Tobacco Advertising
22^nd Jan. 2001

John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): I want to discuss some of the features of the research paper and to give examples of the effect of smoking on the people of my constituency, Anniesland.

I am an asthma sufferer; I carry an inhaler with me at all times. My daughter also suffers from asthma, so I think that I understand what passive smoking does to someone like me. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that people have rights when it comes to smoking. I have rights as an individual who is affected by passive smoking, and I demand that those rights are upheld so that I am not affected by someone else’s carelessness or thoughtlessness.

Tobacco advertising and sponsorship of media events are not a problem to some, as we have seen from the contributions of some Conservative Members. However, we are the elected representatives of the people of this country and we must protect them even when they do not want to be protected.

I want to look at the effect that advertising has on the young in particular. Direct advertising–on billboards, in publications and in shops–provides general advertising of tobacco brands. Some people, such as the hon. Member for Basingstoke, would say that that is quite acceptable. However, the point is that a killer drug is being advertised–tobacco kills people.

Indirect advertising–or hero worshipping, as I call it–is much more sinister. We were talking earlier about Formula 1. Young people would love to drive those racing cars. Actors who smoke a particular brand on movie screens influence young people to be like them–to get the girl, to get the boy, to be successful, to be cool. Subliminal advertising is perhaps the most sinister of all. With product placement, actors smoke a particular brand, with the pack placed in front of the camera to show the brand name. For example, James Bond has his Turkish cigarettes. There are many other examples, but I am not going to name those brands.

Smoking is anything but cool. The results of smoking are many. People need to clean their clothes because they smell and the people sitting next to them, who do not smoke, also have to clean their clothes. Smoking discolours teeth and hands; and it makes smokers ill, it makes others ill, and it eventually kills.

Some 120,000 people in the UK die from smoking each year, and that is too many. My constituency is part of Glasgow, which has one of the highest percentages–well above the national average–of people who die from smoking-related illnesses.

If reasons were needed to ban advertising, we need only look at the number of children aged between 11 and 15 who were smoking regularly in England in 1996. The figure was 390,000. In 1998, 31 per cent. of all children aged between 16 and 19 smoked. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health may have more up-to-date figures.

Anyone who has watched a person die of lung cancer knows why we need to protect the young and vulnerable in our society. My father-in-law and his wife both died from lung cancer within six weeks of one another–if ever anything advertised why not to smoke, it would be watching someone fade away and die from cancer.

Advertisers show smoking as relaxing and calming, and as something that makes people successful. The truth is that smoking costs the taxpayer millions of pounds in health care. In 1997, we spent £2,756,000 on anti- smoking advertising alone. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us the health care costs of smoking? How many days are lost? The cost must run into billions of pounds. John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention as he reminds of something that I forgot to include in my speech. If the matter were left to me, I should do away with cigarettes and the tobacco industry altogether.

Familiarity supposedly breeds contempt, and perhaps that may be true when the slogan is always printed in the same place on the pack–people no longer read it. If we were really trying to be good, we should implore the tobacco companies to be more jazzy with their slogan and move it about a bit. However, that would cost them money on their packaging, so they might not want to do it.

I had the impression that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) did not think that what the Government were doing was much good. He seemed to think it was better to do nothing than try to do something. That is a strange view. Surely, if we want to improve things, we need to do something more rather than leaving things as they are. He said that the number of people who were taking up smoking, and who were smoking, was on the increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) might argue with the hon. Gentleman on that point. However, if it is true, perhaps we should do something about it–doing nothing is not an option. We should be finding innovative ways to stop people smoking–as I thought we were trying to do.

I find it sad that Conservative Members are engaging in point scoring on a subject that affects people’s health. When 120,000 people are dying each year, should we be bandying points about whether cigarettes are being imported illegally? Should we not be saying that we will do our best to stop that? We should never get away from the fact that we want to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. Scoring points off one another–saying, “My Government have done this and your Government have done that”–is not what we should be about. We are trying to protect the young people of this country; we are also trying to protect the rest of the people in this country–to stop them dying.

Some of the comments made by Opposition Members are unbelievable. They made feeble excuses and said that we should vote against the Bill because of tobacco smuggling and because people are smoking more. We need to consider such measures because we are trying to improve the health of the nation.

People in the tobacco industry claim that they do not target the young. If that is so, why do young people begin to smoke? Surely, if there was no advertising—no sight of the product–sales would be affected.

Under the Bill, it would continue to be possible to keep cigarettes near the till in a shop. We need to examine that matter. Young children buy sweets or magazines and if they are confronted with cigarettes in a colourful display, they will think that smoking is okay. They will realise that they can buy cigarettes when they are old enough. I suggest that cigarettes could be kept by the till, but in a cupboard where they cannot be seen. If people want to buy them, they can ask for them. If cigarettes are in a glossy display, that influences our children.

Do children learn about smoking from their parents? That is possible. My mother smoked; I did not take it up but my sister did, so perhaps she was influenced by my mother. However, that does not explain why children whose parents do not smoke take up smoking. Why do they do so? Peer pressure was mentioned earlier; it is probably the most important factor.

We should not represent smoking as being cool. I watched a television interview with Robbie Williams–a particular favourite of a couple of my daughters–during which he was smoking. The media must exercise responsibility. Why was Robbie Williams interviewed smoking? Why did he smoke when he knew that it would influence many young fans–especially those in the 11 to 15 age group that we have mentioned? We must get across to people the message that they must be responsible; just as hon. Members should exercise responsibility, so should people who attract high media coverage. Given his influence on young people, why was Robbie Williams not asked to put out his cigarette? Education is needed–unfortunately, it would appear, for the Opposition as well.

We need to reconsider the provisions in clause 4 on the display of tobacco products near tills. Under clause 8, free samples and gifts of money or coupons are to be prohibited. The short-term effect of the provision is to prevent branded products–such as cigarette lighters–being given away, thus stopping the advertising of tobacco brands. That is a sensible measure and the Government are to be congratulated on it. There may be a loophole, though. The research paper notes that people will be exempt from prosecution if they can show that they did not know and had no reason to suspect that the purpose of the free distribution was to promote a tobacco product.

That is not acceptable, and that aspect of the Bill should be strengthened. It is inconceivable that a person would not realise that a cigarette brand name has something to do with a tobacco product.

Clause 9 deals with the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship. The Government want the matter to be dealt with quickly. I want it to be even sooner than the date of 1 October 2006 referred to in clause 18–30 July 2003 is mentioned in the research paper. That extra few years is too long.

Some of the targets cited in the research paper are on the safe side. We shall be forgiven for not meeting targets, but we shall never be forgiven for not trying. Although I accept that it is better to be realistic than adventurous, the best work is usually done when targets are challenging but attainable. The target set for 2010 could and should be met earlier–perhaps by 2008. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with that. Perhaps she could explain why we need to wait until 2010 to achieve modest improvements.

I am pleased that the education campaign is high on the agenda, with an emphasis on young people. I am also pleased that tighter regulation and enforcement is a high priority. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Bill, and I hope that it receives the vote that it deserves tonight.

Filed under: speeches by admin