Orders of the Day — Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

House of Commons, 13 February 2001.

PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF USE OF SYMBOL, NAME OR EMBLEM

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 51, in clause 11, page 5, leave out lines 24 to 28. Government amendment No. 46.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We now have a rather limited opportunity for hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee to debate the Bill. It was quite a small Committee—we discussed earlier how many people had had a chance to have an input—so this is the big opportunity for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate. This is an important new clause, and I am glad that it has survived the culling of several of the important new clauses that we attempted to introduce. Indeed, it was the only one to survive. We are pleased that it has been selected, because it covers an important point. Under the Bill, the Government are choosing that our nation will go it alone with a ban on tobacco advertising in Europe. We shall be going out on a limb by introducing such a ban. Companies that have hitherto been able to produce goods other than tobacco products—such as clothes, shoes, umbrellas, leather goods, perfumes and other cosmetics—bearing a symbol, emblem or logo similar to one connected with a tobacco product, will find that that is now illegal. That represents an important change in commercial practice, and it is right that we should take the time to debate its impact and workability, and to ask whether the drafting of the Bill is fair to those companies. If I could characterise the Bill generally, I would say that it meant rough justice for the companies that will have to work with it. As it stands, it is an example of the rough justice dimension of the plan to ban tobacco advertising. The Bill will catch companies with household names, such as Alfred Dunhill, which has diversified substantially into a range of non-tobacco products, with which I am sure hon. Members are familiar. It will also catch companies such as Davidoff, which produces a range of products including cosmetics, luggage, eye-wear, coffee, comestibles and cigars. It began as a tobacconist, but has diversified into those other areas. More worryingly, the Bill will catch companies such as Worldwide Brands International, which has diversified into a range of products that includes clothing, shoes and luggage, but not tobacco accessories. There is nothing in their palette of products that is a tobacco product, by any definition. Such a company, which is completely independent of the tobacco industry, will be caught by the Bill because its products bear an emblem that arguably resembles the logo or emblem borne by a tobacco product. I make no excuse for giving this example again, as I feel that the company is one of those to which rough justice will be meted out. When the company started, it used the camel logo, with which I am sure Members are familiar, along with the yellow writing associated with the Camel brand of cigarettes. Even at that stage, nothing in the company's range—which included luggage, clothes, shoes and other fashion items—could possibly be described as a tobacco product. However, the company—which is based in both Germany and the United Kingdom—foresaw difficulties with the proposed European directive.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

What would happen if such an organisation, based in France or Germany, advertised in one of the international newspapers that are now printed in different centres? If it advertised in a newspaper circulating in both Paris and London, what might be the impact on the newspaper circulating in London?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We shall discuss in detail the predicament of companies operating in more than one market when we reach the next group of amendments. As I said at the outset, a general problem with the Bill is that the United Kingdom is going out on a limb, and as a result a large number of diverse companies will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. We tried to make the Government aware of that in Committee. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, companies might advertise in more than one market. We tabled an amendment that would remove the competitive disadvantage and make companies free to compete in a global market, and my hon. Friend will note from what the Government say on the next group of amendments that they have conceded in that regard. I want to concentrate on the brand-sharing problem, however, because I do not think that we have been given a satisfactory answer. I have given the example of Worldwide Brands International, but there are others. When the company learned of the proposed directive banning tobacco advertising, its reaction was similar to that of the Government, who have chosen to go it alone: it made an important investment. It made a conscious decision to change its logo—to change the name from Camel to Camel Active, and to replace the familiar yellow writing that we associate with the brand of cigarettes with a black and white script in a completely different style. It is difficult to illustrate this without useful equipment such as overhead projectors, to which I fear the "mother of all Parliaments" cannot stretch, even in the 21st century. A great deal of subjectivity is attached to the whole question of whether the company's activities would now be banned. The Department has given it to understand that they would, and that its investment in the change of logo will have been in vain.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Why would the company continue to use the name Camel? Is it because it just happened to be there at the time, or was there some other motive?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I cannot answer that question, because I do not sit on the board of the company that made the decision, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is becoming very difficult to find a name that is unique, especially with the advent of the dotcom company revolution. That will make it even more difficult for the provision to work in practice. The company has appealed to the Government for some guidance, or some amendments to the Bill. In fact—so that companies whose products have nothing whatsoever to do with tobacco, and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco, could be more justly treated—the company was encouraged by the Department itself to provide its own amendments. It has made the necessary investment to change its logo from one that much more closely resembles tobacco product logos—but it is still caught by the Bill's provisions.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am listening intently to the development of my hon. Friend's argument. She will be aware that, on regulations and statutory instruments, I am a procedural anorak. Can she therefore tell me whether the regulations that would flow from new clause 4 would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am sorry to inform my hon. Friend that, although the principal statutory instruments that will flow from the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, interestingly, an exception, and special arrangements, have been made for the sponsorship agreements—for Formula 1. Perhaps that will encourage him to stay in the Chamber until we debate that matter, if there is sufficient time to do so. The group of amendments on sponsorship is rather far down the list of amendments selected for debate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I know that my hon. Friend will agree that we would not want to be remiss by failing to ensure that members of the public who may be listening to the debate are aware of the meaning of the negative and the affirmative procedure. Will she therefore confirm that the Government's intention in using that procedure seems to be to avoid debate on the Floor of the House, for which the affirmative procedure provides? Is that not to enable them to save their own face?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

There is a great deal of face saving in the Bill, which kicks decisions on many difficult issues into the long grass. Those issues will be subject to regulations that we have not seen, and will not be able to see while debating those issues. Even now, on Report, we cannot properly anticipate many of the difficulties and controversies surrounding the issues that will be dealt with by regulation. That is a fundamental weakness in the way in which the Bill is constructed. The Bill is effectively an empty box, and we are being asked to sign up as supporters of its contents without knowing what they are.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mislead the House. Does she remember that the Minister told us that the Government would not introduce regulations under various parts of the Bill that provide for regulation? Therefore, in some cases people will have to guess what they might be doing wrong—for which they might subsequently be caught by regulation if a future Government decided to introduce such regulation.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I spent many hours in Committee. Perhaps I could give hon. Members a flavour of the way in which the regulations will work. Although the power to make regulations has, in some cases, been provided in the Bill, a warning has been given that if everyone behaves and complies with the spirit of the Bill, it will not be necessary to make those regulations. The provision will hang over those who have to operate under the Bill as an incentive to get it right first time. If they do not, they risk a rap on the knuckles, or perhaps being taken to court, so that the meaning of the regulations can be clarified. That is a very strange way of regulating businesses that, until now, have been able to advertise legally. They will suddenly discover that some of the things that they have been doing, quite legally, have become illegal. The threat of regulation will hang over such companies if they get it wrong. The Bill places business in a very difficult position. I want to return to questions about brand sharing that were not answered adequately in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to answer a very important question. The UK has decided to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising ahead of other European Union member states. Legal professionals advised the Commission and other interested parties when the intention at a European level was to proceed to a directive regarding the ban on tobacco advertising. Does the Minister agree that their comments might have some relevance today? The conclusions reached about brand sharing at the time are relevant to what the UK is about to do unilaterally. The Advocate-General's opinion is important in this respect. The Advocate-General held that the restrictions then proposed on brand diversification advertising violated the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights". Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted is in contravention of the same article? We did not get an answer to that in Committee, yet it would be relevant to our debate this evening. I, for one, would like to know the answer. The Advocate-General also held that the Community legislator had not presented any evidence to suggest a link between brand diversification advertising, and overall tobacco consumption and that there were therefore no reasonable grounds to justify the restrictions on freedom of speech provided for in the Directive".

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend has made an important and salutary point, but is she referring to the Advocate-General in the European Court, or to the Advocate-General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark)?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am referring to the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

I have been listening closely, but will the hon. Lady confirm that she is saying that if the makers of Silk Cut, a brand-named cigarette in the United Kingdom, decided to sell trousers, they could erect, at every football ground in the country, huge signs with the words "Silk Cut" on them? Is not the presumption in the defence of the new clause being offered by the hon. Lady, that the words would not be identified with cigarettes because they were being used in relation to trousers? Does that not appear to the hon. Lady somewhat nonsensical? Would not anyone seeing a sign that says "Silk Cut" think of cigarettes rather than trousers?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

With respect, if he reads the new clause, the hon. Gentleman will see that it covers non-tobacco products or services from companies that are totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product". That is an important distinction.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I shall put the question another way. For the sake of argument, let us say that the manufacturer of Clarks shoes has no connection with any tobacco company, in this country or any other. Under the new clause, would it be acceptable for that company to call a range of shoes the "Silk Cut" range?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Common sense tells me that people wanting to buy shoes would be far more attracted by the good reputation of Clarks as a manufacturer than by any name chosen for a particular style of shoe.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

