Plenary, 17 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 17, 2001

Official Report 439KB pdf

---

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1527, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on the UK Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.

I had a most constructive session last week with the Health and Community Care Committee when it considered the Executive's memorandum on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. While the committee accepted and endorsed the arguments for a single UK bill, it felt that it would be worth while for the Parliament to have the opportunity to consider the arguments.

Smoking is the greatest single cause of preventable disease and ill health in Scotland. I am sure that members would not argue with the Executive's desire to put tobacco control high on its list of health priorities. "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change" reaffirms our commitment to battling against the impact of tobacco, and demonstrates our intention to focus on prevention and enabling people to stay well and to stay out of hospital.

The Executive and the Parliament owe it to Scotland and Scots to do all we can to reduce the toll that smoking takes of the nation's health. Indeed, the Executive is already introducing a comprehensive range of measures to reduce smoking levels. All those measures are important, especially in relation to persuading children and young people not to start smoking, but they will not work as effectively as they might if they need to compete with powerful and stylish tobacco advertising.

At the most recent UK general election, a ban on tobacco advertising was a Labour manifesto pledge. In its first programme for government, the Executive pledged to implement the European Union directive to ban tobacco advertising. However, effecting a ban has not been straightforward due to legal challenges in the European and English courts, resulting in the decision to annul the directive.

Advertising and promotional activities do not respect national boundaries. All UK Administrations have a common objective to effect a ban. It is vital to have a consistent approach throughout the UK if the ban is to be effective, robust in the face of any legal challenge and capable of effective enforcement, and the Executive is in no doubt that a single UK bill is the right way forward.

As the memorandum and supporting papers explain, the bill is comprehensive. Although the European Court of Justice ruling means that the UK no longer has an obligation to implement the measures in the EU directive, the bill follows the policy that was set out in previous consultations on implementing that directive.

The bill will ban all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion, including sponsorship and brand sharing. In some instances, detailed measures will be set out in subordinate legislation, on which there will be consultation. However, the legislation also takes account of the legitimate right of those who are involved in the tobacco trade to go about their lawful business.

The bill contains a number of regulation and order-making powers, some of which will be conferred on Scottish ministers. On other areas—that is, on brand sharing, distributions at nominal cost and advertising by electronic means—it is intended to legislate on a UK-wide basis. Those are areas on which it is difficult to legislate, from both a technical and a legal standpoint, and on which legislation would, potentially, be difficult to enforce in a Scotland-only context. Moreover, they may—under the technical standards directive—require notification to the EU, which would take some time. We are keen that that does not delay the introduction of wider statutory controls.

I hear what the minister says about technical difficulties, but are not there technical difficulties relating to advertising from other countries in the European Union? I am thinking especially of motor racing, and other sports events where there is advertising or satellite television. What do we intend to do about that? Will it be banned in some way?

There was a European agreement on that; we hope that another directive will be introduced soon. The original directive was disallowed because it was introduced as a single market measure and was judged to be a health measure. It would be more effective to have measures such as sponsorship bans on a Europe-wide basis. We hope that that will happen, but we will not wait for Europe to decide before we take action.

I ask the Parliament to support the Executive's motion. It makes good sense to work co-operatively with other parts of the UK. In lodging the motion, our overriding concern is to introduce a firm and effective ban on advertising and to do so quickly. The bill is a major step in our drive to cut the devastating toll that smoking takes on our nation's health.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the need to ban tobacco advertising and promotion in Scotland as set out in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill and agrees that the relevant provisions in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

I place on record the SNP's support for a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and promotion. As Malcolm Chisholm has said, smoking kills far too many people in Scotland and ruins the lives of many more. Banning advertising and promotion will not provide the entire solution to the problem of smoking and smoking-related illnesses, but if it helps at all, it will be a measure worth supporting.

Nevertheless, I seek reassurance from the minister on a number of points, the first of which concerns the time scale.

I would like Nicola Sturgeon to clarify her position. Is she dissociating herself from the other SNP member of the Health and Community Care Committee, Dorothy-Grace Elder, who asked that newspapers and the printed media be exempt from the ban?

All members of the Health and Community Care Committee are entitled to ask questions of the minister. Dorothy-Grace Elder also placed on record her support for a ban on tobacco advertising. Perhaps Keith Raffan should read the Official Report properly.

As I was saying, I would like the minister to address concerns about the time scale. As he said, a ban on advertising and promotion of tobacco was a Labour manifesto commitment, yet here we are, weeks from a likely general election, and it is only now that the bill is being introduced. There are reasons for that, which we do not have time to go into today, but I seek a guarantee from the minister that, if the bill is not on the statute book before the House of Commons is dissolved for a general election, separate Scottish legislation will be introduced immediately so that the progress that he has said is so important can continue apace.

