Tobacco Products

HC Deb 14 November 1988 vol 140 cc829-54 9.22 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Edwina Currie)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4192/88 on the labelling of tobacco products and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Health on 7th November 1988 and 4193/88 on tar yields of cigarettes; welcomes continued progress towards removing the remaining barriers to trade between Member States; and, in the interests of public health, endorses the aims of reducing the tar yield of cigarettes and of ensuring that Community consumers are adequately warned of the dangers of smoking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and his hon. Friends.

Mrs. Currie

The proposals concern the harmonisation of national provisions governing maximum tar yields of cigarettes and the labelling of tobacco products. The European Commission states that the proposals form part of the changes needed to eliminate most of the remaining trade barriers in the European Community by the end of 1992 at the latest.

The proposed directives are linked to the European Community Commission's "Europe Against Cancer" programme. That was based on a report by a committee of 12 European cancer experts, which report was welcomed on behalf of the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister on December 1986, when we last held the European presidency.

Tobacco is the main cause of cancer deaths in the European Community, so "Europe Against Cancer" has given priority to prevention in the struggle against tobacco abuse. In the context of that programme a list of 14 measures for a campaign against tobacco has been drawn up, and so far the Commission has proposed directives on five of those. The draft directive on labelling, one of those to be debated today, is the most advanced of all the proposals.

As the harmonisation measures originated in the cancer prevention programme, the proposals to be debated today take as their base a high level of health protection. That is required by paragraph 3 of article 100A of the treaty of Rome, which states that, in the internal market measures concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, The Commission … will take as a base a high level of health protection. The Commission's proposals are based on the most stringent existing provisions in any European Community member state.

I shall deal first with the proposal on the harmonisation of tobacco labelling. The Commission based its proposals on the Irish model of labelling, which is part of Irish law. Under the proposals there would be a health warning— Tobacco seriously damages your health"— on the most visible surface of all tobacco packs and cigarette packs would also carry one of a list of specific warnings on the back. The labelling directive also proposes that cigarette packets should carry numerical information on tar and nicotine yields on the side of the packet. The health warnings and the tar and nicotine yield indications would occupy 5 per cent. of the relevant side.

Cigarettes sold in the United Kingdom have carried health warnings for the past 16 years, through voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry. Those warnings appear on the side of cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco packaging. Also, through the voluntary agreement, cigarette packets in the United Kingdom carry information on tar yield in the form of tar groups—low tar, medium tar and so on.

The proposals of the labelling directive differ from the present United Kingdom system in several ways. First, the Commission envisages that the directives would have to be implemented by law, whereas the present United Kingdom system is voluntary.

Secondly, under the present United Kingdom system only cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco must carry health warnings. The labelling directive proposes to put a warning on all tobacco packaging, including cigars, pipe tobacco and so on. The proposed system would make warnings more prominent, and some of the proposed health warnings are taken from those already used in the United Kingdom.

The proposals to provide precise numerical information on tar and nicotine yields on cigarette packets would provide consumers with more information than they currently receive in Britain. At present, information on tar yield is expressed in terms of grouping; for example, low and high tar. Under the current United Kingdom system there is no information on nicotine yield on cigarette packs. It is hoped that the draft directive will be discussed by the Council of Ministers on 13 December.

The second proposed directive is on the harmonisation of maximum tar yields of cigarettes and is much less advanced than that on labelling. There is still much to discuss and we do not know what the final form of the proposals will look like, but I can describe what the present draft sets out to do. We all know that every cigarette is harmful to health, whatever its tar yield. There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, and there is no doubt that the risk of cancer is higher if the cigarettes smoked have high tar yield, as it is the tar that causes cancer.

The World Health Organisation has recommended a tar limit of 15 mg per cigarette. The directive aims to achieve that by the end of 1992. Spain has recently passed a royal decree to apply such a limit, and Portugal has recently introduced similar legislation. Following the recommendations of the European Community's committee of cancer experts, the directive also proposes a further reduction of the limit to 12 mg by the end of 1995.

We support the aim of reducing the tar yield of cigarettes, since we started it. For the past 16 years the United Kingdom has had a programme for continuing the reduction of what is known as the "sales weighted average tar yield"—commonly known as SWAT—of cigarettes. That is done by voluntary agreement with the United Kingdom tobacco industry. In that way we have brought the average tar yield of cigarettes down from 21 mg in 1972 to 13.6 mg today—a reduction of one third.

A difference between the proposals in the directive and the United Kingdom's voluntary system is that there is no general tar ceiling for cigarettes in the United Kingdom. However, there is a ceiling for the introduction of new brands, which stands at 14.5 mg. If the draft directive were to be adopted, it would affect 17.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom cigarette market where the tar yield would be above the proposed ceiling. In virtually all those cases the existing tar yield is between 15 and 18 mg. Brands such as Senior Service, Capstan, and Woodbine would be among those affected in their present formulations.

Lists of tar yield, carbon monoxide and nicotine for brands on sale in the United Kingdom are published by the Government twice yearly and the tables can be found in the Library. The tobacco industry has been reducing the tar yield of its brands and there is a continuing trend towards smoking lower tar cigarettes. By the time any directive comes into force, it is possible that a smaller percentage of the market will be affected.

The voluntary agreement to reduce the "sales weighted average tar yield" of cigarettes has gone a long way towards ensuring that the United Kingdom smoker uses lower tar cigarettes than does the smoker in many other European countries. We hope that further progress will be possible. The future timetable on the draft directive is not clear, but it seems unlikely that it will be ready for the Council in under 12 months.

I should like to share with the House a couple of problems that are associated with the directives. We are concerned to retain the United Kingdom system, whereby voluntary agreements provide the means for controlling the conditions under which cigarettes are marketed. The system is well-established and has been shown to work effectively over many years. It has the advantage of being flexible, as it is negotiated every few years, and we can use that to take account of new concerns and technology. That would be less easy to do with legislation.

We have been arguing strongly in Brussels for the right to implement any directive that may be adopted through our system of voluntary agreements. It has been a general theme in other sectors of regulation and deregulation. We do not take issue with the broad aims of the draft directives, but we wish to keep our system, which has been working well. We shall continue to push for this in further discussions.

Another issue that arises from the draft directives is that each has a clause stating that member states may not prohibit or restrict the sale of products that conform to them. As they stand, this would outlaw present United Kingdom law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to under-16s. Other member states have similar problems. The European Commission is aware of this and is proposing to amend the draft to make it clear that member states may lay down provisions considered necessary to protect citizens' health against the harmful effects of tobacco, as long as the provisions do not affect labelling. It is important that we should be able to maintain the United Kindom's high standard of health protection in this regard, and we shall continue to press strongly for that.

