| Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]
|
|
Yvette Cooper: If it were the Silk Cut team or the Marlboro team, it would be a way of promoting the product. I accept that these are hypothetical examples. However, because it is possible to come up with hypothetical examples, there must be good reasons to permit exceptions, and there is not a sufficiently strong case to grant an exception in this instance. We talked about communications between organisations in the course of trade when we discussed earlier clauses. For example, with regard to clause 4(1)(a), we talked about communication made in the course of a business, which clearly is an important part of continuing that trade, so we set out an exemption. It is not clear to me that the kind of sponsorship exemption that we are currently discussing is crucial with regard to the need of the industry to communicate and to continue its legitimate trade. Therefore, given the potential for some of these examples to have a wider impact, there is not sufficient reason to accept the amendment .
Tim Loughton: It appears that we shall make no further progress on this matter. The Minister is encroaching on telling the tobacco companies what their internal business is. It is my understanding that that was not the Bill's intention. The events that she now judges not to be appropriate or necessary to the trade commonly take place, and there are easy ways of ensuring that any impressionable material—in photographic form, or whatever—does not leak out from such an event into the public domain, and thereby entice a 14-year-old youth to take up smoking.
Column Number: 198 We might wish to return to the matter later. It is yet another issue that has not been properly resolved in Committee, will lead to yet more confusion in the trade about what it can and cannot do, and may lead to legal challenge, too, if the Benson and Hedges polo tournament goes ahead and seems to overstep the mark as the Minister regards it. I do not believe that we can proceed any further by arguing at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 5, line 43, at end insert—
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.
Division No. 8]
AYES
NOES
Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 5, line 46, at end insert—
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.
Division No. 9]
AYES
NOES
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Dr. Harris: I have been reflecting on my exchange with the Minister—as, perhaps, has she. I wanted to give her the opportunity to make clear what is banned, rather than what might be legal. However much I deprecate the sponsorship of tobacco, it seems legitimate—as the Conservative party might agree—that under current law the tobacco industry might want to donate to the Conservative party in order to argue for policy change. That is in the nature of a democracy, as we have what I consider to be an unsatisfactory system in which political donations from big businesses are legitimate. However, I hope that it would not be legitimate for tobacco companies to pay money to effect a policy change that would Column Number: 199 allow the advertising of a tobacco product. It would be useful if the Minister would make that clear.Yvette Cooper: The prohibition of sponsorship is about preventing the promotion of tobacco products, regardless of whether companies are party to a sponsorship agreement. It will not stop freedom of speech in this House or elsewhere on the subject of smoking, in general. It is right that the clause should stop the promotion of particular tobacco products or sponsorship agreements at a party conference, for example, that might promote a particular product. In any case, it would be a matter of fact to be determined whether a particular policy was promoting an individual tobacco product and was the result of a sponsorship agreement or whether individual Members of Parliament or politicians were exercising free speech about broader issues. The Bill is not about restricting free speech, but about stopping the promotion of tobacco products, whether through sponsorship, brand sharing, coupons or advertisements. Dr. Harris: It is good news that the Bill will protect free speech but will ban the advertising of specific tobacco products. Now we just have to wait for provisions to be introduced that will remove the sponsorship of political parties by business interests to avoid not only sleaze, but the appearance of sleaze. Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| Prepared 14 May 2002 | |
