Official Report 278KB pdf
Good morning, Dr Wrench.
I would like to make a short statement.
Thank you for your submission, Dr Wrench. Although you express support for the principles of the bill in your submission, you also support action at UK level. That is something on which we would all agree. However, if there continues to be no guarantee of UK legislation, would it still be worthwhile to proceed with separate Scottish legislation to ban as much tobacco advertising as possible?
I would support such an approach, given that there has already been a delay in implementing the UK legislation. From a public health point of view, I would support a separate Scottish bill. Evidence from international studies shows that the more complete and comprehensive a ban is, the greater will be its effect in the long term. I realise that there are difficulties if a ban is not UK-wide. However, given its potential impact, my colleagues and I would support a separate Scottish ban.
Do you agree with the view of many experts that, although a completely comprehensive ban—which could probably be achieved only at European level—is the most desirable outcome, removal of any advertising would have a beneficial effect?
Yes. It is clear that the degree of the impact is proportional to the completeness of the ban. However, it would still be worthwhile to go ahead with a Scottish bill.
You have some concerns about the defences that are outlined in section 4 of the bill. Could you expand on those views, particularly on how some of the defences might be too easy to get round?
We have not gone into the legal implications in detail but, on reading the bill, it seemed to us that the number and degree of defences raised the possibility of loopholes. Generally, the evidence shows that when legislation and restrictions have been introduced previously, the tobacco companies have found loopholes and ways of getting round the restrictions. Our point is that it would be important to monitor that closely. Much will be learned in the practical implementation of the bill, particularly about how easy some of the defences will be to abuse. We wanted to express some concerns about the number of possible defences.
In your submission you talk about the monetary cost of smoking. Given that this week there has been much publicity about children living in poverty, particularly in Glasgow, can you tell us of any research into the impact of smoking on household income in deprived communities? You mentioned that many lone parents are smokers. Has any research been done on the impact on family finances?
Yes. I cannot quote specific research, although I know that general research supports what is in my submission.
Nicola Sturgeon made the point that many people take the view that a UK ban would be preferable, that a European ban would be even better, but that we might end up with only a Scottish ban. Perhaps I did not understand your answer, but you seemed to say that impact is proportional to the completeness of the ban. How would we quantify the impact of the ban? If I remember correctly, in relation to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill that was published in December 2000, the Department of Health said that if there were a UK-wide ban, smoking would be reduced by 2.5 per cent. Two questions stem from that. First, do you think that that figure is a reasonable estimate of the impact of UK ban, given that bans in other countries seem to have had a markedly higher effect? Secondly, if you accept that 2.5 per cent is the reasonable figure for a UK ban, do you have a ballpark figure of what the impact of a Scotland-only ban might be?
It is difficult to say. It is true that international research in Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France shows that national bans have a greater impact. However, it is important to emphasise that those bans were part of a wide strategy to discourage tobacco use and formed an integral part of an overall strategy. The figures from international studies vary quite a bit—from 7 to 10 per cent all the way up to reductions of almost 25 per cent, over a certain period.
Do you mean if the ban applied only to Scotland?
Yes, I think so, but I am giving you an empirical answer. It is difficult to base an answer on objective evidence.
Do you think that the Department of Health's 2.5 per cent estimate is pessimistic?
I think that, compared to studies that I have seen and discussed with other people, its estimate would be considered to be low.
The word "low" is probably a better word to use. I wrote down that it was a "conservative estimate," but I do not want to get my parties mixed up.
In your written submission you mentioned that recent research confirmed that in four countries—Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France—in which a ban on tobacco advertising was introduced as part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy, consumption of cigarettes dropped by between 14 and 37 per cent.
The first question I ask is whether the ban in the countries from which you quoted the not-so-good figures is part of a wider tobacco-control strategy. The evidence, as I understand it, is that banning or restricting advertising has an effect when it is part of a wider strategy, such as that which is outlined in the UK document "Smoking Kills." That document presents a comprehensive approach to smoking in communities. There are also wider public health messages from such bodies as HEBS.
I want to ask about that. I find the different figures confusing to look at. I would support anything that would reduce smoking and improve women's and children's health and so on. However, I wonder whether that can be done on the basis of the figures that you quoted. You cited Finland as an example, but consumption of cigarettes in Finland is greater than in the non-ban OECD countries. That fact comes from our parliamentary research unit.
To focus on Finland for a minute, I am surprised by the figures that you have quoted for that country, not only in relation to the ban on tobacco advertising, but to smoking reduction. There has been a sustained community initiative in north and east Karelia in Finland—which has spread to other areas of Finland over the past 25 years—to focus on coronary heart disease. A major plank of that initiative is related to smoking reduction. I cannot quibble with the figures that you or your researchers produced, but I am somewhat surprised by them.
It is not my research, but the Scottish Parliament's.
