§ Amendment made: No. 49, in page 9, line 3, leave out "three" and insert "six".—[Yvette Cooper.]
Amendment made: No. 50, in page 9, line 4, at end insert—
§
'; or
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
8.16 pm§ Yvette CooperI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been extensively debated in Committee and also today, and I believe that it has been improved by our discussions. It is a ground-breaking measure, which introduces a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. It is ground-breaking also because it makes specific provision to address advertising on the internet. It is right that much of the time that we have spent today and in Committee has been on issues concerning the internet, which is an area of rapidly developing and changing technology.
As a result of debates in Committee, we have clarified the distinction between advertising and display—for example, the distinction between individual choice and operations undertaken in the course of business—and improved enforcement.
230 Many of the amendments tabled by the Opposition demonstrated conflicting points of view. Some appeared to tighten the Bill, such as those that proposed changes concerning product placement and products being offered at less than market value. Others sought to create huge gaping loopholes in the Bill, such as those concerning brand sharing, which we discussed earlier today.
It is important to recognise the overall significance of the Bill, which would ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this country. Smoking kills 120,000 people each year. That fact, shocking as it might be, cannot be repeated too often. One in two smokers will die from the habit. It is in that context that we are introducing the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
People have a right to choose to smoke, but smoking is addictive, and they also have a right not to be pressurised by manipulative, seductive advertising into starting to smoke. They have a right not to be bombarded with advertisements and pressurised not to give up smoking. Some of the most insidious advertising of all is targeted at those who are trying to give up, possibly at the time of year when they are trying hardest. For example, when they have made a new year's resolution to stop, advertising might undermine their resolve and intention to give up.
Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up. Given the huge health impact of smoking and the health inequalities caused by smoking, it is right that we provide such people with every support that we can, through the NHS and through Parliament, when they want to give up smoking.
I strongly believe that people have a right to smoke, but I do not accept that tobacco companies have a right to spend £100 million of the profits that they gain from selling a deadly product on hooking new smokers. In a country that cares about preventing ill health, tackling health inequalities, and particularly protecting the health of children, we cannot ignore the effect of tobacco advertising.
In the end, children are at the heart of the Bill. The evidence shows that the most heavily advertised brands are those most likely to be smoked by children. Research in the US found that children as young as three were familiar with Joe Camel, and that children as young as six were as familiar with Joe Camel as they were with Mickey Mouse, and knew that the camel was associated with cigarettes. That is the kind of advertising that we should be concerned about.
A voluntary ban was not enough. It simply restricted advertising in a narrow area close to schools. What about the advertising that is not near schools? What about the advertising in the streets, in shopping centres and through brand sharing? What about the promotion through sponsorship of sports and public events? Those are some of the forms of advertising that the Bill will make unlawful. It is right that we should do that. The Bill will not stop artistic licence. It will not take away the right of journalists to applaud smoking, so long as they are not being sponsored to do so. It is about preventing big companies from using their size and their riches to promote products to people whose lives are at stake.
The Smee report, commissioned by Department of Health Ministers in 1992, set out the evidence of the impact of an advertising ban. After examining the evidence from Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand, it found that 231
in each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors.The World Bank's recent report, "Curbing the Epidemic", stated:
A recent study of 22 high-income countries based on data from 1970 to 1992 concluded that comprehensive bans on cigarette advertising and promotion can reduce smoking, but more limited partial bans have little or no effect.That is an important factor behind the Bill that we have presented and taken through the House.The evidence is that banning tobacco advertising does reduce consumption, but only if the ban is comprehensive. That is important and explains why the Bill introduces an almost complete ban on tobacco advertising and promotion, with very limited, targeted exceptions. We know that only if we introduce a comprehensive ban will we make a real impact on smoking.
The Bill is part of a broader strategy to tackle smoking. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) raised concerns earlier about tobacco smoking being on the increase. In fact, the figures show that tobacco smoking increased between 1994 and 1996, but fell between 1996 and 1998. We await the recent figures with interest, but it is a matter of grave concern to us that the figures also show, and have shown since 1992, that smoking among young people is on the rise. That is exactly why we are introducing a ban on tobacco advertising.
