European Standing Committee B
Tuesday 2 December 1997
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
Tobacco Advertising
10.30 am
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It has been the experience of the Committee that papers have arrived rather late from time to time, and there have been complaints about that on every occasion. However, we have never previously received a paper so late as this--one of signal importance, the regulatory appraisal, has arrived on the morning of the sitting. Is it in order for the Committee to consider a paper that has arrived this late?
The Chairman: The provision of papers is a matter for the Government, but I understand that the paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred was placed in the Vote Office, as well as being made available here this morning.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. With regard to the Amsterdam treaty protocol and the role of national Parliaments, the Select Committee made it clear that it is essential that national Parliaments be given adequate and proper time in which to consider such important directives. It is absolutely clear that we have not been given the documents in time, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has made clear with respect to the regulatory appraisal.
In addition, we do not even know whether the text before the Committee is official and authorised. There have been switches and turns all the way down the line. There has been a continuous--
The Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. What is a matter for the Chair is that the documents to be considered by the Committee have been made available and are in the Room. The Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. She may refer to it and, if she does, I shall consider her in order.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. Of course you are right that the documents are available in the Room, but I must tell the Minister that that is just not acceptable. This decision is one of the most important that the Government have made and it is a matter of enormous public controversy. It is not acceptable for the documents to have been put in the Vote Office, presumably late last night, so that most members of the Committee have been unable to
get them until this morning.
The Chairman: That is an interesting point, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
10.32 am
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I welcome the opportunity to debate this important proposal. I should make it clear that when the House first considered the directive of 1992, an explanatory memorandum was prepared that included detailed estimated costs of implementation. The papers were circulated on receipt of the latest text, which was tabled by the presidency on Friday, together with further information for the convenience of members of the Committee and to elucidate on the mat
ter. It is a bit rich for the Opposition to complain about papers that they claim they received too late, when they blocked the directive from 1989 until they lost the general election earlier this year.
The Government have taken seriously the opportunity provided by this important piece of harmonising legislation. I want to restate why we support the directive and, in that context, be clear about the ends. Through the single market provisions of the treaty, the directive creates the possibility of a European-wide ban on tobacco advertising. The Government support that because smoking is the single greatest avoidable threat to the health of people in Britain. In particular, we are anxious about the increas
ed prevalence of smoking among young people. One in three 15-year-old girls in Britain are established smokers--that is the great inheritance from the previous Government.
A ban on tabacco advertising is necessary as part of a series of measures to combat smoking. All the evidence from countries that have introduced bans on tabacco advertising suggests that unless tabacco advertising is banned, consumptin is not reduced. The policy attracts strong public support. More than 60 per cent. of people surveyed said that they were in favour of the Government's action on the matter. That is why our manifesto pledged us to ban tobacco advertising. An opportunity to ban it has been on
the table since 1989. As I made clear, that opportunity was blocked by the previous Government, who gave a series of progressively pathetic justifications. This Government's serious determination to combat smoking has lead to the reopening of serious negotiation with other member states--our European partners.
The Government have a clear position, which we have had since we started renegotiating the directive. We have sought to reconcile our commitment to ban tobacco advertising and so reduce cigarette consumption with our determination to protect those sports that, over the years, have become highly dependent on tabacco companies' sponsorship.
We believe that the latest text, which has been circulated to members of the Committee, shows that the Government's strong stance in the negotiations is beginning to bear fruit. The draft text that was tabled by the presidency on Friday provides a structure that begins to meet some of the Government's anxieties. We are not there yet, but we believe that that is a good basis for further negotiation.
The Government are anxious to ensure that while we meet out objective of reducing smoking, we also address the concerns of sport. As recently as last week, my right hon. Friend Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and I met a number of representatives from a range of sports to discuss further their anxieties about the replacement of tobacco sponsorship. The meeting was extremely productive and produced a good basis for further Government support for sport in this transitional period.
There is a key meeting of the Health Council on Thursday, at which we hope a common position may be reached. It is not certain that it will be--the Government are not alone in still having outstanding concerns about the directive. We are at a historic moment in the issue of public health in Britain. A Labour Government are seriously setting about tackling the causes of smoking by seeking to ban tobacco advertising.
The Chairman: The Committee now has time for questions to the Minister, which may last until 11.30 am at the latest. I remind the Committee that the time is for questions and that the debate will follow. As is the custom, I shall give precedence to members of the Committee. I am aware that there are many hon. Members present who are not members of the Committee and I hope that as a courtesy to them members of the Committee will keep their questions brief and that the Minister will keep her answers c
oncise so that as many hon. Members as possible will have the opportunity to participate.
Mr. Maples: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a question that will help her to set the scene. She has long--in fact, as far back as 1992, when she was a member of the Select Committee on Health--held the views that are espoused in the directive; she has been one of the protagonists of the policy. However, the policy is now, in some respects, radically different from what it was before 16 October. Will she take us through the thought process that enabled her to change her position and the Government to
change their policy from not being in favour of a special exemption for formula one sponsorship to exempting formula one from the directive? What are the reasons for that change?
Ms Jowell: First, I want to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that the policy is exactly the same to seek a ban on tobacco advertising that will work in practice and will not create the perverse effect of sport--in particular formula one, which is the centre of our concern on this aspect--leaving the European Union and moving to parts of the world where there is no regulation of tobacco advertising, including television advertising, thereby exposing people in this country to more, not less,
tobacco advertising. The attempts made by the Opposition to paint this as a change in policy beggar belief, but they are all that they can resort to because they have nothing to offer on the issue of banning tobacco advertising. The policy remains the same. Our focus now is on ensuring that we implement the policy so that it will work in practice.
Dr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the experience of other countries that have bans on tobacco advertising? What are their experiences of the impacts of consumption?
Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There are bans on tobacco advertising in other countries, both in the European Union and beyond, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Norway. The evidence is clear and was succinctly analysed by the Department of Health's chief economist, Dr. Clive Smee, in 1992. He concluded first, that advertising does influence tobacco consumption, and secondly, that in countries that had instituted a ban on tobacco advertising, the introduction of the ba
n was followed by a fall in consumption that could not be attributed to other causes.
I must add that we are clear that a ban on advertising alone will not reduce smoking prevalence, which is our objective, especially among young people. That is why a ban on advertising is one of a series of measures to combat smoking which we intend to implement. The other measures will form part of a White Paper to be published next year.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister clarify a question relating to her statement to the Select Committee on European Legislation on 19 November? She said:
``Our submission is for a permanent exemption for Formula 1.''
From newspaper reports today, there appears to be considerable doubt as to whether that exemption will be permanent. Various theories are put forward for bans of four-and-a-half years, six years and 10 years. Will the Minister tell the Committee now what the position is, whether there has been a change of policy and whether that is reflected in the current text? I am sure that she will understand that it is impossible for the Committee to come to a measured conclusion on such a matter when such a fundament
al issue is up in the air.
| 
