HC Deb 04 April 1963 vol 675 cc622-3
32. Mr. F. Noel-Baker

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements he has imposed upon tobacco products, including cigarettes, under Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, in order to prevent or reduce the risk of death and injury by diseases, including bronchitis and cancer, caused by these products.

Mr. Woodhouse

None, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker

In view of the fact that the Act gives the Home Office specific power to require tobacco manufacturers to indicate on each packet of cigarettes the risks run by the smoker consuming them, why does not the Home Office take advantage of its power? Is this not an indication that the Government did not take seriously the campaign to warn smokers of the dangers that they run?

Mr. Woodhouse

No, Sir; that is not the implication. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government's policy was stated in a reply to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st March. I have looked carefully at the possibilities of the Consumer Protection Act, but, of course, it was not devised in order to prohibit any article altogether, and I cannot myself see what requirements could be imposed under that Act which would serve the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Section 1 of the Act lays down clearly that the Home Secretary has power, in order to reduce risk of death or personal injury, to require manufacturers to put a warning on a package. What is the difficulty in applying this to cigarettes? Will he look at the Act again?

Mr. Woodhouse

I shall look at the Act, but it cannot be said that tobacco would be "safe" if the yield of the various noxious contents of the tobacco were reduced below any particular level.

Mr. Lipton

In view of the vast sums of money derived by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the sale of tobacco, would it not be suitable for the Government to ask cigarette manufacturers, as a quid pro quo, to print on each packet, "Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer"?

Mr. Woodhouse

Judging by the form in which the hon. Gentleman put that supplementary question, I think that it would be better put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.