Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]

[back to previous text]

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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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—

    '(c) these defences shall not be available to a political party.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Division No. 8]

AYES
Hunter, Mr. Andrew Loughton, Tim
Ruffley, Mr. David Wilshire, Mr. David

NOES
Bailey, Mr. Adrian Barrett, John Cooper, Yvette Fitzpatrick, Jim Harris, Dr. Evan Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Mallaber, Judy Moffatt, Laura Taylor, David Turner, Dr. Desmond Ward, Ms Claire

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 5, line 46, at end insert—

    '(5) The defence referred to in subsection (4) shall not be available to a political party'.—[Mr. Wilshire].

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Division No. 9]

AYES
Hunter, Mr. Andrew Loughton, Tim
Ruffley, Mr. David Wilshire, Mr. David

NOES
Bailey, Mr. Adrian Barrett, John Cooper, Yvette Fitzpatrick, Jim Harris, Dr. Evan Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Mallaber, Judy Moffatt, Laura Taylor, David Turner, Dr. Desmond Ward, Ms Claire

Question accordingly negatived.

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.

Clause 20

Transitional provisions: sponsorship

Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 11, line 2, at end insert

    ', provided that no party to such a sponsorship agreement has made a donation to a political party within the last 10 years.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Division No. 10]

AYES
Hunter, Mr. Andrew Loughton, Tim
Ruffley, Mr. David Wilshire, Mr. David

NOES
Bailey, Mr. Adrian Barrett, John Cooper, Yvette Fitzpatrick, Jim Harris, Dr. Evan Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Mallaber, Judy Moffatt, Laura Taylor, David Turner, Dr. Desmond Ward, Ms Claire

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: I am pleased that we have made it to clause 20, because I have a lengthy discourse to make about the Embassy world professional darts

Column Number: 200

championship and the enormous disbenefit that it will be put to under the Bill. I have less than two minutes in which to deliver my discourse, let alone discuss the remaining 10 clauses, amendments and the new clause. However, I shall have a stab at it and see what I can come up with. If I cannot complete my discourse, I have no doubt that we can return to it at length on Report.

Clause 20 is a meaty clause. It is controversial and deals with the transitional provisions of sponsorship that refer specifically to the Government's anointed favourite sport of Formula 1 racing.

It is intended that the Bill will come into force two months after Royal Assent and that its provisions will have an effect on tobacco manufacturers, retailers and so on. A further three months will be allowed before the bringing into force of regulations that govern advertising within retail outlets, impact promotion schemes and certain direct marketing contracts—except for Formula 1 racing.

In another place, the Minister confirmed that the Government intend to stay with the broad outline of their thinking and that the special provisions of clause 19 should remain available to ''exceptional global events''. They are defined as taking place in at least two continents and three countries, with sponsorship in excess of £2.5 million per annum. All other sponsorship agreements should be banned from an earlier date—that is, 2003. That singles out Formula 1 racing, which is not exactly a sport bereft of cash. Did you know, Mr. Amess, that it is probably the most costly and richest sport in the world? It certainly does not need any assistance from the Bill. There are only 11 Formula 1 teams, each of which has to deposit a $48 million bond to participate in the race.

It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [7 May], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clauses 11 to 16, 18, 19 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Commencement, short title and extent

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (6).—[Yvette Cooper.]

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at two minutes past Seven o'clock.

Column Number: 201

The following Members attended the Committee:
Amess, Mr. David (Chairman)
Bailey, Mr.
Barrett, John
Cooper, Yvette
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Harris, Dr. Evan
Hopkins, Mr.
Hunter, Mr.
Khabra, Mr.

Column Number: 202

Loughton, Tim
Mallaber, Judy
Moffatt, Laura
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Ruffley, Mr.
Taylor, David
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Ward, Ms
Wilshire, Mr.

 
Previous Contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 14 May 2002