The Government felt that the measures that were in place when we took office were not sufficient. Smoking had been on the increase, and something more needed to be done. That is why we are extending the most wide-scale publicly funded provision of smoking cessation services in Europe, and we are proud to do so.
Smoking is a fundamental cause of health inequalities in this country. That is why we are tackling smoking, providing people with support when they want to give up smoking, and preventing the tobacco companies from abusing their position by making it more difficult for people to give up an addictive product.
The Bill has been extensively debated. The main Opposition party did not support it on Second Reading, but I hope that it will do so now. Given the impact that the Bill could have on public health, and given that the Opposition have stated many times that they would like to see the prevalence of smoking fall, I hope that they will support the Bill on Third Reading. That will be the test of their commitment to reducing smoking and improving public health. I call on them to join us in the Lobby tonight in support of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, which will ultimately narrow health inequalities and protect our children's health into the future.
§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)I should like to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for the tremendous work that they put into examining the Bill in the time allowed by the programme motion.
As the Minister for Public Health said, the Bill has a simple and oft-repeated aim. The Opposition share that aim, which is to reduce smoking. No one doubts that smoking is bad and damages health. As far as I know, 232 nobody has tried during the passage of the Bill to argue the converse and to suggest that smoking is not a bad thing. However, the Opposition have argued that an evidence-based approach must be brought to the debate. If doctors involved in treating the consequences of smoking have to practise evidence-based medicine, surely it is a useful discipline for the House to practise evidence-based policy. In other words, we must consider whether the Bill will work and achieve the aims that it sets out to achieve.
It is also necessary for the debate to be properly balanced and fully informed. The Minister said that smoking was a cause of health inequality, but it is not only the consumption of tobacco that produces inequalities. As she would be the first to admit, people who consume tobacco are far less likely to present early during any episode of illness, especially when they are on low incomes. That contributes as much to poor outcomes as tobacco usage and explains why smokers in middle-class areas have better survival rates than those in low-income areas. Wider issues such as those must be taken into account.
The first question is whether the Bill will work. Secondly, however, we must ask under what circumstances, if any, it is appropriate to ban the advertising of a legal product. That question is especially important when, as hon. Members on both sides of the House must candidly admit, the Government raise so much revenue from that product. Although health Ministers complain regularly about the tactics used by tobacco companies to raise consumption at particular times of year, I do not see the Treasury giving the money back. Health Ministers always pray for a reduction in tobacco consumption, but I have often suspected, in debates about the willingness—or otherwise—of Governments to reduce the consumption of tobacco, that the same number of Treasury officials are praying that smokers will not give up and will continue to provide money for the Government's coffers.
On Second Reading, the Opposition argued that a coherent strategy was required, but that the Government had not produced one. We also argued that the introduction of a ban would be merely window dressing if the price of tobacco products was falling and consumption was rising because they were available to more people. We said that the Government's failure to tackle smuggling effectively put more people at risk—especially those in the groups mentioned by the Minister. As all hon. Members can tell from anecdotal constituency evidence, it is increasingly easy for young people to gain access to tobacco, perhaps because it is available in pub car parks or because it has been smuggled and is cheap and readily available to them.
Despite those factors, and the Government's argument about the big impact of advertising, the explanatory notes to the Bill state that the eventual aim of the Bill is to reduce consumption by only 2.5 per cent. That is important in terms of decreased morbidity and mortality, but most people outside the House will not regard it as a dramatic reduction.
A number of practical difficulties have been mentioned—
§ Mr. ForthI should like to ask my question now, as I sense that my hon. Friend is about comment—no doubt 233 briefly—on the detail of the Bill. Does he accept that the Bill must be revised through the addition of a sunset clause, a review requirement or another such provision? Surely we cannot walk blindly into introducing the Bill, assert that it is a good thing and leave it at that. Given all the uncertainties that he has already mentioned, what will my hon. Friend do about that, if it is not already too late?
§ Dr. FoxMy right hon. Friend will know from the selection list that we could not debate the concept of a time limit in respect of this legislation today. However, if evidence exists to show that such a ban works, there is nothing to fear from a time-limiting clause. If the measure does not work when it is enacted, it will be hard to argue for its continued existence. We shall attempt to introduce a time limit on the Bill in another place so that it becomes genuinely evidence based. Those who consider such issues rationally will regard that as fair and acceptable.