The hon. Lady is avoiding the issue.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am not; it is Labour Members who are avoiding an issue that is uncomfortable for them. The Government have chosen to go ahead with a ban on tobacco advertising, but at one time there was a Europe-wide attempt to introduce a directive with the same objective. The view of legal professionals at a European level was that banning advertising through brand sharing represented a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is legitimate for the Opposition to ask the Government, who intend to go down that road, whether they are satisfied with the procedure, although their opinion on that issue is different from that of the Advocate-General in Europe. We did not get an answer from the Minister in Committee, and it is important to come back to the question today. Worldwide Brands International is, quite legitimately, asking me, as a representative of the Opposition, to put that question to the Government, as it cannot get an adequate reply. Of course the issue is important to such a company; it may wish to go to the European Court for a ruling on whether this piece of British legislation, which will affect it significantly, represents a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It stands to reason that if the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice was giving that advice not so long ago, the issue has already been considered at a high level. That is a good reason for bringing the question to the debate. Of course we do not want to pass legislation that is promptly found to contravene the European convention on human rights. Things are particularly difficult for our legislature at present, as we have incorporated the convention into British law only very recently. This issue has to be worked through. I should have thought, however, that the Government would have anticipated the problem, which has already arisen at a European level, and that they would be ready to answer the question today. That is why it is important to return to the point, which was debated in Committee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members understand our rationale in coming back to it, because we need to find the answer. I find it difficult to understand why there is such strong opposition to legitimate diversification by companies that have nothing to do with the tobacco industry. Why do we want to make it so difficult for companies to diversify? Surely, with our shared public health agenda of trying to reduce the prevalence of smoking—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) gives me rather a contemptuous look, but I assure her that we share the Government's desire for a reduction in smoking. I do not know how many times I have to say that to get my point across. Perhaps this will be the last time this evening. It is surely desirable for tobacco companies to produce other products if possible. I confidently predict that a consequence of depriving companies of the opportunity of brand sharing will be to weaken their competitiveness. I am confident that the legislation will lead to the ascendancy of foreign brands of tobacco coming into this country. That is already a feature of the flow of illegally imported tobacco. I referred in the programme motion debate to students being offered £25 to promote tobacco brands on university campuses. The brand of tobacco in question was, in fact, foreign. That is the tip of the iceberg. We will see foreign brands coming into this country, and we will have shackled our own tobacco companies so that they have no way out.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

On the impact of illegally imported tobacco and tobacco products, is it not true that although the most popular rolling tobacco in this country is Drum, it is not legally available anywhere in this country? If a legitimate business—unconnected with tobacco—was also called Drum, what would happen to it? Such a business could be caught by the measure.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am not the ideal person to answer it—that is for the Government. However, as the Minister is engaged in another conversation at present, she will be unable to answer my hon. Friend's question, unless someone can give her a note of it. My hon. Friend's point is important. There will be many more such examples. Surely we should encourage tobacco companies to diversify—possibly by making a new name for themselves in completely different markets. Through amendment No. 46, the Government are trying to come some way towards meeting the Opposition on the matter. However, that amendment falls far short of the assurances that we seek from them. It reads like wishful thinking. It says that the Government "may" make an exception for companies as regards brand sharing. That will not be good enough for companies such as I have described. Those companies have already made a significant investment in changing their names and symbols, only to be told that that will not protect them. The amendment does not offer sufficient assurances to such companies. They would prefer provisions such as our new clause, which would redress the balance by moving away from the rough justice that would be meted out under the Government's brand-sharing proposals and their rather weak effort to provide scope for exceptions, if they are so minded. There is no clear statement in the Bill of the circumstances in which the Government might be prepared to grant such exemptions. That will be subject, once again, to regulation. Yet again, a controversial aspect of the Bill is being kicked off into the long grass. The matter will be subject to regulations. When? We do not know—at some point in the future. Meanwhile, the harsh reality is that a company such as Worldwide Brands International has to carry on its business. Will it be guilty of an offence? Will it have to go to court to prove that it has made an effort to alter its logo, and that the new logo is no longer similar to the original logo associated with tobacco products? Will such a company have to go to all that expense while the Government make up their mind whether to make an exception for it? The amendment is far too vague. It offers insufficient reassurance to companies that have made a real effort to comply with the original European directive. They have followed to the letter the advice of the Advocate General; they believed that such advice might logically apply if a member state decided to go it alone down the road originally intended for the directive. Instead, however, those companies have been left confused. It is that confusion and lack of clarity that our new clause attempts to address. That is why I commend it to my hon. Friends.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I begin by responding to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She referred to some of the broader issues that arise on brand sharing—a matter on which we held a detailed discussion in Standing Committee.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The detailed discussion consisted of exchanges between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that lasted less than 15 minutes.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government offered more time for debate in Committee, and if the Opposition had wanted to, they could have taken up that offer. The point that he makes about the time that was available in Committee is, frankly, inappropriate. If brands are distinct, they will not be covered by the regulations on brand sharing. We have made it clear that our intention is not to catch all products that share the same name, and we are certainly very sympathetic to the need to support business diversification. If the intention is not to promote a tobacco product, the firm involved should have no problem with distinct branding. We have declared our intention to consult in detail on the regulations, because this a complex subject and the companies involved will want time to make representations. That is important. The wording of new clause 4 would create all kinds of problems. It would exclude from the scope of the regulations on brand sharing arrangements in which no financial link existed between the brand company and the tobacco company, and in which the primary purpose of the new branded goods was not to promote a tobacco product. A company could easily argue that its primary purpose was not to promote a tobacco product; it would argue that its primary purpose was to promote a product—trousers, boots, or whatever—but its secondary or alternative purpose might include promoting tobacco products. It would certainly be inappropriate if the Bill were to state that a company would be covered by the provisions on brand sharing only if its primary purpose was to promote tobacco products. Another problem with new clause 4 is that the Opposition insist that the companies must be "totally unconnected financially", but it is not clear what that phrase means. For example, would a wholly owned subsidiary be included? Would it include arrangements in which no corporate links existed between companies but directors from, for example, BAT were shared or sat on the board of another company in a non-executive capacity? Would it include a publicly quoted company with a tobacco company as a major shareholder? I ask all those questions because of the evidence that has emerged, especially in litigation in the United States, from tobacco companies about their attempts to use brand sharing as an alternative way to promote tobacco products and, where necessary, to try to create different legal and perhaps corporate separation between the companies, but where the aim is still to promote tobacco products. For example, a document from RJ Reynolds that emerged during the US litigation states: In the context of a total advertising ban on direct and indirect advertising as of January 1993, communication continuity is undoubtedly 'The' issue to be solved during the plan period. The only remaining tool is logo license activities provided they are marketed by a company financially and legally distinct from a tobacco company". In another document, RJR states: In order to fulfil its mission, logo licence will be operated as diversification business in line with the respective brand positioning statement. This will be achieved a) through a separate legal entity, b) with consumer relevant products/services/events, c) owning registrations of international trademarks in pertinent categories d) being profitable within an economically reasonable period and"— this is critical— e) attracting the cigarette brand's target group. There is plenty of evidence to show that brand sharing has been used abroad and in this country to promote tobacco products. I am extremely concerned that new clause 4 and the consequential amendment—amendment No. 51—could introduce a major loophole in the ban on tobacco advertising and allow considerable advertising to continue through indirect means. The hon. Member for Meriden referred to the European convention on human rights. We have made it clear that the Bill is compatible with the convention. The Advocate General did not consider the Bill or evidence on brand sharing when he pronounced on the European directive. He did not make a decision on a point of principle and concluded that there was sufficient evidence on direct advertising to justify the directive, which he did not think was in conflict with article 10. There is enough evidence, especially on children's familiarity with brand sharing products and the links between brands, for it to be clear that the Bill is also compatible with the convention. Government amendment No. 46 will clarify the Bill so that firms that comply with, and trade their products under, brand sharing regulations do not get caught by any of the Bill's other provisions, such as those in clause 2. That is not the intention of the regulations. If a company's products—whatever they might be—are acceptable under the regulations, the amendment ensures that they will not unintentionally be affected by the provisions on advertising. It will make the arrangements easier for businesses. We have set out our intention to consult on the regulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that we want to do that as soon as possible and to begin the process during the Bill's passage through Parliament. We also want to consult our European partners because European issues, too, are relevant. We will also discuss the appropriate time scales for the introduction of the regulations.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Has the hon. Lady sent draft regulations for consultation—and if not, why not?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The draft regulations have not been published for consultation, but they will be produced at the earliest possible opportunity, as we have made clear several times. There are plenty examples of business diversification. For example, Philip Morris owns Miller beer. Those are distinct brands and it is clear that there is no brand sharing. We are keen to promote brand sharing, but we also want to ban tobacco advertising and prevent companies from using brand sharing as a way round the ban. The regulations will be subject to detailed consultation. We have made it clear that we do not intend to cause problems for brands that are distinct from tobacco brands. I urge the House to accept Government amendment No. 46 and reject new clause 4 and amendment No. 51.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I apologise if I cover ground that was dealt with by the Committee, but I was fortunate enough not to have to serve on it. The Minister says, "Trust us. We will get this right and send out some regulations", and we have had to accept a debate on Report that is truncated and disgracefully short; but brand sharing is a key problem for the industry to face, and the regulations have not even been written. The House is having to decide crucial issues when we know nothing about the Government's proposals.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Surely the point is that no one has been able to produce a sensible response to the problem of brand sharing. The Government have not provided draft regulations because that is an almost impossible task, but the House is being asked to agree the Bill tonight.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. The problem is that a key piece of the Bill is missing, yet we are asked to nod it through tonight on the basis that the Government have said, "Trust us, we don't want to stop companies brand sharing." The Bill is to be enforced by the weights and measures authorities. Are we to trust the same people who prosecuted a market trader in Sunderland for selling goods in pounds and ounces? Hon. Members have raised several problems related to brand sharing. I am concerned about the illegal rolling tobacco, Drum, which is available in this country. What would happen if a perfectly legal company in this country had the same name? Would the weights and measures people arrest its proprietors? A European brand of cigarettes, called Olympia or Olympic—I cannot remember which—is available in this country. What would happen if a business in this country shared that name? Those will be concerns for large companies, and we are making decisions without even knowing what the regulations will say. Earlier, I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) a point about newspapers and other publications that are printed simultaneously in different countries. The International Herald Tribune is printed in a number of centres in Europe at the same time, and the Financial Times is printed simultaneously in Frankfurt and London. A newspaper's editorial office in Paris might insert an advertisement for a brand of Camel boot or the "Silk Cut" trousers to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred. Pages are sent from one country to another, and there may be no editorial interference in the printing process in this country. Presumably, then, international newspapers that sell copies in the United Kingdom will have to refuse all such advertisements. A French newspaper might have refuse advertisements from a French business.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

This is a thorny area. Would it not be helpful if the Under-Secretary were to indicate, if she has not already done so, that she intends to provide a minimum of three months for consultation on the regulations? In the light of the likely burden that the regulations, be they desirable or undesirable, will impose on businesses, especially small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a minimum of three months' notice of the requirement to implement the regulations?

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I would welcome a reply from the Under-Secretary. A minimum of three months' notice would be extremely helpful. I want to pursue the question of publications. It is very easy to buy foreign language magazines in this country. I think of French and German magazines that are printed abroad and shipped here, which will of course carry tobacco advertisements. I did not attend the Committee, but from a brief reading of the Bill I can see nothing that would protect those companies. A German company could be prosecuted in this country because it sold a magazine containing a cigarette advert in the UK. Does that mean that special UK editions of those magazines would have to be printed, which would hardly be economic, or would they have to be withdrawn from sale in this country? That question demonstrates the idiocy of proceeding with the Bill without the consent of fellow members of the European Union, who are moving towards a ban on tobacco advertising. It would be helpful if the ban were imposed Europe wide, instead of the Government going it alone. I hope that by the end of the debate this difficult issue will have been clarified. Even if the Minister for Public Health will not produce the regulations or give us any idea of their contents, perhaps she will address our concerns when she winds up.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

In Committee, I was prevented from making the speech that I am about to make because the Opposition were trying to help the Government to get the Bill through Committee in the limited time available in a way that allowed the maximum discussion of items on which we had to make a decision. The issue that we are debating, brand sharing, is important because it might affect companies that have nothing to do with tobacco. We can all argue about whether we want to reduce tobacco consumption—although everyone on the Committee was in favour of that—but no one intends to damage companies that have never been involved in tobacco. Throughout the Committee proceedings, I trailed the fact that I intended to speak about the brand that is in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: the portcullis. It appears on my cufflinks, and Members of Parliament are proud of the fact that it appears on our letterhead. You might not realise this, but in the House of Commons bars and the Gift Shop it is possible to buy House of Commons branded cigarettes, which carry the portcullis logo. Cigarettes are not the only product that the House of Commons sells: we sell water, teddy bears and whisky and we provide services through our Banqueting Department. The House of Commons is engaged in a commercial business, and I suppose that we should all declare an interest in that respect. We might all be prosecuted when the Bill is passed. I meant to begin my speech by declaring an interest: my wife and I are beneficial owners of a few shares in Imperial Tobacco. We never bought the shares, but the demerger of a company in which we had bought shares resulted in our becoming the owners of the Imperial Tobacco shares. The example I give, however silly it might appear, illustrates the fact that people brand share. The Houses of Parliament or House of Commons brand is a brand share. Were I advising the House authorities, I should immediately tell them that they must stop selling cigarettes carrying the House of Commons brand; either that, or Members of Parliament should stop using the portcullis or even the name of this place to ensure that we do not break the law as it will be when the Bill is passed.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting question of parliamentary sovereignty. Would parliamentary sovereignty apply and thus enable us to ignore the legislation and continue to sell the cigarettes?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

When my hon. Friend and I became Members of Parliament, parliamentary sovereignty existed, but new Labour does not care about such things. The current Government continually undermine the rights and privileges of the House of Commons—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) wish to intervene? He is always chuntering—oh, he has risen to his feet, just to show that he is here. I give way to him.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman refers, tangentially, to the loss of parliamentary sovereignty in terms that suggest that most of that loss has occurred since 1997. However, I do not believe that Labour was in government when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Will he confirm that?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) returned to the new clause that is the subject of our debate.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I had not left that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, as you rightly say, I could not possibly respond to that intervention. I was foolish and over-generous to give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire. In tabling the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is attempting to help the Government not to fall into a gaping hole. One might say that it does not matter if House of Commons branded cigarettes cease to be. I should prefer that we did not have such cigarettes—indeed, under the previous Government, the Refreshment Department announced that it had decided not to have the cigarettes any more and that it would phase them out by selling whatever stocks it held. There must have been about 10 years of stock because packets are still being sold. It may be nice to have them, but why do we not set an example and say that we shall not share our brands with tobacco? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am glad that I have some support for that. I hope that the House will listen to what I have to say about brand sharing. We are all aware of Imperial Tobacco. The word "imperial" is a brand share with many other companies. For example, there is Imperial Chemical Industries. There must be thousands of companies that have "imperial" in their names. Imperial mints is a generic term.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

There is the Imperial war museum.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

It shares a name with tobacco. Once we have seen the regulations, will we be able to attach "imperial" to any product, company or anything else, given that that is brand sharing? The Minister does not have an answer, but perhaps she will surprise us later. What about Marlboro? The Marlboro cafe in my constituency serves some of the best fish and chips in the country. I do not know why it is called the Marlboro cafe, but it is. It is advertising the well known name of a tobacco product. Is the cafe to change its name? Is it to be prosecuted? I need to know. There is Embassy, and hundreds if not thousands of companies use that name at the beginning of their—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

So what?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

If the hon. Gentleman owned Embassy Cars, which I think is a company in my constituency, he would be concerned. He would have to ensure that all his advertisements were changed. He would have to ensure that they referred to cars and not to the tobacco company. That sharing of a brand name has nothing to do with the ownership or the promotion of tobacco. That was never thought about. That is an example of what we must be worried about. There are other examples. Dunhill is a brand of lighters as well as cigarettes. It might be said that brand sharing is taking place, but I think that Dunhill—

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Watches and aftershave.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I wish that I had asked my hon. Friend to write my speech in advance. If he had done so, I would not have to keep referring to him. I know that there are many products with the name Dunhill. They may originally have been attached to tobacco, or they may have been completely independent, in common with the examples that I have already given. What about Lambert and Butler? Will it be necessary for people to change their name by deed poll if it is either Lambert or Butler, especially if someone wants to start a business? I suspect that there are a few Rothmans floating around. Superking is a nice brand name. An enormous number of products use "super" and "king" in their names. There is St. Bruno rolling tobacco. Are we not to have Bruno Brookes on the radio any more? Will the boxer no longer be able to fight? There is Golden Virginia—[Interruption.] Members laugh, but I am giving examples of people who will have to ask, "Is this brand sharing?" The Government and the Minister have not given us an inkling of what the regulations will provide. What is the point? The Government are trying to ensure that, come the general election, they can say that they have done the business and introduced an Act. If they have not published the draft regulations by then, they certainly will have not done the business. What will happen if the Bill succeeds in stopping advertising? The tobacco industry often wants to launch new products, sometimes ones that are less lethal than others currently on the market. We should necessarily encourage that, but what will a company do when it names its product? It will almost certainly use a generic name—a household word—associated with other products that already share the brand. Why should a British company be attacked by a tobacco company—with the tobacco company, in effect, stealing a generic name that it cannot patent or copyright—and be caught by the Bill when it has never had anything to do with the tobacco industry?

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I rise, not to speak too long on the matter, but to say that there is a bit of history behind it which Opposition Members seem to have forgotten. I know that they have been told before that brand sharing is one way in which tobacco companies have got around tobacco advertising Bills. On Second Reading, I mentioned what happened when the Italian Government introduced a ban on tobacco advertising. There were brand names on children's toys and all sorts of things were advertised on television, so it was clear what the ban was designed for. In view of my criticism of the Conservative party over the years, I should not be surprised at the fact that not only was it addicted to tobacco companies for a long time, but it is still addicted to them. I should have thought that it would take up one of the cessation programmes that the Government have been making available for the past four years to try to get people off their unhealthy addictions.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

In a few minutes; I just want to get on to some of the surrounding issues. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) seemed to think that the Government do not want tobacco companies to diversify. Of course, we do; that is exactly it. However, by presenting her publication at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady was trying to defend a company that came into being when tobacco advertising bans started to appear around the world. She must ask herself whether a brand like Camel, which has been advertised across the world, would allow somebody to come along, take its copyright and use that word to sell another product. It is not believable that there was not, and is not, a connection between that publication, which sells clothing, and Camel's advertising and organisation. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) ought to ask whether the Marlboro cafe in his constituency, the Marlboro Classics shop in Covent Garden and Marlboro coffee are connected with Marlboro tobacco and Philip Morris. They are connected, and were brought into being to brand-stretch and brand share because of public health decisions that were taken to stop the promotion of tobacco products around the world. When the hon. Member for Meriden says from the Dispatch Box that the Government's decision today will mean that Britain is the first country to ban tobacco advertising, after previous attempts resulted in losing cases in the European Court and defeat by the tobacco companies, she is wrong. Many countries have banned tobacco advertising for many years. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to that fact that, when I tried to promote a Bill not dissimilar to this under the private Members' Bill procedure back in 1994, there was one company that stood out. One could honestly say that it was using a name that was now on a tobacco product, but which had not initially been associated with the promotion of tobacco. That firm was Alfred Dunhill. I do not believe that it is a front for a tobacco company to get round a ban on tobacco advertising. I shall be interested to see what regulations are drawn up. They are necessary, whatever the Opposition may say. The reason for sports sponsorship in the UK is that the advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1965. That is why tobacco firms started to sponsor cricket and Formula 1. They do it throughout the world. My hon. Friend the Minister quoted documents arising from the litigation of RJ Reynolds, an American tobacco company, in the United States. The documents show what such companies do when they brand share or brand-stretch: they promote tobacco products. That is what Marlboro Classics is about, and in my view, the same applies to the Camel company. I hope that the Government will come down hard on that. It makes no sense to ban tobacco advertising if the companies are allowed to spend their hundreds of millions in other ways to promote tobacco in this country or any other.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall respond briefly to the points raised. We will be happy to have a considerable period of consultation on the regulations. We are sympathetic to appropriate transitional periods for the implementation of the regulations, as we have demonstrated with regard to other aspects of the Bill. International publications are dealt with in clause 4(1)(c). Publications whose principal market is not the UK are excluded. The intention of the Bill and the brand-sharing regulations is to prevent the promotion of tobacco products. That will be the test. It is not our intention to prevent diversification, or to catch companies or products just because they bear the same name. New clause 4 would introduce a substantial loophole. That is why we are opposing both it and amendment No. 51.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The hon. Lady cannot get away with saying that the regulations will protect firms that have nothing to do with tobacco. Can she describe to the House how the regulations will be phrased?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We will publish the regulations for full consultation. We have made clear in this debate and in Committee our intention with regard to brand sharing, and the clear intention of the Bill to prevent the promotion of tobacco products.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I hate to inform the House that we have got to exactly the point that we reached in Committee. We did not run out of time on the brand-sharing clause, but we could not usefully proceed in Committee. The Government said that they would undertake a huge consultation exercise, and we cannot get a clear idea of what will be in the regulations until that consultation has taken place. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The consultation exercise should surely occur before the draft regulations are issued. We would be in a far better position to decide whether they would be excessively punitive if we knew what was in the regulations. The Minister said in Committee: We certainly recognise the need for proper and thorough consultation. We are also keen to consult with the European Commission on its proposals. We recognise that this is a complex area and we are keen to have a thorough and effective consultation process"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 February 2001; c. 152.] We cannot accept the vague commitment in the Government amendment, when the consultation exercise has still to take place. That is why we sought through our new clause to clarify the situation. It is a feature of the Bill that so much is being left to subsequent regulations, and this is a particularly bad example of that. Companies will be put in an impossible position.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we totally reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)? Under our Government, tobacco consumption was falling, whereas under this Government, it is going up. We are attempting to help this miserable Government to do something sensible, for a change.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I should have tried at the beginning, as we have tried so many times, to make it clear to the hon. Member for Rother Valley that it is not our purpose to take up the cause of tobacco companies, as he continually implies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said on Second Reading, we have no love for tobacco companies. I hope that, having been present in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley will recognise how carefully we have striven to uphold the public health agenda throughout the debate. We have not departed from that.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

No. I am rather tired of accusations being made about a position that we do not defend. I shall comment on some of the specific points made by the Minister. She said that the Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. It seems that companies such as Worldwide Brands International will have no alternative but to slug it out in the courts. It will be one lawyer's opinion against another. If the Advocate-General was willing to put on record his view that the brand-sharing advertising restriction was not compatible with article 10 of the convention, it is perfectly legitimate for the company to pursue the matter in the courts, to see whose legal opinion will win the day. I am not qualified to give advice, but it seemed a rather sweeping statement to say that the Bill was indeed compatible.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I do not want to interrupt her train of thought. When the Minister replied in double-quick time and covered some of the points that I had raised about newspapers and publications, she did not deal with the point that some of the foreign publications are printed in the UK. According to the Bill, a publication is exempt if it is printed outside the UK and its principal market is not the UK, but what happens if it is printed in the UK, even if its principal market is not the United Kingdom? I was hoping that the Minister would answer that.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he will make all those important points again on the next group of amendments. The Minister asked how I would define a company that was totally unconnected with a tobacco company. I am a health spokesman, not a DTI spokesman. The issues of company law and the Minister's questions to me demonstrate the extent to which the Bill is wide of being a health Bill. It deals with international competition and the way in which companies are structured. Surely the Minister understands the spirit behind our new clause, which was intended to take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Of course we do not want to create a massive loophole through which tobacco promotion is allowed to accelerate, or to fuel the prevalence of smoking. That is the spirit of our new clause. If the hon. Gentleman needs yet more proof—

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

No, I am not prepared to give way. The hon. Gentleman simply will not believe our party's stance. He refuses to believe that we share the public health agenda and the aim of reducing smoking. I have grown weary of telling him that in different ways on different occasions. I am sure that the House does not want to hear it again. We shall press our new clause because the Government amendment will not provide assurances to the companies that will have to work with the Bill. The promises of regulations in the future, which are to be preceded by a massive exercise in consultation, are a further reason why we consider it important to bring clarity to the debate on brand sharing and advertising, for the sake of all those who will have to work with the Bill. We have heard no clarification from the Minister today, and we find it difficult to accept that the Government amendment would be adequate. Our new clause would be a great deal more successful in bringing clarity to the Bill concerning the exception that could be made for a brand-sharing arrangement by a company that has carried out its business legitimately up to now and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco. That is why I commend our new clause to the House.

MEANING OF "TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENT" AND "TOBACCO PRODUCT"

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after second "advertisement", insert "including product placement".

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after "so", insert— 'but does not include an advertisement where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, notwithstanding that it may depict a tobacco product.'. Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, at end insert 'or (c) if it is contained in a tender for a contract to publish a magazine in an overseas market.'. Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 23, at end insert— 'or (f) if it is or is contained in an item of intrinsic value more than 30 years old.'. Government amendment No. 42. Amendment No. 32, in clause 8, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (4). Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 47.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I commiserate with you on your sore throat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an amazing role reversal, perhaps you would like to catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who may be able to help you with what sounds like a nasty sore throat. The group of amendments is so large that I am tempted to characterise it as the whole world and his wife with the kitchen sink thrown in. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I present our amendments, which are diverse and cover different subjects. Some raise new points: others deal with points that arose from consideration in Committee. They need to be examined on Report. Amendment No. 2 would incorporate for the first time in the Bill the phrase "product placement". We discussed the definition of "advertisement" in Committee, but we were unsuccessful in obtaining a clear definition from the Government. That weakness will make it difficult for those who must work with the Bill to know what constitutes an advertisement. We successfully drew out from the Minister a few examples that would not be regarded as advertisements. It was helpful to know that tobacco packaging is not regarded as an advertisement. However, the matter was left unclear.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

I know that my hon. Friend is trying to pass on to hon. Members the advice that we received from the Minister that a packet did not constitute an advertisement. However, that does not appear in the Bill.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right that we are trying to convey to hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, and might not have had a chance to read Hansard closely, some of the problems to which we are reverting on Report. Some clarification that was given in Committee is not incorporated in the Bill, and that will make it difficult for people to work with the measure. One important concept missing from the Bill is product placement, which is a widely used method of advertising. We share the Government's concern to reduce the prevalence of smoking and we believe that product placement is a potent form of advertising. It might be helpful if I tried to define product placement, in case hon. Members are unfamiliar with the concept. I would define it as deliberately placing a product in view for the purpose of promoting it. Perhaps hon. Members can think of television programmes or films in which a tobacco product has been clearly placed in view and left there for a considerable time so that the brand is etched on our memory. If one consults avid watchers of soap operas—not that I am one—they are even able to identify the brand of cigarette smoked by the stars in the cast. That is a potent example of product placement. In Committee, we touched on the question of product placement and stressed to the Government that it was a potent form of advertising to the young in particular, many of whom are avid watchers of television soap operas. I always do my level best to dissuade my children from watching such programmes, for a variety of reasons to do with the values that they sometimes impart. It is a matter of concern that young people watch television programmes or films in which their role models—the stars of the programmes or films—are party to product placement in which a tobacco product is placed in clear view.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is my hon. Friend confident that she, or whoever she envisages carrying out the task, could distinguish between what she categorises as product placement and the incidental or accidental portrayal of a product? Is she confident that she could draw that line of distinction?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

That is very difficult to do precisely. I shall come in due course to the regulations governing broadcasting, some of which leave such decisions to the editor, saying that such placements may be made if they are editorially justified. I hope that my right hon. Friend would agree that an editor's judgment can become very subjective on those questions, and that it is difficult to say objectively what is editorially justified and what is not. I want to draw to the House's attention a recent piece of research published in volume 357 of The Lancet, on 6 January 2001. The research undertook a survey of a 10-year sample of contemporary films, examining the increasing role and importance of product placement in them. It established that more than 85 per cent. of the films contained tobacco use. Tobacco brands appeared in 28 per cent. of the films, and brand appearances were as common in films suitable for adolescent audiences as they were in films for adult audiences. That is, 32 per cent. of films for adolescent audiences and 35 per cent. of films for adult audiences contained such appearances. If we are concerned to protect young people, we should be concerned about that. Tobacco brands were also present in 20 per cent. of the films rated suitable for children. That gives me, as a parent, cause for disquiet. The research stated that brand placement in films had become a preferred method for companies to raise brand awareness and develop favourable associations with their products in an international audience. I fear that there will be an increasing amount of product placement when other conventional forms of advertising are banned by the Bill. Undoubtedly, a great deal of effort will be made in that direction by those wishing to promote tobacco.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The main thrust of the Opposition's attitude to tobacco advertising is that it serves only to encourage switching between brands. Is it not, however, the case that, in instances of product placement—of which the hon. Lady is rightly critical—a viewer is very rarely able to determine the brand of cigarette being smoked? I hate to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he made a fair point. One really cannot determine the brand from the way in which tobacco products are placed in entertainment programmes.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The hon. Gentleman may yet find that more emphasis will be placed on raising brand awareness through this method. There may be more attempts at raising brand awareness, rather than simply presenting a familiar star or television character smoking. It is undoubtedly the goal of a company to increase its market share and, as other forms of advertising are made unavailable to it, it will seek out the remaining opportunities. The point of the new clause is to introduce the words "product placement" into the Bill. We are concerned that the existing constraints are not sufficiently effective. We should be deeply concerned that the research published in The Lancet showed that as many as 85 per cent. of films in the past 10 years showed tobacco use, and that tobacco brands appeared in one third of the films surveyed. When we debated the issue in Committee, we raised with the Minister the problem that many of the most successful blockbuster films in this country emanate from Hollywood and are produced under codes, laws and conventions beyond the jurisdiction of this House. Some of the most blatant examples of product placement relate to American-sourced films. Nothing that could be done as a result of the Bill would curtail what is shown in an American film, unless the Government have plans for some sort of censorship over when the product placement occurs. An example of a brand being shown could involve the stars of a film having a long conversation while standing in front of a billboard advertising, say, Marlboro cigarettes. Under the Bill, it would remain possible for tobacco companies to promote a particular brand in that way. Reading the research on films, I was concerned to discover the kind of money that goes into the effort to place products. For example, in the film "Mr. Destiny", Walt Disney studios charged advertisers $20,000 for showing a product, $40,000 for showing a product and having an actor mention the product's name, and $60,000 for showing an actor using the product. Those are very substantial sums. Our purpose in tabling the new clause is to signal to those having to work with the existing arrangements for product placement that we are aware that there may be a major loophole in this area, and that the present constraints are not effective enough. I mentioned American films being shown here and the fact that they are one of the most powerful tools for the promotion of tobacco products. They are particularly effective among young people, among whom the rising prevalence of smoking is causing great concern. One could not discuss the amendment without examining the rules already in place, which brings me to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). For his and other hon. Members' benefit, it is worth mentioning what the rules are concerning product placement in programmes. 6.30 pm According to the rules, Where their use is clearly justified editorially, products or services may be acquired at no, or less than, full cost. Provision of the article must not be conditional on any specific agreement as to the manner of its appearance in the programme. The onus therefore rests entirely with the editor. The notes accompanying the rules state: No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a commercial product or service. In particular, any reference to such a product or service must be limited to what can clearly be justified by the editorial requirements of the programme itself. Again, all the onus is on the editor. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the problem lies with the extent of the editorial subjectivity involved. Under the current rules, product placement is clearly possible in programmes produced and shown in this country. We ought to have some control over it, but the rules are clearly insufficient to prevent the youth of today from telling us which brand of cigarettes their favourite film stars or television actors smoke.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

May I explore the issue of product placement as it relates to a later part of the Bill? My hon. Friend mentioned films made in the United States and distributed in this country. The Bill mentions only printed journalism; would the distributor of those films, or indeed someone who copied videos of them for commercial purposes, be subject to prosecution under my hon. Friend's proposals?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We discussed in Committee whether the proposal would result in thought police dashing around this country's cinemas deleting parts of films that featured blatant product placement. I seem to recall—the Minister may confirm this—that responsibility for adhering to a set of British guidelines on product placement rests with the distributor; but in practical terms it would be impossible to implement such censorship. We are talking about what are effectively foreign-produced, imported films, and a degree of international co-operation is clearly desirable. The research in The Lancet, which in fact emanates from academics in the United States, has produced a proper analysis of the films concerned, most of which are American-based. It demonstrates that whatever legislation exists in the United States to control product placement is not particularly effective either. This is a classic example of the difficulty of taking effective unilateral action in an international market. It is ridiculous to try to ban conventional tobacco advertising while leaving an enormous loophole in relation to product placement. It is plain that existing regulations do not work adequately in the context of a British-produced product over which we have some jurisdiction, and our purpose was to draw attention to the problem. I hope that the faith of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will be restored to some extent by the knowledge that we share a public health agenda in wishing to reduce smoking, especially in the vulnerable group who start smoking young and subsequently find it difficult to stop—if, indeed, they want to stop. Amendment No. 1 deals with a different subject, but again I hope that all Members will appreciate—in the context of a health Bill—that we share the objective of reducing smoking. That is clearly desirable in public health terms. Ours is a probing amendment, intended to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently catch an advertisement that is actually designed to reduce the prevalence of smoking. I ask hon. Members to imagine a large poster, pitched at trying to deter under-age smokers, depicting a young person stubbing out a cigarette. The accompanying slogan would read, perhaps, "Stub it out—don't stub your life out." Such a poster, depicting someone using a tobacco product, would be in a sense attractive, and in a sense pitched at young people; but its hard message would also be directed at young people, whom it would attempt to deter from smoking. We must not risk catching anti-smoking health education posters in the ban on tobacco advertising. The amendment is intended to make it possible to continue with hard-hitting health education measures that may well require classical forms of advertising. As the Bill stands, it will close the door on such measures.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Might not the amendment provide a loophole for manufacturers of low-tar cigarettes, enabling them to claim that their products were beneficial in health terms?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The amendment was not designed to create any sort of loophole. No amendments were tabled by Liberal Democrats in Committee, but it would have been helpful if the hon. Lady had tabled even one. Indeed, the whole question of low-tar products could have been raised in a series of amendments. As someone who served in Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill, the hon. Lady presumably knows that no distinction is made between high, low and middle-tar products; the aim is to impose a blanket ban on tobacco advertising. Our probing amendment is intended to ensure that good health education campaigns are not caught by the legislation. I wish members of other parties would begin to believe that we have a health agenda, rather than being doubting Thomases.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Does not the amendment introduce an oxymoron? If it were accepted, clause 1 would state that "tobacco advertisement" meant an advertisement whose effect was to promote a tobacco product but does not include an advertisement where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking". Is that logically consistent?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am not sure about the oxymoron. As the hon. Gentleman will note from the debate on the programme motion, we shall be jolly lucky if there are no oxymorons, given the speed at which the Bill zipped from Committee to Report. As it is, there is a typographical error in amendment No. 13, although there was certainly no intention of producing any grammatical or typographical mistakes. As I have said, ours is a probing amendment, intended simply to ensure that we do not close opportunities for good, justified health education campaigns. It is quite possible that a health education poster might depict a tobacco product as part of a hard-hitting message about the health risks of taking up smoking, or continuing to smoke. I am sure that the Minister has an answer; I do not think it necessary to see more in the amendment than I have explained. Health education campaigns were successfully used by the previous Conservative Government to reduce the prevalence of smoking. We want to make it possible to continue such campaigns, which have been shown to work. That is the simple purpose of amendment No. 1. Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41 enable us to debate a subject—the position of printers and publishers of written material—which, as my hon. Friends have said, is very important to Conservative Members. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who, with his experience in the printing industry, was the first to point out that the Bill might well place British printers in a very difficult position and at a competitive disadvantage. Our amendments seek to restore the position of British printers and publishers, to free them to tender in international markets for publications that, although directed principally at an overseas market, may be sold partly in the United Kingdom. As originally drafted, the Bill would have placed British printing companies at a competitive disadvantage. I am therefore very pleased that the Government have conceded on the issue, so that publications printed in the United Kingdom whose main market is abroad will be able to compete equally with overseas publishers.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The Government are trying to address that issue, but not the issue of in-flight magazines, which we raised in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that he had taken an Air France flight that had an in-flight magazine containing tobacco advertisements. Although one would not think that that magazine would be caught by the provision, the plane was owned not by a French company but by a British one flying for Air France. The Government amendments in this group would not deal with that. The Bill would stop that British company flying for Air France because of those tobacco advertisements in the in-flight magazine. Is that not ridiculous?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I hope that, for the benefit of members of the Committee and other hon. Members in the Chamber, the Minister will address the issue of the predicament faced by United Kingdom airlines that have code-sharing arrangements. That issue is similar to the one that my hon. Friend has just described. When we purchase a ticket with a United Kingdom airline, we expect to be flying with that UK carrier, although the plane may be supplied by a continental carrier. However, will stewardesses on a Finnair flight returning to a Scandinavian country as a British Airways flight, for example, have to rush through the plane ripping out the in-flight magazines? It will be quite difficult practically for airlines to comply with those provisions.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

The provisions will also work in reverse. United Kingdom airlines operating out of United Kingdom airports—Newcastle airport provides a very good example—provide services for foreign airlines. Where do those airlines stand?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

are now beginning to discuss the reality of how the provisions will work. Government amendment No. 41 accepts our attempt to accord the United Kingdom print industry a more level playing field in tendering for publications that are destined for overseas markets and may contain tobacco advertisements, although some copies may be sold in the United Kingdom. However, United Kingdom airlines will still be at a competitive disadvantage if, unlike other airlines bringing passengers to and from this country, they cannot have an in-flight magazine. That issue has yet to be resolved. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any thoughts on how to deal with that competitive disadvantage. I emphasise that the problem is especially acute for United Kingdom airlines that have code-sharing arrangements. The Government will have to revisit that issue. 6.45 pm The Government have made another related concession in amendment No. 40. The UK print industry would have been placed in a considerable predicament if the Government had decided not to leave out clause 2(3). That provision would have made it an offence for someone to publish or distribute a tobacco advertisement or something else which is accompanied by a separate entity, containing, or being, a tobacco advertisement. The removal of the provision may provide some practical help to British printers and distributors, who, unlike their overseas competitors, would have to comply with the provision. Although our amendment No. 3 is eclipsed by the Government's concessions on the United Kingdom print industry, in Committee we identified another quirky problem. I must give credit for that where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid?Worcestershire was driving through his constituency when, passing a local antique shop, he was struck by the fact that the Bill's provisions would cover historical tobacco advertising signs. If hon. Members cannot picture the type of sign to which I am referring, they are the old enamel ones that promoted products such as Players or Senior Service cigarettes. Those signs are now collectors items and are very sought after, and they might be placed outside an antique shop not to promote tobacco, but because they are desirable and have increased in value. Such museum-piece tobacco advertisements are also found occasionally in pubs. Fashion has it that such signs evoke nostalgia, as they cause some people to think back to when it was perhaps customary to smoke a pipe or to roll one's own cigarettes, using old tobacco brands that have now gone by the board. However, some of those brands are still being sold. One sometimes sees mirrors bearing the Marlboro logo, or Marlboro posters from the 1950s depicting scenes from the wild west. Pubs, restaurants and similar places of refreshment often display those items to enhance their ambience. The items are really curios and novelties. It is unreasonable to try to ban those historical tobacco advertisements as their primary purpose is no longer to increase the market share of the erstwhile companies that promoted those brands. In our amendment No. 7, we seek to protect little antique shops that wish to display such enamel signs as part of their legitimate attempt to make a living from the sale of nostalgia and memorabilia, which many of us seek to procure as an investment or for sentimental reasons. The other Government amendments in this group deal with points that we made in Committee. Government amendment No. 42, however, seems to provide that a proprietor would be guilty of an offence simply by displaying the price of tobacco products on a website or in a place where those products are sold. I ask the Minister to clarify that point. That would apply if such displays were not compliant with regulations that set out what is and what is not legitimate. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked whether, in due course, it would be possible for airlines selling duty-free cigarettes to display anywhere a list of prices for those products. Price is of the essence in the purchase of duty-free cigarettes, and the Minister acknowledged that a price list would have to be displayed. However, Government amendment No. 42 seems to be quite severe, as it appears to make it an offence to display the prices of cigarettes in a place where they are sold. Once again, we will have to wait for a proper definition of what constitutes a display. The Bill contains no definition of what constitutes a compliant display and what does not. That is another example of how we are not a great deal further on than we were in Standing Committee. That leaves us disquieted.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

We were told in Standing Committee that the Government had no intention of introducing any regulations to tell firms what they could or could not display. The matter has been left mute, as it were. It might be that a future Government, thinking that a product was being displayed incorrectly, would bring in some regulations. Is not that ridiculous?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Absolutely. The problem with Government amendment No. 42 is that it clarifies nothing. The absence of the regulations means that someone will have to get the judgment wrong and be dragged to court charged with an offence before what constitutes a compliant display is clarified for everyone else. It is legitimate to ask whether it is allowable to stack packets of cigarettes on the trolley being rolled down a plane's central aisle. Must the air hostess have the price list in her pocket to comply with Government amendment No. 42? It is an important question about the practical working of the Bill, and we need an answer. Government amendment No. 43 is a concession from Standing Committee that we value. The Bill states that giving away coupons of a nominal value could constitute an advertisement, and that the tobacco companies involved could be caught. In Standing Committee, we pointed out that the term "nominal sum" was ill-defined. It is feasible for a nominal sum to be quite substantial—for example, for a coupon or voucher to be worth £10 off the value of 200 cigarettes. We are pleased that the Government have conceded that the term "substantial discount" is better. However, the process seems rather long winded, as now we need a definition of the term "substantial discount".

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am glad that my hon. Friend said that, as I was surprised to hear that she was unhappy about the term "nominal" yet more content with the term "substantial". If I were to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would try to develop that theme and say that the word "substantial" is not much more helpful than "nominal". Would my hon. Friend say that Government amendment No. 43 takes us much further forward?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The weakness of the word "nominal", which we tried to get changed in Standing Committee, stems from the fact that coupons can have quite a substantial value. One weakness of the Bill is that neither term is clearly defined. A further weakness is that we must wait an unspecified length of time before we get a regulation that gives guidance to companies about what is in order and what is not. I touched on the issues affecting Government amendment No. 47 when I spoke to amendment No. 2 on product placement. The Bill attempts to assure us that the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 cover tobacco advertising by the broadcast services. However, are those Acts effective? I hope that I showed earlier that it is clear that they are not sufficiently effective. A great deal of product placement goes on in the material broadcast by those services, despite the existence of the rules referred to in Government amendment No. 47. The Government should look again at the option preferred by the Opposition, which is to include the key phrase "product placement" in the Bill.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made a good job of saying exactly how product placement appears in different forms in the media. Earlier in the debate, I said that cigarette advertising was removed from television in 1965, but that the presence of brand names on television was preserved through the sponsorship of nationally televised sports such as cricket, Formula 1 and so on. Advertising and promotion are effectively the same thing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that we cannot simply ban something without looking at what happens afterwards. In Committee, we discussed the advertising agency memorandum about the television news coverage given to the launch of a new Jordan racing car. The memo said that coverage on "News at Ten" and the "Nine O'clock News" was worth £180,000 of television advertising. Taking into account the coverage on Sky, Channel 4 and Channel 5, the total coverage was said to be worth £250,000 of advertising on the national network. It is clear that advertising agencies and the tobacco companies that paid them wanted products to get covered in news items. Product placement is therefore very important. Another example involves Sylvester Stallone, whose contract required that his films promoted a particular American tobacco product. The poster advertising tobacco products often plays a prominent role in scenes in Hollywood movies. Some people argue that it is relevant to the film, but I tend to disagree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how product placement can spread further in the media. Does she believe that Government amendment No. 47 would cover that possibility? That is especially important with television under British jurisdiction. There is no question, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, but that young people look up to role models on television who use tobacco products. They recognise that a role model smokes a particular brand. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) said that when tobacco products appear on soap operas, often we cannot tell the brand. He should watch soaps a bit more regularly, because we can. Therefore, I think that amendment No. 2 has some merit, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Now that I have read the Bill a little more thoroughly, I appreciate why the Minister did not answer what I said about publishers and publications, because they are better debated on this second group of amendments. Having looked at the Government's amendments, I can see what they are trying to do, but I still have concerns about how the Bill will operate with regard to publishers and printers. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has dealt with printers who print a newspaper or magazine for export. However, I still do not understand how satellite printing of international publications will be affected. I have no idea whether publications such as the International Herald Tribune, USA Today and the Financial Times carry tobacco advertising—I suspect that they do not. Even so, what is the position? What is the principal market? Is the United Kingdom the principal market of USA Today, which is printed here as well as in other centres in Europe? If USA Today decided to carry cigarette and tobacco advertisements, would it be prosecuted? A more likely scenario would involve magazines printed here by satellite. Technology has made satellite printing increasingly popular. It saves moving large quantities of heavy newsprint around the world, so more magazines will be using that process. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members read Hello!, but it is actually a Spanish magazine, with an English edition that circulates outside England, largely in Scandinavian countries whose readers have a good command of English. How do we define whether the UK is a principal market of the English language version of Hello! magazine? Would that be determined on the basis of circulation or revenue?