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)

I should like to press the Minister on whether the directive will be implemented voluntarily or legally. Will she comment on the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which suggests that the Government have received legal advice from the Council's Commission's legal services that legislation will be necessary if the Government are to implement the directive?

Mrs. Currie

Yes, we have received such advice, and the point will be pressed again at the meeting of Council Ministers on 13 December. My hon. Friends who tabled the amendment will be aware that this issue was raised by Mr. Speaker's counsel in March in the annex to the 19th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I note what my hon. Friends say in the amendment, but say that we have, we will and we do. We have raised this issue with the Commission, and will do so with the Council's legal services. We have still to be satisfied that the public health policy content of the directives is within the scope of article 100A3 of the treaty. We must reserve judgment on its appropriateness until we have heard the Commission's explanation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Why should the Government reserve their position until they have heard the Commission's views? Surely it is possible for the Government to have a view before they receive the Commission's advice.

Mrs. Currie

We have stated our position clearly. We think that we must put our points of view to the Commission and await its explanation. That is a courtesy to people who are putting points to us. That is also the position that we take on voluntary agreements. We have received legal advice and we hear what is being said. We believe that helping people through voluntary agreements has been successful, and we shall continue to say so in Europe.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The Minister may not be aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation is conducting an inquiry into the treaty base, but has not yet reported. I should not have thought that acceptance of the amendment would be contrary to anything that the Minister has said. Surely the treaty is asking the Government only to raise the issue. Indeed, the hon. Lady has said that they have and will. Do I ascertain from her remarks that she is resisting the amendment, or is she saying "We have done it and therefore we are accepting it"?

Mrs. Currie

The hon. Gentleman has not heard the debate on the amendment. I am not moving the amendment, but I look forward to that being done by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I notice that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has put his name to the amendment.

As part of my preparation for today's debate I read through a number of debates on the subject. I think that I have read almost everything that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said about it, and I enjoyed that very much. I note that he said the same thing over and over again and was answered at the Dispatch Box by a variety of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman does not seem always to have absorbed the gist of what they said, since his subsequent speeches were identical to the earlier ones. I look forward to hearing what he has to say later in this debate should he catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

The use of article 100A, which is essentially related to the establishment of the functioning of the internal market, is being kept closely under review by the Government. We press for the adoption of a different treaty base when article 100A is considere inappropriate. Although I understand the concerns expressed in the amendment, I cannot accept the implication—I hope that my hon. Friends will understand why—that the use of article 100A is not being kept under close surveillance, so I hope my hon. Friends will not press their amendment.

The Government support progress towards removing barriers to trade between member states. They are also anxious to maintain and develop health safeguards against smoking. In the United Kingdom the successful development of such safeguards is based on our well-established system of voluntary agreements between the Government and industry. We want to maintain the advantages of that system. We shall continue, in negotiations on these and subsequent directives, to place great emphasis on these important United Kingdom concerns and successes.

9.35 pm

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)

The Opposition support the thrust of both directives. I understand the constitutional point expressed in the amendment, and I say to all those who have attached their names to it that I find it difficult to disagree with the idea that the directives have more to do with public health than with trade matters, so it is perhaps unfortunate that they are brought before us under this article.

It may have been sensible and salutary for those hon. Members to table their amendment to serve as a warning to the Commission that it will be in some difficulty if it brings in directives in this way about other matters that do not necessarily command the degree of support that the objective of these directives should. I fully support that objective. Having come thus far, it would be wrong to tell the European Commission to return to "Go". The tobacco lobby is immensely skilled in preventing progress on these heads.

With that in mind, I welcome the Minister's speech. It was a great advance on the comments of her noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale, who represented her Department when the matter was discussed in the Council of Ministers. He electrified the atmosphere and entertained the other Health Ministers by saying that he was unhappy about the directives as he took the view that individuals should be free to choose their own method of death—whether from high-tar cigarettes or from throwing themselves in front of the airport bus. I am glad that the Minister did not endorse either proposition.

I strongly support the proposals on labelling which would take the health warning off the side notes of the packet and put them up front on the two larger sides—back and front. That is desirable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because cigarettes kill. Fortunately, the labelling will be toughened to make that the message. As a result of the directive the current British expression, "Smoking can cause cancer," will change to the much more blunt and accurate statement, "Smoking causes cancer." It is important that we make these changes and that the labelling should be as bold and prominent as possible.

Although it is clear from many surveys that smokers well understand that substantial health risks attach to smoking, most smokers still do not believe it will happen to them, despite the overwhelming evidence that one in four of them will die of diseases related to smoking.

I also welcome the other directive, which the Minister described as not having made the same degree of progress and which relates to the limitation on tar yields of cigarettes, but I do so with more reservation than that with which I welcomed the first. Britain's gain from the directive will be marginal, as, by 1992, the ceiling will be 15 mg of tar yield per cigarette, which happens to be the average sales-weighted index that we have already secured. The effect of the directive will be merely to make the current average a ceiling. That is a gain, but it is a limited gain that will be offset if it gives anyone the mistaken impression that smoking a low tar yield cigarette is safe. That would be a very unfortunate conclusion for anyone to reach.

There are still serious grounds for concern on public health policy about the incidence of cigarette smoking in our nation. I stress the apparent growth of smoking among the very young. It has been documented in several studies that one in four children has acquired the smoking habit by the age of 15, which is very worrying when one considers future trends in smoking. It is unlikely that labelling alone will alter that trend and reverse the incidence of smoking among the very young, especially if those changes in labelling take place in a context in which the tobacco industry spends £100 million a year on advertising tobacco products.

I do not agree with the Minister's praise of the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry secured by the Government. It is difficult to share her conviction that that voluntary agreement is successful and worthwhile. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that the tobacco industry uses much ingenuity and fecund imagination in finding ways round all the heads in the voluntary agreement. A case in point is Marlboro, which, under voluntary agreement, cannot place a cowboy in its adverts because it would represent a figure attractive to youngsters. Instead of showing a cowboy, as it does in America, it shows endless shots of horses that would otherwise be ridden by the cowboy, who was presumably just off camera when the photograph was taken.

In Edinburgh, a disturbing survey discovered that a clear majority of tobacconists who carried on business near to children's playgrounds had external tobacco adverts which breached one or more of the heads of the voluntary agreement.

The voluntary agreement is substantially undermined by our tolerance of a remarkable amount of sponsorship of sports by the tobacco industry. A key point in the voluntary agreement is that tobacco should not be connected with success in sport, but the whole point of sponsorship of sport by the tobacco industry is precisely to connect tobacco with success in sport. It also provides a convenient way round the ban on advertising tobacco products on television. On average, one hour a day of television transmission time is given over to covering sports that are sponsored by the tobacco industry, with the remarkable result that most children still believe that tobacco adverts are allowed on television. They have never seen one; all that they have seen is the sponsorship of sports on television.