I want to consider some of the Bill's practical difficulties. I am grateful for the Minister's willingness in Committee to acknowledge some of the shortcomings in the original drafting and accept the spirit of many Opposition amendments in tabling Government amendments. The Government made welcome concessions on brand sharing; on offences, through Government amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 43; on electronic transmissions; and on sponsorship agreements. They will improve a measure that was not initially well drafted. Irrespective of hon. Members' feelings about the purpose of the Bill, it is in the interests of all legislators to ensure that the quality of Bills is as good as possible. However, practical difficulties remain. If we had more time, we might have been able to explore them more fully. They may yet make implementing the Bill impossible.
It is worth pointing out, in a difficult argument about restrictions on advertising a legal product, that the previous Government restricted tobacco advertising. The code of conduct that was introduced in 1994 set stringent limitations on such advertising. Governments in this country have not taken an absolute position; we are considering the extent to which we should make such a restriction.
The United Kingdom did well for many years in reducing tobacco consumption and smoking prevalence through a combination of price mechanism, education and restrictions, if not a ban, on tobacco advertising. There was a consensus on that in the House of Commons and in the country. The United Kingdom had a good record. We are considering the appropriate balance between the three policy components, and whether the Bill has achieved that.
We must also consider the requirements for a proper anti-smoking policy. As we said on Second Reading, we must re-examine our education policy. To convey an effective health message, it must be aimed at the right age group and sustained for long enough to make a difference. Too often, Ministers interfere politically and reject the advice of those who understand the matter better. We have thus failed to address the appropriate health message to the right client group. We have missed a trick, and we need to reconsider our education policy as part of an anti-smoking strategy.
An advertising ban will not remove one of the greatest influences on young people: the example set by parents and peer groups. Those matters must be tackled. We must 234 ensure that parents do not set youngsters a bad example by smoking, which only encourages them to believe that it is acceptable. We must also ensure that we diminish the influence of peer groups as much as possible. That task is rendered even more difficult when role models smoke. Earlier, the example was given of supermodels smoking on the catwalk, and the concept, especially for young girls, of a link between tobacco and being slim. That is a dangerous idea. As a society, we must consider how to tackle such matters.
The Minister mentioned what she perceived to be the success of advertising restrictions in other countries. We must ask about the other policies that were in place at the same time. No one would argue that simply banning advertising is a sufficient anti-smoking strategy. The Government will have their way because of their numerical superiority in Parliament and, over time, they will be able to make their case. We shall be able to judge the measure's effectiveness against whether tobacco consumption decreases in the real world.
§ Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)My hon. Friend will know that a number of Conservative Members are very much in favour of a limitation on tobacco advertising because of the dangers that it can present to health. Does he, however, accept that the Bill had an opportunity to make two provisions that it does not make? The first is to increase the medical warning on a packet of cigarettes so that it occupies a much larger percentage of the display, as has been done in Australia; the second is to deal with the problem of passive smoking for those with lung diseases, for whom it is a considerable problem.
§ Dr. FoxI should declare an interest in relation to my right hon. Friend's second point. As an asthma sufferer, I find it a perpetual source of irritation to have to inhale other people's tobacco smoke. However, that matter does not come within the scope of the Bill, and I am sure that you would quickly rule me out of order if I were to go down that route, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill has missed opportunities to consider wider issues that might have formed part of a fuller, more comprehensive anti-smoking strategy. However, he will be aware that, for every Conservative Member who might wish to go along with a ban on advertising, there will be another who believes that such a ban constitutes an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties.
As I was saying, we shall have the proof of the pudding later, when we determine whether the Government have been successful in achieving a reduction in smoking. The Bill is merely window dressing, and the Government are failing to take a broader grip on the problems of smuggling and reduced pricing that are pushing up—and will continue to push up—tobacco consumption.
Many hon. Members have strong reservations about restricting freedom, and I understand why they would wish to vote against the Bill on that basis. However, I have seen enough damage in coronary care units and respiratory units to understand the tragedy that tobacco consumption can produce. The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the Bill tonight. We shall, however, seek to amemd it in another place to introduce a time limit to weigh the benefits of retaining the legislation 235 against the evidence that is produced. We all hope that tobacco consumption can be reduced, but we are less than confident that the Bill is the vehicle to produce that result.