I have several points about the content of the bill. First, I am concerned about point-of-sale advertising, which is exempted from the ban subject to regulation by Scottish ministers. I think that we would all accept that the adverts that young people are most likely to come into contact with are point-of-sale adverts in, for example, newsagents. Does the minister agree that the regulations on that matter must be very tightly drawn? Will he give an assurance that the effect of regulations in that area will be to outlaw point-of-sale advertising in newsagents and similar outlets?

My second point is about brand sharing. Unless the regulations on brand sharing are extremely tightly drawn, that area will be open to exploitation by imaginative and determined tobacco companies. Regulations on brand sharing will be the responsibility of UK ministers, not Scottish ministers. Will the minister tell us what input Scottish ministers will have into the detail of those regulations?

My third point concerns sponsorship. The minister is aware of my concerns about a potential loophole in the legislation. At the Health and Community Care Committee, he gave me an assurance that that loophole will not be open to tobacco companies.

The final point that I would like the minister to address when he sums up is when the ban will come into force. Under European provisions, we have until 2006 to bring the ban into force. My view, which is shared by many members, is that that is too long to wait. Can we expect the ban to be implemented much more quickly than that, notwithstanding the views of a certain Mr Ecclestone or any of his colleagues?

The Conservatives support the aims of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. As a unionist, I recognise that some legislation, especially on subjects that impact on all of us in the British isles, is best dealt with in a Westminster context.

Many members, including the minister, welcomed the European convention on human rights and were particularly proud of the fact that acts of the Scottish Parliament can be held more strongly to account by the courts than can Westminster acts. I do not pretend to be a lawyer but, although I applaud the noble aims of the bill, I ask the minister for an assurance that the UK bill does not infringe the ECHR, especially article 10, and that he is satisfied with the bill. A Sewel motion should not mean that Scottish ministers abdicate their responsibilities in favour of the Westminster Parliament.

The Conservatives are concerned by the timing of the bill, which Nicola Sturgeon mentioned. I note from the Official Report of the Health and Community Care Committee that the minister put responsibility for much of the delay at the door of EU courts and legislation, but the Labour party was not precluded from introducing a bill much earlier, rather than in year 4. What is the minister's view on that?

Because of the lateness of the bill's introduction and, if press speculation is correct, a coming general election, the minister cannot give a guarantee that the bill will be enacted. If his party is not successful in the election, which I am sure that it will not be, a Conservative Government's different priorities could mean a different Queen's speech. We should remember that. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament should decide on its own bill, which could encompass not just advertising, but point-of-sale materials, sales to those who are under age, and more enforcement. Perhaps more of the issues should be dealt with in this chamber.

There is no doubt that there is a desire among Conservative members to reduce the incidence of smoking. However, we should remember that, in today's world, in which the Government seems to want to control everything, tobacco is still a legal commodity. Many people smoke because they want to. That is their responsibility and their choice. We are not all seduced by formula 1 and adverts. It could be argued that the large tax revenue that Scotland receives, in effect, from smokers—I note that it totals £1 billion—goes some way to covering the costs.

We will support the motion, but we will do so with some reservations about the freedom of the individual and the Government's timing.

Ben Wallace had a go at the minister because the bill is being introduced in year 4. The Conservatives had 18 years and did nothing. Some of us might have preferred the UK Labour Government—

Will the member give way?

Sit down. Go back to the slopes of Mirabelle.

Some of us might have preferred the UK Labour Government to act earlier, but I congratulate the minister and the UK Labour Government on acting now. The bill is long overdue, especially as tobacco advertising on television has been banned since 1965. Action should be taken through UK legislation, especially as media are increasingly cross border. The minister and the Government are right to want a ban that is as comprehensive as possible, especially as the centre for social marketing at the University of Strathclyde has shown that children as young as six associate certain brands of cigarette with excitement and fast cars.

We are completely in support of the comprehensive ban on print and electronic media, billboards, direct mail and so on. In particular, we support the fact that the UK Labour Government has moved to impose a ban on sponsorship, which will help to retrieve the Government's reputation following the Ecclestone affair. The trouble for far too long has been that Governments—and the Treasury in particular—have shown an ambivalence towards tobacco, for the simple reason that they get so much tax revenue from it. We are at least making a move in the right direction. However, as Ms Sturgeon said, we must not underestimate the ingenuity of tobacco companies in shifting promotional funding from one area to another. They have already done so in the past few years, moving from billboards and outdoor advertising to direct mail. The total spend in 1999 was £52.8 million. I am sure that companies will try to use those resources in other ways.

