rights of the House to expect the hon. Lady, to whom I gave ample notice that I was raising this issue and who has just left the Chamber, to make a public apology in which she can explain to the House her change of attitude over the past 18 months on this very serious matter?
Madam Speaker:
I have not treated myself to reading the article in full. At the time in question, however, the hon. Lady was of course required by me to apologise to the House, and she did so. I said at the time that her behaviour
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the House divide on the use of the word "odious" by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) as regards the Home Secretary?
Madam Speaker:
Although I agree that that is a point of order for me, I would need a notice of motion on the Order Paper before allowing that suggestion to proceed.
Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Among today's questions to the Secretary of State for Health, I asked about the provision of NHS dentistry as a supplementary to a question about the increase of private provision in the health service. In a long answer, the Minister of State made absolutely no reference to dentistry at all. Is it in order for a Minister to abuse the procedures of the House and not to make any reference at all to the question asked? What action would you propose I take?
Madam Speaker:
As the hon. Lady knows, it is not for the Speaker to comment on Ministers' responses. They are responsible for the answers they give. I shall look carefully at the answer to which the hon. Lady has drawn my attention. She will notice that senior Ministers are sitting on the Government Front Bench, and I hope that they will also take note of her comments.
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
I beg to move,
In the autumn, the British Medical Association produced data which clearly showed that, if one takes the top 10 brands of cigarette advertised and compares the smoking habits of children and adults, three out of the four most heavily advertised brands also figure in statistics of the top four brands smoked by children aged between 11 and 14. It is clear that adults are much less sensitive to tobacco advertising than children. Adults are much more affected by price.
The other extremely pertinent figure showed that the top four brands smoked by children make up over three quarters of all the advertising done by tobacco companies within the United Kingdom. That is also more than those companies had advertised before.
It is now unarguable that tobacco advertising and smoking by children are linked. They are linked in a way which I hope that the Government will accept should be worrying for them. By their own figures, their "The Health of the Nation" targets are not being reached, and attempts to reduce smoking by children are failing. Indeed, smoking by children and young people is going up rather than down. For the first time in over 10 years, over 10 per cent. of teenagers are smoking. The increase in smoking by girls and young women should give the House particular cause to reflect on what we can do about it.
This issue has come before the House several times before, and as long ago as 1965 we agreed that there should be a ban on television advertising. Subsequently, it was agreed that there should be a ban on radio advertising of tobacco products. We should now ban advertising on hoardings or through promotion, particularly by sponsorship of sporting events.
I am happy to approach this in a reasonable manner and say that the legislation could be for a temporary and trial period in order to prove the case--five or 10 years, properly monitored by all those with an interest. The interest is not simply to make a case against the tobacco companies, but to win the argument about protecting the health of vulnerable young people.
It is clear that tobacco sponsorship of sport is a particularly insidious form of advertising. I am a keen follower of sport. I believe that sport should be well promoted and I support the Prime Minister's initiative to promote it, particularly among young people and across the four nations of the United Kingdom. However, research has shown that children as young as six associate brands such as--I will name them--John Player Special and Marlboro, both of which sponsor motor racing, with excitement and fast racing cars.
It is interesting that the images that young children associate with certain brands must have been gleaned from sponsorship of sporting events; that is increasing, with the growing amount of sporting sponsorship by tobacco companies.
Tobacco companies are honest about it. They do not pretend that it is a matter of selfless corporate generosity. Somebody from Gallaher said recently:
A spokesman from Rothmans said:
There is not a huge amount of tobacco money involved in sports sponsorship--£10 million out of about
£250 million. There is no real concern that sponsors could not be found elsewhere. When sponsorship has been sought among other sponsors for sporting events, it has been found and the market has plenty of people willing to take the place of the tobacco companies.
Another unsatisfactory fact is that, although there is supposed to be a law banning the sale of cigarettes to those under 16, in reality it is not working. We all know that, and nobody deludes himself otherwise. A properly monitored and controlled survey carried out last year showed that almost two thirds of young people who had tried to buy cigarettes when they were under the legal age said that they had never been refused. Only 143 people were prosecuted in the last year for which figures are available, and only 85 were fined. In reality, there is very little monitoring or enforcement.
I am not naive about this. I know that three things significantly influence tobacco smoking by young people: adult activity, especially by parents; peer group pressure; and advertising. The second is largely the result of the third: peer group pressure often comes indirectly from advertising. Anyone with children who make demands for trainers and designer tops and clothes will know that demand is much more often led not by instinct but by advertising.
Yesterday, the British Medical Association published the British Medical Bulletin, which I commend to the House. It included a considerable number of expert articles edited by people eminent in their fields, which bear out my argument. In particular, it bears out the fact that advertising is one of the ways in which children with low esteem, who are often from backgrounds where smoking is more prevalent, pick up the habit early on.
I do not come to this subject from a nanny state view, or believe that there should be restrictions on adults who smoke. I do not shoo out of my house people who smoke. I do not take a purist or rigorous attitude. However, in respect of young people, for whom we all have a responsibility, the issue is different.
The reason why advertising is so important is because of the clear, unarguable impact on the young. Five out of six people who become regular, adult smokers have begun smoking by the age of 15. The tobacco industry spends about £100 million or more a year on advertising. Expenditure on health promotion to discourage smoking is under £10 million.
That imbalance produces young people who become hooked on what is--there is no dispute in the House about this--the largest single preventable cause of death in the United Kingdom. More than one third of middle-aged deaths are smoking-related, and in many places lung cancer has replaced breast cancer as the most common form of the disease, especially among young women.
Last night, we had an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) argued that there should be much better publicity for the health risks of Ecstasy; and so there should. Ten people are known to have died in the past year from Ecstasy; 100,000 people have died from tobacco-related disease. It is hypocritical and inconsistent to say that something should be done about Ecstasy, but that we are happy as a nation to go on allowing the tobacco industry, for its own benefit, to promote something to which young people become addicted and which could, or will, kill them.
"fell below the standards that the House is entitled to expect".--[Official Report, 25 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 342.]
I think that my comments at that time were most pertinent.
That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2869) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 3000) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
3.38 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect children, young people and others from the harmful effects of tobacco by restricting the advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and tightening existing legislation on enforcement of illegal sales to minors; and for connected purposes.
"Sports sponsorship is a form of advertising which enables us to introduce glamour and excitement."
"No one hands over big cheques just to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |