Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way because I am sure that she wants health messages to be effective. Is she aware of the excellent work of the life education caravan movement, which encourages youngsters to be aware of their bodies and how they can be harmed? It has advised us that telling people not to smoke encourages them to do just that. It is necessary to have a completely different approach to the problem. If an advertisement for non-smoking encourages people to experiment with smoking, it will be covered by the Bill.

7.30 pm

Yvette Cooper: I would be extremely interested to see research to support the idea that such health information campaigns are counter-productive, although I have to admit that I have seen advertisements from other countries to encourage people to drink less that probably had the reverse effect. Advertisements to promote tobacco products are covered by the Bill; advertisements to help people to give up smoking or to prevent them from starting are not. A great deal of evidence would be needed to show that such advertisements had the opposite effect, and if that were the case, they should not be distributed.

On Government amendment No. 40, we reconsidered the issue of separate entities and inserts. Let me clarify our approach. We are not saying that separate entities are permissible and that it is acceptable to include inserts that advertise tobacco. We decided that clause 2(3) was unnecessary because inserts, such as those in our Sunday newspapers, that include tobacco advertisements count as published inserts and whoever has published them is responsible for them. If an insert is published with the magazine, the magazine publisher is liable. If it is tucked in by someone else at a later stage, the person who published the insert is responsible and whoever tucked it in is likely to be covered by the provisions on distribution. No matter how we look at it, those who are responsible for publishing or distributing the advertisement are likely to be caught by the Bill.

On Government amendment No. 41, we decided to reconsider the issue of United Kingdom printers. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that they should not be prevented from working on foreign publications that contain tobacco advertisements if those publications would qualify for exclusion. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) also raised that matter. It would cause concern if clause 4(1)(c) permitted a publication to be produced, but the Bill's provisions caught the printer who was working on it. The amendment clarifies the situation.

Mr. David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend convinced that the clause, as amended, provides an adequate definition of the principal market as it relates to the United Kingdom?

Yvette Cooper: The concept of the principal market is an important part of the Bill. We do not want companies

13 Feb 2001 : Column 219

whose principal market is not the UK to be covered by the Bill if the publication is also circulated here. We have not provided a specific quantification of what "principal market" might mean because it will vary in different circumstances. For example, the definition of an appropriate market share to determine whether the UK is a principal market will be different if a product has five or only two markets. If the biggest market for a publication is the UK, that will count as the principal market.

Mr. Forth: The Minister seems to be suggesting that if there were four or five markets of broadly equal size, which is not impossible, the principal market could be 20 or 25 per cent. Is that what she imagines principal to mean in such circumstances?

Yvette Cooper: The assessment would need to be made on individual cases, depending on the circumstances involved. There would probably be a different test for those publications that have several markets rather than just two. It would be wrong to provide a quantification of a market share that might be difficult to apply in different market circumstances.

Amendment No. 3 would create an additional exclusion for advertisements so that no offence would be committed in relation to a tobacco advertisement if it is contained in a tender for a contract to publish a magazine for an overseas market. The hon. Member for Meriden accepted that the amendment is covered by amendment No. 41, and we do not think that it is needed. Any communication that is in a sealed tender for a bid or which is part of an attempt to get a contract to publish a magazine in an overseas market would not need to become a tobacco advertisement that reached the public.

Amendment No. 7 raises an interesting matter. Again, we have some sympathy with its aim. We do not want historic tobacco advertisements or items of historic branding value to be caught by the new measures. Each case would need to be judged on its merits, but the Bill is not intended to prevent museums from displaying historic posters or items, or antique shops from displaying old plaques or memorabilia of obsolete brands. Those would obviously not be promoting tobacco products, in the same way as artistic representation on film or stage would not be regarded as promoting tobacco products. An historic object that is offered for sale would not be regarded as an advertisement to promote tobacco products.

The amendment would, however, create a loophole. We could not accept an exemption that allowed Marlboro, for example, to wheel out all its advertisements from the 1960s to promote its cigarettes today; nor would we want tobacco companies to decide to resurrect obsolete brands simply because they happened to have advertisements that were more than 30 years old and exempt from the Bill.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In Committee, I asked whether buildings with old advertisements that were no longer being promoted by a tobacco company were caught by the Bill. As the hon. Lady has had a few days to think about that, will she say whether they will be exempted, or will shops with outside billboards have to take action?

Yvette Cooper: It would depend on whether an historic item that did not promote a tobacco product was being

13 Feb 2001 : Column 220

offered for sale or whether an advertisement that had been erected to promote a tobacco product had not been removed. It would not be acceptable to allow advertisements to continue to be left in place simply because someone put them up a couple of years ago and no one had got round to taking them down. It would not be acceptable to exempt them. A billboard that continued to hold an old advertisement because no one had replaced it would be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Hunter: The old Gallaher building in Belfast, which is now used for a different purpose, contains the name "Gallaher" as part of the brickwork. What is the Government's view on that complicated issue?

Yvette Cooper: It would be hard to argue that the purpose and effect of that brickwork was to promote a tobacco product and that it should be covered by the Bill. It is not intended to include historic features such as that.

Government amendment No. 42 ensures consistency between subsections (1) and (2) of clause 8, and I shall clarify the Government's intention. We have said that we do not want to have to draw up regulations on displays. We are relaxed about the way in which products and prices are ordinarily displayed, and we do not intend to restrict that. It is perfectly legitimate to have a certain amount of advertising at point of sale and for products to be displayed, with prices, so that they can be sold, because after all, tobacco is a legal product. Our only purpose in providing powers to draw up regulations is to deal with possible abuses, because we want to prevent tobacco companies from finding innovative forms of advertising that get round the Bill.

Amendment No. 32, which would remove what is, in effect, a trumping provision for the two sets of regulations on display and advertising at point of sale, would create difficulties. If we find that we do not need to introduce regulations on displays, we will not need subsection (4). We would like not to have to introduce those regulations, but if we decide that we need to do so, we will need clear definitions so that we know whether displays count as advertisements, and which regulations should therefore apply to them. We will need to set out links between the two sets of regulations.

Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44 respond to the debate in Committee about the concept of a "nominal sum", and to concern that the definition may not be broad enough to cover all the abuses that we might be concerned about. The hon. Member for Meriden sought to replace the concept of "nominal sum" with that of "market value", and I explained to her in Committee why we could not accept her amendment and how it would affect competitive practices.

Amendment No. 43 will, however, add the words,

That might refer to products that are sold, for example, at a discount of two thirds of the ordinary price, but which might not be included within the term "nominal sum". We will have to consult on the interpretation of the term "substantial discount". We would also have to consult if we wanted to introduce regulations. This is another area in which we hope not to need regulations, but we have included the power to make them in case of future abuses.

Government amendment No. 47 makes it clear that the Bill does not apply to anything included in a service regulated under the Broadcasting Acts. That does not apply

13 Feb 2001 : Column 221

to tobacco advertisements or to provisions on sponsorship and brand sharing. We want to avoid overlap between the two areas of legislation to make implementation simpler.

A question was asked about the responsibility of airlines. The airline providing the services would be responsible for any advertising, so the test would be whether it was a UK airline. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked about international publications. I dealt with that when I talked about principal markets.

I propose that the House reject amendment No. 2, and accept the Government amendments.

Next Section

IndexHome Page