Examination of witnesses (Questions 1320
- 1339)
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2000
RT HON
ALAN MILBURN
and MS YVETTE
COOPER
John Austin
1320. Cigarettes are neither food nor pharmaceutical
products and therefore they are not subject to the same sort of
stringent safety regulations, labelling, content information,
et cetera. Nicotine replacement therapy, because it is a pharmaceutical
product, goes through a whole series of stringent tests and regulations,
whereas a cigarette—and the best description we have had
of it is a nicotine delivery vehicle; a very effective one—does
not. Does it not seem paradoxical that nicotine replacement therapy,
which is aimed to wean people off cigarettes, is highly regulated,
rightly so, but the product which, when used according to its
manufacturers instructions, kills half the people who use it,
is virtually free of regulation? It has been suggested to us that
there may be a case for a Nicotine Regulation Authority, either
free-standing or part of some other agency. How do you feel about
that?
(Mr Milburn) I think the first point you make is an
extremely telling one. On the face of it, there is an enormous
anomaly between nicotine replacement therapy being registered
as a medicine and having to pass all the regulatory hurdles it
has to go through in order to be made available to people, in
this case over the counter rather than through prescription on
the NHS, and cigarettes which, as you say, deliver nicotine pretty
effectively and in the process transform lots of people into people
who need to have their craving satisfied on a regular basis. That
comes about as a consequence of history. We have had 500 years
of tobacco consumption in this country and probably thousands
of years of tobacco consumption across the world, so we are where
we are. I think what is undoubtedly necessary in my view are two
things; (1) better disclosure and (2) better regulation than we
have at the moment. I do not think there is any doubt about that.
I think the issue for debate is where best that should happen,
whether it should be at the UK level or at a European Union level.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. As you are probably
aware, the previous Government in March 1997 entered into a voluntary
agreement with the tobacco industry about the disclosure of the
additives that went into tobacco. I think you are aware that there
are around 600 additives that are added to tobacco. Incidently,
Chairman, I do not think it is any coincidence that until very
recently, it probably coincided with that Committee's inquiry
into tobacco and cigarette consumption, the Department of Health
was not given information about which particular additives were
added to which particular brand of cigarettes. Indeed, we are
still not given that information. We are now given information
on a coded brand basis. That information under the provisions
drawn up by the previous Government with the industry is made
available to us on a confidential basis. So we now know for the
first time what sort of additives are in certain products of cigarettes.
We cannot identify which brand of cigarette it is. I thought I
would give you a flavour of some of the additives that are going
into an individual cigarette. I do not know which brand it is,
I have no idea. These are some of the additives in one brand:
sucrose and sucrose syrup, which as I understand it is a form
of sugar, it sweetens it; propylene glycol, I have no idea what
that is; glycerol; calcium carbonate; cocoa; cocoa shells and
extract; cocoa distillate and butter, which again on the face
of it is a sweetener; liquorice root fluid extract and powder,
flavourings and then a whole host of things that I cannot even
pronounce including ammonium hydroxide, diammonium hydrogen phosphate,
citric acid, sorbic acid, sodium phosphate, 4-hydroxy benzoic
acid and other forms of acid. We have that information and it
is provided to the Department under the confidential arrangements
drawn up by the previous Government. I think there is a very strong
obligation now on the tobacco companies who have supplied that
information to us to do three things. First of all, to supply
the Department of Health with the details of the brands for each
of these additives. Secondly, to supply this Committee with the
brands for each of these additives and, thirdly, and most importantly
of all, to inform consumers of the additives that go into the
cigarettes that they are consuming. That does not seem to me to
be unreasonable. People do have a right to decide whether or not
to smoke, they can choose to do that, but they also have a right
to know what it is that they are smoking. This points to the need
for much greater disclosure in my view, first of all and it points
to the need for much greater regulation in future than we have
had hitherto. I know this is a long answer, but I do think the
issue of what is happening at a European level is very important
because, as you are aware, we are now negotiating for a brand
new European Union directive on this. I can tell the Committee
that we had our officials over in Brussels on Monday negotiating
on this. I think we are about to see a very very important first
step in Europe which will aid disclosure and which will aid regulation.
