| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I observe—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the noble Lord seeking to speak after the Minister? We are on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and the promoter of the Bill has the right to speak after the Minister.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to intervene on my own Bill. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for acknowledging that the Bill will have received a considerable amount of time and serious consideration in the course of its passage. We had a very full Committee stage, and I look forward to today as we have some serious amendments before us.
I also welcome the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, introduced his amendment. He clearly has considerable expertise in this area. But there is a substantive issue behind what may appear to be a drafting amendment. The key issue to be dealt with in this group of amendments concerns whether a website should be treated differently from any other electronic means of communication.
We heard the Minister say that he does not consider the amendments to be either necessary or helpful and that they risk pre-empting the outcome of the consultations on the e-commerce directive which will be held soon. I agree with the thrust of what he says.
I can see the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in relation to the amendments. They would treat websites as part of an information society service under the terms of the technical standards
directive. However, I agree with the Minister that websites are a unique case. Unlike a fax, e-mail or other type of electronic transmission, it is nigh-on impossible to predict or control who has access to the information on a website. As a result, I consider that it is fair to treat websites as a special case and to regulate them accordingly. I believe that, as a matter of public policy, it should be possible and is desirable to treat advertisements on a website in the same way as one would if they were on a poster hoarding. The Bill, as drafted, allows us to do that. However, that would not be the case if the noble Lord's amendments were accepted.I believe that it would be unwise to legislate here in haste on one e-commerce issue only to repent at leisure in a few months' time before we know the outcome of the forthcoming consultation on the e-commerce directive. I believe that, as drafted, the Bill allows the sensible regulation of advertising on websites. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and not to pursue those which are consequential on it.
The Minister's remarks about the way in which the Bill, if it were not consistent, would be brought into line with the e-commerce directive were extremely helpful. I very much hope that those assurances will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that I am allowed to speak now. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—perhaps I should say particularly so—because he has covered points which I intend to raise under separate amendments as to whether the Bill should contain the word "website" in particular places or whether it should say "electronic communication". I believe that in many cases it should be the latter rather than the former, but we can go into that during debate on later amendments.
Secondly, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for clarifying the Government's position on the e-commerce directive. I recall that on 7th December the noble Lord said that,
- "the Government's intention is to make the Bill, if it progresses, fully compliant with the European regulations, as previously indicated. Further details of that will be provided later".—[Official Report, 7/12/01; col. 1108].
I was struck by a phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In introducing my amendment I talked about the lethargy surrounding the Bill's progress. The noble Lord then promptly talked about legislating in haste. There must be a conflict of opinion here. That said, on reflection, it would have been easier in terms of the debate had I not pursued my thoughts in quite that way.
I may well find the need to return to the matter on Third Reading by seeking to amend the interpretation clause in the way that will be developed clearly during the course of today's discussions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
- After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have spotted that this is a Henry VIII clause. Like most of us, I do not like such clauses in principle. However, in Committee both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were adamant that a Henry VIII clause should remain in the Bill, to wit Clause 7. Therefore, the principle having been firmly established so far as concerns the Bill, it might as well be put to good use.
The fact is that, however successful government propaganda may be, millions of people will still want to smoke or take tobacco in some form. That being the case, it is surely desirable that they should take it in the least harmful form possible. That is certainly in the interests of manufacturers, who do not, after all, want to remain the nation's whipping boys.
But if the manufacturers are to go to the enormous expense of trying to develop, possibly by genetic modification or some other means, a tobacco which, while fully preserving flavour, contains significantly—I stress the word "significantly"—less tar and nicotine than even the lowest tar brands do at present, they must know that they can publicise it so as to recoup their costs. It must be in the best interests of the Government and of the community at large that they should be able to publicise such a development, thereby inducing people to switch away from more harmful brands.
Of course, that may never happen; the experiments may fail. But if they should be successful, the Government should have reserve powers in hand to permit the necessary publicity without having to wait for a slot for primary legislation.
There is also the question of non-smoking tobacco products. In Committee, I tried to get snuff accepted. The Government argued and sent me many detailed findings stating that snuff was not totally harmless. I accept that, but it is a great deal less harmful than smoking. If people want to take nicotine in some form, surely it is desirable to leave the way open for the Government to change their mind on this score. There is another non-smoking product called snus. It is very popular in Scandinavia. Apparently 20 per cent of adults in Sweden take it, including no less an individual than Sven-Goran Eriksson, and it certainly does not seem to have done him any harm. Therefore, for all those reasons I believe that the Government should consider the amendment very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has tabled an alternative amendment. I do not know which is more favoured by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I believe that the safeguards
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it comes as no surprise that my amendment is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, because it is very similar, although mine is perhaps in slightly more legislative form than his. The Minister will doubtless want to comment on that.
I still believe, for two reasons, that it is appropriate to have a sunset clause in the Bill. If in five or six years' time it is discovered that cigarette smoking, or, rather, the consumption of tobacco, decreases rather than increases, as we all hope it will, then there is no point in continuing to have it on the statute book. However, as the Bill now stands, it would need primary legislation to remove it. That seems quite unnecessary.
But time moves on, and the tobacco companies are more than capable of producing new products. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, commented on my powers of imagination. Therefore, I have no hesitation in using them again. Perhaps noble Lords would imagine that it has become possible to so genetically modify the tobacco plant that it contains not nicotine but another drug—say, caffeine. Such a modified leaf could be ground up and converted into snuff, or otherwise sniffed. Were such a product to be invented, I imagine that it would be of little harm. In their compendium of measures to persuade people like me to give up cigarette smoking, the government of the day may want to encourage tobacco companies to promote it. They may even want to promote it themselves. Before any noble Lord remarks on that latter course, that may be stretching the imagination just a little too far.
The important point is that such a promotion would be illegal under the Bill, with the result that the Act, as it will assuredly become in a few months' or even a few days' time, would do more harm than good. Surely, noble Lords would not intend that to happen. My answer to this conundrum is to include either Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 3. It is up to the House to decide which, if either of the amendments, it prefers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I congratulate both noble Lords on their ingenuity in bringing forth these amendments that seek to replicate the intent in Clause 7, but relate it to scientific discoveries in relation to safe or safer tobacco products. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that it is true that we have been debating this Bill happily for a number of weeks now, but if he cares to
"DEVELOPMENTS WITH REGARD TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS
(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend any provision of this Act if he considers it appropriate to do so in consequence of any significant scientific developments relating to tobacco products.
(2) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall publish his proposals and consult such persons or bodies as appear to him to be appropriate.".
11.30 a.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page