Because we are dealing with a moving scenario, it is very difficult to measure a specific output or outcome from advertising bans or restrictions. We need to take account of loopholes and brand stretching, which tobacco companies use to get round bans. In one Scandinavian country—I am not sure whether it was Finland or Norway—the strategy was revised a few years after the introduction of the initial ban, as it was felt that regulation needed to be tightened up in some areas. Brand stretching and direct marketing to children were issues of particular concern.
I would be very happy with a reduction in the number of people smoking. However, the figures before me suggest that there has been an increase in tobacco consumption in countries where tobacco advertising has been banned, as compared with nations where no such ban exists.
If we require further clarification of that issue, we can return to it.
For the record, it may be useful for Dr Wrench to know that the figures that Mary Scanlon is citing are 12 years out of date—they cover the period up to 1990. That puts them in context.
That is my view. It is very important to stress that any ban would be part of a wider tobacco-control strategy.
Would you care to elaborate on the point that you made in paragraph 4 of your submission about brand sharing or brand stretching? Do you know of any evidence or research regarding the effect of that form of advertising on smoking trends?
There is evidence of companies latching their brand name on to other products that children and young people may be interested in buying. I am sure that there is marketing research to suggest that brand stretching, as well as the direct advertising of tobacco products, has an effect on smoking trends. I know that certain countries that introduced bans at an early stage felt that the brand-stretching tactics of companies were slowing down the reduction in smoking among their populations and that they took steps to counter that. I cannot quote it chapter and verse, but there is evidence from marketing research that brand stretching and direct marketing—over and above the marketing of the product itself—have an effect.
Dr Wrench might wish to submit written information on brand stretching. The assertion in his submission must be based on evidence. He has made some general points, but it would be helpful to receive specific details. Is that possible?
Yes.
I will clarify the point that Mary Scanlon made about the researchers in Parliament coming up with the data that she mentioned. In the section of the Scottish Parliament information centre research note that deals with international data, the researchers refer to a study that was carried out by someone else. Another research study that is mentioned supports Dr Wrench's case that the incidence of smoking reduces following a ban on advertising.
Yes.
We must be sceptical about those figures, which are not the Scottish Parliament's figures but figures from a journal of the advertising lobby that are quoted in the research prepared by the Scottish Parliament. They do not represent the views of the Scottish Parliament. It is important to get that point across.
I will pick up on another point in Dr Wrench's submission. You were asked to comment on omissions from the bill. You mentioned brand stretching and picked up on another issue. Your submission states:
The suggestion was made by my colleagues in health promotion, who say that there are cigarette machines and associated advertising in a range of places where teenagers go, such as hotels, other places where alcohol is sold and amusement areas. It is difficult to know whether it would be possible to introduce a meaningful restriction in a bill. It is a matter that we thought worth considering. Our experience suggests that kids are exposed to cigarette vending machines in many different outlets and areas.
Your submission states:
I am sorry, I cannot give you specific examples.
Can we lump that matter in with the brand stretching? You can quiz your colleagues and inform the committee in writing of any specific examples.
Dr Wrench, you said that the effect of tobacco advertising is greater on children than on adults. Will you elaborate on that, particularly on whether there is any research that establishes that children are aware of tobacco and cigarettes before they start to smoke? Are children aware of cigarette advertising?
Professor Gerard Hastings of the University of Strathclyde has done a lot of research on that. In particular, he has studied children's awareness of different brand names. There is a strong and direct correlation between brands that have the heaviest promotion, and what children know about cigarettes and the brands that they use. Gerard Hastings has undertaken a lot of research on the effects of advertising and marketing and there is no question about its effects. All the studies and research of which I am aware show that the major impact of tobacco advertising is on children and teenagers.
Perhaps we can get hold of that research—it would be useful.
I thank Dr Wrench for coming—he has travelled a considerable distance. In his submission, he argues that there is
Dr Amanda Amos of the University of Edinburgh has done a lot of research that specifically examines the correlation between consumption and advertising, magazines and literature that are targeted at women. As with most things, it is difficult to show a definite correlation and to say that one thing definitely causes another. However, smoking has increased among younger women and teenage girls over the past 10 to 15 years and there has certainly been an increase in lung cancer rates among women. Among men, lung cancer rates have decreased slowly but, among women, the opposite has happened. We cannot say that that is definitely a case of cause and effect, but there appears to be a correlation in the figures.
Why does the tobacco industry target women? Is there a link with the fact that children are more likely to be around women? Is the industry attempting to recruit a new generation?
I can only speculate on that point, but I think that it is important. Women, particularly young mothers, have a marked influence on children in the parental home. The figures show that a high proportion of women, including young mothers, smoke—particularly in deprived areas, as I mentioned. The tobacco industry's market research might suggest that women in deprived areas are particularly vulnerable for a variety of reasons.
Stress.
I am speculating. There is evidence that, for one reason or another, older adult males have taken on the message about smoking—smoking levels among that group have reduced. For one reason or another, the message seems to have got through to men—certainly older adult men—in relation to fitness activity, coronary heart disease and so on. However, the position is different with younger women, who we know perceive the threat of coronary heart disease as a lesser one. If they are aware of a threat of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease or cancer, it is well down the list and is considered to be a concern for much later in life. For a variety of reasons, that group may be more susceptible and vulnerable.