§ John RobertsonI served on the Standing Committee, and I should like to have an input to the debate. As one who is new to this game, so to speak, I found the Standing Committee very educational. For example, Opposition Members wanted clarification about the word "advertising". They must have asked for that about 10 times and, even though my hon. Friend the Minister told them on several occasions that the definition was in clause 1, they proceeded to ask on several further occasions why it was not also included in other parts of the Bill, thus wasting time.
Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned an article in The Daily Telegraph, which gives us an idea of the kind of advertising to which the tobacco industry is now stooping. It explains how a woman approached six undergraduates and asked them whether they would like to earn £50. To do so, they would have to go into pubs smoking and—among other criteria that they would have to fulfil—circulate among the other people there. They would have to dress in a glamorous fashion, hand round cigarettes—giving them away—and leave packets of cigarettes on unattended tables.
The aim was to attract people aged barely 18. As under-age drinking was taking place in some of the clubs involved, it was not possible to rule on the age of those smoking the cigarettes. The brand involved was Gauloises. It is not a cigarette with which I am familiar, but I have smelt it on occasion, and it is certainly recognisable by those who know someone who smokes it.
What I have described is a particularly disgraceful type of advertising, which I hope the Bill will cover.
§ Dr. FoxWe deprecate operations of that kind, but, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, the Bill will not cover such advertising.
§ John RobertsonI think it will, but no doubt the Minister will clarify the position. I certainly hope that it will be covered, but that, if it is not, an appropriate amendment will be tabled in the other place.
I do not wish to speak for long, mainly because I know that Opposition Members want to contribute—far be it from me to stop them—but I remind the House that the Bill has been introduced because 120,000 people die of tobacco-related illnesses each year. In 1996, 350,000 children aged between 11 and 15 were smoking regularly. I was sympathetic towards the amendment on product placement tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden, and I was sorry that the Government did not see fit to accept it. I fear that product placement is the tobacco industry's next step down the road of attacking—as I would put it—young people, and trying to persuade them to smoke earlier. It is important for us to tackle such advertising.
I congratulate The Daily Telegraph on its responsible article, although it is not a newspaper that supports my party very often. It has brought an issue to light, as I am sure the Minister will agree. I hope that if there is a loophole in the Bill, the Minister will take that on board, and it will be taken care of in the other place.
§ Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon)Let me again record our support for the Bill, which has worthy aims. If we have a regret, it is that the Government did not present the legislation sooner. We consider it to be a competent Bill—especially in its amended form, following Committee stage—and one whose scope is sensibly limited: it relies on existing legislation and regulatory frameworks to control a number of the media involved, but nevertheless is likely to add a substantial weapon to the campaign against smoking.
No one, surely, can doubt the role played by smoking in deteriorating public health in the United Kingdom and abroad. Smoking is connected with a range of diseases and other conditions; anything that can be done to reduce its prevalence, thereby improving public health, must be worth trying. It was argued on Second Reading, although the argument has featured less since then, that cigarette advertising did not increase consumption. The suggestion was fairly well demolished on Second Reading, and it cannot count for nothing that so much cigarette advertising takes place, but it is worth repeating that advertising generally does not enjoy complete commercial freedom. There are restraints on it, and responsibilities are placed on advertisers.
I do not think that the curtailing of commercial advertising would represent any terrible, swingeing loss of freedom of speech or individual liberty for producers. I do not believe that that is a high price to pay. However, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, we do not really know how effective the provision will be. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, on the balance of the arguments that we have heard and considered, I believe that it is worth trying the provision to see whether it might do some good.
Some goods points were made in Committee. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made one or two goods points about the internet and electronic advertising. It is fair to say, however, that he made those points at extraordinary length. I am entirely unclear whether that was a tactic to sustain the argument that not enough time was being provided to consider the Bill, or whether he simply could not help it. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the argument that we have not given adequate time to the Bill is absolute nonsense. Although we did progress unusually quickly from Second Reading to Committee, and from Committee to Report, the total time given to the Bill has been more than adequate for a small, 20-clause measure.