The most disturbing feature of the Minister's speech was that, given the history of circumvention of the agreement and its ineffectiveness in substantially reducing penetration by the tobacco industry into commercial sponsorship and advertising, at some stage the House will have to take the step that has been taken by more than 20 other countries and introduce a legal ban on tobacco advertising. Those 20 countries were most recently joined by Canada and some Australian states. I am puzzled by the Minister's references to proceeding by voluntary agreement rather than by legislation. It is difficult to understand how the Minister can give effect to the directive on labelling without contemplating legislation, and I am puzzled by what she said about legal advice.

I understand why, as a matter of public policy, the Government may wish to preserve the voluntary agreement rather than introduce legislation. I believe that they are wrong, but I understand why they may prefer it. I cannot understand why, having received legal advice that it would be necessary to introduce such legislation to adopt the directive, they persist in ignoring it. That can only rest on the fact that there is legal advice available to the Government that counters the legal advice that has been tendered to them by the Council and the Commission. If not, and if the Minister is serious in supporting the directive and welcoming its objective, she will have to accept that it will require legislation. We would welcome such legislation because of the clear principle that it would introduce, that the tobacco industry has to advertise within the law.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very revealing. Is this clear and firm Labour party policy? In my area, about 3,000 people are still employed in the tobacco industry, and probably five times as many as that are pensioners of a famous company, John Player. They would be interested to hear the final policy of the Labour party, as it now stands.

Mr. Cook

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take every opportunity of reporting it to them.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

Why not?

Mr. Cook

I did not suggest a single reason why the hon. Gentleman should not do so. I suggested that he should do so. When he does report it to the tobacco industry, I presume that it will be relaxed about the proposal as it constantly lectures us that the point of advertising tobacco products is not to persuade people to smoke but merely to persuade those who smoke to shift brands. Therefore, I cannot understand why the tobacco industry, which keeps assuring us that nobody smokes because it advertises, is the least bit worried about advertising being banned by legal prescription. That has happened in over 20 countries. One day we shall have a Government who will pluck up the courage to take legal action to ensure that the tobacco industry has to advertise within the law and not within a voluntary agreement. To that extent, I am disappointed that the Government propose to implement this directive purely by voluntary agreement. If they do so, they will be throwing away what could possibly be the greater gain from this directive.

9.46 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

I beg to move, at end of the Question to add

?but expresses concern at the extent to which the Commission is presenting directives under article 100A when the issues involved fall more appropriately under other articles of the Treaty; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to raise the issue of the Treaty Clause base at the Council of Ministers before discussions proceed on the merits of the proposed directive.'. The amendment raises a small but nevertheless crucial constitutional point about what I believe to be the manifest impropriety in the method that the European Commission has used to bring in this proposed directive on the labelling of tobacco products with their tar content. As the amendment states, and as my hon. Friend the Minister has made clear, the legal basis for these directives is article 100A of the Single European Act's addition to the treaty of Rome.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was tremendously candid with the House. She made it clear that these directives were being introduced basically for preventive health reasons and, as an ardent non-smoker, I am sympathetic to what the Commission is seeking to achieve and my hon. Friend's endorsement of it. I recognise that others may wish to quarrel with the substance and content of the directives. There are many cheerfully heavy smokers in the House and many with views like those of Lord Skelmersdale.

Mrs. Currie

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me as I recognise that, with the leave of the House, I shall have an opportunity to respond later. However, I should not wish my hon. Friend to besmirch my perfect reputation. I said that the Commission said that these directives are part of the liberalisation of the internal market for 1992. I shall come back to that point later. It is not our view that they are being introduced for preventive health measures. There are on the horizon other directives under the "Europe Against Cancer" programme which are under different articles and which will possibly be debated in the House in due course.

Mr. Aitken

Far be it for me to besmirch my hon. Friend's reputation. I know when I am on a loser. However, in all seriousness, I find a certain Dispatch Box schizophrenia in what she said. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend thinks that she is speaking for the European Commission or for the Government. When she spoke for the Government, the major part of her speech seemed to be directed to the health reasons for backing these directives. Leaving aside the legal niceties and the requirement to be polite to the European Commission, I feel that the whole thrust of these directives must be that they are being introduced in the spirit of Euro-nanny knowing what is best.

That is the drive of these directives. We do not need to quarrel about whether we are for or against the content of the directives. I have tabled the amendment on the basis that it is crystal clear and a matter of common sense that we are seeking to introduce some good, preventive health engineering. My hon. Friend the Minister is quite right. That is not what the European Commission would like us to believe.

The clock struck 13 for me when I read the opening line of the directive which states that the elimination of all trade barriers by 1992 requires the harmonisation of national provisions governing the labelling of tobacco products. We should ask why that is the case. In considering the need for harmonisation across European Community trade barriers, the last thing we need to worry about is what labels are on tobacco cartons. Some of the explanatory memoranda make it clear that virtually all the European nations give some kind of health warning on cigarette packets. What appears to be at issue is the precise wording, whether we are being warned against bronchial—cum—cardiovascular diseases or fatal disease or whether smoking is simply bad for our health.

All that needs to be harmonised is the degree of verbal warning, not the fact that there is a message on the cigarette packet. It is nonsense to suggest that it is a requirement of the internal market to harmonise health warnings. It reminds me of the famous remark by the late governor Al Smith of New York who said, "However thin you slice it, it's still baloney." It is baloney that the Common Market Commission needs to gear up to harmonise the precise words.

Why do I take the trouble to labour the point at this late hour? I believe that the truth content of the opening words of the directive, like the tar content, is about 15 per cent. The other 85 per cent. of the truth content is that health is the issue here. In the polite language of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the directive comprises measures whose prime objectives appear difficult to reconcile with the establishment or functioning of the internal market. We cannot find a more civil way of putting across the message that I was putting forward in rather blunt terms.

In the manipulation of the legal basis of the directive lies the dangerous thin end of the wedge in constitutional terms. As we contemplate a wide spectrum of directives, we realise that article 100A is a convenient vehicle for the social engineering ambitions of Mr. Jacques Delors and his Commission. Directives brought in under article 100A require majority voting. I cannot put it any better than in the language of Mr. Speaker's counsel. I quote from his observations on the directive in which he said:

A particular danger is that areas of competence may pass to the Community undetected or at any rate unchallenged on the coat-tails of the internal market element in Commission proposals. This would be an unexpected result if one sees Article 100A as being concerned not with competence but with unblocking the decision-taking process in a particular area already well founded in the Treaty. Mr. Speaker's counsel has put the case admirably. We, as a House of Commons, should not just let go, without comment, the fact that the legal basis of the directive is constitutionally unsound. The Government's legal advisers, particularly the Cabinet Office legal team which is supposed to fight such battles in the preliminary stages at Brussels, should have done their job much more thoroughly. They were asleep at the switch. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us later whether Lord Skelmersdale raised this point at the Council of Ministers when he spoke on the issue in the early stages. Did he make an effort to insist in the early stages that the directive should have been introduced under a different article of the treaty?