The discussions that are taking place in Europe are about the
new directive that will cover a host of issues, including in draft
form reducing the maximum tar content of cigarettes, introducing
a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes, introducing a maximum
level of carbon monoxide in cigarettes, allowing Member States
to require further tests of substances in tobacco, extending the
space devoted to health warnings and these are the two key things,
requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to inform Member
States of all the non-tobacco ingredients by brand together with
relevant toxicological information demonstrating that the ingredients
are safe and, finally, banning the use of terms such as "low
tar", "mild", etcetera which have the effect of
conveying the impression that a particular tobacco product is
less harmful than others. That is the draft directive. I want
to see it strengthened and I want to see it strengthened in two
or three regards. First of all, I want to know that the public
across the whole of Europe and particularly in this country know
which additives are added to their cigarettes and why they are
added because we do not know that right now. So my view is that
there should be full public disclosure around this directive when
it is implemented. Secondly, I think it is tremendously important
that, although this would be a good first step in requiring disclosure
and better regulation, we are able to review the directive so
that as new scientific information comes on line about how we
should regulate tobacco products we are able to amend the regulation.
There is an argument about whether regulated low tar, for example,
has any effect at all. The jury is out on that and at the moment
we do not have in my view a viable alternative in terms of regulation,
but we may have and therefore it is very important that we are
able to amend the regulation in due course. Thirdly, I think there
has to be at a European level an independent scientific committee
that is able to monitor and assess the information that is received
precisely in order to deal with some of these issues that are
raised by these products. Until very, very, very recently indeed
nobody knew about any of this except the tobacco companies themselves.
We now know. I do not want to be the only person in the country
other than the tobacco companies that knows about this.
Dr Stoate
1321. I would like to thank the Secretary of
State for such a full and extremely reassuring answer. You gave
a list of additives, but I could give you information about what
they are doing in there from what we have been told as a Committee.
Many of those are in fact innocuous substances, they are sugars,
chocolate, flavourings and so on. On the face of it they only
do relatively harmless things to people, but we have had evidence
on this Committee that it is quite likely that what they do is
they make the smoke less harsh, more palatable, nicer tasting
and so can make smoking more acceptable to young people and make
it easier to take up the habit. We have our severe doubts and
reservations about what these additives do. We are concerned on
two levels. One is the possible ill-effects of the additives themselves
and, secondly, what the additives are doing in terms of increasing
the palatability of smoking and therefore the likelihood that
people will take it up and sustain the habit. Is the Government
prepared to go further and actually take unilateral action on
this? You are telling us that you have got confidential information
at the Department about what the additives are. Would you be prepared
to go further and demand that the brands be revealed both to you
and to this Committee?
(Mr Milburn) That is precisely what I want to do.
Frankly, if the tobacco companies have got this information, which
they have because they have supplied it to us, then they are under
an obligation to supply it to the smokers who consume their products.
I would hope the Committee would join with me in pressing the
tobacco companies very, very hard indeed to reveal this information
so that people who smoke cigarettes know exactly what it is that
they are smoking, because it is not just the individual products
in isolation, what we also need to know is what is the effect
of the additives in combination. At the moment, as you are aware,
under the existing arrangements, additives can be added for any
reasonable purpose at all providing they are shown to be safe,
and it is desirable but not compulsory for the manufacturers to
detail the purpose of use, and I simply do not think that is good
enough.
1322. Having given that very reassuring answer,
Secretary of State, are you now prepared to demand rather than
express your wish that these companies will break their own code?
What powers do you have to demand the breaking of this code? What
powers do you have to ensure that that information is given on
the packets and in literature available to patients?
(Mr Milburn) I am advised of two things. One, this
was an arrangement which was entered into not by me—
1323. I accept that.
(Mr Milburn)—not by me, for information which
was provided in confidence.
1324. What are you prepared to do now?
(Mr Milburn) Secondly, I am advised there are doubts
about the legal powers I have in order to make this sort of information
available. I will clarify the legal powers I have. If I have the
legal powers, it seems to me to be absolutely appropriate that
as Secretary of State for Health I make available to the public
what information I have been provided with and which the tobacco
companies hold. If you want me to use the word "demand",
I am quite happy to say "demand". Sure, I demand that,
I do not know whether that has any effect at all. I think, more
importantly, actually the tobacco companies are under an obligation.