Conservative Members have spent more time debating whether there is enough time, and dragging out our proceedings to try to demonstrate that there is not, than they have spent debating the principles at stake.
§ Mrs. SpelmanDoes the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Committee the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was given an undertaking that on Report there would be a debate on new clause 5, but we have not had time for that debate?
§ Mr. HarveyThe hon. Lady's point is reasonable, in that I should have liked new clause 5 to be debated. However, it has not been selected for debate. It therefore seems to be less a lack of time and more that, for whatever reason, the new clause did not find favour in the Speaker's 237 Office and was not selected for debate today. When the Bill goes to the other place, perhaps a similar provision will have a chance for debate.
§ Sir Peter EmeryMay I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as nicely as I can, that, as the selection list shows, there was not time to debate four whole groups of amendments comprising about 30 amendments? At the end of the debate, the occupant of the Chair had to put the Government amendments in those groups en masse without any debate whatsoever. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman might want to be a little more careful in his assumptions.
§ Mr. HarveyI was trying to be kind. It has to be said, however, that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) moved an amendment and spoke to that group for more than 30 minutes, but, at the end of that debate, did not press any of the amendments to a vote. We have seen exactly the same throughout the Bill's passage. The official Opposition are perfectly entitled to do that if they want. I am simply saying that, after all that, I do not believe that there is a sustainable argument that not enough time has been given to the Bill, which has only 20 clauses. The time provided, both in Committee and in the two full-scale debates in the House, has been proportionate to the scale of the Bill and its objectives. We have given more than adequate time to it.
Although I agree, as I said, that we have progressed more hurriedly than usual from one stage to another—which may or may not have something to do with certain events that we all believe to be pending—the total time that we have given to a short, 20-clause Bill has been more than adequate. If Conservative Members had been a little more concise in making some of their points, they would have had plenty of time, both today and in Committee, to debate all the groups of amendments.
§ Dr. FoxI am a little puzzled. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the time given to the Bill was adequate, why did Liberal Democrat Members vote against the programme motion?
§ Mr. HarveyWe voted against that motion for the same reason that we have voted against other programme motions. We believe that the motions themselves are being drafted and moved before the Government have had a proper opportunity to assess the arguments that were made on Second Reading and to test the waters before deciding how much time should be provided. The details of the programme motion were perfectly reasonable, but my party opposed it—and other programme motions—because of the haste with which it was implemented. My party is in favour of programme motions—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. Before the debate goes too wide, I remind the House that debate on Third Reading is restricted to the contents of a Bill. The question is whether this Bill should have a Third reading.
§ Mr. HarveyI am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you observed that I was simply responding to interventions, but you are, of course, quite right.
238 This is a good Bill, with worthwhile aims. As a result of the amendments that have been made, it is competently drafted. My party is pleased to support it this evening.
§ Mr. BarronI take great pleasure in supporting this Bill. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered it, and I found the debates very interesting. The Bill gives us an opportunity to take further last year's excellent work by the Select Committee on Health on the dangers of smoking.
I was surprised at the attitude displayed towards the Bill by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Early on, he said that he was prepared to give the Bill a fair wind, and that he wanted to see the evidence that the resulting legislation would reduce smoking in this country by a certain amount. However, he said today that the Bill needed to be evidence based and that he needed to see that evidence.
On 21 December, the hon. Gentleman was sent five reports by the charity Action on Smoking and Health, with which I am involved. Those reports showed clear evidence—from the World Bank and from other international studies—that there is a relationship between tobacco advertising and promotion and the consumption of tobacco. What he said this evening leads me to assume that he has not read those reports. I hope that he takes some time next week, when the House is not sitting, to look at the reports and read the clear evidence that shows the causal link between tobacco advertising and promotion and smoking.
I paraphrase, but the hon. Member for Woodspring also said that no one doubts that smoking is bad for health. It is a pity that he did not read last year's report on the matter from the Select Committee on Health. There are people in society who doubt the relationship between ill health and smoking. Three quotations from the report will prove my point.