Roughly how much is the budget that you receive to oppose the tobacco industry and its advertising and to target tobacco consumption?
We have money for that from the health improvement fund. Off the top of my head, I think we have somewhere between £100,000 and £200,000 per year for that purpose, but that sum may partly cover other initiatives. From a total budget of about £700,000 per year for health promotion in the Highlands, perhaps only a fifth or less—£100,000 or £150,000—is directed specifically at anti-smoking or anti-tobacco initiatives. It is a small amount in relative terms.
Particularly if we consider the amount raised through tobacco tax. Are you aware of the amount of revenue that the Government takes in tobacco tax?
Yes—that is why the health improvement fund money was very welcome. Some of that money was fed back to health boards, and the fund resources have been used in a variety of areas, in relation not just to tobacco, but to diet and physical activity. That money was welcome.
You are not just up against the tobacco industry. There is also the question of funding, as the amount of tobacco tax taken by the Treasury is up to £10 billion a year. Are you aware of the sum gained from children buying cigarettes illegally?
I am not aware of the specific sum.
It is estimated to be about £10 million a year for Scottish child smokers alone. There is a lot to consider about finance on both sides: in relation both to what the tobacco companies are spending and to what the NHS is not getting. Did you say that £150,000 or so was being used to combat cigarettes?
The figure is somewhere in that region.
If your contention is true that a ban on advertising works, in that it reduces the incidence of smoking, the opposite must also be true: the absence of a ban on advertising must work for the tobacco companies, in that it helps them to recruit new victims to replace the victims who die every year from coronary heart disease and cancer.
I take the point—that is a difficult issue. The key measures that can be taken involve working with local sporting and other events. I am thinking particularly about football. I know that some clubs have adopted an anti-smoking stance on advertising and have highlighted the dangers of tobacco. We could do a lot with locally organised events, including major sporting events, if we reach agreements with major sports such as football and rugby. That might involve not only banning advertising, which is an important measure to take, but giving out health promotion or anti-smoking messages. There is scope for that approach.
Do you accept that action is needed at a level higher than the Scottish Parliament to make any ban on tobacco advertising effective in Scotland, given the recent internationalisation of sport? For example, tobacco companies sponsor snooker championships that are broadcast and watched live across Scotland. They also sponsor darts championships at which the combatants are shown smoking before they throw the darts. You mentioned international motor racing, and there is no control over the English premier league football matches that are broadcast every night in Scotland.
I refer back to the point that was made earlier. We would support UK action, but in the absence of UK action, I would still argue strongly for the bill and for a Scottish approach of working on a local basis. That argument is pragmatic, but I feel so strongly about the public health issues that surround the use of tobacco products that I believe that tackling those issues on a local basis is justified.
Is there an argument for saying that a ban should go beyond the British level? For example, during the summer, the world cup will be broadcast to Britain from Korea and Japan and I am sure that tobacco advertising will be to the fore. International events are broadcast by satellite all the time. Should the United Nations or the European Union be involved in trying to impose a ban?
I agree that to make any ban effective, the wider and more complete the restriction, the better.
This is one area of globalisation that most new politicians are not interested in taking on board.
I agree with Dr Wrench's comments on the scope of limiting tobacco advertising through sponsorship in Scotland. For example, if the world snooker championships were held in Scotland, I presume that tobacco sponsorship could be banned, even if that competition were to be televised elsewhere.
I agree. I re-emphasise the point that was made about taking an integrated approach. I realise that there is a European directive that will affect motor racing in a few years' time. We would all like there to be a UK, European and global approach, but the problem is such that we have to start with a local approach in Scotland. I strongly support starting with that approach.
Paragraph 5 of your submission says that consumption fell by between 14 and 37 per cent in the four countries in which a ban has been introduced. I repeat the request that other members have made, as it is important that the committee has accurate figures. It will be helpful if you send us the information on which that statement is based.
I will certainly do that.
I thank Dr Wrench for his evidence.
ASH Scotland thanks the committee for inviting us to speak. We are delighted to give you the opportunity to hear our views on the bill.
Your submission states that evidence shows that a ban on tobacco advertising would reduce the consumption of tobacco. For the committee's benefit, will you give further detail of that evidence?
We have collected evidence from different countries that we can send to the committee. It is clear that a ban on tobacco advertising would reduce consumption. I was shocked to hear Mary Scanlon say that consumption is going up.
I was not saying that. I was—
It was said.
It would be helpful for the committee to have the information.
I do not know when Iceland introduced the ban, but things change over time. The tobacco industry looks constantly for loopholes. In 1967, when we banned TV advertising, we did not repeal it because it was not working. We said that we need to toughen it up. If tobacco advertising bans are not constantly monitored and reviewed to look for the loopholes that the tobacco industry will seek to find, consumption will increase. The industry is out to hook new people into smoking cigarettes.
I appreciate that. I know that ASH Scotland has undertaken considerable research. If the advertising ban is imposed, what is your estimate of the percentage reduction in the consumption of cigarettes in Scotland? Where would it be on a scale of 1 to 37 per cent?
I cannot say, as a ban on tobacco advertising is not in place. We want a ban on tobacco advertising in the UK because the European ban on tobacco advertising fell. The Scottish Parliament has had a Sewel debate in which a ban on tobacco advertising was supported. I cannot understand why we are now talking about whether it will be effective. MSPs have said that there must be a ban on tobacco advertising. It is odd to ask whether a ban will bring down consumption, when members have argued for a ban.
I am looking for guidance from you, on the basis of the research that I know you have carried out, for a rough guide to what we could expect in the reduction in consumption and the saving of lives.
Mary Scanlon will note that the World Bank figure is 7 per cent.
That figure is for a global ban.
Yes, for a ban on tobacco advertising. The Department of Health figure is 2.5 per cent. Those figures are Government figures and they are on the low side.
You raise an important point that, on a previous occasion, all members of the Scottish Parliament supported the principle of a ban on tobacco advertising. Much of what we are debating on the bill is how best to begin to introduce a ban effectively and as quickly as possible.
If billboard and point-of-sale advertising were banned, images that normalise tobacco use would be removed from people's communities. When Gerard Hastings comes to the committee to give evidence, you can ask him about tactics that the tobacco industry is starting to use such as offering to tile a shop's floor with tiles that bear tobacco advertising in order to extend the advertising to other parts of the shop. There is a dose effect in that each area of advertising that is banned has an effect.
I assume that you would say that the argument that one legislature—the Scottish Parliament—should wait for another legislature to take action just because its ban might be a wee bit more comprehensive than ours is a bogus argument, and that we should just get on with doing what we can.
Yes. Of course, what the World Bank means by comprehensive is more than one medium.
That would suggest that the ban in the bill that we are discussing would be considered to be comprehensive.
Yes.
It has been put to us by the tobacco industry that tobacco advertising is not designed to encourage people to take up smoking but to encourage smokers to switch brands. Is that a credible argument?
No. The tobacco industry's documents make it clear that the advertising targets young people. We lose 13,000 Scots each year through tobacco-related diseases. That means that the tobacco companies have to get new customers and, logically, they use advertising to do that.
On page 4 of your submission, you detail various estimates of the reduction in the number of people smoking that would result if there were a Europe-wide ban on tobacco advertising. What specific reduction in those figures do you think there would there be if only Scotland introduced a ban? I note that you say that it would have a significant impact.
I am just looking at the figures. The Department of Health estimates that a UK-wide advertising ban would reduce consumption by 2.5 per cent. However, evidence from other countries suggests that that estimate is conservative.
In that case, what would be your best guesstimate?
It could be anywhere between 7 and 37 per cent.
You have based those figures on specific evidence from other countries.
Yes.
And you do not think that the situation in Scotland would be significantly different. The reduction in consumption would be within the range that you mentioned.
I do not see why it should not be.
Okay.
I can only give the committee my view on the matter.
Indeed.
It is not based on anything.
It is not based on anything?
Our estimate is based on specific evidence. However, you are asking me to make an assumption.
I am obviously asking you to speculate, as there is no ban at the moment.
But that is what you are asking me to do. We have submitted to the committee our evidence on percentages.
So you are saying that the reduction in consumption because of a ban could be anywhere between 7 and 37 per cent.
Well, that is what the evidence suggests.
And that is your view—your organisation's view.
You are asking my view.
Yes.
I am taking an organisational view on the matter. Our organisation presents evidence-based research, which is what I am doing today. You are asking me to make an assumption.
Because you are the chief executive of your organisation.
Well, I am not happy to make an assumption as the chief executive. We present evidence-based research.
Perhaps, as the parliamentary, press and public relations manager for the organisation, I could make an assumption. We should bear it in mind that when people have estimated the effect of bans, they have examined a very complicated model of tobacco use in countries or situations where a ban has been modelled. As we do not have the expertise to create such a complicated model, we can only consider evidence from countries where bans have been introduced.
I am obliged for that.
Your submission says that there is evidence that the tobacco industry actively targets low-income communities. Will you elaborate on that point?
Did you say low-income communities?
I specifically mentioned low-income communities. Dr Wrench told the committee about the high incidence of smoking in deprived communities.
The Acheson report says that more than 70 per cent of two-parent households on income support buy cigarettes and spend about 15 per cent of their disposable income on tobacco. The tobacco industry actively targets low-income communities, using aspirational ideas to promote cheaper brands. We are citing that only as anecdotal evidence, as we have not carried out any research into the issue.
There is evidence of what is called aspirational branding, with cheaper brands targeted in low-income communities and the various markets saturated with advertising. That practice has been clearly documented in one of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research studies. There is also anecdotal evidence about the placing of billboards in lower-income communities. Let us face it: a busy road with tobacco billboards along it will not be in a middle-class area, it will be where poorer people live. We can see where the industry is targeting brands.
We can supply that evidence to the committee.
That would be helpful. Is there any research that shows that the legislation that forced tobacco companies to put health warnings on their billboards or other forms of advertising had an impact on the health statistics?
There might be some research on the short-term impact of that measure. We can go back and check for you. However, I should point out that people are used to such warnings now. For example, in Canada, they are considering extending the health warning over the whole pack with perhaps a picture of cancerous lungs on the front of it. An evaluation on the proposal has gone very well; however, there has been only one of those. Because people are so used to the warnings, they pay no attention to them any more.
I accept that, but it would be interesting to know whether there was any major shift when that measure came into effect.
We can go back and research that for you.
We have already received a lot of statistical evidence, which is useful and helpful. However, do you agree that sometimes, with advertising, the best evidence is that which one sees with one's own eyes? Do you also agree that anybody who doubts that tobacco companies target their message at people in deprived communities would only have to drive through Glasgow, for example, and look at where billboard adverts are sited to see that case proved conclusively?
That is why I said that the evidence is anecdotal. I have seen that evidence. We have done a lot of work in deprived areas. We have a women on low income and smoking project, which we have run for four years. We have now started a tobacco and inequalities project, which listens to the women talking about the way in which they are targeted by the tobacco industry. They see it every day. We have a voluntary agreement whereby tobacco companies should not situate billboards within a certain distance of a school, but the women tell us constantly that there are billboards near their schools. Committee members might want to pay a visit and see that for themselves.
Do you know of any other examples of voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry being ignored?
The evidence that I have received has been about the siting of billboards—that is what the complaints have been about. The tobacco industry is clever and looks for loopholes instead of getting into trouble. It continues to change the way in which it advertises, from direct mailing to the handing out of cigarettes in Edinburgh. Every year we complain about the Lighten Up comedy festival, where cigarettes are handed out as young people are going in. That is against the agreement. I think that we have that agreement in the organisation and we can send it to the committee, along with more detail.
You have dealt with the question of the targeting of children. We would welcome any specific examples in writing of the distance of those billboards from schools. There is some sort of regulation governing that.
That is right.
You also mentioned that you get only £1 to spend in opposing advertising for every £10 that the tobacco lords have for advertising their wares. How much does ASH Scotland have to spend, overall, on anti-tobacco publicity?
I was not talking about ASH Scotland. The figure that I cited refers to the Health Education Board for Scotland. The tobacco industry spends 10 times as much on tobacco promotion as the Government spends on smoking prevention. The HEBS smokeline cost £550,000 in its first year, whereas £5.6 million was spent on above-line tobacco advertising in Scotland. A recent Westminster parliamentary answer described a similar ratio of £10 spent on promotion to every £1 spent on prevention.
There is another side to this, as I was saying to an earlier witness. Can you please give me your updated figure for the amount of tobacco tax that is earned in Scotland and Britain?
I have not got it with me. I can give you it.
We know that it is billions of pounds.
We should separate out the issues. The reason that tobacco tax goes up is to send out an important public health message. We know that smoking rates go down as tobacco tax goes up.
Yes, but it also means that the state is largely financed by tobacco tax and that the Government is happy to take the money that is earned in that way.
For the first time, the Government has ring-fenced some of that money back into health.
About £24 million of it.
Yes, through the health improvement fund.
A couple of years ago, ASH told me that it estimated that children who buy or are sold cigarettes illegally were putting £10 million in tobacco tax into the British Treasury. Is that still the figure?
I would have to check that information. At one point the figure was £10 million. However, that is a separate issue from the one that we are discussing today. Tobacco was being sold to children under the age of 16 because the law was not being enforced properly. I am delighted that the Lord Advocate's review means that we will be able to pilot-test purchasing in Scotland. That is part of a wider tobacco control strategy. A ban on tobacco advertising is another component of that strategy.
I am trying to make it clear that you are up against billions of pounds that are going into the British Treasury and that your resources are peanuts compared with those of the tobacco lords whom you are fighting and who have at least millions to spend.
That is why it is paramount that we get a ban on tobacco advertising.
You are really up against it.
The tobacco companies are already pursuing the strategy that the member has outlined—it is called product placement. The wee aliens in the film "Men in Black", which appeared a while ago, took their Marlboros with them on to their spacecraft. The tobacco companies will continue with such product placement. That is why we are advocating a comprehensive advertising ban. Any ban that is introduced needs to be reviewed. If tobacco advertising is banned in Scotland, the tobacco companies will look for loopholes. That should not stop the Scottish Parliament introducing a ban; rather, it should seek to close down those loopholes. We know the death rates from smoking in Scotland. The argument for a ban on tobacco advertising has been won. We should be debating what we can do in Scotland if we do not get a UK-wide ban.
Under the proposed legislation, we would not be able to tackle product placement or to counteract the influence of Julia Roberts smoking in a film.
That is an issue that needs to be considered. Besides product placement, we need to address the issues of direct mailing, brand stretching and the setting up of branded coffee shops. The tobacco companies are seeking not just to target people, but to normalise tobacco. They are saying, "It is okay—don't worry about it". In Scotland we are up against a disgraceful death rate from tobacco.
My question is similar to that which Dorothy-Grace Elder asked. You express concern that only Scottish-registered websites would be prevented from advertising tobacco. Given the difficulty of policing a medium such as the internet, do you think that such a ban would be effective or that it could be policed? We have already touched on the issue of globalisation and the effect of sports sponsorship by tobacco companies. Dorothy-Grace Elder has made a point about product placement in movies. Are you saying that we should proceed step by step and do what we have the power to do to tackle the effects of globalisation and the imbalance that exists?
We have concerns about the effectiveness and policing of a ban on tobacco advertising on Scottish-registered websites. The tobacco industry will continue to use the internet to advertise its products. We should do what we can in Scotland to prevent that. We would like the whole internet to be covered, which could be done at UK level. Measures that are missing from the bill could be taken at UK level.
I would be happy for there to be less tobacco sponsoring of darts. However, I cannot think of anything that would be more likely to put me off smoking a cigarette than the thought that I would end up looking like a male darts player—but perhaps that is just me.
I think that Finland had to go back to its legislation and tighten up on brand stretching.
Yes. Finland had to do that for brand stretching. Sweden and, I believe, France did the same thing. That seems to be the pattern. The Republic of Ireland, in fact, took an incremental approach to its ban on tobacco advertising. Tobacco advertising on television has been banned there for several years, but tobacco advertising on billboards was banned separately. In 2000, an advertising ban that affected the media was introduced. Only now is the Republic of Ireland dealing with point-of-sale advertising in the bill on tobacco control that is going through the Dáil.
We have a UK white paper, which suggests other strategies, and we are increasing cessation services in Scotland. We have a cancer plan that said we would have a ban on tobacco advertising. We pour money into cessation services in Scotland to help people to stop smoking, but at the same time we allow tobacco advertising to continue to target people. We are going round in circles and ending up with people with tobacco-related diseases in NHS hospital beds.
You said that some countries—I think that it was Sweden and Finland—had to revise their legislation to include brand stretching. Your written evidence mentions the fact that brand stretching is omitted from the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill. Should we suggest that brand stretching be covered in the bill? Are we in a position to do that? What was the impact in those countries that revisited their legislation to include brand stretching? Did they succeed?
Yes. They included brand stretching in their legislation and they continue to monitor that legislation. Introducing legislation is not a one-off act, but a continuum. Once we have legislation to ban tobacco advertising, we must continue to add to it. Banning tobacco advertising brings down smoking rates when it is part of a broader strategy on tobacco control. We have such a strategy in Scotland, but we do not have a ban.
Should brand stretching be included in the bill?
Yes, but I think that brand stretching might be a reserved matter.
Should we have the power to ban brand stretching?
That is a question for people who, unlike us, are experts on the Scotland Act 1998. However, if there is any way in which the Scottish Parliament could address the issue, we urge the committee to consider whether brand stretching can be finessed into the bill. Brand stretching is an important area and its omission is a flaw in the bill.
Even if the bill is passed, companies will be able to export magazines to Scotland as long as they are produced overseas. Would you like there to be a ban on that too, bearing it in mind that tobacco advertising in magazines targets women?
Yes.
Do you view that as an addition to the provisions of the bill, as might be the case for brand stretching?
It is an on-going matter, in that there is a start point and then a continuing process. Reserved and devolved matters are involved. We have pointed out what we think needs to be examined. Whether that has to be done on a UK-wide level or a Scottish level also has to be considered.
I accept entirely the argument that, in the global economy that we now inhabit, any national ban can only ever be partial, but it is much better to have a partial ban than no ban at all. In the absence of a UK bill, I think that everybody on the committee would support the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill becoming law.
It is a matter of encouraging people to get sponsorship from elsewhere and of persuading people who run events and secure sponsorship that they should not get sponsorship from the tobacco industry. We all accept that it is not possible to legislate for everything.
Is there not a danger that, if the industry can use sponsorship everywhere in the UK except Scotland, it will use that against the Scottish ban and to try to mount opposition to any ban elsewhere in the UK?
The Tobacco Manufacturers Association accepts the fact that a ban will be introduced, and the tobacco industry may not go to court as it normally would. Tobacco industry representatives would have tried to take the UK Government to court for certain aspects of any UK ban. They will always be considering different ways of doing that, and we cannot change some things. We cannot cover everything, but that should not stop us introducing a ban on tobacco advertising.
Absolutely. I am personally appalled by the messages that we are giving them, not just on smoking but on diet. McDonald's is sponsoring children's hospitals in Scotland. We really have to ask why we should accept such sponsorship in the national health service. We do, however, and that is a problem.
It is important that we have some clarity on the issue of sponsorship. We would all agree that, because of television, a ban on sponsorship will be effective only when it is Europe-wide. There will probably be a European ban on tobacco sponsorship by 2006. The bill gives Scottish ministers the power to apply that ban to Scotland as soon as it is implemented. The bill does not necessarily imply that we should move more quickly than the rest of Europe on a sponsorship ban; it ensures that we do not get left behind. Do you agree that that is important?
Yes, it is important.
You said that there is evidence of a direct correlation between childhood brand awareness and smoking. Did the research establish whether brand awareness exists prior to the onset of smoking?
Children who smoke are more aware of brands than those who do not smoke. I think that you are talking about the research by Gerard Hastings.
My question was about children who have not had their first cigarette. Is there evidence to suggest that such children are aware of tobacco advertising?
Yes, they are particularly aware of sponsorship. For example, cigarettes are associated with fast cars. There is detailed evidence that links sports sponsorship and children's awareness of brands—we can find that evidence for the committee. Obviously, smokers are more aware of sponsorship.
Unless I did not hear properly, you did not give a figure for the grant or income that ASH Scotland receives from the Government every year.
The Scottish Executive funds ASH Scotland's core running costs, which allows us to do our work on inequalities and on influencing policy. Our educational work is done in conjunction with HEBS, which funds us for specific areas of work. Our core grant is separate from grants for work in specific areas of education.
Roughly how much is your core running grant?
It is about £120,000 a year.
Is there anything on top of that through state-related funds?
No.
So that is your lot. It is not much compared with the might of the tobacco barons and HM Treasury with its billions from tobacco tax.
We are only a small organisation. If you can change that, I will thank you.
I thank the witnesses for their written and oral evidence and for their agreement to give us a sizeable amount of extra written evidence. The clerks will remind them exactly what they promised.
If my reading of opinion is correct, all of us, bar perhaps one, agree in principle with a ban on tobacco advertising. However, I do not want to prejudge that issue. There are, perhaps, disagreements on how we can best and most effectively introduce such a ban. We all also agree that a UK-wide ban would be more desirable, but some of us think that if there is no guarantee of a UK ban, we should press ahead with Scottish legislation. Some of the witnesses echoed that view this morning.
We cannot compel a UK minister to give evidence, but a precedent has been set by Peter Hain MP, who was relaxed and happy to give evidence to the European Committee. However, when approaches have been made to UK ministers on other occasions, the responses have been negative. Other options are available to us. We might want to get the information in writing, or we might be happy to accept evidence from officials who are working on the matter at Westminster.
From what you said, I was not clear how much extra time we might have. We have pressing subjects to consider, such as multiple sclerosis.
We could take further evidence on 13 February, when we were expecting to start work on the mental health bill.
The evidence that we heard this morning was useful and the addition of someone from Westminster to be held accountable would also be valuable. However, on this subject, I feel that evidence will be similar. People will come before us and say the same thing, but with added extras. I am concerned about committee time on the MS and beta interferon situation and other matters that are piling up.
Is that a yes or a no to inviting a UK minister to give evidence?
I back the suggestion of a UK minister or representative updating us on what they are doing, if they can do so at present. At the same time, I do not think that we should expend a vast amount of time on the subject when we are saving time for the mental health bill.
Nicola Sturgeon might want to wind up on this after everyone has contributed.
Are you saying that the entire time that we have been allotted for the mental health legislation—
No—not at all. I am saying that we have a week or two. We were on a tight time scale because we thought that the committee would receive and start work on the mental health bill in mid-February, but the latest estimate is that we are unlikely to receive the bill until the end of April. Therefore, we have at our disposal a week or two during which we could tease out some of the points that have been raised in evidence, such as the UK legislation. Both our witnesses considered that the lack of a provision on brand stretching was an omission from the bill. All I am saying is that we have scope to do a little more investigation of that issue. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the UK legislation does not go ahead, although I hope that it does. It would be for us to ensure that the bill that goes through the Scottish Parliament is as effective as possible. We have reached an important stage and we should not let matters go.
When you say that we have two weeks, do you mean that we have two committee meetings at which to discuss the matter?
No. We can ask someone to give evidence on a particular date, but they might not be available then. I am saying that we have a little scope. I am not religious about the timetable, but when we set it, we based it on the premise that the Executive would introduce legislation by a certain time. The legislative programme has slipped, which has nothing to do with the committee—we have simply been informed that that is the situation. Members should not think that we are not meant to consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill beyond a certain date. If members want to take evidence on specific issues, or pursue an investigation of the UK dimension, there is scope within our work programme to do so. That would be useful if we find that UK legislation will not be pursued.
If I had a choice between taking evidence from Robin Cook and taking evidence on cancer care and hospital acquired infections, I would definitely choose the latter, as those issues are of serious concern in Scotland. I would think that the information that we require from Robin Cook could easily be obtained through correspondence.