Let us make no bones about this, this information is not buried
away anywhere, the tobacco companies have it, they have made it
available to me. Some tobacco companies, as I understand it, have
gone even further. In one or two cases under the confidential
agreement—and I have not seen this—at least one company
has now identified a brand and the particular additives. Well,
if one company can do that, they can all do that, and if they
have the information they should put it in the public domain.
I ask nothing less. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
People who are consuming any product, whether it be food or whatever,
have that right—when I go into a supermarket, like you,
I look at the product, I see what is in it, and I make a decision—and
I do not believe smokers should have any fewer rights than that.
1325. That is very reassuring but it raises
two questions. One is, if you are prepared to go that far, are
you prepared if necessary to seek legislation to force this? If
you are told you have not got the powers, are you prepared to
seek further legislative powers to do that? The second question,
about additives in food in supermarkets, many people complain
that although they have the list of ingredients, they have no
idea what the ingredients are and what they are doing in there
and whether they are good or bad. So are you prepared to go further
and demand there should be far fuller information on exactly what
those additives do and what they are doing in there?
(Mr Milburn) I think that is where the European Directive
is so important, because that is precisely what it does. I am
not abdicating responsibility in any way at all, I just believe
it is more sensible in this case for this to happen at European
level rather than UK level, and that is for a very simple legal
reason. That is that additives which are added in one member country
automatically under reciprocal legal arrangements have to be added
in this country. So if the Spanish authorities, the German or
Greek authorities decide that additives are going to be added
in their countries, then they can be legally added in this country.
So the answer, it seems to me, is to get this sorted out at a
European Union or European Commission level. We have the opportunity
to do this through this new draft directive. There will be all
sorts of toing and froing, as there always is in these negotiations,
but our position is absolutely unequivocal on this, we are going
to be arguing very, very hard indeed not only for the directive
as it is drafted but also for full public disclosure, and I think
that must be the right thing to do. The tobacco companies have
an unhappy history of not making information available to the
public. That was the very first question I was asked in here today.
They have an opportunity to put that behind them actually, they
have an opportunity to put that right and to do the decent thing
and I believe they are under an obligation to do so.
Mr Hesford
1326. Can I take up, what I consider to be one
of the more vital areas we have discussed this afternoon, and
I am grateful for what you have said so far, and can I link this
to packaging? It became absolutely clear when we saw the five
chief executives of the companies that one of the vital things
they see as part of their marketing exercise is the packaging.
The idea, if you do not mind me saying, that we should have to
wait for European legislation fills me with dread because you
have to go through a process—
(Mr Milburn) As a point of information on that, and
I understand that fear—I understand it all too well because
I have to negotiate it—as I understand it, the Presidency
held by the Portuguese at the moment are very, very keen on this
directive happening. Obviously there has to be agreement between
the Council, the Ministers and the European Parliament, but I
am hopeful there would be such agreement. If all goes well, I
am hopeful by May this year we can have made progress on this
directive. So I do not want the Committee to feel that this has
somehow been shunted into the long grass. I want both a tough
directive and I want an early directive too.
1327. Just on the directive and the effectiveness
of the directive, it is not just a question of getting it on the
European statute book, you have a lead time and if this does not
come in until 2010—which is possible, we have seen it dozens
and dozens of times with these things—it is hopeless. So
I have to say that does sound like an abdication of responsibility,
not by you personally, not by anyone in this room necessarily,
but an abdication of governmental responsibility in what we have
identified as being a crucial area. Could I ask ministers to consider
that as a distinct possibility? I cannot understand at all why
we cannot legislate ourselves on the question of packaging. There
are three issues about packaging a cigarette—
(Mr Milburn) You are now not talking about the additives?
1328. I will link in the additives in a second.
There are three parts to the question of packaging. One is the
brand, and the advertisers are very keen on getting their brand
over to the public—the Marlboro Man and that sort of thing.
I think in certain states in Canada they have taken the brand
off and we could legislate to do that, stop them having the brand
on the packaging. That should not be on. You have already said,
helpfully, that the implied health gain in light and low tar should
not be on the package because it is misleading and it is wrong.
That should come off. So that is what should not be on. The health
warning, which has been touched on, should be bigger. These things
are for regulation and legislation.
(Mr Milburn) At the moment actually they are subject
to voluntary agreement, it is not even regulation.
