§ 4.21 p.m.
§ Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes; and for purposes connected therewith.Since 1962, we have had a succession of reports from the Royal College of Physicians on the question of tobacco smoking generally, and particularly cigarette smoking. Each of them pointed out more strongly the dangers arising from the increase in cigarette smoking and demanded drastic action, but no effective action has been taken either by this House or by the Government.The problem is very serious. There has been a very big increase in the smoking of cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is the problem rather than tobacco smoking in other forms. In 1940, 25,000 people died from tuberculosis and 5,000 from cancer of the lung. In 1970, hardly any people died from tuberculosis but nearly 50,000 died from lung cancer. Cigarette smoking has become the killer disease in this country.
It is important to compare the figures with the figures for deaths from other causes. In 1970, as many people died in this country from cigarette smoking as were killed in our bomber crews in the whole of the last war. Four times as many people were killed by cigarettes in 1970 as were killed in road accidents. Far more people died from smoking cigarettes than from taking drugs. There is an enormous campaign in this country against the sale of drugs and drug peddling, but no one organises against the "pushing" of cigarettes.
§ Mr. ParkerI pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but there has not been a campaign against cigarette smoking comparable with the big campaign which has been, quite rightly, mounted against drug pushing.
The great increase in the incidence of lung cancer is not the only result from the smoking of cigarettes. There has been a big increase in the incidence of cancer of the stomach and the very pain- 486 ful cancer of the bladder. The figures for coronary thrombosis have been affected by the increase in cigarette smoking. Most important of all, the incidence of chronic bronchitis—the "English disease"—has been very much on the increase. We have had clean air legislation to deal with the atmosphere, but in many public places the increase in cigarette smoking has increased the liability of many people to suffer from chronic bronchitis. Many people are dying painfully and many people are dying young who might otherwise have led useful lives.
What should be done? I am well aware that on both sides of the House there is a great deal of support for what is called "the new liberalism". In other words, the right of the individual must be asserted on all possible occasions. But there are occasions on which the right of the community as a whole needs to be stressed, particularly when we are considering what action should be taken.
Many people may say that a man has the right to kill himself by smoking cigarettes if he wishes. I do not quarrel with the right of a man to kill himself in that way if he so desires. But we must look at the consequences of that. What happens to the family of a man who dies in his early forties? The community must keep his wife and children. There are 50,000 people a year dying from this disease, who thus make a call on the National Health Service. This means that the whole National Health Service must be organised to meet the needs of this section of the population when the rest of the population may well require other sectors of the National Health Service to be given greater priority.
I mentioned the question of chronic bronchitis. The extreme consumption of tobacco by cigarette smokers can affect the health of people with whom they come in contact. That is something which must be considered from the community's point of view. My case is that the community has the right to take certain action in order to halt the spread of this habit and to ensure that young people, in particular, do not become addicts of the cigarette.
Hence this proposed Bill to prohibit cigarette advertising. If passed, it will prohibit the advertising of cigarettes, 487 whether in the Press, in magazines or on radio, as has happened in connection with television. It will prevent the sponsoring of sporting events by cigarette companies and prohibit cigarette advertising on billboards. It will make a clean sweep of advertising in cinemas and theatres. It is an extreme action, I agree, but it will have one big advantage: no great army of bureaucrats would be required and no red tape would be necessary to enforce a law of this kind. It would be very effective.
Last year, the tobacco interests spent £52 million on promoting the sale of tobacco, particularly of cigarettes. However, only £100,000 was spent on health education in this respect. The tobacco companies would not spend £52 million unless it showed results. If we prevented advertising, there would undoubtedly be a very big drop in the sale of cigarettes, which is the object of the exercise. It would be very effective in checking the enormous death roll from tobacco smoking.
Up to now, the only action which the Government have effectively taken is to get the tobacco companies to agree that a warning about the dangers of smoking should be put on cigarette packets. That has been tried in the United States. In the first year after the law was introduced in America, the consumption of cigarettes declined by 1 per cent. It is now higher than it was before the law came into force. No effective results will ensue from such action taken by the Government of this country.
The Government are frightened at the possible loss of revenue if there were a very big drop in cigarette smoking. They should be prepared to face that loss and to make it up from other sources if necessary. The ending of large-scale cigarette advertising would not only affect cigarette smoking. Young people would no longer feel that it was the right thing to do or that prestige was to be gained from cigarette smoking. That is another point which should be borne in mind.