The Select Committee asked witnesses a specific question—whether they believed that smoking caused cancer beyond all reasonable doubt. The representative from the Gallaher group said:
It is generally accepted that smoking is neither a necessary… nor a sufficient …cause of disease and that causal conclusions in this regard are a matter of judgement…As such it would as yet be going too far to say that causation has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt".The representative from Imperial Tobacco said:not agree that smoking causes (these)…diseases beyond all reasonable doubt".The representative from the firm RJ Reynolds said:No—nobody knows what causes these diseases beyond all reasonable doubtWe know that 50 per cent. of people who smoke will have a shorter life than they should have. The people who have undermined public health policy for years are still coming out with the claim that smokers do not get hurt.239 I hope that the Bill will make a start on reversing the way in which public health policies have been undermined. For years we have tried, through arguments and advertisements, to get people off cigarettes. The Government are spending £20 million a year on cessation programmes—more than any Government in the past. That money will not be used to good effect as long as tobacco companies are allowed to advertise and promote their product.
We are at last getting serious about tobacco and its lethal effects, and we are trying to get people off it. We cannot allow that project to be undermined in our popular culture by tobacco advertising. Neither can we allow the project to be undermined by members of political parties in this Chamber who are more concerned about their connections—in the past, but also possibly in the future—with the tobacco industry than they ale about public health in this country.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)I support the Bill, and will do so if there is a Division on Third Reading. Like the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), my only regret is that this measure was not introduced sooner. Connections with the tobacco industry may have been one reason for that.
This issue was discussed in the Scottish Parliament on 17 January, when the Parliament unanimously supported the Bill. It also decided unanimously, under the Sewel procedure, to remit the Scottish sections of the Bill to this place for legislation.
I want to quote from one of the good speeches that was made by members of all parties that clay. One person argued:
A Sewel motion should not mean that Scottish ministers abdicate their responsibility in favour of the Westminster Parliament.He went on to say:Perhaps the Scottish Parliament should decide on its own bill, which could encompass not just advertising, but point-of-sale materials, sales to those who are under age, and more enforcement. Perhaps more of the issues should be dealt with in this chamber."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol. 10, c. 279–80.]Those are the views of the Conservative spokesperson in the Scottish Parliament, Mr. Ben Wallace. It is slightly ironic, because one of the amendments that we did not reach this evening was a Conservative amendment to remove the responsibilities from Scottish Ministers which the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament say our Ministers should not be abdicating. I will leave Conservative Members to explain low they reconcile the position north and south of the border. However, what Mr. Ben Wallace said in the Scottish Parliament, to unanimous assent, was important. He said that Scottish Ministers should look carefully at their responsibilities, monitoring those responsibilities and the effectiveness of the legislation, considering enforcement and signs of success and, indeed, further legislation if that is required.
For this evening, I offer my support for the Bill. I am happy that it is being included in the legislative process—perhaps just in time for coming events.
§ Yvette CooperWith the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the Third Reading debate.
I thank members of the Committee for their hard work during the Bill's passage through the House. I welcome the contributions this evening by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson). The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Anniesland, of students being paid by Gauloises to smoke in bars, will be covered by the Bill, either by the sponsorship or the free distribution provisions.
I take this opportunity to welcome the support for the Bill from the hon. Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am glad that they will be joining us in the Lobby. I also welcome the decline in the opposition of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—that is probably the best way to describe it. As I understand it, his party will not be opposing Third Reading. I urge him to listen to the evidence that he says is so important and to go further by joining us in voting to give the Bill a Third Reading. I urge him to join us in the Lobby tonight.
This is a good and important Bill. We were keen to introduce the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship across Europe, and we will continue to push for a Europe-wide ban. Clearly, the more co-operation we can get at a European level, the greater the impact will be on public health. Equally, we will continue to push for co-ordinated action worldwide through the World Health Organisation.
This is an important Bill. It is not about preventing freedom of choice—people have the choice whether to smoke tobacco products. However, they should also have the choice to give up if they want to, without pressure from the tobacco companies and without the pressure of tobacco advertising. That is why we are introducing a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 5.
