§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted the item in the Sunday Times of April 15, 1973, headed "Cigarette makers limit sale of safest brand", which indicates that as the Department of Health reported that cigarettes named "Silk Cut Extra Mild" had the lowest nicotine and tar content of all the 111 Brands tested, the sales manager of the firm making that and numerous other brands of cigarettes, Gallahers, issued a confidential circular to their 400 salesmen (which asked the salesmen not to "show it to anyone"), urging them to "discourage stocking of Extra Mild" and instructing them to ration the issue of those cigarettes to retailers so as to sell them more of the other brands of the firm; and whether Her Majesty's Government have investigated or will now investigate this matter; and what 678 action they have taken or will now take.
§ LORD ABERDAREYes, my Lords, A report that the sales of the listed brand with the lowest tar yield were being discouraged by the company making it was, of course, a cause for serious concern. Accordingly my Department immediately took the matter up with the manufacturers and we received an assurance that the sales of "Silk Cut Extra Mild" cigarettes were not being artificially depressed. On the contrary, the manufacturers have said that they are taking special measures to meet the full demand and indeed to foster it.
§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he regards it as an honest reply in the light of what has happened in recent weeks? May I further ask him whether he is aware that the firm has extensively advertised in the general scene the cigarette called the "mild cigarette" and that it has photographed and colour printed only three of their packs: "Regular Silk Cut", "Silk Cut King Size", and "Silk Cut No. 3" which have a tar yield of 11 and a nicotine yield of 0.8 milligrammes, and have never put a picture in of "Silk Cut Extra Mild" which the Health Council figure put on top of the list which has a tar yield of 0.4 and a nicotine content of 0.3?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, these are difficult matters. They are, in a way, commercial matters for the company. In fact, cigarettes with a tar yield of 11 or 12 milligrammes are a great improvement on those with the 20 or so which is the normal smoker's intake. The company themselves would not wish commercially to restrict the sales of cigarettes which are much in demand. I am informed that they are now turning out in one day five times what they were previously selling in a month of the "Silk Cut Extra Mild".
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, has the noble Minister observed that in The Times of May 4 there was a whole page advertisement for "Silk Cut", the message of which was that if you smoked "Silk Cut" you should smoke the tobacco in cigarettes about twice the normal size, thus being part of this completely unscrupulous campaign to defeat 679 any health measures which the Government may try to put forward?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the noble Lord is being very unfair. If he looks at the table of tar content he will see that "Silk Cut King Size" has 11 milligrammes tar yield whereas "Silk Cut" itself has 12. So in fact the "King Size" cigarette has less tar content than the normal one.
§ LORD GISBOROUGHMy Lords, that is an extremely unfair criticism of the firm which is leading the research into safe cigarettes, having produced no less than 5 brands in the first 12 of the low tar yield. Would the noble Lord agree that the reasons why the "Extra Mild" cannot be supplied is, first, that the demand has increased by 100 times, and the firm are quite unable to meet it; and, secondly, if a man smoking cigarettes at the 20 tar yield suddenly smokes at the 4 tar yield, he will go back to the 20 because it tastes of nothing except blotting paper. If, on the other hand, you can get him down—
§ LORD GISBOROUGHWould the noble Lord agree that if you get it down to about 12, there is some chance that he can eventually smoke and enjoy the 4 tar yield?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I agree there is a certain amount in what my noble friend has said. Our only interest in the matter is to encourage people, if they must smoke, to smoke a cigarette with the lowest tar yield.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that all this propaganda is encouraging people to smoke more cigarettes, because they believe that if they smoke one which the Government or the cigarette makers say is safe they will not develop cancer of the lung? Would the noble Lord not agree that the cigarette smokers of course welcome these various brands? Further, can he tell me whether the cigarette makers have ever tried to promote public health? All they are interested in is increasing their profits; and there is evidence of that all down the years.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, what the noble Baroness calls "all this 680 propaganda" has drawn to most people's attention the dangers of smoking. I do not think that there are many people in this country who are not now aware of the dangers of smoking.
§ LORD PARGITERMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be better to leave this question of percentages of nicotine out of account and to keep to the State's view that cigarette smoking is harmful, and perhaps force companies to show the amount of nicotine content on their packets and then let the public themselves decide?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, that may be the noble Lord's view; but we feel that as there are people who are certainly not going to give up smoking it is better to encourage them to smoke safer brands.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, can the noble Lord issue regular statements to the public, say every quarter, showing the increase in the consumption of low nicotine cigarettes and the relative decrease in the consumption of high nicotine content cigarettes?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, those will be interesting statistics if they are available to see how this table has had effect.
§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, in future correspondence which the Minister may have with the company or companies concerned, could he bear in mind that certainly until four years ago, and it may still be the case, bronchitic ailments engendered largely by cigarette smoking were the biggest single contributory cause to absenteeism from work?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, yes, that is another factor in the evils of cigarette smoking.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, is it not also a fact that Gallahers and Benson and Hedges, the same people under a different name, are spending increasing amounts of money on sponsoring sporting activities, not in order to encourage sport, but, as my noble friend said, to make more money? Is that not blatant hypocrisy, and is it not time that the Government edged away from this hypocrisy, and did something, if necessary by legislation, to stop it?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have already made arrangements that advertising by cigarette firms at sporting events shall not be shown on television programmes.
§ LORD WIGGIs the noble Lord not aware that not only do they spend money directly in supporting sporting activities, but the grounds are littered with advertisements which are picked up incidentally to the sporting activity? That is well known to the Minister. I went to see him myself on the point, and nothing has been done about it.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, nothing has so far been thought necessary in order to reduce cigarette advertising as such. The point I was making was that television companies have agreed not to show advertisements for smoking at sporting events.
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, in view of that extremelyy unsatisfactory reply—if I may say so with great respect—do I understand that the Government do not then disapprove of this immense advertising of cigarette smoking, and are going to do nothing whatever about it?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, we are doing our best to make it quite clear that there are very significant dangers in cigarette smoking and we believe that we have achieved a great deal in various ways, by printing the warning and now by the tables of tar and nicotine. To go further than that is very seriously to intrude, partly on the independence of companies competing with each other, and partly on the independence of individuals who should surely be left to make up their own minds as to what is safe for them and what is not.
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, I have not complained in any way, in public or in this House, of any individual smoking. I only ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of this campaign for pushing this addiction? That is a different matter.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, we have done our best to make use of it by 682 printing a warning on all posters and advertisements.