This is a moral issue. We are fighting for the younger generation. It is right that we should take steps to prevent them from becoming addicts. This House has fought such battles in the past. I ask hon. Members to remember the very important battles over the question of the abolition 488 of the slave trade and slavery itself as a result of back-bench Members raising the matter. Back benchers forced legislation on the Government of the day and against powerful vested interests who fought back hard on their own behalf. We have the tobacco barons fighting hard now to keep the existing law. I hope the House will be prepared to fight the tobacco barons as our predecessors were prepared to fight the slave traders in the past.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)I seek to oppose the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) in his attempt to introduce his Bill. I should say at the very outset, as is proper in this House, that I have no interest in the tobacco industry, but I have had a lifelong interest in the advertising industry and I know something of the effects of that element in our industrial society.
The hon. Member has spoken with great feeling about the danger of cigarettes to our health, and I do not think that anyone in the House can deny that a danger exists. I accept that, too. The Royal College of Physicians has shown that cigarette smoking is bad for our health. Parliament has debated this matter, and debated it at great length and in full, and has agreed with the Royal College of Physicians; and the present Government have taken action. The public are being warned—they are being warned at this moment—of these dangers. Whenever they buy a packet of cigarettes they are given such a warning about them through advertisement. They see a warning—a warning agreed with the Government and applied voluntarily by the industry.
The hon. Member for Dagenham is now suggesting that we should go further because of danger to our health and—this is what we are debating—is suggesting that we should ban all advertising of cigarettes. I would suggest, however, that such a step would not only be wrong but would be ridiculous, if Parliament were to decide to take it. If Parliament believes that people should be denied the right to choose whether to smoke, whether to smoke cigarettes, how many to smoke, and if Parliament is to assume that the individual has not the intelligence or the strength of mind 489 or will to make his own judgment in this matter concerning his own health, then we should ban the manufacture and distribution of cigarettes altogether. I ask hon. Members: is Parliament prepared to take that acton? Of course it is not. Instead, it is being asked this afternoon to ban the advertising of cigarettes.
The Royal College of Physicians, in its admirable and very important report, thought that a ban on advertising
would provide a clear declaration of Parliament's concern about the dangers of the habitbut it also said that it thought that such a ban would be completely ineffective and cited the cases of two countries where such a ban applies, Russia and Italy, where cigarette smoking has actually gone up.Parliament has already shown its concern in this matter. The public is being advised all the time. The Government are running a campaign—I wish it were an even bigger campaign—positively to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. Are we seriously suggesting that while we feel that we must stop short of forbidding people to smoke, we intend to refuse them any advice about which cigarettes to buy?
Cigarettes are harmful, I accept; but they are considerably less harmful today than they were 20 years ago. Progress has been made in the tobacco industry in the elimination of tars and their injurious effects and the research and the progress is continuing. The tobacco industry must be free to tell the public about such improvements, because the time will come when a manufacturer may want to persuade the smoker to switch to a safer cigarette.
May we look, in a few minutes, to see what cigarette advertising is like today? There are in this country approximately 20 million cigarette smokers—49 per cent. of all adults over the age of 16.
§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)Shame.
§ Mr. CrouchIn 1950 that percentage was 49½), and at that time, in 1950, 20 years ago, the expenditure on cigarette advertising was £700,000 a year. In 1970 the percentage had fallen slightly, by ½ per cent., to 49 per cent., but the expenditure on advertising had risen 490 enormously to £13 million a year. It had not increased the consumption of cigarettes or the percentage of adults smoking. It is widely recognised that cigarette advertising does not increase the totality of cigarette smoking. I have not smoked for over a year, and the present style of advertising is not inclined to tempt me to start again.
Since 1962 the cigarette manufacturing industry has voluntarily restricted the manner and style in which it advertises cigarettes, recognising the danger which over-consumption of cigarettes can produce. It will, perhaps, interest the House if I just state that it is possible in an advertisement for cigarettes to present only the type and brand name of the cigarette. There are five major restrictions to which the industry works in this country. There must be no over-emphasis on pleasure from smoking; advertisements must not feature heroes; there must be no appeal to manliness or pride; they must not suggest that it is fashionable or "go-ahead" or exciting to smoke—
§ Sir G. NabarroWhat about Sotheby's?
§ Mr. CrouchAn advertisement must not suggest—this will interest my hon. Friend very much—romantic success in any field.
