| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clement-Jones: I confess that I have not seen any snuff advertisements recently. I accept that there is no such thing as "passive sniffing"; at least, I suspect not. The Minister put the medical case, which is clearly relative to smoking. It is not as dangerous, but, as he explained, it has its own dangers. Therefore, there is a health risk. The wider policy aspect is also of great importance. We do not want legislation which could be exploited by the tobacco companies using, for instance, a cigarette brand for snuff, or something of that sort, which would exploit the brand by the back door. I am convinced that snuff should be included within the ambit of the Bill and shall not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: Before I decide what to do, perhaps I may seek clarification from the Minister. He stated that 400 people die from nasal cancer each year. Does he mean that 400 people die each year from nasal cancer as a result of taking snuff or did he mean 400 people in total?
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for seeking clarification. I sought to say that 400 people per year die of cancers to the nasal cavity. I was not saying that 400 people die each year from nasal cancer as a result of taking snuff.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be prepared to write to me with a copy of the scientific papers showing the link between snuff taking and cancer?
Lord Filkin: I shall be glad to do so.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for seeking further and necessary clarification before the next stage of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, for his support. He is right; I should have emphasised the passage from the scientific report stating that switching from cigarettes to snuff could have enormous health benefits. That is the nub of the matter. We are encouraging people to switch from something which is quite dangerous to something much less dangerous. The noble Lord talked about physiological addiction. However, we are talking of people who are already physiologically addicted to nicotine. Surely, it would be beneficial if they were to switch from cigarette smoking to snuff.
However, I suspect that neither the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nor the Government have yet had a chance to study in depth the 1980 Lancet report.
As I stated in my introduction, I invite them to do so. We may return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Naseby moved Amendment No. 6:
- Page 1, line 7, at end insert "but does not include a product which is made partly of tobacco (or any of its constituents) and is intended to assist a consumer of tobacco products to stop or reduce his use of such products"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is of serious intent and importance. I am conscious that the Government and their predecessors, through the NHS initially and now more widely, have a number of campaigns to assist people who smoke to quit. That involve products which are placed on the skin, inhaled, chewed, and sucked. There is now even a lozenge on the market.
Most of those products contain nicotine. The intention is that they are used at a gradually diminishing strength or frequency to help smokers to be weaned off their habit. Nicotine is also the most significant component of tobacco. While we would not promote tobacco today if we had the choice, nevertheless it was originally used medicinally. It is interesting that it is suggested that cannabis can also be used medicinally. Nicotine is mainly produced today commercially from tobacco and not by synthesising a chemical.
It is not at all clear, to me at any rate, that nicotine is not a product consisting "wholly or partly of tobacco". If it is to be regarded as being a product consisting "wholly or partly of tobacco", certain nicotine replacement therapy products would fall within the prohibitions within the Bill. When the Bill was considered in the last Parliament in another place, the Minister for Public Health stated,
- "[The Government's] legal advice is that nicotine replacement therapy is not covered by the Bill and by the definition in the clause. They are treated not as tobacco products, but as nicotine products".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 30/1/01; col. 28.]
It has been brought to my knowledge that there is not a uniformity of opinion in the outside world that that statement is correct. Rather than leave matters in doubt—I do not think that the promoter of the Bill wants these products to be encompassed—it should be made clear that such products are excluded from the Bill. I have not tabled an amendment at this time, although I shall do so if the promoter is unable to. I am
looking to him to respond along the lines that products which are licensed under the Medicines Act would be exempt.
The Earl of Erroll: Having listened to the response to the previous amendment, it seems that the purpose of the Bill is to include any product which contains nicotine; and snuff is a tobacco derivative. Having listened also to the response about the letterheads which may or may not be held to be advertising, it seems that the Bill is turning into a lawyer's dream in which everything will be determined by the courts; it is all up in the air. At the end of the day the "small person", such as me, will not be able to defend himself because he cannot afford to do so and the big companies may or may not decide to fight it out in court.
I would have thought that trying to help people to be weaned off their nicotine dependency was a good thing. Therefore, the amendment is a good thing. Otherwise, I am sure that such products will be caught by the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Cigarettes, pipe tobacco and hand-rolling tobacco, to name but three, have something in common. Not only do they have nicotine in common, they also have tar in common. That is why the level of tar in a cigarette must by law be printed on a cigarette packet. Therefore, to restrict our definitions to nicotine would be a great mistake.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps when responding to the amendment, the Minister or the promoter of the Bill could say from where the nicotine that is used in patches, lozenges or other products which are designed to help people give up their nicotine addiction is obtained.
Lord Filkin: The debate on Amendment No. 6 hinges around the difference between nicotine and tobacco. While I have sympathy with the reason for promoting the amendment, I do not believe that the problem the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, seeks to prevent exists.
The amendment as proposed would exclude from the Bill any product which contains tobacco and is used as an anti-smoking treatment. We are not at present aware of any such product on the market. However, the definition of a tobacco product in the Bill is one consisting wholly or partly of tobacco. That definition means that products which contain a tobacco constituent, such as nicotine, are not covered by the Bill.
There are a number of smoking cessation products on the market at present whose purpose is to help wean smokers off their addiction to nicotine. All those products contain nicotine but they do not contain tobacco. There is therefore no danger that the Bill will prohibit the advertisement of nicotine replacement
therapies. I note the noble Lord's question about the source of nicotine and I shall seek to provide written advice on that subsequently.
Lord Lucas: I found the Minister's reply an interesting attempt at a definition; that because the product contains nicotine which comes from tobacco it does not contain tobacco. Will the Minister therefore say that bread does not contain wheat because it contains only flour, which is part of the wheat?
Lord Filkin: I sought to spare the Committee a fuller explanation but I shall offer to give one now. If there were to be legislation affecting wine, which defined a wine product as one consisting wholly or partly of wine, grapes would not be within the ambit of that definition. Although grapes can be a constituent of wine, wine is not a constituent of grapes. In the same way, tobacco consists in part of nicotine, but nicotine does not consist of tobacco.
Lord Clement-Jones: I suspect that the Bishops will be more in tune with the bread and wine side of the argument but I must confess that I was wholly taken with the Minister's exposition. I am satisfied that nicotine replacement products are not covered by the Bill's advertising provisions.
I must respond instantly to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The Bill is not a lawyer's dream but it is certainly my dream, and I am a lawyer, to get it through. However, I do not believe that it will be extremely difficult in legal terms. Most of the terms used in the Bill are fairly straightforward of interpretation. The noble Earl spoke about the small person afflicted by the Bill. We know very well who is the subject of the Bill; it is the extremely large tobacco companies with huge market capitalisations. They are perfectly able to look after themselves and can employ—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page