I was impressed by the response of my hon. Friend the Minister: "We have, we shall and we do," suggesting that she was almost enthusiastic about the amendment. However, a moment or two later she skated off on a different and less solid piece of ice and seemed to urge us not to press the proposal. She seemed unwilling to accept it because she said that the Government must preserve their position our of courtesy to the European Commission. I should have expected my hon. Friend of all people to take a slightly more robust approach. She is not afraid to state her position clearly and tread on a few toes from time to time. Surely we do not need to be so elaborately courteous that we do not dare state the British Government's position on a matter of such fundamental constitutional importance.

Mr. Spearing

I had an exchange with the Minister on that very point. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a possible explanation for the schizophrenia to which he referred? According to my information, if a treaty basis is to be challenged, it must be challenged on introduction and by practice and an effective reversal of that basis must be by unanimous decision. Is it not possible that the Government apprehended that that might be impossible and therefore remained silent and will continue to do so despite what the Minister said? Perhaps that is the reason for her unwillingness to accept the amendment.

Mr. Aitken

Perhaps my hon. Friend will respond to that herself.

My hon. Friends and I wanted to put down an important constitutional marker. I would not wish to spoil the directive on this issue, and that is in no way the point of this exercise. However, if we do not protest at this thin edge of the wedge, article 100A will be used in much more sinister ways. In view of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said recently—in her speech in Bruges and about the social dimension of the market, which she opposes—the sooner we make our position clear the better.

9.57 pm

Mr. Michael Knowles (Nottingham, East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and I do not often agree about subjects relating to the Community. Generally he is regarded as an opponent and I am regarded as a supporter. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has raised some valid points, and I should like to add to them.

Who decided that the health department in each country would be the lead department for directives concerning the tobacco industry? Let me declare my interest. I am a Nottingham Member and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said earlier, 3,000 jobs are at stake in the city, and many more depend upon them. I make no apology to anyone for that declaration of interest. The health departments have been given the lead on a subject affecting a major industry with wide implications for employment and tax yield. If one consults any health department anywhere in the world on the subject of tobacco, one knows what the outcome will be. Quite simply, they are agin it; one can take that as read. Make them the lead department on any matter to do with tobacco and they will come up with restrictions. Rather than restrictions in one country we shall have restrictions from 12 health departments across the whole Community. That outcome was certain, but surely there were other Departments with an interest in such a major industry, such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, which would have tax yield in mind. It would seem that their interests have not been included.

There is a problem within the Community—it is highlighted by the debate—that has been well described as the democratic deficit. We know that the Select Committee on European Legislation gets in on the act only at a late stage when proposed measures have already passed through the Council and the Commission. The European Parliament comes in on the act only at the tail end of the process. The idea of any elected assembly having any real say does not apply. Such assemblies are presented with a fait accompli at each stage. That should be of concern to us.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

My hon. Friend and I served on the Select Committee on European Legislation a few years ago, and what he has just said is frequently the reality. The Committee comes in rather late, and he will know that I was pressing for a long time that it should come in much earlier. It is possible within the Committee's terms of reference, and as a matter of procedure, for it to do so. As majority voting applies, as distinct from issues that are subject to unanimity, it would be highly desirable if we were to press effectively for early consideration of these issues.

Mr. Knowles

Absolutely. My hon. Friend and I are at one.

The Danish Parliament has probably gone too far, for its committee is over-restrictive on the Government. The French and German national Parliaments have close liaison between European members and national members and they achieve more of a balance. The United Kingdom Parliament is outstanding because as a national Parliament it gets no say whatsoever. Much is left in the hands of Government Departments. Of course, I share the faith that all of my right hon. and hon. Friends have fingertip control and are aware of everything that is going on within their Department night and day. However, there is the possibility that what we are seeing in Europe is a conspiracy of bureaucracies between the national bureaucracies in the 12 member states and the Community. At no stage does any elected assembly have any real control. That concerns me and it should concern all hon. Members. We should reinforce the powers of the Select Committee on European Legislation.

My hon. Friend the Minister is in the happy position of knowing that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the Opposition spokesman, was more extreme than herself. The hon. Gentleman made her appear more reasonable than perhaps she was. I can remember the halcyon days of about 10 years ago when we made speeches about the nanny state. We used to complain also about there being too much legislation. I suppose that times change. The truth is that we now see the nanny state writ large on a European scale. The irony is that without harmonised testing methods and procedures it is likely that barriers to trade could be raised by this measure, not lowered.

Despite what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the Government continuing to press for the voluntary agreement to be recognised, I have my doubts. I fear that we shall see swept away a system of co-operation between the industry and the Government. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Livingston would say that it would be much better to replace that system with a system of law, which would introduce much more control. I am not sure about that. When Bills pass through Parliament and become enacted we often think that they will achieve our purposes, but sometimes they do not. If there is a war between a major industry and the Government, I am not sure who will win. I would be wary of going down that path. It is easy to advocate the principle, but the outcome of a confrontation would not be certain.

The effect on the industry in Britain would be devastating, if the proposed ceiling would ban 82 per cent. of cigarettes currently manufactured in this country. That would have a massive effect on the industry.

I believe that the tar proposal in particular has just been disguised as part of the internal market so that it may be passed through the Council of Ministers on a weighted voting system. The proposal has nothing to do with internal trade, which was the point of article 100A. The article is being used for false purposes. That is wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that items might be swept under article 100A when they should come under other articles. That means that they must be passed automatically and that opens a very wide gate. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could repeat her Bruges speech ad infinitum. However, if that gate is opened the powers of the European Community will increase massively. There might be arguments for that, but we should debate them openly and not let matters slip through by inching the gate open steadily without debating the constitutional points.

Mr. Cash

Does my hon. Friend accept that, irrespective of what could or might happen in the Council of Ministers on this point, if there is a technical breach of the vires in that member states are not entitled to use article 100A, that could be taken to the European Court of Justice? Irrespective of the view of some people that the European Court of Justice would naturally tend to side with the Commission, that might be the right route to adopt given the considerable doubts expressed about this matter.

Mr. Knowles

I suspect that the battle has been lost. If that was to be the practice, it should have been done at the beginning when the matter first went to the Council of Ministers. I suspect that it is too late now for this directive. However, that should be the procedure for the next directive on this matter which might be slipped through.

The tar proposal is far in excess of what is necessary to permit the free movement of goods, which is the point of article 100A. We must be aware of that. If the proposal works for the 12 member states' health departments allied to people in the Commission who share their views, that route will be used for many other restrictions in other areas. We must be very careful before we go down that road without sounding a warning.

