Letter from Lovells to the Clerk of the
Committee (TB 8B ANNEX A)
We act for Imperial Tobacco Limited, Gallaher
Limited, Rothmans UK Limited and British American Tobacco Investments
Limited (the "Applicants"), in relation to judicial
review proceedings commenced by those companies in respect of
the Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (the
"SCOTH Report").
We understand that at the Health Committee meeting
on Thursday, 13 January 2000, the witnesses before the Committee
were asked to provide further information on the grounds for the
judicial review and clarification of the parties to the proceedings.
Since last Thursday's hearing, we are also aware
that the Committee has asked to know the outcome of the judicial
review.
The proceedings were commenced because of the
Applicants' significant concern that in its Report SCOTH made
recommendations and conclusions on wide-ranging areas which were
subsantially adverse to the Applicants' interests and upon which
SCOTH had not consulted them or provided them with any opportunity
to comment prior to publication of the Report. This was in stark
contast to the position with SCOTH's predecessor, the ISCSH, which
had closely consulted the companies in the preparation of its
four reports in 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1988.
Of particular concern to the Applicants was
that the SCOTH Report made a number of allegations and findings
which attacked their commercial morality. These included claims
that the UK tobacco companies intentionally targeted young people
and that they failed to disclose to smokers the true extent of
the possible health effects of smoking. The UK tobacco companies
were also accused of adopting unreasonable standards in the assessment
of evidence relating to the health effects of tobacco products.
It was the understandable concern that the Government
might base its future policies on the SCOTH Report which the Applicants
considered to be flawed which prompted the Applicants to appy
for a judicial review of the process of the SCOTH Report's preparation.
The proceedings were commenced in June 1998
and, in his judgment granting the Applicants leave to proceed,
Mr. Justice Moses commented that the SCOTH Report was intended
to be a scientifically rigorous report but questioned whether
there was much scientific rigour in the SCOTH Report's statements
which attacked the conduct of the tobacco companies.
The substantive hearing of the judicial review
took place on 11 and 12 November 1999 before Mr. Justice Hidden
who gave judgment on 21 December 1999. In his judgment, the Judge
found against the companies on the basis that he did not consider
the SCOTH Report to be amenable to judicial reivew. His view was
that the SCOTH Report was only the first stage in the continuing
decision-making process. In the circumstances, he did not deal
with the findings of the SCOTH Report, or the process by which
it had been prepared, which had given rise to the Applicants'
concerns and caused them to bring the proceedings.
We are instructed that the Applicants have decided
not to appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Hidden. However, it
is genuinely hoped by the Applicants that the Government will
take note of the Applicants' concerns raised in the proceedings
and that it will in the future revert to the practice of involving
the UK tobacco companies in effective dialogue and co-operation
when considering future policy relating to tobacco.
20 January 2000
| 