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Is it not a worry for us, as British parliamentarians, that we will be setting up a competitive advantage for publishers in other countries? They can sell into the UK market simply by saying that their main market is still over there. The editions that they produce will not be printed here, thereby losing jobs and revenue. Such magazines would be greatly subsidised because the tobacco industry, as we have been told, will find ways of spending its promotional budget on subsidising them.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Although I mentioned newspapers and magazines with a large circulation, such as Hello!, I think that the problem will lie with the specialist magazines with smaller circulations, such as 4x4 cross-country vehicle specialist magazines. There are a number of such titles. They feature the Camel trophy and other motor sports events, which may or may not be covered by the Bill. It would be simple for such magazines to print abroad and supply copies to the UK. Such magazines are international; they circulate in other parts of Europe and the United States. It would be easy to move their base from the UK to Europe. The situation would be ludicrous: one 4x4 magazine on the newsagent's shelf would be stuffed full of advertisements for cigarettes and tobacco, while another, printed in the UK, did not carry such advertisements. That would give the magazine printed outside England a serious competitive advantage. We need to explore that possibility further, because I would hate to see yet more confusion attached to the Bill. Product placement in films is an extremely complex matter. We have talked about films made in the United States and distributed here, and films made on video in the United States and copied here. Then, of course, there are the old classic films. Will we have to stop showing Humphrey Bogart because a packet of Lucky Strike is in the background? There are still some fascinating alleyways to explore tonight.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) speaking to amendment No. 2. I am glad that she described it as a probing amendment, as I could not fully support it. Indeed, I have grave reservations about it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, if I heard him correctly, suggested that it would be almost impossible to distinguish between product placement and what, for convenience, one could call a necessary theatrical prop. To make the distinction by means of regulations would be well nigh impossible. I hold the view that there is nothing particularly wrong with product placement. I am not prepared to join the witch hunt. I believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because there is nothing essentially wrong with the existing voluntary code and the necessary measures taken to control smuggling. Hidden in this large group of amendments is amendment No. 32, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and myself. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, which I regret, but I have studied its proceedings in the Official Report. The Minister introduced a new clause in Committee that said that there should be regulations governing the display of tobacco products at the point of sale or elsewhere—regulations quite separate from those governing advertising at the point of sale or elsewhere. Previously, it had been envisaged that there would be a single set of regulations governing both advertising and the display of products at the point of sale or elsewhere. My instinctive reaction was that this was regulation gone mad. Regulation gone mad is also well exemplified in clause 8(4), which amendment No. 32 seeks to leave out. Subsection (4) demands that the regulations that govern displays must make provision for a display which also amounts to an advertisement to be treated for the purpose of offences under this Act— (a) as an advertisement and not as a display, or (b) as a display and not as an advertisement." It would be fascinating to analyse precisely what that subsection means. I suspect that it is simply that a display must be deemed either a display, which is subject to one set of regulations, or an advertisement, which is subject to another set of regulations. The problem that we encounter, which has already been referred to, is that on Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, and today, the Minister has consistently and constantly rebuffed suggestions to amend the definition in clause 1 so as to make it clear what counts as a tobacco advertisement. Subsection (4), which I argue should be deleted, refers to a display that "amounts to an advertisement". That begs the question: what precisely is an advertisement? Is there a difference between an advertisement and something that "amounts to an advertisement"? That subsection highlights the need for a clearer and much more explicit definition. In Committee, the Minister made a point that took me unawares. She said that the Government accepted that there were reasons for permitting a certain amount of advertising at points of sale, to communicate price or product availability. That seems to undermine the Government's whole argument. However, if a display of tobacco products is a tobacco advertisement as defined by clause 1—an advertisement whose purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product"— such a display is already banned under clause 2. There is thus no need to provide in clause 8(4) for regulation that has already been provided in clause 2. The subsection poses a series of questions. Our amendment asks whether there is really a difference in kind between display and advertisement. Can that difference be expressed or defined in practicable or credible regulations? I am not remotely convinced that those questions can be answered positively. That is why it would be far wiser to leave out subsection (4).

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I support and echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but I shall concentrate on some of the other amendments in the group. I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friends about the concept of product placement. We can all recognise the phenomenon when we see it—or think we see it. That is one thing; it is quite another to provide a sufficiently viable framework within which to try to make such a distinction regularly and systematically and then to deal with it. The concept is difficult to define, and thus a difficult basis on which to implement measures successfully. The problem is exacerbated because, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, it commonly arises in old media presentations—be they films or whatever—rather than as a deliberate and subtle attempt, in the modern context, to promote a product. To try to use such a concept as has been suggested would require a much better working definition than has been offered thus far. Amendment No. 1 is crucial. Were this ill begotten Bill ever to reach the statute book, we would risk losing the great expenditure and effort that has been put into warning people of the dangers of smoking. One of the paradoxes of our time is that the suppliers of tobacco products are obliged—although in many cases they do it voluntarily—to put health warnings about their product on its packaging. A further paradox of our time is that the industry itself spends a great deal on issuing health warnings. If we are to go ahead with this ill conceived scheme, surely we must try to ensure—as far as we can—that when advertisements for the product are removed, proper health warnings are not eliminated at the same time. Although tobacco is a legal product and I believe that people should be absolutely free to use it, I accept that it is a proper responsibility of Government to warn people of the fact that it may endanger their health. However, having been properly informed of the dangers, adults should then be allowed to make up their own minds whether to use a substance—be it tobacco or alcohol.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although adults may be exercising their own free will—as he describes it—they may also be unable to overcome the addictive effects of nicotine that have been so carefully implanted in them through a succession of earlier appeals to smoke? Many teenagers take up smoking. Fewer than 50 per cent. of those who start to smoke by the age of 15 have given up smoking by the age of 60.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That question introduces an element that I suspect you would not want me to pursue too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes a contentious assertion; he obviously believes it, but it might not be borne out. In any case, the argument would also apply to alcohol, to which many people, sadly, are addicted. In connection with amendment No. 1, I want to make the point that we must not endanger any capability or willingness on the part of the manufacturers and promoters of the products to provide appropriate warnings. That, rightly, is the aim of the amendment. It is important to ensure that we do not jeopardise that. Several of the amendments deal with the provisions under clause 4, with which we seem to be getting into the most awful difficulty. Although one can understand the motivation behind the clause, I doubt whether its provisions can be effectively implemented. Subsection (1)(c) refers to the "principal market" and the United Kingdom. As we have already seen—and as the Members who had the privilege, pleasure and honour of serving on the Standing Committee must have discovered over and over again—the Bill is shot through with vague concepts that are either ill defined or undefined, yet are crucial to the thrust and meaning of the measure. Subsection (1) illustrates that. The term "principal market" will be of no help or guidance whatever to those who will be given the responsibility of implementing the Bill should it ever become an Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, the matter is complicated by the fact that, when one is dealing with the world of modern publication, it is not viable, satisfactory or deliverable to talk about one market as opposed to another, given the extent to which people, products, publications and information flow freely across international boundaries. That is one of the ironic effects of our membership both of the European Union and of the European Economic Area. It is thus even more difficult to define properly and adequately where one market begins and another ends. I submit that the term "principal market" with reference to the United Kingdom is extremely difficult to define. The fact that direct reference is made to that concept makes the provision of dubious value. Subsection (d) refers to "a United Kingdom airline". Even that concept is difficult to define. Is Cathay Pacific a United Kingdom airline? Some years ago, a trick question asked, "What is the second biggest British airline?" Few people correctly answered that it was Cathay Pacific. The airline was, in essence, British-owned, even though it mainly operated in the far east. I mention that example only to illustrate the difficulty of giving an adequate definition of a phrase as apparently simple as "a United Kingdom airline", as used in the measure. That aspect of the Bill is far from adequate, and the amendments do not help at all. A similar problem, which arose when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) moved the amendment, will arise later when we discuss nominal sums and substantial discounts. There is a genuine effort to improve the Bill and make it more accurate, but it falls far short of what is desirable. I suspect that the Minister will say, "Don't worry about that, folks—it will all be made clear in regulations." That is the classic answer that Ministers give when presenting such a Bill, but I am not sure whether it is good enough in this case. Much of the Bill's thrust and its likely effectiveness depend on the viability and practicability of the regulations, rather than on the Bill itself, but even at this relatively late stage, we are no more able to judge whether it is likely to be effective. We are completely in the dark about how the Government will tackle the underpinning regulations, on which so much will depend. I find it very unsatisfactory that I am still unable to make that judgment. I hope that the Minister will explain amendment No. 47—the final amendment in the group—because, coming new to the Bill, as I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, I am intrigued as to how such a change can be suggested. The suggestion is that we should change the wording in clause 12(2) from This Act does not apply in relation to a tobacco advertisement to This Act does not apply in relation to anything included in a service". At this stage, to move from the phrase "a tobacco advertisement" to the word "anything" involves a rather large leap of either faith or imagination. I hope that the Minister can tell us how, now that the Bill has managed to reach this stage in its proceedings, she still has to ask us to approve an amendment that produces such a difference in meaning and direction. That is even more important because we are talking about an exemption, using the words, This Act does not apply in relation to". I can understand that that might be relevant to a tobacco advertisement, but it is remarkable to state: This Act does not apply in relation to anything included in a service to which any of subsections (3) to (6) apply. We need to hear a very comprehensive explanation from the Minister as to how she and the Government have got themselves into the position of having to make such a change at this stage. All in all, the position is very unsatisfactory indeed. Notwithstanding the Standing Committee's mighty labours, and the huge accumulated brainpower and concentrated effort of its members during many sittings, the Bill is still pathetically inadequate, so I leave the House, including the hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, to judge the quality of its work. The fact that the Government have tabled so many poor quality amendments is a sad indictment of them.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the logical, honest and consistent approach, bearing in mind his comments so far, would be to vote against Third Reading?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes, and I intend to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that little trailer for what I fully intend to do—although the Minister has an opportunity to use her eloquence and powers of persuasion to make me change my mind. However, at the moment, not only do I disagree with the Bill's thrust and principle—which, of course, we are not now debating—but I have, I hope, shown that I believe the Bill to be so flawed that even if I agreed with its main purpose, I would feel unable to support it. The Minister now has an opportunity to persuade us all—and good luck to her.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall try to deal with each amendment in this group and respond, in turn, to the points that hon. Members have made. On amendment No. 2, moved by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), we are sympathetic to her intention on product placement, although I was interested in the fact that many Conservative Back Benchers are perhaps not quite so sympathetic to it. The amendment is not necessary and, as worded, would not be helpful. I shall clarify the Government's view on product placement and how it will be covered by the Bill. If product placement occurs in this country in the form of an agreement to promote a tobacco product, perhaps through a film or television programme, it will constitute a sponsorship agreement. If that were done through television, it would be covered by the Broadcasting Acts. If it were done through film, it would constitute a sponsorship agreement and be covered by the provisions on such agreements. Of course, if such product placement occurs abroad, we cannot prosecute the parties to the sponsorship agreement; we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction in this respect. What will happen if a film that includes an overt placement of a tobacco product, which is clearly promoted by a tobacco company, is distributed in this country? I make it clear that our intention is not to prevent films from showing smoking. We do not intend the Bill to cover films, or other kinds of theatrical expression, that show smoking as part of their artistic freedom of expression. We may not like the fact that a film or theatrical production glamorises or appears to promote smoking, but if smoking is part of the artistic freedom of expression, we have to be careful what we rule out, even though we disagree with it. Under the Bill, we want to rule out advertisements that promote tobacco products in the course of a business; we do not want to restrict freedom of expression. In fact, I would defend the right of artists to smoke on television or in films. The Government should not censor such matters. However, if something is a tobacco advertisement and if it promotes a tobacco product in the course of a business—for example, if a Marlboro advert is strung out for three quarters of hour—it will be covered by the Bill, even if it is produced in another country, so distributors will need to consider their liability. They will, of course, have to have a defence if they did not know, or could not have foreseen, that that would be the effect, but distribution will be covered by the Bill. Amendment No. 1 would exempt from the definition of an advertisement those advertisements that depict tobacco products where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking. If the purpose of an advertisement is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, it will not come under the definition of an advertisement the effect of which is to promote a tobacco product. Such an advertisement will not be covered by the Bill, unless it is so useless and bad that its effect is to promote a tobacco product and smoking. If an advertisement is that bad, it should be withdrawn; it should be not put up on our billboards. There is no intention to prevent health education or health information advertisements, and they will not be covered by the Bill, so amendment No. 1 is unnecessary.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

