CIGARETTES (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING) BILL (Hansard, 20 February 1973)

§ 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 the purposes connected therewith. The many problems connected with cigarettes have been discussed by the Royal College of Physicians since 1962, ending with a much more radical report and recommendations in 1971, but so far no effective action has been taken by this House or the Government to deal with the problems arising from the smoking of cigarettes.

There was a considerable drop in the sale of cigarettes following each of the reports by the Royal College of Physicians, particularly in 1971, when there was a drop in sales of 4.3 per cent. compared with the previous year, but in the past year there was once more an increase in the consumption of cigarettes. Consumption increased in 1972 by 6.5 per cent. This reflects what has happened consistently. A report comes out, the public takes some notice of it and there is a drop in the consumption of cigarettes, but within a year the figure goes up once more, probably to higher than it was before.

Cigarettes represent a growing menace. In 1940, 25,000 people in this country died from TB and 5,000 people died from lung cancer. In 1970, hardly anyone died from TB but 50,000 people died from lung cancer. As many people died from lung cancer in 1970 as were killed in all our air bombing crews during the war; four times as many people died as were killed on the roads, and there were far more deaths from cigarette smoking than from drugs in that period.

Let us look at the question of other forms of disease which follow the smoking of cigarettes. Not only does the serious problem of lung cancer arise from cigarettes, but cancer of the stomach and the very unpleasant and painful cancer of the bladder. Coronary thrombosis is worsened and the incidence of bronchitis, in particular, has increased in recent years. In spite of action to promote clean air, there has been an increase in unclean air in cinemas and other public places; 240 which has led to an increase in the English disease, bronchitis.

I think most of us would agree that people have the right to kill themselves in a particular way if they want to. On both sides of the House there is support, I think, for the new liberalism—with a small "I"—which says that to a large extent the individual has the right to do what he likes. But I put the point today that the community also has rights, as well as the individual. When people are killing themselves in this way the result for the community has to be considered. First of all, if a young man kills himself in this way his family has to be supported by the community. The whole of our health service has been twisted by the need to deal with people who suffer as a result of the smoking of cigarettes. Then again, the question of bronchitis has to be considered. It is other people who suffer from what the individual does when he indulges in excessive smoking.

The Bill I am proposing would ban all advertising, whether in newspapers or magazines, on billboards, in cinemas or theatres, on radio, in pubs, at race courses, and so on. Such advertising is already banned on TV. It would also ban sponsorship of sports events by cigarette manufacturers. This is very important because I am quite sure that this policy of trying to win support for smoking from the young is one of the most evil developments of recent years, and is not peculiar to this country.

The latest figures show that the various cigarette companies last year spent £52 million on promoting the smoking of cigarettes. What have the Government done to counter this? They have announced that they are spending £48,000 on a poster campaign. They will also be spending £72,000 on a run-up campaign in connection with the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes and they will spend £37,000 following that up. In other words, they propose to spend £157,000—a drop in the bucket compared with the amount being spent to promote cigarette smoking.

Other countries are taking action. The United States followed ourselves in banning television advertising. There was an enormous hoo-ha in America against this proposal because at that time, two years ago, 15 per cent. of the advertising 241 receipts of American television companies came from cigarettes. None the less, the American Government abolished the advertising of cigarettes on television, and the television companies had to find other sources of income.

In 1971, Yugoslavia abolished all advertising of tobacco products. A law to that effect was passed by their Federal Parliament by 70 to 12.

With regard to the Scandinavian countries, the Nordic Council—that is, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland—had discussions on the matter and decided by a majority of 35 to 27 that all the countries should go ahead with legislation in this field. The Norwegian Government, in spite of being in a minority position, is introducing a Bill in the Storting this week to ban all advertising of tobacco products. The other Scandinavian countries are preparing similar legislation.

It is interesting to consider Canadian experience. Canada decided to have legislation to ban cigarette advertisements. However, when the legislation had been prepared, the tobacco companies persuaded the Government to withdraw the legislation on condition that they voluntarily banned a large field of advertising for cigarette products. Having done that, they have now moved in a big way to the sponsorship of sport on which they are spending a great deal of money. As a result the whole matter of whether legislation should be introduced in Canada is again under discussion.

The Government have not acted very effectively. They have issued a health warning, which has had no effect at all. Now they are proposing that a list be drawn up of cigarettes with their tar and nicotine content. Cigarette packs will show what the content is, and the public will be advised to smoke those which have the lower content. I would like to ask why the Government are not proposing also to show the sugar content, because that is also one of the very important factors in producing the ills that follow from cigarette smoking. If they are going to draw up such a list of cigarettes, they should vary the taxation and make it high on those with a high nicotine, tar or sugar content. That would 242 be one way to make some good use of the content list.

I agree that the banning of cigarette advertising will not solve this problem, but it will make an important contribution. The tobacco firms are frightened about the propaganda which is being used against them. Last year when I proposed a similar Bill I was approached by three hon. Members who said that they proposed to oppose it on behalf of the tobacco interests. In the end none of them did. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who did so, said that he represented the advertising interests.

It is unlikely that anyone will oppose the Bill today. Last year I went to speak upon the matter at the BBC. I was told that the BBC had approached seven representatives of tobacco firms to oppose me on the matter. Apparently they took the view that it would be unwise to discuss the matter and the tobacco companies would not touch it with a barge pole. They believed that the less said about it the better.

I challenge any opponents of the Bill to vote against it today. Last year they were surprised to find that 132 people voted for and 72 against. Therefore, I challenge them to press the matter to a vote today so that we may know where we stand.

In conclusion, I say that this is a moral question. We have to try to defend the young from becoming smokers. We cannot force people to give up the habit and we do not wish to force adults to do so, but we can do our best to ensure that there is no kudos in smoking.