Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500
- 519)
THURSDAY 13 JANUARY 2000
MR MARTIN
BROUGHTON, MR
PETER WILSON,
MR GARETH
DAVIS, MR
DAVID DAVIES
AND DR
AXEL GIETZ
Mr Amess
500. Thank you for clarifying that. The answer
is that the Government feel that the general public are not well
enough educated at the moment and they want to encourage people
to smoke less. Fine. When I first became an MP in my constituency
we used to have a Rothmans factory employing 1,200 people and
in 1983 to 1984 the factory was closed because of the high rates
and it moved to Darlington and Spennymoor. If you could help me,
what interest does the tobacco industry have in Darlington at
the moment?
(Mr Broughton) Since our merger with Rothmans we have
inherited both the Darlington and Spennymoor factories. We also
already had a factory in Southampton. Last November we announced
the closure of the Spennymoor factory but the Darlington one and
the Southampton one will be continuing.
501. How many people roughly are employed in
Darlington?
(Mr Broughton) I could not answer that question.
Chairman: I am interested in who is the MP in
the area.
Mr Amess
502. The Secretary of State for Health, is it
not, it is his constituency.
(Mr Broughton) I think the factory was there first!
We do not know the answer to the number of people but we can get
back to you.
503. By any count it is very very brave of this
Secretary of State—I know how I felt when we lost 1,200
jobs, it was no joke addressing the work force outside the factory—to
lead this policy to educate people further and encourage them
to smoke less. Is that not the case? It is a brave thing to do,
is it not?
(Mr Broughton) I do not think it is a brave thing
to do because I think it is the right thing to do. I think the
public policy position should be to encourage people to smoke
fewer, to smoke lighter and to quit. I think that is absolutely
right and I should have also added not to smoke until they are
18. 16 is the Government's policy; we think 18. I think that is
the right policy for the Government to have. Yes, he has to potentially
face a loss of jobs in that area at some stage but I think he
is right to do it and I think we would do the same in his position.
504. My final point is next week we have Mr
Eccleston coming before us to give evidence. Do any of your companies
have a relationship with Mr Eccleston's business?
(Mr Broughton) I am being careful in defining "relationship"
here. We are a part-owner of a racing team, British American Racing,
which is part of the Formula One circuit. I am not sure in terms
of relationship. He fundamentally owns the Formula One business.
You had better ask him.
Mr Amess: That is good enough for me and I intend
to.
Mr Austen
505. I want to go back to Dr Stoate's questions
about the BMA statement. As you know, BMA have given evidence
to us. In addition to their allegation that your research was
focused on reducing the likelihood of liability actions, they
also in their evidence made other allegations suggesting that
you failed to inform the public of the dangers of smoking, that
you failed to reduce the harmfulness of your product, that you
failed to disclose the content of your product and that you failed
to compensate for the damage caused to consumers. I wonder how
you would react to those allegations from the BMA.
(Mr Wilson) Can you go through the list again?
506. Failed to inform the public fully of the
dangers of smoking.
(Mr Wilson) I think health warnings appeared on our
packets from 1971 and long before that there was a very high level
of awareness in this country. As has already been said, they were
referred to as "coffin nails" during the war but we
certainly started to put health warnings on all our packets and
advertising in 1971.
507. Failed to reduce the harmfulness of the
product. It seems to me in your previous answer you suggested
that your research was into how you delivered a cigarette that
was acceptable and marketable rather than research into its actual
harmfulness.
(Mr Wilson) There is no point in making a less harmful
cigarette if no one is going to smoke it. We have to take that
into account. This has been acknowledged by the Independent Scientific
Committee and by Government. A cigarette has to be acceptable
to the smoker otherwise it is not going to get smoked.
508. I thought you said that the object of your
research was not to examine the harmfulness or otherwise of the
product?
(Mr Wilson) Our research and development programme
is designed to do the two things in parallel, to reduce the levels
of tar, the total yield of products, and at the same time ensure
that the resulting product is acceptable to smokers so that we
can get more people to smoke lower tar products.
(Mr Broughton) If I can just add to that. I think
the product modification strategy has been the Government's strategy
and the industry's strategy which is a general reduction in what
are perceived to be harmful elements of tobacco. To say we have
failed to reduce the harmfulness of the products when the entire
product strategy for decades now has been to have a general reduction
defeats me in how they come to that conclusion.
509. Earlier on I think you were accepting at
the very outset the statement made by the Chairman that there
was an obligation on you to produce as safe a product as you were
reasonably capable of doing. Yet you do not seem to see that there
is any obligation on you to research whether the product you are
producing is safe or not.
(Mr Broughton) I do not think that is what we said
at all. With respect, I think we said we have done a lot of research
on trying to determine the biological mechanisms by which any
harm occurs so to say we have done no work on the health aspects
of this I am at a loss to see how you got that conclusion.