There is one means of promotion that we cannot affect. Companies have shown great adeptness at product placement, in particular in movies and television films. I want to raise with the minister the exemptions for the BBC and the other broadcasting media. I understand that those exemptions are to do with the fact that the codes of conduct to which broadcasters have agreed in the past are regarded as having been effective. However, I presume that it is also in part to do with the fact that movies, increasingly, are shown on television and that one finds product placement in them. I understand that product placement has declined in recent years, but there is no doubt that the comprehensive nature of the ban will mean that it is likely to be extended.

If we take the member's point to its logical extension, he is suggesting that tobacco products should be banned from drama, be it film or television. Is that so? If it is, does he believe that the ban should be extended to alcohol products to try to reduce further levels of alcoholism?

If the member had listened carefully, he would have heard what I said, which was that it is impossible for us to affect product placement in movies, television drama and so on. If we are to be consistent, alcohol advertising and promotion must also be examined. I agree with the member on that. We should also consider the state laws in the United States on the banning of tobacco in public places such as restaurants.

Five members have asked to speak, so speeches should be no more than three minutes long.

I do not know how much support Keith Raffan would get if he suggested that the characters in "EastEnders" and "Coronation Street" should drink milk in the Queen Vic and the Rovers Return instead of doing what they usually get up to. However, it is an interesting point. The insidious nature of advertising and promotion, in its many guises, means that we should do everything that we can.

I will pick up on Malcolm Chisholm's remarks. All of us must have been very disappointed by the European directive being annulled by the European Court of Justice. I welcome the possibility of the European Union examining the matter again and producing legislation that cannot be challenged, but that does not mean that members in the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament should not do something about tobacco advertising. It is essential that the bill be passed before the general election. I would be concerned—as would be members of the Health and Community Care Committee—if there were to be any slippage. We must not lose this opportunity to make progress.

It is heartening that all members are as one on the subject. We must do everything that we can to limit the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. An estimated 300 lives are at stake throughout Scotland in any given year. That is a prize worth fighting for, so we must do everything that we can. If that means working in conjunction with the UK Parliament on the matter, so be it.

It is right that we are having this debate in the chamber, although I and colleagues in the Health and Community Care Committee had the opportunity to question the minister about it last week. If Sewel motions are to be used, we must scrutinise them as much as possible.

One of the matters in the bill on which orders and regulations are left in the hands of Scottish ministers—the exemption for point-of-sale advertising—is especially interesting. Members of the Health and Community Care Committee were concerned that ministers should take that matter seriously. The point of sale is where youngsters and others—perhaps those who are trying to kick the habit—may be seduced or taken unawares and, in a blinding flash, suddenly just think of buying cigarettes. If we tackle advertising, we must tackle it in all its guises. We must not underestimate that.

Nicola Sturgeon alluded to clause 9(1) and (2) and the loophole on sponsorship. In the explanatory notes to the bill, it says that companies will be able to sponsor events by using not their product's name, but their company name. That is very dangerous. How long will it be before a tobacco company makes its name the same as the name of its main brand? We must be vigilant.

I support the motion and will take this opportunity to remind Parliament of the widespread problems that are caused by tobacco products.

I believe that Kenny Gibson will speak next in the debate. I am glad about that, because the cross-party group on tobacco control, which he convenes, must be congratulated by Parliament. It has done a lot of good work.

In Glasgow, one in five people die because of their smoking habit; that amounts to 2,367 deaths in greater Glasgow each year. The in-patient cost to the national health service in Glasgow alone is estimated at £14.44 million. Hundreds of NHS beds, nurses, doctors and theatres are taken up by smoking-related illnesses. Think what we could do in the NHS if we could free up those resources in Glasgow, never mind across Scotland.

We must have a comprehensive strategy to encourage people to give up smoking. A ban on tobacco advertising will be only part of that strategy. Advice and counselling will also be essential. For the strategy to be most effective, we should support the Sewel motion this afternoon, because any measures should be brought in throughout the UK. As previous speakers have pointed out, there have been several attempts to regulate the industry, including a failed attempt by the European Community. However, we all hope that we will return to that issue.

As we have seen many times, the tobacco industry is exploitation orientated. There is ever-increasing evidence about why we should proceed with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. For example, a Department of Health report showed that advertising bans reduce tobacco consumption, which is a trend that has been followed in countries such as New Zealand, Norway and France.

