| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, agree that there is no ban on advertising legally held guns?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am not aware whether or not there is a ban on advertising legally held guns. Your Lordships will be aware that the analogy was placed both on pharmaceuticals and guns. There is an absolute ban on advertising pharmaceuticals subject to prescription.
I move on to the thin end of the wedge argument, which is closely allied to the legal product argument. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, said this was a dangerous precedent and that it would be alcohol next. Not as far as I am concerned. I should rephrase that: not as far as many members of my party are concerned. We know alcohol can be harmful when it is abused. Tobacco is always harmful. That is the distinction between the two.
I mention the brand-stretching or brandsharing argument because in a sense that may be a legal activity which is being restricted as part of this Bill. There is no intention to ban perfectly lawful corporate names, but brand-stretching is potentially one of the major loopholes in the marketing array available to tobacco manufacturers. The restrictions must be adequate to make sure that it is not used as a surrogate for advertising and sponsorship. If brands are distinct they are unlikely to be caught by the regulations on brandsharing, and the test is whether or not they promote a tobacco product. I am sure that we shall have many happy hours in Committee debating Clause 11. It is certainly not our intention to permit proper corporate advertising where the promotion of tobacco is not involved.
A further argument advanced by the manufacturers is that there is no evidence that a ban on advertising will be effective. That was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I do not believe that I need go into great detail because the
noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put forward an abundance of evidence on the effectiveness of advertising. I am surprised that after a full debate lasting four hours, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is not persuaded by the available evidence. The figures from Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, to name but four countries, clearly demonstrate the case and also the fact that one of our leading firms of accountants did not get it right when it put together its report. The key is the breaking of the link between glamour and smoking for the young. I believe that the ban will be effective.The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said that voluntary agreements were the way forward and that there was no need to change the present system. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in their comments about the tobacco industry documents revealed by the House of Commons Select Committee, gave the lie to that. The praying in aid of the WHO statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friend Lady Northover was crucial. Such voluntary marketing agreements are business as usual and the companies would be allowed to continue their relentless search for new customers. We did not hear too much said about the ending of tobacco sports sponsorship damaging sport. However, my noble friend Lord Addington clearly demonstrated that that was not the case.
I move on to a novel argument which we did not hear to any great extent during the previous canter around the course; that is, the European directive. The draft directive deals with cross-border matters and it does so precisely because of the legal action taken in the European Court of Justice. We have to deal with our own domestic situation. It is not a matter of the time being unripe. It is great to have available the excuse that something else is going through some other forum. But that does not apply in this case. The legislation contemplated here will be totally complementary to the European directive when it is available. I am afraid that that is the situation.
We had an interesting red herring. I mention it because so many noble Lords who spoke of the European directive also spoke about the criminal status of cannabis. I fail to see the connection. In that case we are talking about the criminal status in terms of possession but in this case we are not talking about the possession of cigarettes being a criminal offence. However, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has designs on that because he made a powerful case for a more draconian Bill than the one I am arguing for. I am afraid that the connection of moving tobacco to a class C drug escapes me, as does the argument about ecstasy.
Some interesting points were made about the Internet. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made his attitude and that of the Government perfectly plain. I appreciate what he said. We are in a fast moving situation as regards e-commerce. We have the e-commerce directive and we also have many other instruments; for instance, the Brussels and the Rome II conventions. All will have an impact on the content, jurisdiction and so forth of e-commerce. And of course
our Internet service providers are concerned about the categories into which they fall; whether they are considered to be a pure channel or whether they are publishers in those circumstances. Further discussions may need to be held, but the Bill's objective is clear. We must ensure that in trying to solve some e-commerce issues we do not create further loopholes for tobacco companies.We had a trailer of the burden of proof argument from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I point out that about 10 Acts of Parliament were passed by the previous Conservative government that provide a clear precedent for the reversal of the burden of proof. They include the Food Safety Act 1990, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Children Act 1989, the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990 and the Clean Air Act 1993. That is a fair catalogue of Acts reversing the burden of proof.
In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the individual beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high standard of proof. That obligation means not only proving all the ingredients of the offence but negativing any defence. In effect, the defendant need only raise an arguable case for one of the defences--that he did not know--and the burden of proving the facts at issue is cast on the prosecution. In practice, if the defence can raise any doubt, when the totality of the evidence is considered, the court will not convict, as the prosecution will not have discharged its burden of proving the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The wording of the defences in Clause 5 follows that used frequently in other criminal legislation, and therefore does not reverse the burden of proof.
The pricing argument was another interesting excursion. It involves what I would call the Gordon Brown factor. I can blame the Chancellor for many things, but the level of tobacco smuggling and consumption of tobacco cannot be laid at his door. Indeed, many of us support the action that the Chancellor has taken on tobacco duty during the past few years. Economists would have great difficulty demonstrating that the demand for tobacco products is as elastic as some noble Lords argued. The argument that lowering the price of tobacco will inevitably increase demand or create new entrants is by no means proven. The power of the brand and of aspiration is far higher. No one denies that smuggling is a major issue and that firm action should be taken on it, but that is not an argument against the benefit of the Bill.
I turn to the sunset clause argument, which is that the evidence is so unclear that we ought to experiment a little in the Bill and include a sunset clause of three years, five years, or whatever. I agree with the weight of the argument in today's debate, which is that the burden of proof lies squarely on the Bill's opponents, in view of the achievable public health benefits. The evidence is that those benefits will accrue after some years. One uses a sunset clause only in the most extreme circumstances when there is considerable doubt about the benefits of a Bill.
Moving swiftly on to tobacco workers, I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, had to say. Of course, there has been an enormous level of anxiety. However, it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that the aim of the Bill is not a reduction in the volume of tobacco products being produced in this country--certainly for domestic consumption and, I would say, for international consumption. The companies involved are rich and powerful and can afford to ensure that their workers are properly protected and led into other avenues of employment. Of course, I endorse the need for adequate government regional policy and proper economic regeneration in the areas affected. I am sure that that is supported by all noble Lords on these Benches.
The reasons for taking up smoking may be multi-factoral but, contrary to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we know that we can do something about advertising. It may be that we cannot do much about other factors which lead to the young taking up smoking. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said, this Bill is doing our bit. As my noble friend Lord Rennard said, this is something that we can do and today we must grasp it.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made a magnificent case for a total ban, but I do not believe that in the current circumstances that would be proportionate. This Bill is not a witch hunt of smokers, the thin end of the wedge or draconian. The end certainly justifies the means. This Bill is an important step towards a key public health goal: the reduction of tobacco consumption and the death and disease which result from it.
I pay tribute to the work of all those organisations which have campaigned for the Bill, particularly Action on Smoking and Health. I very much hope that all your Lordships present, if not already persuaded, will in future give their strong support to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
- House adjourned at two minutes past four o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |