HC Deb 18 October 1961 vol 646 cc319-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)

I wish to attempt to draw the attention of the House to the advertising campaigns being conducted by tobacco manufacturers and, in particular, to their efforts to persuade young people and children to smoke cigarettes, on which they are at the present time spending large amounts of money. I think I might—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Noel-Baker

I think I might begin by explaining that my interest in this matter is to some extent derived from the fact that I have been working in recent months with a body called the Advertising Inquiry Council which is at the moment preparing a long and detailed report for publication, which has been very carefully documented, upon this subject of tobacco advertising. On the Council are a number of distinguished medical men and people very much respected in the teaching profession. The Council is a non-political body, a consumer organisation, which is supported by, among others, members of all parties represented in the House, and I am particularly glad to see that one of them, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), was in his place tonight, although I do not see him at the moment.

Of course, this whole matter has to be judged against the background of the horrifying risks to health which have shown to be involved in the heavy smoking of cigarettes. That risk, let me add, is precisely the same whether one is dealing with the smoking of the old-fashioned, conventional, plain cigarette, or with the cigarette with the filter tip or the mentholated cigarettes which in the last few years have been entering the consumer market.

As long ago as 27th June, 1957, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health made a statement to Parliament upon the investigations of the Medical Research Council on the subject of smoking and lung cancer, and he said then: The Council feel that it is right to ensure that this latest authoritative opinion is brought effectively to public notice, so that everyone may know the risks involved.…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1957; Vol. 572, c. 426] That authoritative opinion contained these facts, and I think it is worth reminding the House once again of them, that in the 10 years between 1945 and 1955 the death rate from lung cancer had doubled; that in 1956, 18,000 people had died of it—18,000 people in one single year; that in females lung cancer caused one in 103 of all deaths, and in males one in 18; that by 1957 the incidence of this disease had not yet reached its peak. The report added that among non-smokers one in 300 deaths was due to lung cancer whereas amongst smokers who smoked 20 cigarettes a day or more one in eight deaths were due to that disease.

These are appalling figures. I repeat that at the time the Medical Research Council stated that the disease had not yet reached its peak. But even at that time the evidence which it advanced showed that the risk for heavy smokers of cigarettes of developing cancer of the lung was nearly 40 times that for nonsmokers. Of course, lung cancer is not the only disease involved. Medical opinion is equally dogmatic that chronic bronchitis is at least six times heavier among smokers than it is among people who do not smoke.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has seen—his colleagues in other Departments closely concerned certainly have seen—the recent very shocking reports about smoking by children and young people. A survey of a county borough near London showed that over one-quarter of grammar school boys and over one-third of secondary modern school boys were smokers by the time they were 15, and smoking over five cigarettes a week, and often more.

Another survey showed that in 1958 nearly half the women smokers had started smoking before they were 20 years old, and that three-quarters of the men had started before they were 20, and one-quarter of them started being addicted to cigarettes before they were 15.

I take it that there is no longer any doubt whatever in the Government's mind that cigarette smoking is a habit dangerous to health, and that the Government deplore, as we do, the rapid increase in smoking by children and young people. Indeed, they have often said it. This, of course, is the reason why they are spending public money on bringing the danger of smoking to the attention of children in schools. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether tonight he will restate the Government's general attitude to cigarette smoking and its effect on health, and the smoking of cigarettes by young people, and whether there has been any modification in their views in the light of more recent medical evidence since the Report of 1957.

I should like to ask the simple and direct question whether in the case of young children or young people for whom he was personally responsible he would not, in the interests of their health and future lives, by persuasion or argument or example, do everything he possibly could to prevent their getting into the habit of smoking cigarettes. If someone approached young people in his care and began to try by slick arguments and clever tricks to persuade them not to take his advice but to start smoking and go on smoking cigarettes because it was fashionable or smart or manly or romantic to do so, what would he do and what would any other conscientious parent or teacher or relative do?

If teachers, parents and relatives have a responsibility to children and youngsters., do not the Government have a very much wider responsibility for the health and lives of millions of young people in Britain who today are being assailed by a £20 million a year campaign of commercial propaganda designed to make them start smoking and keep on smoking once they have started?

The tobacco industry in Britain is in a highly monopolist position. It recently attracted the attention of the Monopoly Commission, which reported in July of this year, and many of us on these benches are anxious to learn soon what action the Government will take on that Report. The Report shows that the two main groups selling cigarettes in Britain, one of which partly owns the other, Imperial Tobacco and Messrs. Gallaher Ltd., hold between them 92.7 per cent. of the total trade in tobacco and cigarettes. It shows clearly that the market in Britain for these products is highly oligopolistic. In these conditions competition between various brands of cigarettes is not likely to be competition by price but competition by putting new brands on the market by new sales gimmicks and, above all, intensified advertising campaigns.

Those in this business who ought to know take the view that very few smokers can tell the difference between brands of cigarettes if they are blindfolded. Therefore, advertising campaigns are concerned with factors other than the immediate physical characteristics of the cigarettes concerned. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the figure of £20 million spent this year on tobacco advertising. It is an estimate carefully worked out and it includes all tobacco products and all brands and all types of advertising—television, the Press, posters, at point of sale, and so on.

In 1960 the Imperial Tobacco Company spent £5 million on Press display and television advertising alone—an increase of 52 per cent. over 1959. In the same period and in the same media Gallaher's expenditure rose by 39 per cent. to £1.6 million. In 1960 Imperial Tobacco's expenditure on all media was not far short of —10 million and, as I have said, it has been estimated that this year the total expenditure in the industry will be about £20 million or £50,000 a day.

These are enormous sums and one is entitled to ask what effect they are having. The short answer is that if the tobacco companies were not convinced that they were having a substantial effect in increasing their sales, obviously they would not be spending sums of this kind. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the statistics show a substantial increase in expenditure on tobacco and cigarette smoking by the population in general and by women and children and young people.

The expenditure for the last calendar year, 1960, totalled £1,140 million, of which £1,002 million was spent on cigarettes, and from these sums the Government derived revenue to the total of £826 million. I think it is relevant to add that many people wonder whether the Government's soft attitude towards the tobacco industry is not to some extent influenced by the enormous revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer derives from this source.

If I had more time I should like to recite a number of examples of recent advertising campaigns. I am sure that all hon. Members, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary, will be very well aware of the Player's campaign with its accent on young people in love, of the Strand cigarette campaign expounding the loneliness of the Strand smoker, and of the constant emphasis on snobbery, vanity and sex. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will also have noticed that a large proportion of these campaigns appears to be deliberately aimed at young people. I do not think that anyone who has looked at recent poster advertising, advertising in the Press, or, particularly, advertising on television could fail to see that a large part of it was directed consciously and deliberately at teenagers.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hitchin)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of total advertising expenditure, will he make the point—I am not a smoker—that the total amount of money spent on tobacco and cigarette advertising as a percentage of the total value of sales runs only at about two-thirds of the level of that of consumer goods as a whole?

Mr. Noel-Baker

I have been into the figures very carefully, and all I can say is that £20 million a year, or £50,000 a day, seems to be a lot of money.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

I am re- luctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I should be grateful if he would make clear how he thinks the Government can deal with this situation other than by legislation.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you anticipate my next point, which is that if the Parliamentary Secretary asked me what action I should like the Government to take, I would give him the following three answers.

First, I should like to see a very strong warning issued to the tobacco manufacturers and their advertising agents telling them that unless they call off all advertising campaigns in the Press, on television or on hoardings which are aimed directly or indirectly at young people, the Government themselves will take action to restrain them. One step which might easily be taken by the Parliamentary Secretary —I hope he will take it—is to have a word with the Independent Television Authority to ascertain whether it could not take steps to prevent cigarette advertising at least during the times when children are watching commercial television programmes. Indeed, I see no reason why tobacco advertising should not be taken off the commercial television screen altogether in the same way as the advertising of spirits has.

Furthermore, while the Parliamentary Secretary is talking to the Chairman of I.T.V. he might speak to him about smoking by performers in non-commercial programmes. I do not watch the commercial screen very frequently, but I am told by those who do that in almost any type of programme, and particularly the so-called serious political discussions, some and often all of the participants are constantly puffing away at cigarettes and offering themselves a further supply.

Secondly, I note that so far the only Government measure which has been effective in causing a temporary drop in the consumption of cigarettes since the war has been a very big increase in the tax on them, particularly following the Budgets of 1947 and 1948. Although this is an unpopular thing to say—I realise it, but I believe it to be right to say it—I should be glad, when the time comes, to see another stiff increase in taxation on cigarettes.

Finally—this is, perhaps the simplest of these suggestions—I should like to see a big, dramatic increase in the efforts of the Government themselves and of local authorities to warn schoolchildren and teenagers of the danger of lung cancer and other diseases caused by cigarette smoking. I do not know precisely what is the total of official money spent last year for these purposes, but it has been woefully inadequate, and many local authorities, doctors and teachers are deeply disturbed that it is only a miserable trickle in the face of the millions spent for opposite purposes by the vested interests concerned. I understand that one progressive local authority was all ready to produce what would have been a most effective and instructive educational film on the subject but was not able to do so because it could not find £4,000.

I hope I have said enough to draw the attention of the House to what is becoming an increasingly grave social and medical problem. The dangers of cigarette smoking are really serious and perfectly clear. There is no longer any doubt about them. Nor is there any mystery about them. The medical evidence is perfectly plain. The undesirability of urging young people to take up smoking is equally clear, and there can be no dispute about it in the House or about the methods being used by the manufacturers and advertising agents.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to tell us clearly whether the Government recognise this as an urgent matter requiring new, vigorous and effective action, and to outline to us when and how that action is to be taken.

10.16 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)

I intervene for a moment because I want to say two things. First, the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) for drawing attention to a matter to which, I think, not nearly sufficient public attention has been given, and I hope that, as a result of his initiative, there will be a concentration of public interest in and attention given to a matter which he has properly described as a grave social problem.

Secondly, the views he has expressed, and the concern he has voiced, are, I am quite certain, felt equally on both sides of the House. He was very careful to point out, in the early part of his speech, that the investigations that are being made into this matter, and the action being taken to focus public attention, are entirely on a non-party political basis. Certainly I know that many Members on this side of the House share the concern which has been expressed and will join in the hope that we will get tonight a reply which will be encouraging for the purposes we have in view.

10.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson)

I welcome this debate. This is an important issue affecting nearly all of us who have already reached the years of discretion and also many, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) said, who have yet to do so. I agree with him that the report to the Government made by the Medical Research Council in May, 1957, said that the most reasonable interpretation of the very great increase in deaths from lung cancer is that the cause is smoking tobacco, particularly cigarettes.

As he also said, the Government at that time decided that these facts should be brought to the notice of the public so that everyone might know the risks involved in smoking, and so that the individual could weigh them and make up his or her mind as to what to do. I would hasten to add that there is no modification of the Government's views in that regard.

When the Government made the findings public, there was no lack of interest in them by either the Press or the public, nor was there any evidence that fear of the effect upon advertising revenue was causing the findings to be suppressed. They were amply debated at that time.

As the hon. Gentleman also said, the Government brought the facts to the attention of the local health authorities and asked them to take steps to make known the opinion of the Council. In August, 1958, the authorities were asked what action they had taken. This inquiry showed that, with few exceptions, the local health authorities had taken effective steps to fulfil their responsibilities, largely by the use of posters, by pamphlets, by advertising in the local Press, by home visiting and by other personal contacts, talks to schools and talks to parent-teachers associations. Of course, special attention was given to the education of the young.

Ninety-nine out of 118 authorities in England engaged in the publicity effort concentrated their propaganda on school children and young persons. Publicity is still being directed specially to the young people, but I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member any estimate of its cost, for that is not available.

Various small-scale surveys which have been undertaken since 1957 support the view that this campaign has been effective in bringing the matter to attention. For example, one in Edinburgh showed that 98 per cent. of the people approached knew of the possible connection between lung cancer and smoking, though I suspect, as so often happens in matters of this kind, that some of those who were interviewed felt that nothing in the Report was likely to affect them personally. The facts, therefore, are quite clearly before the public. There can be few, if any, who are not aware of the risks of heavy smoking. The choice is theirs. The fact that some people may misuse that choice is not a good reason for damaging their freedom of choice.

The hon. Member asked, in effect, whether all this publicity was being counteracted by advertising. He mentioned a figure of £20 million being spent on advertising in this year, and I should be glad if he would show me how that figure is arrived at. It is true, in any case—and we can agree on this—that there has been a considerable rise in tobacco advertising expenditure. More than £7,770,000 was spent on Press and television advertising in 1960 compared with about £1 million in 1953.

But, colossal as it is, the rise has not been accompanied by any marked rise in the consumption of tobacco. According to estimates of tobacco retained in the United Kingdom for home use, the total for the first half of 1961, was 133 million lb. compared with 130 million lb. for the first half of 1960 and 124 million lb. for the first half of 1959. It may well be that much of the increase in advertising expenditure is attributable to the introduction of commercial television. I would not dispute that, but it seems that the effect has been rather to increase competition among brands than to increase consumption generally. There has been a marked increase in the number of brands of cigarettes in recent years.

While advertising of goods in these ways is going on all the time, the main function of advertising in a free competitive economy is to bring competing brands of goods to the attention of the public and so to build up a substantial demand for a brand with the object of gaining the economic advantages of mass production.

Broadly speaking, consumers tend to remain loyal to the brand of their choice, other things being equal. Much of the increase in tobacco advertising expenditure in recent years seems to have been due to new brands seeking to appeal to young people before they have become committed to any particular brand. That, I imagine, is why tobacco advertising is directed to youth, and, of course, youth is more attractive than crabbed old age to advertisers.

Tobacco firms are interested in enlisting new smokers of their cigarettes rather than just new smokers. It is not only the paid advertisement, I should make plain, which stimulates a desire to smoke. It is the example of people around us, in the streets, in the train, on the village green, not to mention the stage, cinema and television programmes of all kinds, commercial and otherwise.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should try to eliminate this element of what is, after all, realism from the stage and television. How far are we to carry that? Are we to edit books and censor any suggestion that smoking may give satisfaction? Has the hon. Gentleman his eye on Sherlock Holmes' pipe? Is all smoking on streets and in public places to be forbidden? One has to regard this in due proportion.

After all, advertising in a very real sense is the hallmark of a free society. It is playing a great part in raising the standard of living in this country. It will certainly have to play its part in our efforts to expand our export trade, and we ought to think very carefully before we subject any part of it to what may be an unnecessary restriction. We should, and we do, restrict advertisements presenting misleading claims for cures and for certain other goods and activities. There is legislation to deal with that.

Does tobacco really fall in that class? I doubt very much whether public opinion would support a prohibition on advertising tobacco in this country, whatever may be done elsewhere. In passing, it is perhaps noteworthy that in one country where advertising is banned, namely, Sweden, tobacco consumption per head has not fallen.

What, then, is to be done? I suggest that we should continue to do what we can to ensure that the public at large, and in particular parents, teachers, and those in daily contact with young people, are continually reminded of the facts and encouraged to ensure that those in their charge are made aware of the dangers of smoking. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The Edinburgh figures show that people know the dangers. I have no reason to suppose that Edinburgh is different from other places in that respect.

I hope that the effect of this short debate—and I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, because I think that the more this is given publicity the better—will be once more to remind all those who have a responsibility for youg people that so august a body as the Medical Research Council reported that there has been a great increase in deaths from lung cancer in the past twenty-five years, and that the most reasonable interpretation of the increase was the smoking of tobacco.

particularly in the form of cigarettes. Anything done to excess is bad, and in the use of tobacco there is much to be said for the ancient virtue of moderation.

I believe that young people are intelligent enough to draw their own inferences from this and to make their own decisions. After all, there are many things that they can do in their spare time besides burning their money and watching it go up in smoke, and many ways of spending their money besides buying cigarettes.

It is true that the misuse of tobacco, like the misuse of others of God's gifts, can, for some people, have serious, even tragic, consequences, but I believe that it is for the individual to make his choice, and to make it freely. It is for us to ensure that he makes it in full knowledge of the facts. The Medical Research Council, with the co-operation of the tobacco industry, is continuing its research into the effects of, and the interrelationship between, smoking, atmospheric pollution, chronic bronchitis and cancer of the lung. It may well be found that other factors are also involved. In the meantime, I can appropriately conclude my reply to the hon. Gentleman with the words

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.