10.7 pm

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

In his opening comments my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) said that every health department would be against the use of tobacco. He said that in terms which suggested that they were all part of some sinister plot. However, he is absolutely right, and every health department will be against tobacco.

I want to repeat two propositions that I have uttered in the House before, and I do not apologise for doing so. First, smoking is the largest avoidable cause of death in this country. Secondly, 100,000 people per annum die prematurely from smoking, and thousands suffer painful illnesses and diseases because they smoke.

The House will be aware that I am chairman of the all-party group ASH—Action on Smoking and Health. Hon. Members may also be aware that the group's vice chairman is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). That shows that the group covers a pretty wide spectrum in the House.

Members of ASH are subject to frequent criticism from an organisation called FOREST—Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco—which, alas, often demonstrates qualities of intolerance and bigotry which it ascribes to us. FOREST claims to promote the interests of freedom, but it is of course a body financially supported by the tobacco industry. We are neither intolerant nor bigoted. If a man or woman wishes to smoke, that is his or her free choice. However, we claim the freedom for the non-smoker not to have to breathe other people's smoke.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the specific proposals that are before the House, to which he is not addressing himself.

Mr. Sims

I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in view of your ruling I shall not pursue that point.

I was trying to indicate the areas of criticism made by FOREST. Another takes the form of an implication that there is something unreasonable or improper about a number of the cases made by ASH. We argue that because of the overwhelming evidence of the harm done by smoking there is a heavy responsibility on the Government to reduce the health risks of smoking, to persuade smokers to smoke less or to stop, and to dissuade young people from starting to smoke.

The two draft directives before the House are both useful steps in that direction. There is clear evidence of the relationship between the quantity of tar in cigarettes and the cancer risk. In recent years the level has been reduced from 30 mg to 15 mg, so a further reduction to 12 mg by 1995 should not be difficult to achieve. It will at least offer a modest reduction in the health risk, so I strongly support that directive.

The other draft directive is on the labelling of tobacco products. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, that is nothing new, because tobacco products have carried health warnings for several years, on the smaller sides of cigarette packets. They include the words: Smoking can cause fatal diseases, Smoking can cause heart disease, and Smoking can cause lung cancer. Right hon. and hon. Members will note the element of doubt, with the use of the word "can". The fact remains, as was said by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that smoking does cause cancer and other diseases.

In 1985 the Health Education Council undertook research which clearly showed that, to be effective, cigarette packet warnings needed to be more prominent and strongly worded. The draft directive achieves both those aims. It requires that health warnings appear on both the larger sides of cigarette packets, and it details a series of strongly-worded warnings. The extent to which a country adopts them is optional. I hope that our country will use them all, because frequent changes of wording are more likely to attract attention. That proposal also has my support, because anything that brings home the danger to smokers, and especially to potential smokers, must be beneficial.

The draft directives refer to tobacco products, not simply to cigarettes. As I understand my hon. Friend, they will also cover cigars, cigarillos, and pipe tobaccos. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, perhaps she will also indicate whether the directives will cover Skoal Bandits, which are the oral tobacco pouches, with which some right hon. and hon. Members may be familiar. Whether or not they do is academic, because I understand that the Government intend prohibiting Skoal Bandits altogether, although as yet we see no signs of their bringing such a measure into effect. Perhaps my hon. Friend will indicate what is happening on that front.

It is the Commission's intention that the draft directives shall be translated into legislation. My hon. Friend has indicated that, hitherto, the Government have favoured voluntary arrangements and prefer to continue on that course. I join the hon. Member for Livingston in urging the Government to think again. Voluntary agreements are inevitably a compromise. They do not go as far as the Department of Health would want and, by their nature, they cannot be enforced. Compliance with the directives would not, I understand, involve complex legislation. We could comply with the directives simply by orders under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and I suggest that that would be an appropriate course to follow.

The purpose of the legislation is harmonisation. There is one other matter of great concern on which my hon. Friend touched—the suggestion that member states may not prohibit or restrict the sale of products when they are conforming to those directives. That conflicts with our law prohibiting the sale of cigarette products to the under-16s. Research shows that, in the I 1 to 15 age group, 12 per cent. of girls and 7 per cent. of boys smoke regularly. In the 15 to 16 age group, the figures rise to 27 per cent. of girls and 18 per cent. of boys. Half the adult smokers started smoking as children, so it is vital that, far from our powers to restrict sales to under-16s being reduced, they should be strengthened.

I accept that the Commission is aware of this problem, but I put it to my hon. Friend that it must be a condition of our accepting these directives that that point is adequately dealt with. Of course, there has been opposition from the tobacco industry to these directives, perhaps not surprisingly, and no doubt we shall hear more. I have carefully read the submission by the Tobacco Advisory Council and its European counterparts. I find their case unconvincing and very much a matter of special pleading. To draw a parallel between requiring lower tar yields and the complete prohibition of alcohol in the United States is stretching logical argument beyond reason. Nor does a plea that printing health warnings on the front of the packet would depreciate the commercial and legal value of the trade mark carry much weight.

I hope that the House will support the motion. I urge the Government to support and implement the directives as soon as practicable.

10.17 pm

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)

I do not smoke, but, to abuse that famous saying, I shall defend my constituents' right to do so. I want to defend more than just my constituents. I refer to an intervention that I made earlier, and to comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), that the six or seven constituencies that make up greater Nottingham contain the homes of about 3,000 people who are directly employed in the tobacco industry by probably the country's most famous tobacco manufacturer, John Player. It is my duty, if nothing else, to represent the interests not just of those who are still working for John Player but of the many thousands of its pensioners who have benefited from that company's commercial activities over many years. Their case is entitled to be heard in the House.

I concede that the aims of the motion are much in line with current thinking, but, as has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, I am disturbed at the route that the EEC has taken. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister and hope that something can be done to bring to the EEC some of the depth of feeling on this topic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, it is difficult to link article 100A with the functioning of an internal market. By a stretch of the imagination, I suppose that one can, but if we do not stamp on it now I do not think that we shall ever be able to do so.

We are asked to look at this proposal in the context of the single market in 1992. We are also asked to believe that it is designed to ensure the free circulation of tobacco products and to take into account health considerations. I cannot look at it in that light. I am also puzzled by the insistence on packaging being printed in the language that is used at the point of sale. That will make life even more difficult. It will result in a restriction on the circulation of goods.