Unlike adults, children are not impressed by the cheapest cigarettes; they tend to buy the trendiest and most advertised brands. Members with their own teenagers, or who know any teenagers, will be only too familiar with the culture of the importance of brand names and well-known labels. We must think about the impact of advertising and sponsorship on children.

As for women and smoking, a leading trade journal has stated openly that women are a prime target for any alert European market. Feminine brands and low tar cigarettes play on women's traditional fears of weight gain. There is no doubt that the industry targets its brands at women; it is not simply a question of asking people to change brands. We should see what is happening with our own eyes and not listen to what the industry says—it is targeting new recruits all the time.

Ben Wallace mentioned choice. People have a choice, but we have a responsibility to point out that smoking kills. Lung cancer is one of the nastiest cancers anyone can get. There has been an increase in cancer among women; we have a responsibility to do something about that, and we can take the first step today by supporting the Sewel motion on the banning of tobacco advertising.

Before I call Mr Gibson, I point out that if all members press their claim to speak, the time that we saved on the previous debate will be used on this debate and not on the debate on convenership of committees.

As convener of the cross-party group on tobacco control, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate.

The cross-border nature of tobacco marketing means that a ban on tobacco advertising would be much more effective if it were carried out simultaneously across the UK. The tobacco barons argue that they use advertising to encourage brand switching. However, in reality, cynical and often subtle marketing has been used to encourage people to start and continue smoking, with all the corresponding damage to health and all the heartbreak that is endured by the loved ones of the 14,000 Scots who die each year as a result.

Young people, the socially excluded and the emotionally vulnerable are deliberately targeted by market segmentation strategies that are aimed at attracting new customers to replace those who quit or die, while strengthening individual brand identity and awareness. The tobacco industry is highly profitable and can afford to hire the most creative and inventive people. Restrictions to date on advertising have helped to reduce consumption significantly, particularly in the more prosperous socioeconomic groups. However, progress has slowed due to the strength of the industry's more subtle campaigns, which currently outspend Government health campaigns on smoking by a factor of 10.

A complete ban on advertising works. In countries from Norway to New Zealand where advertising has been banned, consumption has fallen by 14 to 37 per cent.

I realise that the odd member might believe that newspapers should be exempt from a ban, as they judge tobacco advertising in that genre to be ineffective. Although I am sure that advertising executives in our newspapers would be apoplectic at the very suggestion that our newspapers are a poor advertising medium, it is at best naive to suggest that tobacco companies advertise in newspapers for charitable reasons. They know that it works; in any case, it is not our job to boost the profits of the Rupert Murdochs of this world at the expense of Scotland's public health.

For a ban to work, it must be comprehensive and include all media, brand names and logos. The bill must clamp down on direct marketing, including the practice of sending "money-off" vouchers to people's homes unless they are directly solicited. Brand sharing—the promotion of tobacco through non-tobacco products such as clothing and coffee—must be banned and tight restrictions must be introduced at point of sale, including packaging and shop displays. Sports sponsorship and internet sales require regulation, and initiatives such as handing out free cigarettes to young people at the industry-sponsored Edinburgh fringe comedy festival should no longer be permitted. I am pleased that the bill covers most of that, but the sponsorship and point-of-sale loopholes must be eliminated.

We must put a nail in the coffin of the tobacco industry—after all, it has been putting nails in the coffins of millions of us for many, many years.

For the first time, I agree with everything that Kenny Gibson says. I am in the happy position of never having smoked a cigarette in my life, although I was nearly asphyxiated many times early in my career in the Labour party, when we conducted our business in smoke-filled rooms. Happily, all that has changed, but there is still a serious problem of tobacco addiction in many parts of Scotland and a lot of people find it hard to kick the habit.

We all know that tobacco addiction makes people ill and kills 120,000 people every year throughout the United Kingdom. It is a serious epidemic. Despite that knowledge and the tobacco tax escalator, many people are finding it very hard to give up cigarette smoking. More alarming, many young people—especially young women—are taking up smoking. We must address that problem, and that is what today's motion is all about.

It is in the interests of the tobacco companies to recruit new addicts while they are young, by means that include the most cynical method possible: the direct or indirect sponsorship of sports. Tobacco advertising is a deliberate programme to attract healthy young people to becoming addicted to cigarettes, to generate profits for the tobacco companies and to condemn a high proportion of those young people to a life of ill health and, in many cases, an early death.

Some of us have taken interest in this matter for a long time. I introduced the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 to the House of Commons as a private member's bill, and tried to include in that bill a provision that would have prevented tobacco advertising anywhere near schools. That measure was resisted by the former Government and the Home Office, to their eternal shame. However, I am delighted that, with unanimous support across the political spectrum, we are now proceeding along that route.