243| Division No 119] | [8.59 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) |
| Ainger, Nick | Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) |
| Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Benton, Joe | |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Berry, Roger |
| Ashton, Joe | Belts, Clive |
| Austin, John | Blackman, Liz |
| Bailey, Adrian | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Baker, Norman | Blizzard, Bob |
| Ballard, Jackie | Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) |
| Banks, Tony | Bradshaw, Ben |
| Barnes, Harry | Brake, Tom |
| Barron, Kevin | Brinton, Mrs Helen |
| Battle, John | Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Brown, Russell (Dumfries) |
| Beard, Nigel | Browne, Desmond |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Beggs, Roy | Burden, Richard |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Burgon, Colin |
| Burstow, Paul | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Gidley, Sandra |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Godsiff, Roger | |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Goggins, Paul |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Cann, Jamie | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Caplin, Ivor | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Caton, Martin | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Cawsey, Ian | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Chaytor, David | Grogan, John |
| Clapham, Michael | Hain, Peter |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Hancock, Mike |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hanson, David |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet |
| Clelland, David | Harvey, Nick |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Healey, John |
| Cohen, Harry | Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) |
| Coleman, Iain | Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) |
| Connarty, Michael | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) | Hendrick, Mark |
| Cooper, Yvette | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Heppell, John |
| Cotter, Brian | Hesford, Stephen |
| Cousins, Jim | Hill, Keith |
| Cox, Tom | Hinchliffe, David |
| Cranston, Ross | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Crausby, David | Hoey, Kate |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Hood, Jimmy |
| Cummings, John | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | |
| Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth) | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hurst, Alan |
| Darvill, Keith | Hutton, John |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Davidson, Ian | Illsley, Eric |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) | Jamieson, David |
| Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) | |
| Denham, Rt Hon John | Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) |
| Dobbin, Jim | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Dobson, Rt Hon Frank | Jones, Ms Jenny Donaldson, Jeffrey (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Doran, Frank | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Dowd, Jim | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Drew, David | Joyce, Eric |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Efford, Clive | Keetch, Paul |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Kemp, Fraser |
| Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Ennis, Jeff | Kidney, David |
| Etherington, Bill | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | Lammy, David |
| Hint, Caroline | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
| Flynn, Paul | Leslie, Christopher |
| Follett, Barbara | Levitt, Tom |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Foulkes, George | Linton, Martin |
| Galbraith, Sam | Livsey, Richard |
| Gapes, Mike | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Lock, David |
| George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S) | Love, Andrew |
| Gerrard, Neil | McAvoy, Thomas |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Sanders, Adrian |
| Macdonald, Calum | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| McDonnell, John | Savidge, Malcolm |
| McFall, John | Sedgemore, Brian |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Sheerman, Barry |
| McIsaac, Shona | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Singh, Marsha |
| McNulty, Tony | Skinner, Dennis |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| McWilliam, John | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
| Mallaber, Judy | |
| Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Martlew, Eric | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Maxton, John | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Merron, Gillian | Soley, Clive |
| Michael, Rt Hon Alun | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Milburn, Rt Hon Alan | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Miller, Andrew | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Moffatt, Laura | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Moore, Michael | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Morley, Elliot | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Stringer, Graham |
| Stuart, Ms Gisela | |
| Mullin, Chris | Stunell, Andrew |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford) |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion) |
| Pendry, Rt Hon Tom | Tipping, Paddy |
| Pickthall, Colin | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Pike, Peter L | Touhig, Don |
| Pond, Chris | Trickett, Jon |
| Pope, Greg | Truswell, Paul |
| Pound, Stephen | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Tyler, Paul |
| Purchase, Ken | Tynan, Bill |
| Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Quinn, Lawrie | ward, Ms Claire |
| Raynsford, Nick | Wareing, Robert N |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Watts, David |
| Rendel, David | white, Brian |
| Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) | |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) | |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Rogers, Allan | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff | Winnick, David |
| Rooney, Terry | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Wood, Mike |
| Ross, William (E Lond'y) | Woodward, Shaun |
| Rowlands, Ted | Woolas, Phil |
| Ruane, Chris | Wray, James |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Salmond, Alex | Mr. Graham Allen and |
| Salter, Martin | Mr. Ian Pearson. |
| NOES | |
| Body, Sir Richard | Forth, Rt Hon Eric |
| Cash, William | |
| Chope, Christopher | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Mr. Gerald Howarth and |
| Mr. Andrew Hunter. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and parsed.