We are told that the elimination of all trade barriers by 1992 requires the harmonisation of all national provisions that govern the labelling of tobacco products. I am not against the adoption of a common approach to health warnings, but it is a pity that companies with traditional packaging or world-famous logos should be told by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that warnings round the sides of the packs are not enough—that people are so stupid that, unless the warnings are plastered across the front of every pack, they will be unable to read them. That is stretching the point much too far. I believe that the black and gold pack of John Player and the blue pack of the French Gauloises are traditional to those companies. I see no reason why they should be forced to change their packs because they have to be plastered with health warnings 50 times over.

I do not believe that the tar proposals should be part of the integrated market programme. I do not like the way in which that proposal is being handled by the Council of Ministers. If we accept the proposed ceilings, 82 per cent. of all our brands will have to go off the market. Customer choice may change over time and the industry may be able to adjust to that change, but the fact is that a staggering 82 per cent. of all our brands would have to come off the shelves if the proposal were to be applied quickly. Even if the ceilings were agreed, it is just possible that, without harmonised testing methods and procedures, barriers to trade would be created.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that in the right quarters our approach to the tax proposals is handled much more carefully. I should hate the tax proposals to be slipped in by the Commissioners by means of another article that did not allow the House to exercise the sovereignty over taxation that hitherto we have taken for granted.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a directive of this kind means that the value of harmonising trade throughout the European Community has been hijacked, in this case by the anti-smoking lobby? Does he also agree that those who want the market to be opened up are very concerned that the Commission may introduce other measures, under which the proponents of the social dimension will try to hijack measures that are designed to open up the market? It is the confusion between the two objectives—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are discussing the labelling of tobacco products and the tar yield of cigarettes.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposed labelling and all it stands for is part of what has correctly been described as a manifestation not of the nanny state but of the nanny continent.

Even the industry does not try to kid anybody that tobacco is good for one's health, but I hope that the taxation arrangements will be much more specific than ad valorem. If we tax ad valorem, we shall merely reduce the number of cigarettes made in Britain. There will be very little reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked. All that will happen is that we shall import cheap, subsidised tobacco from a variety—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what I have just said. We are discussing the labelling of tobacco products and the tar yield of cigarettes, not taxation.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are trying to illustrate that the article that we are discussing is one of the danger points. We are anxious that if labelling comes in under this article, so might taxation. That is a matter of real concern—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We are not discussing an article. We are discussing two draft directives with specific intentions, to which I have referred. I hope that the House will direct its remarks to them.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

The Commission seems to be trying to extend its powers in this area of public health by engineering the sole right to amend enacted legislation without reference to national Parliaments.

I am not quite sure how the Greeks will react to this one. During the recess, I had a very happy week going through Salonika where a lot of tobacco is grown. There are no health warnings on Greek cigarettes and 70 per cent. of the male population smokes its head off, but, believe it or not, Greece has the lowest incidence of lung cancer in Europe.

Mrs. Currie

rose—

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

I offer that only as a piece of gratuituous information which I knew would produce a response.

Mrs. Currie

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish anybody to think that lung cancer develops quickly after the smoking rate rises. In Britain we have found that as smoking has dropped, and particularly as the tar yield of cigarettes smoked has dropped, it has taken 10 to 15 years for falls to be shown in mortality from lung cancer.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

I am not disputing my hon. Friend's figures. I am simply saying that the Greeks have probably been smoking for as long as people in Britain. There seems to be a strange quirk of reality. Some 70 per cent. of Greek adult males smoke, but they have the lowest incidence of lung cancer in Europe. Even worse is the fact that they smoke tobacco with a much higher tar yield than do the British. That may not fit the received wisdom of the Minister, but it is the reality.

We understand that tobacco is not good for health. We are not trying to push smoking. We are simply trying to ensure that, if people wish to smoke, they understand the risks. The House should recognise that many thousands of people depend, directly or indirectly, on this industry for their jobs and their livelihoods. We should not lightly set their interests to one side.

10.28 pm

Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North)

I listened attentively to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). His argument was very sound.

A convenient instrument—article 100A—has been selected. It was calculated initially to harmonise national law to remove obstacles to free trade. The Community's proposals for ensuring the free movement of goods are excessive. Indeed, they would disrupt trade, industry and competition.

The EEC grows approximately 350,000 tonnes of tobacco in some 250,000 farms, which are largely in the poorer countries of the Mediterranean. The tobacco is low in nicotine and unsuited to the manufacture of low-tar cigarettes. Much of the current crop would be unsaleable by 1991. The countries concerned are Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal.

Are we to contemplate that the purpose of article 100A is deliberately to thrust people into unemployment? That is not the way to enlarge trade—it will constrict trade, and I do not believe that that was the aim. The Commission had health considerations in mind and proposed to use them as a convenient method to achieve the inevitable result of the majority vote, as has already been said.

My hon. Friend the Minister has said that there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. I dare say that we shall hear from the Opposition that one cigarette will cause death. I do not accept that view. My view is that we should be careful not to lay down maxims, but to do nothing to excess is a reasonable view of life.

As for the draft directive on labelling, 90 per cent. of people recognise the health warning. It cannot be brought to their attention any more clearly. I do not consider that it would be any more significant if it were printed on two or three sides of the carton or if the trade mark were eliminated. The method of smoking is also relevant. If people puff harder, they will get more tar in their lungs. If they smoke lightly, they will be less affected.

Therefore, the battle is not quite as easy as the Minister says. However, I shall support her in one respect. It has been traditional in the United Kingdom to carry out consultation with the industry and that has been very successful. I am not sure that I accept the Minister's figures, so I shall provide my own. The average tar yield of cigarettes has dropped from 22.5 mg per cigarette in 1970 to 13 mg per cigarette in 1987—a reduction of about 40 per cent. in 16 years. That was achieved without legislation through a voluntary arrangement with the industry concerned, with the minimum disruption and without the prohibition of any brand of cigarettes. That is what can be achieved.

Apparently the Opposition are saying that we should have legislation and that everyone should be bound by it. It has been said tonight that, if we were to impose a level of 12 mg by 1995, 80 per cent. of cigarettes in the United Kingdom would be unsaleable, as would 83 per cent. of those in the European Community. I am not certain whether my hon. Friend the Minister would agree with the figures that I have given, but they are the industry's figures. I think that some of the figures that she cited were very much lower. However, that would lead to a massive disruption and loss of employment which we do not wish to see in the United Kingdom.

I shall make only one other point as I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House. I mentioned that the method of smoking is significant, but for the growers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere I must pray in aid the fact that a marked change must be phased in. Blending tobacco is extremely difficult unless there is the correct leaf and would have to be secured from abroad and that could lead to considerable difficulties during the next two or three years.

10.34 pm

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

I have to declare an interest in the matter because my father gained passing notoriety when he successfully saw off a robust bid for the family company by a tobacco company and as a result a poem was published in the Financial Times which lampooned the fact that the tobacco company had gained control of and owned Golders Green crematorium. The late Jimmy Hanley used to say that the only sign of life was the smoke coming from the crematorium chimney. Lest hon. Members feel that I approach the subject with too much flippancy, I should say that my family has done a considerable amount for research at the Royal Marsden hospital and was active in the early days in furthering Dame Cicely Saunders in the hospice movement.