1329. My point is that it can be done through
the process of regulation and legislation and it would remove
Marlboro Man from the packet and then there is lots of space on
the packet to put on the health warning. There is one packet,
I think in Canada again, where they have put damaged lungs on
the packet, which sounds gross in terms of our present cultural
thinking on cigarettes, but it is an important question if you
are seriously trying to address the issue of youngsters picking
up a packet of cigarettes and thinking it is cool to smoke. The
tar yield is appearing on the packaging and is almost a meaningless
concept, nobody knows what it is, and more should be done on that
and health people have already touched on that point. The last
point is the ingredients or additives. I could list the top ten
either additives or ingredients, and you have helpfully listed
some before, but why can we not legislate to have those on the
packets? I know it will not necessarily tell people what they
are, but if they knew that cyanide was part of a cigarette, I
think that might be a fairly useful piece of information; if they
knew that lead was part of a cigarette, that would also be helpful;
likewise, carbon monoxide. The Health Education Council furnished
us with that information which no doubt you have seen and have
well in mind. Apart from nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide to
some extent, consumers have no idea there is any other ingredient
in a cigarette, good or bad. What I am saying is that whilst I
can understand a European-wide approach, I am not sure the Committee
would be able to see either any reason why we cannot do some of
this, if not all of this, today in our own country. You have already
said voluntary agreements do not work and clearly they do not
work. One of the criticisms of Government since the 1940s and
1950s is that there has been a too pally-pally relationship with
the tobacco companies which only served one part of the partnership
and that was the tobacco companies, it did not serve the Government
or those that they represent. Why can we not just crack on with
these issues?
(Yvette Cooper) In a Single Market there are restrictions
on some of the things that we can do, especially on things like
packaging, labelling and things like that. As I understand it,
because there are European Directives which cover issues like
labelling and packaging already that constrains our ability to
do things independently. In all of these fields there are things
that we can do independently on health grounds, but a Single Market
product is clearly something which is sold right across Europe
and we have a directive on the table at the moment and we have
huge scope for making progress on this directive at the moment
and so this is clearly the right place for us to be having this
argument right now. One of the things is expanding the size of
the warning, certainly. The point about the Canadian warnings
is very interesting and we will have to look at the impact of
that. Obviously the purpose of the tobacco education campaign
that we have run so far has been very much about supporting smokers
to give up and so it has been a case of telling people not to
give up giving up and that has been helping people. We have not
used the quite gory images that have been used in the Canadian
campaign and we will obviously keep an eye on that and monitor
how that goes down and what impact that has. The Canadian thing
is not necessarily portable. As to whether you should remove everything
from the packaging altogether and just have plain packets. I think
one of the most important things when they talk about the branding
and the importance of the packaging in terms of communicating
the message or the ethos or the aspirational thing about the cigarettes
is the link between the packaging and the advertising. So it is
not simply what the packet looks like, it is the link between
the packet and the advertising, the way in which the brand is
communicated to the audience and sold as part of your aspiration,
i.e. this is the kind of person you want to be. By bringing in
a tobacco advertising ban you break that link. If we were to go
further and try and take the label off the front of the packet
and make the packet generic, we are advised that there would be
huge legal problems with doing that kind of thing because there
are all kinds of intellectual property rights around owning the
brand and so on. I understand there are a lot of legal complications
on this. The broader point you make is absolutely right, which
is that we will have to get more information out and we will have
to get more information out through things like the packaging,
through things like expanding the warnings and get it out to people
in a form that they will understand it and read as well. I think
the idea that we can just put a few little ingredients tucked
at the bottom of a packet is not going to communicate to people
the huge risks that they are taking and also quite what some of
these additives involve.
(Mr Milburn) I think members of the Committee are
aware that there are around 600 additives that go into cigarettes.
Members of the Committee are probably not aware of what those
600 are. We can supply that information to you. More importantly,
it is our intention to put it on the Department of Health's web
site before too long so that not only Members of Parliament can
get access to it, smokers and non-smokers alike, but members of
the public can.
Chairman: I am conscious that we still have
a number of areas we want to explore. Can I appeal to Members
to be brief with their questions and to the witnesses to be brief
with their answers.
John Austin
1330. Could I raise one other issue about this
word "addiction" because it seems to me that when the
tobacco industry have come to see us they have tried to down-play
that and refer to it as a habit rather like the Internet and shopping
or doughnuts or whatever, whereas the evidence we have had is
that nicotine is a very powerful addictive drug. I think Professor
Donaldson in his evidence said that to use the word habit is to
downgrade the seriousness of the addiction. Do you think there
is some merit in making the public more aware of the addictive
nature of nicotine either by labelling or some other method?