510. It seems in the responses that you have
made that most of you have said that you were relying on the evidence
from the public health community.
(Mr Broughton) In epidemiological terms, yes.
511. And you are relying on the consensus that
has been achieved which you acknowledge and accept.
(Mr Broughton) We rely on the epidemiological evidence.
512. You have not said that you have done any
positive research yourselves into the safety or otherwise of the
products you are attempting to market.
(Mr Broughton) To the contrary, what I said is we
have not ourselves done epidemiological research. We have in fact
funded some of it by other parties but we have not done any of
it at all. We have focused on the biological causes rather than
the statistical evidence. We have accepted the epidemiological
science. We have focused on trying to establish the biological
mechanisms, trying to establish any specific constituent and trying
to modify the product to make it less harmful, less risky.
513. Mr Wilson denied there was any failure
on your part to notify the public of the dangers of smoking. Mr
Wilson said it is printed on every packet. It has also been evident
today that most of you, with varying degrees, accept the argument
that smoking does cause cancer, heart disease, etcetera. Not all
of you have accepted that but most of you have and that seems
to be a fairly positive statement. You say that the tobacco companies
have been forward in telling the public of the dangers of the
product that you make. Could I then turn to British American Tobacco
because we have had evidence not from British American Tobacco
but evidence has come to the Committee from an internal memorandum
in BAT in 1980 which says: "The company's position on causation,
which we have maintained for some 20 years in order to defend
our industry, is in danger of becoming the very factor which inhibits
our long-term viability. On balance, it is the opinion of this
department that we should now move to position B, namely that
we acknowledge the probability that smoking is harmful to a small
percentage of heavy smokers. By giving a little way, we may gain
a lot. By giving nothing, we stand to lose everything." Do
you think there is some validity in the suggestion that your public
stance on the effects of smoking has been driven by a desire not
to protect the public but one designed to defend your industry?
(Mr Broughton) I think it is fair to say, as I think
I said at the outset, that our public position has changed over
time. I said in my opening statement we should be here looking
at where we go from here and concentrating on the future. If you
look at the past I think we have over time changed from putting
the emphasis on saying, "We have not established any biological
mechanism and therefore causation is not proven", to "Let's
accept the epidemiological science."
514. When did that change come about?
(Mr Broughton) I think it has been a gradual change,
frankly. I think the emphasis has been much more recent on saying,
"Let's just accept the epidemiological evidence." We
have never denied the epidemiological evidence but we have changed
our position and said let's continue to work on the biological
element of it, which is of the greatest interest to us and any
party. Anybody here who could produce what the health authorities
deemed to be a safe cigarette would have a major competitive advantage
and I think you will find there is every commercial justification
for following that line. There was a change, I think, back in
the 1980s. At that particular time certainly the main thrust of
the public position of the Corporation was we had not found the
biological mechanism, therefore on that definition causation was
not proven. I think that has led—
515. It has shifted.
(Mr Broughton) That is right.—people to think
that in many ways we were denying whereas in fact we were focusing
on the biological beast rather than focusing on the epidemiological
evidence which we could never deny.
516. Can I ask you who Dr Sharon Boyse is?
(Mr Broughton) Dr Sharon Boyse is a scientist. She
is English but she is working in America. Quite what her current
role is I could not be absolutely sure.
517. Is she or was she associated with British
American Tobacco?
(Mr Broughton) She has been associated with British
American Tobacco for quite a long time. She had a brief career
break but has been and currently is with the British American
Tobacco Group, currently with Brown & Williamson.
518. In 1993—I accept that was six or
seven years ago—she said at one of your press conferences:
"... Smoking has not been proven to be a cause of disease....
Smoking is really a `risk marker' for diseases like lung cancer,
in the same way that driving licences are `risk markers' for car
accidents". Does British American Tobacco still stand by
that position?
(Mr Broughton) I have some difficulty using that analogy,
I have to say. It is not one that I feel comfortable with at all.
519. Would you agree with me that it does not
really appear to be the tobacco industry trying to inform the
public of the real dangers of smoking?
(Mr Broughton) I think informing the public is something
which has been achieved. I would have to confess to you that I
think it has been achieved more by the public health authorities
than the tobacco companies but I think awareness of disease, risk,
etc, is extremely high. I think the fact on awareness and the
fact on information in the public stands for very little debate.
I think the facts are evident. If you take a specific selected
quotation from Dr Boyse at that time, I think there are two elements
to it. One is the causation piece, which is still true in a biological
mechanism but I think it is put in a different perspective where
I think it is much more to everybody's advantage to look forward,
accept the epidemiological evidence for what it is and carry on
working on the biology but, as I say, the analogy I would rather
she had not used that.
| 