Article 2 of the proposed directive defines tobacco products as products for the purpose of smoking, sniffing, sucking or chewing inasmuch as they are, even partly, made of tobacco". Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me who will decide which is the front and which is the back of a bar of chewing tobacco so that the health warning may be printed upon it?

The question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) involves the "sniffing" mentioned in article 2. The House of Commons Public Information Office circular No. 52 states: Another curious survival of the eighteenth century is the provision of snuff, in recent years at public expense"— I stress, "at public expense"—

for Members and Officers of the House, at the doorkeepers' box at the entrance to the Chamber. A few still avail themselves of the facility. Snuff, however, is the only form of tobacco the use of which is tolerated in or around the Chamber: smoking has been banned there and in committees since 1693. I learn from the book, "The Great Palace", that the snuff provided is contained in a box made of oak saved from the bombed Chamber after the last war, and it contains a blend of snuff milled especially for the Commons. On top of the box there is a silver plaque which lists the names of the Principal Doorkeepers who have guarded the Chamber door. Our Principal Doorkeeper, like all our Doorkeepers, had considerable and distinguished service in Her Majesty's armed forces. One wonders whether, on his front and back, he will require a health warning of the dimensions laid out in the proposal directive.

I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to direct her attention to the fact that the hypocrisy of the House is yet again evident. It is a case not of do as I do but do as I say. The hon. Member for Livingston made it clear that the Labour party wants to see action on the health hazard, yet we have a tobacco product provided for all hon. Members at the taxpayers' expense.

Apart from motorists in Britain, I know of no other groups who are now as persecuted as smokers. In the past few weeks we have heard much about pensioners, and to many of them their bit of tobacco, their puff and their pint of beer is the comfort to which they look forward in their twilight years.

The objective of the directive is said to be to achieve greater protection of the individual. Nowhere can we see the ghost of Jacques Delors more clearly printed than in that phrase. Conservative Members believe that the protection of the individual is in his own destiny and choice, not in EEC directives.

10.39 pm

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)

I shall be brief, as my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) have covered the points that I would otherwise have covered at greater length. This matter is of concern to Nottinghamshire and to those employed in the tobacco industry.

I am sorry that the debate has, perhaps understandably, been bedevilled by hostility to the tobacco industry. If we are to say that tobacco has some of the evil effects described by hon. Members, we should debate it openly and thoroughly. If we are to ban tobacco, we should say so, not try to strangle it by the back door through a European proposal disguised as trade harmonisation. We should do one or the other.

There has been co-operation between the industry and the Government through the voluntary agreement, which has worked. The tar level has dropped from 22.5 mg to 13 mg per cigarette. If the proposal comes into force, all that good will will be dissipated. People will feel aggrieved, especially those in the industry who have co-operated. It will put paid to co-operation completely.

Some people want to go further down the health warning route. These proposals certainly do. I share the doubt that has been expressed by some of my hon. Friends about the effectiveness of the health warnings. I am not a smoker of cigarettes, but I have always found that those who are ignore the health warnings when deciding whether to buy another packet or to have another cigarette. The proposed directive will have no greater effect, but at the same time it will be a further brake on the industry's competitiveness and its ability to trade as it best knows how and legally.

If the EC believes that warnings are effective, why do we need a dual system? Why clutter cigarette packets with a load of information that no one will bother to read? It will be difficult to do so, be it on the back or the front, through the various trade marks or logos. I do not think that a proliferation of print will do anything other than restrict the tobacco industry in the sale of its products in a lawful manner.

Even if the amendment does not appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister, I hope that the way in which it is proposed will. I am a signatory to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). If we are to restrict the sale of tobacco, we should do so in a sensible and correct way. I object to the proposals if the Commission will be able further to restrict tar yields or labelling without reference to Ministers. Civil servants restricting trade without reference to Parliament or Ministers is completely unacceptable.

Even if my hon. Friend the Minister disagrees with my views on the tobacco industry, I hope that she will share the widespread concern of hon. Members about the way in which it will be done.

10.43 pm

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on some of these important measures.

I hope that before a decision is made by the Council of Ministers the Minister will answer two important questions. First, what will be the cost to the EEC of making alternative provision for the massive European tobacco industry?

As the Minister knows, the European tobacco industry is the third largest producer of tobacco in the world. There are no fewer than 250,000 producers. They operate mainly in the southern parts of Europe, but there are also a few in the United Kingdom. Sadly, these producers make a kind of tobacco that is difficult, even over a period of years, to change to the proposed acutely low levels of tar. The industry will need an alternative system of support. Bearing in mind the astonishing bills that the EEC has landed us with, due to the common agricultural policy and the protection of agriculture that that entails, and that these producers have limited incomes, we need to know the cost of such alternative provision.

Secondly, will the Minister inquire to what extent the directives can fit in with free trade? The only conceivable connection is that Belgium, with three languages, will be put at a significant trade disadvantage because if the warnings are printed in three languagues on the packet there will be no room left on it to describe the contents. Is not that being unfair to Belgium?

I hope that the Minister appreciates the importance of the amendment. I hope that she has noticed that it is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), among others. He is an acknowledged enthusiast for almost every part of the EEC, but not for administrative nonsense. Under the Single European Act we gave the EEC additional powers that enable it to take decisions by majority vote. We decided on the category of things that should be so decided.

When the Commission, as my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Esher and the Select Committee have said, goes beyond that category, it is reasonable that the Government should express their concern about such abuse. We fully appreciate that the Government can probably do nothing; even if they protest, it would need a unanimous Council decision to change from article 100A to the appropriate article. Nothing may be achieved by protest, but when powers are being abused, as almost all hon. Members in the debate have agreed they are, the least the Government can do is to express their displeasure and tell the Commission that it is doing something wrong. That might influence the Commission's future actions.

We know that Parliament does not consider these things. We decide nothing about the subjects that fall within the famous 80 per cent. sovereignty category. Even the Government do not decide most of these things. Measures can be enforced on us by majority vote. On the other hand, if the Commission goes beyond the powers granted by the Single European Act, we have the right to complain. I hope that the Minister, who is noted for her independence and vigour, will tell the Council at the meeting that it is in error, and ask it not to do this again.

10.47 pm

Mrs. Currie

This has been an extremely useful take-note debate. We have heard a large number of pertinent speeches. I was distressed to hear that my colleagues feel that the Department of Health should not take the lead. I am speaking for the United Kingdom Government, and lines are cleared with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and other Departments before and during negotiations. I am not speaking only for myself.