(Mr Milburn) I think the evidence is pretty compelling.
You will be aware that the Royal College of Physicians just yesterday
produced their report which I am told makes out a very good case
for precisely the argument that nicotine is deeply addictive and
that modern cigarettes deliver nicotine in a very effective form
indeed. I think that is right and I think that is why the European
Union draft directive is important, because it raises not just
the issues that we have known about and, frankly, have concentrated
on, low tar and carbon monoxide as issues of real health concern
but also the level of nicotine in the product as well. They have
tried to set some bench marks for that. Yes, I think we do need
to get that message across more cogently to the public.
1331. The other issue I wanted to pursue was
this question of advertising. It seems from the evidence we have
seen from the advertising agencies employed by the tobacco companies
that they are already looking at all sorts of ingenious ways of
getting round an advertising ban and of using images and logos
in other advertisements and other promotions which are associated
in the public's eye with cigarettes. We also had evidence that
particular groups were being targeted, for example, at Spanish
airports, British holiday makers, advertisements in English language
tabloids, in Spanish holiday resorts, etcetera. Do you think there
are some measures that you can take beyond those already taken
to undermine those sort of efforts?
(Yvette Cooper) Obviously what we have to do is monitor
the ban as it is implemented and as we see what happens. I think
the evidence that you have taken on this was extremely interesting.
There are provisions in the directive for things like brand sharing
and things like using the brand. Camel Boots is one that is often
used. After a certain period, I think it is 2001, Camel Boots
will have to be a distinctive brand from Camel cigarettes, for
example, so they will not be able to use that kind of brand sharing
as a way round the advertising ban. If there are ingenious ways
in which the industry gets round the ban we will just have to
look at it again. It is hard for us to anticipate now when the
ban is not yet in place exactly what things they may come up with.
We have gone to a lot of lengths to try and anticipate any possible
problems like that and to try and make sure we avoid that, but
I think this is going to be an argument for monitoring it very
closely if it goes on.
Mr Gunnell
1332. Secretary of State, you have already mentioned
your concern about environmental tobacco smoking and passive smoking.
In the White Paper Smoking Kills you state that the Government
does "not think a universal ban on smoking in all public
places is justified while we can make fast and substantial progress
in partnership with industry". It will not surprise you at
all to know that the tobacco industry people who talked to us
on this same matter said that it was important and we could proceed
by voluntary agreements. We found that in the United States they
proceed much faster without voluntary agreements. Do you think
that voluntary agreements with the hospitality industry or with
smoking people in general are really delivering smoke-free environments
for non-smokers? Are non-smokers sufficiently protected in the
workplace? What do you think about the views put forward by FOREST
that smokers' rights and freedoms are under siege? What we found
in Washington was that there were smoke-free environments because
they were policed and because they had a very effective system
and so when smoking occurred in what should have been a non-smoking
eating place they made sure they put a fine on the proprietor
of that eating place. The second time they are caught with smoking
going on in the same place, the fine is doubled, and that happens
every time, so that before long the establishment knows they cannot
afford another fine at double the previous one. They therefore
police it very effectively themselves. That is a much tougher
way of dealing with that and I wonder if you think it is time
we decided we were not getting far enough with voluntary agreements?
(Mr Milburn) I do not, in all frankness. I think banning
smoking in public places has been a pretty mixed bag, frankly.