Does anyone know when the stage 1 debate on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill is to take place? I certainly do not and, in any case, I do not agree that it is absolutely essential that, in advance of the debate, we take evidence from Robin Cook on what the UK Parliament is doing. It might be beneficial for the Scottish Parliament to support the general principles of the bill. That might act as an incentive for progress to be made on the private member's bill that is going through Westminster, as people might get the idea that the Scottish Parliament's legislation is going to go ahead anyway. Surely the Parliament does not absolutely need to know what is happening with the private member's bill at Westminster until stage 3, which is some time away.
I prefer to ask Robin Cook to attend the committee. We could write to him, but we could also write his reply, which will say, "There is an intention to introduce legislation but, at this moment in time, we do not have a time scale for it." That would leave us no further forward. I would prefer to send a polite request to the UK minister to attend the committee.
My view coincides with John McAllion's. Shona Robison seems to presuppose that if we invited Robin Cook, and he spoke at the committee, we would get a lack of clarity from him. The best way forward is, as John McAllion suggests, to write a letter. There is nothing wrong with that. That would be a clearer and more rational approach at this stage.
I suggested that the committee should see Robin Cook in person because it is easier to probe and get information that way than it is from a stock reply in writing, which would state the current position. Robin Cook is unlikely to give us information in writing that we do not already know. We could probe his intentions more deeply if he came before the committee.
If the committee takes the view that we will be brushed off in a written reply, what on earth does it expect to get in response to an invitation for Robin Cook to come before the committee? The committee must think that he would also brush us off in response to that. We should find out what his response is first and then review the situation. Until we have written formally to invite Robin Cook to tell the committee what the intentions are in the UK Parliament, we cannot jump to any conclusion. We must give him the chance to respond. If every committee in the Parliament starts to demand that Westminster MPs come up here before writing to them, we will not get many Westminster MPs coming to give evidence. We must show them the courtesy that we would expect them to show us. The first thing to do is to write to them.
I agree that, before we go any further, we should elicit from Robin Cook in writing whatever he wants to tell us. Shona Robison has suggested one possible response that he might give, but until we write to him, we will not know. We should wait until we have completed taking evidence from the people that we agreed to take evidence from, have the stage 1 debate in Parliament and then make a decision on the UK legislation. Depending on Robin Cook's response, we might want to seek further information in writing. That is the best way forward.
On balance, I favour the correspondence route at this stage. I do not know whether Robin Cook would be in a position to say much more to us if we were to have him before the committee now, because of the stage that the bill has reached in the process. It is likely that the Government will make its view known at the end of February, once the bill has gone through the parliamentary procedure in the House of Lords, so we will have a clearer view then, when we will be pulling together our stage 1 report. The dates relating to the process in the House of Lords are the dates I have been given by Tim Clement-Jones's office.
I do not want to push the Robin Cook issue because I do not want any request to be seen as a political confrontation—it is more a request for information. It is important to establish the intentions of the UK Government at stage 1 rather than at stage 3, as John McAllion suggested, because some members have indicated that the UK Government's intentions will be a factor in their decision about whether to support the bill at stage 1. The information is material; we need to have it at an early stage.
I suggest that we progress in the following way. We will write a helpful and courteous letter to Robin Cook and suggest that it would be useful if we received a helpful and courteous response, telling us exactly what the position is. We will seek clarification on the progress of the UK bill through the House of Lords. We will reserve our right to go back to seek clarification or to ask for further information, whether oral or written. Our letter will also note that our response will depend on whether there is to be a UK bill. The committee has to come to that decision and can do that only as events unfold.
I have a question about the letter to Robin Cook. Would it be possible to ask the Parliamentary Bureau to give us an idea of when the stage 1 debate on the bill will be? That would give Robin Cook a time scale within which we expect a reply.
The provisional date is April.
Will you add magazines that are produced overseas to the list of questions? That touches on the reserved issue of customs and excise. We need to find out whether it is possible to impose a ban on such magazines if they carry the sort of cigarette advertisements that we are seeking to ban.
I will pass that question back to Nicola Sturgeon. Is it worth while seeking clarification on whether imported foreign magazines are a reserved issue, and possibly on the whole issue surrounding magazines? Does the bill cover only magazines produced in Scotland?
I will give evidence, so I do not want to become too involved in discussion just now. That issue is not so much about legislative competence as it is about practicality and what can be banned in a Scottish context. A UK ban would face some of the same difficulties in dealing with foreign publications that are available in the United Kingdom. I will be able to answer more fully when I give evidence but, from memory, it is not an issue of legislative competence.
It is a customs issue.
We want our letter to focus on exactly what we want from Westminster. We will return to the issue of magazines in future, but initially we will go with brand stretching and the request for information. Is that acceptable?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting.
Meeting adjourned until 12:18 and thereafter continued in private until 12:35.