Perhaps I should clear up the important question of how much snuff costs in the House. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) tabled a question about that to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on Monday 7 November and was answered as follows:

The average annual consumption of snuff provided by the Principal Doorkeeper is some 1½ oz. I understand that only one hon. Member regularly takes advantage of this service. The average annual cost to public funds is 99p."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c 93.] My hon. Friends have expressed concern about several issues. I shall try to deal with them quickly, recognising that debates on other draft directives are to follow.

Broadly speaking, my hon. Friends have dealt with three main topics. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked whether we should have majority voting, a point hinted at by one or two other hon. Members. That was dealt with in the debates on the Single European Act, which was passed with a large majority. On Second Reading the majority was 159, and the United Kingdom has been a major force in negotiations to make progress on the Single European Act using majority rule. Since 1985, more than 200 measures have been agreed, including 60 this year alone—many under the qualified majority rule—and that has had a catalytic effect on increasing the pace towards 1992. That may be one reason why my hon. Friend does not like it. I recognise the sincerity of the views that he and some of my hon. Friends expressed on that.

The second question is whether we should deal with tobacco as part of the move towards 1992. It is a legal product and a traded commodity, like many others. The trade runs into many millions of pounds. Others may not see the argument for excluding tobacco from our discussions. Labelling and product content are important matters that have been discussed in connection with many other legally traded products—for example, in the food directives, the labelling of cosmetics and the product content of pharmaceuticals. As long as a product is traded, as tobacco is—it is a legal product, and we have no plans to change its status—it is likely to be scrutinised by those concerned with trade. There are trade elements in the directive, so there are grounds for using article 100A.

I apologise to my hon. Friends if that sounds like casuistry, but labelling is different in various countries, and that might be a barrier to trade. Therefore it is appropriate that some discussion should take place on the basis of this article.

We may need to separate in our own minds the Commission's proposals on a traded product from our worries about tobacco as such. I recognise the interests of constituents that have been expressed by several hon. Members. They are honourable concerns, and hon. Members are doing their jobs as constituency Members well. I also recognise the concern that has been expressed about the nation's health and about some of the other claims made about the nation's health, which are not always well supported. We share those concerns. We already have means of dealing with them.

As for Greece, it is for the Greeks to decide their attitude to the directives. As to what my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale said at the Council of Ministers, I understand that he did not mention the treaty base, but that he did use the words quoted by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and therefore left no one in any doubt where he stood.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) asked whether the directive would cover Skoal Bandits. The answer is yes. He asked where we stand on the proposals on Skoal Bandits. Representations are still under consideration.

I have some sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which were echoed by some of my colleagues. We do not believe in harmonisation for the sake of it. We need to be convinced that the directive will remove barriers to trade, not erect them. The directive should have trade as its objective, as long as it is part of the moves towards 1992—and little else. The primary purpose of these objectives is trade, but it is permissible under the treaty for health to be a subsidiary purpose, and when it is, paragraph (3) of article 100A is relevant. That is the "best practice" paragraph.

The Commission is considering other directives and documents on tobacco which come under other articles. Smoking in public places and the protection of children from tobacco will come in under article 235; broadcasting under articles 57 and 66; and tax harmonisation under article 99. A preliminary draft for a Commission-proposed directive on tobacco advertising has just been received. It is not yet known what the draft contains, nor under which article of the EC treaty the directive will be proposed. As for tax harmonisation, the directive was passed in 1977, but unanimity is required. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said publicly that deregulation, not approximation, is necessary for the completion of the single European market.

The third question that has been well aired tonight is whether we should use voluntary agreements instead of legislation. The United Kingdom has always been pragmatic on this matter. Our approach has been a mixture of legislation and voluntary action, and legislation on the subject goes back more than 50 years to the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1936. The most recent legislation was the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986.

This morning I saw Professor Sir Peter Froggatt of Belfast university, who is the chairman of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which was set up to advise the Government on a variety of issues relating to smoking and tobacco. He expressed his concern about the sales-weighted average tar yield agreement, which is now faced with some problems. He said that he wanted us to put it on record that he felt that SWAT, which cannot be enforced, is useful, and we should do what we can to keep it. Therefore, we continue to take a pragmatic view on this.

I have given some thought to the approach that we ought to adopt to the amendment, especially as it has been tabled by hon. Friends. However, it is much too sweeping in its general criticism of the Commission. As I said, had they done us the courtesy of asking us for our views before they tabled the amendment, they would have found that we had some sympathy with their points. I have had no letters or parliamentary questions from any of my seven hon. Friends who tabled the amendment, on tobacco products or on policy. They have not asked to meet me, although we are always happy to meet colleagues. Had they done so, they might have rewritten their speeches and the amendment in such a way that I would feel passionate about accepting it. In the circumstances, although we do not dissent from the concerns expressed, we cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Aitken

I am disappointed by the response of my hon. Friend the Minister. I did not expect to get a ticking off. I am mindful of the fact that this is a House of Commons occasion, because views firmly in favour of the amendment have been expressed from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend has not produced a convincing answer, so I shall press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided, Ayes 11, Noes 82.

Division No. 496]	[10.56 pm
AYES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Pike, Peter L.
Bermingham, Gerald	Skinner, Dennis
Buckley, George J.	Spearing, Nigel
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob	Tellers for the Ayes:
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Mr. Teddy Taylor and
Meale, Alan	Mr. Jonathan Aitken.
Patchett, Terry
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Amess, David	Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arbuthnot, James	Bevan, David Gilroy
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Boswell, Tim
Ashdown, Paddy	Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Janman, Tim
Bowis, John	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Brazier, Julian	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Kirkwood, Archy
Burns, Simon	Knapman, Roger
Butterfill, John	Knowles, Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Knox, David
Chapman, Sydney	Lawrence, Ivan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Lightbown, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Lord, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John	Mans, Keith
Cran, James	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Neubert, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Page, Richard
Day, Stephen	Paice, James
Dorrell, Stephen	Raffan, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Dunn, Bob	Sims, Roger
Durant, Tony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Dykes, Hugh	Steel, Rt Hon David
Fallon, Michael	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Favell, Tony	Summerson, Hugo
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
French, Douglas	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Gale, Roger	Thurnham, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Gregory, Conal	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Walden, George
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Wallace, James
Harris, David	Warren, Kenneth
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Widdecombe, Ann
Hind, Kenneth	Wood, Timothy
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Tellers for the Noes:
Irvine, Michael	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Jack, Michael	Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4192/88 on the labelling of tobacco products and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Health on 7th November 1988 and 4193/88 on tar yields of cigarettes; welcomes continued progress towards removing the remaining barriers to trade between Member States; and, in the interests of public health, endorses the aims of reducing the tar yield of cigarettes and of ensuring that Community consumers are adequately warned of the dangers of smoking.