You say it works in Washington, well, it certainly has not been
particularly effective in Paris. The French authorities have found
the French public have not necessarily reacted as positively as
perhaps the American public have to the idea of having their choice
restricted in that way. The important thing here is that we are
not dealing with the tobacco industry, we are dealing with the
hospitality industry, which is a quite different industry, and
it is one I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to. I
think the hospitality industry wants to work in partnership with
us in making these voluntary agreements work. As I said earlier,
I think in response to the Chairman, I think it is in their interests
to do so and in their commercial interests to do so, to make this
choice more widely available to people. Some people will want
to go down the pub and will want to smoke and non-smokers will
want to join them and will be happy to do so, and that seems to
me to be perfectly reasonable. Equally, there will be people who
do not want to smoke and who do not want to be bothered by smoky
atmospheres. What we have to do is make sure that we have the
appropriate safeguards and mechanisms in place to ensure that
that happens. I think that is far more preferable, for all sorts
of reasons. To tell you the truth, I do not really want the police
and the other organisations who are already under pressure in
terms of their workload to do yet another big policing and monitoring
exercise. We talked earlier about the lack of enforcement around
vending machines, for example, and point of sale, and the difficulties
we already have there, and I do not want to create yet another
barrage of activity which has to be monitored and policed. I would
far rather this worked on the basis of agreement. As I say, I
think it is in both our interests on public health grounds and
in the industry's interests on commercial grounds to make this
happen. We have made good progress. I can tell the Committee that
before long—I think next month—my officials are meeting
with representatives of the pubs sector to talk about a definitive
setting of targets around some of these areas for making more
non-smoking areas available in pubs. If we can get that right
in pubs, then we can roll it out elsewhere, in restaurants and
so on.
Mrs Gordon
1333. I think one of the most chilling things
I have heard recently about the effects of passive smoking is
from the recent report into the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths
and Deaths in Infancy, which indicated that Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome was substantially more prevalent in houses where an infant
was exposed to tobacco smoke. Indeed, "the more hours the
infant was exposed to smoke the greater the risk." That is
a really frightening thing. I would like to ask what steps you
are taking following this evidence and, in particular, how you
are going to get this information out to parents and pregnant
women?
(Mr Milburn) You are right, this is an extremely disturbing
finding indeed, and it is one we have got to try to act on. We
are working with various organisations, including the Foundation
for the Study of Infant Deaths, to target publicity at expectant
mums, and there is a big effort going in there, as the White Paper
says, to persuade women who are pregnant not to smoke during their
pregnancy because of the adverse effects that has not just on
themselves but on the babies. But also we know that particularly
in the light of this cot death study there is much more we need
to do. This is a leaflet I have brought along which we are producing
with the Foundation about reducing the risk of cot death. It is
due to be published very shortly, sometime later this month. It
does warn mums and dads about the risks associated with smoking,
particularly when there is a very young child in the room. That
will be made widely available. We will also look to see what we
can do in the context of our advertising campaign to make sure
that parents are fully aware of these facts. It seems to me extremely
important that we do that.
Audrey Wise
1334. A different tack altogether. In Brussels
we discussed the issue of subsidising in the EU tobacco growing,
and we were told the current tobacco subsidy amounts to 1 billion
euros, which is approximately £613 million at current exchange
rates. This was presented to us as, "It is not as bad as
it sounds because it is only 7 per cent of the CAP total subsidy."
We did not look at the "only 7 per cent", we looked
at the £613 million and thought, "This is part of our
taxes." What is your view about that subsidy?
(Mr Milburn) My view, the Government's view, is that
we strongly disapprove of the CAP regime as it applies to tobacco
growing. We disapprove of it both on financial grounds, the cost
of it, which as you say is substantial, and on health grounds
too. We have achieved some minor but significant steps particularly
in the 1998 agreement around the reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy. To be fair to the previous Government, they tried to make
some inroads into this in 1992. We have made some improvements
but there is a long way to go. So, for example, we are in a better
position now to buy out producers who no longer want to produce
tobacco, we are in a better position to recycle some of the money
which goes into tobacco growing into the Community Tobacco Fund
which, amongst other things, provides precisely the sort of information
and education we have been talking about in the UK context across
the European Union. The whole thing will be reassessed in 2002
when the Commission are due to come back and report to us on further
changes which might be necessary in the regime. But as it stands,
it is completely and utterly unacceptable.
1335. I would be grateful, and I think the Committee
would, if you could have set down on paper for us the improvements
which you feel have happened during the last few years.
(Mr Milburn) I would gladly do that.
1336. I noticed that Baroness Hayman in an answer
in the Lords not only listed the countries involved, the receiving
countries, but also said that tobacco "still attracts the
highest premiums per hectare under the CAP regime." So not
only are they subsidised but they are subsidised at a higher rate
than the people producing useful products. We have also had evidence
that in any case tobacco is a valuable crop, so a valuable crop
is being subsidised at a higher rate than less valuable crops.
It has been put to us elsewhere that this makes it actually harder
for people to switch from tobacco growing to something else because
that is going to be a lower value crop and they are going to lose
their subsidy. Can you make absolutely sure that this is also
tackled because that could be a half way house? A reduction per
hectare is not good enough for me but it would at least be an
advance. Do you favour that as a possible gradualist approach?