It is a pity that we could not have had the legislation sooner, but delays were caused by legal challenges in Europe. I have total confidence in my parliamentary colleagues in the House of Commons to get it right and to progress the bill as quickly as possible. I hope that the bill will help to raise the standard of health across the UK, especially in Scotland, and to save a lot of lives.

All members want to achieve a clampdown on tobacco advertising. Above all, we must try to prevent young people from taking up smoking. However, a tremendous amount of hypocrisy surrounds any debate on clamping down on tobacco advertising.

Over the past 200 years, all Governments have been passive inhalers of the revenue from tobacco, and states are, to a large extent, run on booze and fags. No one has ever gone the full hog and banned tobacco. In the 19th century, when asked to ban tobacco, Napoleon III said:

"I will certainly forbid it at once, as soon as you can name a virtue that brings in as much revenue."

The Labour party has turned full circle, from accepting £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone and his tobacco-related interests to introducing a piece of legislation that is, in parts, too draconian.

Parts of the bill should perhaps be reviewed, as it would criminalise the news-vendors who sell papers on the street corner but allow the tobacco lords to move abroad and promote cigarettes on the internet. The bill would also exempt the producers of magazines that are printed outside the United Kingdom, whose principal market is not the UK or any part of it. Those people will make a fortune out of the extra advertisements that will come to them because all other legitimate forms of advertising have been banned. Furthermore, to very young people, the glossy magazine may be more attractive than advertisements in newsprint, which, as smokers know, are just a reminder to buy another packet of cigarettes and are not designed to lure a 17-year-old who might buy a newspaper.

The bill will not hit at the large newspaper that is owned by the mega-press baron, which is a problem. When the large newspaper that is the flagship of a chain suffers a serious reduction in revenue, the smaller newspapers in the chain will suffer first and suffer most. I should point out that although I am a journalist—an interest that I have declared—I am speaking from my own point of view entirely.

I urge the minister to consider the parts of the bill that criminalise people such as the news-vendors. According to the bill, if a paper with an advertisement for cigarettes is sold, responsibility would rest not only with editors and proprietors but with the news-vendors who dare to sell the paper. That must be considered unfair. We must not create a new criminal class of decent folks.

I welcome the support from a large number of speakers for the principle of banning tobacco advertising on a UK-wide basis. Nicola Sturgeon asked what would happen if the bill were not passed before the UK general election. I can give no guarantees about that, but I can remind her that the measure was a Labour UK manifesto commitment. In response to Ben Wallace's point, the only reason that the bill was not introduced earlier was because of the European directive; detailed regulations had been worked out for implementation. Clearly, we will have to review the situation if the general election comes first. I remind Nicola Sturgeon, however, that many speakers have said that the issue is not only about timing, but about the effectiveness of a ban and the ability to enforce it.

Point-of-sale advertising was mentioned by Nicola Sturgeon and Margaret Smith. I agree with them that regulations on such advertising must be tightly drawn. Such regulations will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. As I indicated at the Health and Community Care Committee, we will soon consult on the matter. We are minded that there should be regulations on the size of units for selling cigarettes in shops, on their position and on the size of the name on the units. We also think that such units should carry health warnings. Members of the Scottish Parliament who want the regulations to be even stricter will be able to express their views.

Nicola Sturgeon referred to the so-called sponsorship loophole. I remind her of clause 9 of the bill, which is quite strong. It says:

"A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product in the United Kingdom."

It is impossible to get round that by using the name rather than the product. I understand that there is concern about one of the comments in the explanatory notes, for which there may be reasons that arise from the European convention on human rights.

On brand sharing, we recognise that the legislation needs to be as tight as possible to ensure that tobacco companies do not merely transfer advertising expenditure to that type of promotion. There is no doubt that brand sharing is the most complex area on which we must legislate, both from a technical and a legal standpoint. The businesses operate on a UK-wide basis and any regulation might overlap with trading law, which is a reserved matter. Clearly, it would be ridiculous to have different brand-sharing regulations in Scotland and in England and we shall have input in that area.

Keith Raffan asked about broadcasting. Clause 11 excludes from the scope of the bill the BBC and all broadcasting media that are covered by codes of practice issued by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority under the Broadcasting Act 1990. The advertising and promotion of tobacco products is well controlled by those bodies. Other broadcasting media will be subject to the provisions of the bill.

Advertising is only one of a number of factors that induce people to smoke. However, international evidence indicates clearly a link between tobacco advertising and consumption. I urge Parliament to support the motion.