It is true that since the banning of television advertising in 1965 another element in the promotion of cigarettes has been introduced, which is coupons, but coupons, like advertising, influence brand choice, and are not a motivational factor in smoking itself. Smokers of coupon brands—they amount to 67 per cent. of all cigarette smokers—do not smoke more cigarettes than those who smoke non-coupon brands. I put it to the House that if manufacturers reduced the price of coupon brands by an amount equivalent to the value of the coupons, sales of those cigarettes would probably increase. It is possible that a ban on coupons would bring about an increase in the number of cigarettes smoked. In fact, coupon-brand cigarettes contain less tobacco by 11 per cent. than non-coupon-brand cigarettes; this is how the coupons and the prizes they offer are paid for.
In conclusion, there are many casual observers today of our modern complex 491 industrial society who automatically look upon advertising as bad and unnecessary, but if we believe in freedom of choice, and the interest and pleasure which goes with that, we must accept that advertising has an important part to play in informing the consumer. It is also an essential ingredient in the marketing, distribution, and ultimately the manufacturing process, and success in the sale, of a product. Perhaps some would scorn me if I talked about the sale and success of cigarettes, because the scale of success of a consumer product depends on the size of its market, and that can be achieved only through advertising, but if we are not prepared to stop the production and sale of
§ cigarettes, and if we believe that present-day cigarettes are harmful, then we shall best help our case by allowing the manufacturers to be successful so that they can go on in their efforts to develop the safer cigarette. I must, therefore, oppose this Motion which, I believe, would not only prevent this freedom of choice but would prevent the essential research for the safer and better cigarette.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes, 73.
493| Division No. 34.] | AYES | [4.40 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Golding, John | Moate, Roger |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Gower, Raymond | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Ashton, Joe | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Oakes, Gordon |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Orme, Stanley |
| Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) | Hamiling, William | Oswald, Thomas |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Harper, Joseph | Palmer, Arthur |
| Bishop, E. S. | Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Heffer, Eric S. | Pardoe, John |
| Booth, Albert | Hill, James (Southampton, Test) | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Hooson, Emlyn | Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Horam, John | Pendry, Tom |
| Bradley, Tom | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Prescott, John |
| Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Rankin, John |
| Buchan, Norman | ||
| Cant, R. B. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Carmichael Neil | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Jessel, Toby | Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | John, Brynmor | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Cohen, Stanley | Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cordle, John | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Kaufman, Gerald | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Cronin, John | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Skinner, Dennis |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Lambie, David | Spearing, Nigel |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Langford-Holt. Sir John | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Davidson. Arthur | Latham, Arthur | Stallard, A. W. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Leonard, Dick | Strang, Gavin |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Stuttaford, Dr. Tom |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Lipton, Marcus | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Delargy, H. J. | Loughlin, Charles | Taverne, Dick |
| Dormand, J. D. | Luce, R. N. | Torney, Tom |
| Driberg, Tom | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard |
| Wainwright, Edwin | ||
| Evans, Fred | McLaren, Martin | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Ewing, Henry | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Watkins, David |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Weitzman, David |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Marks, Kenneth | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Foot, Michael | Marshall. Dr. Edmund | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Forrester, John | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Meacher. Michael | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Freeson, Reginald | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Mr. Laurie Pavitt and Sir Gerald Nabarro. |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Millan, Bruce | |
| Garrett, W. E. | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Biffen, John | Churchill, W. S. |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Boscawen, Robert | Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Brewis, John | Cormack, Patrick |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Brinton, Sir Tatton | Costain, A. P. |
| Bell, Ronald | Bullus, Sir Eric | Crouch, David |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Chapman, Sydney | Curran, Charles |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Knox, David | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Soref, Harold |
| Emery, Peter | Loveridge, John | Spence, John |
| English, Michael | McCrindle. R. A. | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Farr, John | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Maude, Angus | Sutcliffe, John |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Mawby, Ray | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Fowler, Norman | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Fox, Marcus | Molyneaux, James | Tebbit, Norman |
| Goodhart, Philip | Money, Ernie | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Gurden, Harold | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Morrison, Charles | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Percival, Ian | Waddington, David |
| Havers, Michael | Pounder. Rafton | Warren, Kenneth |
| Hicks, Robert | Redmond, Robert | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Rees-Davis, W. R. | Wiggin, Jerry |
| James, David | Roberts, Micheal (Cardiff, N.) | |
| Kimball, Marcus | Rost, Peter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Kinsey, J. R. | Russell, Sir Ronald | Mr. Idris Owen and Mr. Nicholas Winterton |
| Kinsey, J. R. | Scott-Hopkins, James |
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker, Mr. Pavitt, Dr. Stuttaford, Sir G. Nabarro, Mr. David Steel and Sir B. Rhys Williams.