(Mr Milburn) That is possible. I certainly do not
want to leave the Committee in any doubt about the Government's
resolve and determination in this area. We know it is a hopeless
and unacceptable regime and it is costing a pretty penny and has
adverse health consequences. So we will continue to argue very,
very strongly for very, very radical reform not just of this particular
element of the Common Agricultural Policy but of the CAP in general,
but as Committee members are aware, we are slightly up against
it because there are eight countries which are tobacco producers
and it is just possible they may take a very different view from
ours. We have got to hammer these things out, but I do think we
will have another opportunity in two years' time to look again
at what the Commission proposes, but undoubtedly we have got to
make further progress in this area.
Audrey Wise: It completely undermines the argument.
Apart from the practicality of £613 million going, there
is the very simple argument, "Well, if it is as bad as you
say, why is it allowed? If it is as bad as we say why do our taxes
go to subsidise it?" If I were the tobacco companies I would
be making hay with that argument and I am quite sure they will
at some stage.
Mr Amess
1337. Can you tell us what the latest position
is regarding the European Union advertising ban or are there problems
with Mr Eccleston?
(Mr Milburn) Not that I am aware of. In terms of the
advertising ban, I think the Committee is aware that we are in
pretty protracted legal territory here. We initially lost the
case in the High Court against the tobacco companies. We won it
in the Court of Appeal and subsequently the industry then appealed
that decision and they were successful in their appeal to the
House of Lords. As I understand it, the earliest date for a hearing
of the appeal in the Lords is likely to be towards the back end
of May this year and that means that we would not get a judgment
probably until June and that realistically in term means that,
allowing Parliamentary time and so on for regulation, we could
not get these introduced until July, which is extremely disappointing
indeed. Of course, the industry has the right to fight this in
the courts if it wants to, but it ought to understand two things
in my view. One is that the public and smokers themselves, from
all the evidence we have seen, support the Government's position
on the ban on tobacco advertising and, secondly, there is a manifesto
commitment and come what may we are going to deliver it.
1338. Why does the draft directive stipulate
a European Union maximum tar yield of ten mg given the current
scientific consensus that compensatory smoking undermines any
potential health benefits of lowered tar? And was thought given
to setting a maximum nicotine level lower than the proposed one
mg cigarette which merely matches current yields?
(Mr Milburn) I referred to this earlier. You are now
talking about the new draft directive?
1339. Yes.
(Mr Milburn) I think the Royal College of Physicians'
report also argues that for 20 or 30 years we may well have been
chasing the wrong target with low tar and persuading people to
give up smoking and if they cannot to give up, to switch from
high tar to low tar brands. That might not necessarily have produced
the dividends that we had hoped for in terms of health improvements
because the evidence seems to me pretty compelling and you have
heard it in the Committee, the fact that smokers compensate for
low tar in the way that they smoke the cigarette. However, as
I understand it we have got to take the evidence from the scientists
on this and from the medical community. At the moment we do not
have an alternative means of assessing what the correct bench
marks are for assessing tobacco. I think Liam Donaldson, the Chief
Medical Officer, was quite right when he came here and urged some
degree of caution around the idea that there can never be such
a thing as a safe cigarette. I think that is something that people
have been chasing for very many years indeed and it has proved
to be erroneous. The difficulty is the obvious one here and that
is, even if we came up with a better measurement of the way that
cigarettes are impacting on people, in truth we probably would
not know for several decades whether that was right or wrong and
that is our problem around this. In terms of the directive, we
think that the reduction in the tar content may not be the best
thing, but in the absence of any alternative measures the view
that I have expressed strongly to officials who are negotiating
this at the moment on our behalf is that we should go with it
because I do not want to hold the directive up.
Mr Hesford: The issue of smuggling has been
highlighted recently in the press. When we questioned the tobacco
bosses there seemed to be some support for the evidence in what
I would call their evasive answers around these issues. Gallaher
and BAT certainly seemed to be implicated. What is the Government's
view of this and what is on offer to try and get at them for whatever
they may be doing? Ken Clarke, on behalf of BAT, calls it doing
everything they legally can in order to join what is in effect
an illegal market and to me that is a contradiction in terms.
What can the Government do and what is the Government doing?
|