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.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

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.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

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 (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

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

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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 (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

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.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

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 (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

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

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

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 (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

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, or at a substantial discount". 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 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.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Just before you arrived, Madam Deputy Speaker, I described this group of amendments as involving the whole world, his wife and the kitchen sink. Unfortunately, we have added a few more categories as a result of debating these diverse amendments. Regrettably, I am none the wiser for my probing amendments, except perhaps on the last point about airline code sharing. The Minister was helpful and clear on that point, and as her remarks will be reported in Hansard they will provide guidance to UK airlines and their code-sharing partners, which I am sure they will find helpful. The Government's description of their amendments has left me considerably more confused. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his remarks, but we have been left completely in the dark about the definition of a principal market. That has not inspired confidence in Government amendment No. 40. Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and the debate on it has been useful because we have learned that the Government understand our disquiet about the possibility of product placement increasingly being used as an advertising vehicle when conventional forms of advertising are banned by the Bill. However, I was further disquieted when the Minister defined "product placement" as a sponsorship agreement. We are going round and round in circles because the Bill does not clearly define "sponsorship agreement". The lateness of the hour and the fact that we have to curtail the Report stage in less than half an hour means that it is increasingly unlikely that we will get to the amendments on sponsorship agreement. [Interruption.] The Government imposed the deadline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) have tabled an important amendment in that group which seeks to make it clear that a sponsorship agreement is one in which a party to the agreement makes a contribution, in the course of business, towards a public event or activity. I am uneasy about the Government's interpretation of product placement as a sponsorship agreement, which has a weak definition in the Bill that we will probably not now be able to debate. The increasing confusion about those terms demonstrates that the correct course of action is to withdraw the amendment but to register the fact that we are left more confused by the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

PROHIBITION OF TOBACCO ADVERTISING

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 21, leave out "includes" and insert— 'shall, to the extent set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with representatives of those involved in the electronic publication and transmission of material, include'.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in page 1, line 21, leave out "includes" and insert "does not include". No. 35, in page 1, line 23, at end insert— 'unless the person is aware on first transmission of its contents or has had a notice from an enforcement authority giving reasonable time to have the contents removed.'. No. 36, in clause 4 page 2, line 26, leave out— 'place or on a website' and insert— 'real place or a virtual place via electronic transmission'. No. 15, in page 4, line 1, leave out Clause 7. No. 33, in clause 13, page 6, line 17, at end add— '(2A) An internet service provider shall investigate complaints from an enforcement authority on payment of a fee to cover administrative costs.' No. 13, in clause 18, page 9, line 36, after "section", insert "1(4)". No. 22, in clause 20, page 10, line 13, at end insert— 'internet service provider" means a person who provides access to the internet,'. No. 23, in page 10, line 18, at end insert— website" means a location on the internet accessed by an address at which information is made available,'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The amendments form a large group, but they are more focused than the previous group, in that their central point of reference is the new information technology, and the position of internet service providers and those who provide the means of transmission of information, all of whom will be affected by the Bill. After discussing the position of ISPs in Standing Committee, we felt that several loose ends were left. We tried to secure from the Minister a duty to consult representatives of those involved in electronic publication and transmission of material, because we felt uneasy about agreeing to clauses that referred to those industries when we were not well qualified to comment on the full implications for them of the Bill's implementation. Perhaps the only member of the Committee who was better qualified than the rest was my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce); in due course, I shall give him a good opportunity to speak to the amendments, in recognition of the fact that he understands the issues better than the rest of us. The issues are complex. Getting the legislation right is made more difficult by the fact that it deals with a sector that is constantly moving—the technology is still emerging and remains comparatively new to all of us. It is difficult to understand the way in which those involved in electronic publication and transmission of material will be caught by provisions relating to tobacco advertising. I suspect that they have yet to analyse the full implications of the Bill. We felt that it was important that consultation with those parties should have taken place well before our scrutiny of the Bill, so that we might all better understand the way in which they would be affected, and have a better idea of what would be in the regulations which the Secretary of State is to draw up to govern the responsibilities to be borne by the new e-commerce industry in terms of overseeing opportunities to advertise tobacco products. The huge attraction of the differential between taxation of tobacco products by the countries of continental Europe and by the United Kingdom means that tobacco products are increasingly advertised on the internet. Currently, it is legitimate for those living in the UK to secure their supplies of duty-free cigarettes over the internet, and that trade is likely to increase. That is why we are anxious to protect ISPs, which cannot reasonably be expected to know the minutiae of the postings on their myriad advertising points, which include bulletin boards; they are not always in a position to know precisely at any given time who has hacked into their provision to post advertising. Amendment No. 12 is designed to ensure that, before any draft regulations are imposed on that emerging industry, a proper process of consultation takes place on how to make them practicable, and several of the other amendments address those practicalities. After Committee, we were left with profound doubts about whether the Bill was the right place for an attempt to regulate the e-commerce industry. Perhaps that industry's responsibility for advertising transmitted through that new medium of communication should be part of a completely separate Bill, and would more correctly be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry in the context of the industry's competitiveness. The last thing we want is to burden a fledgling industry with an irksome set of regulations that will make it difficult for it to compete in the emerging market. That becomes even more apparent when we consider how companies that are responsible for the means of transmission might be caught up by the Bill. The Committee debated whether, not ISPs, but the companies that provide hardware, might be caught by the offences defined in the Bill, even if they were unaware that they had provided the conduit for tobacco advertising. We remain extremely concerned: the Bill embodies a stab at dealing with the possibility of tobacco advertising through new and less conventional means—but that stab deals clumsily with a new technology whose full implications it is difficult for us to envisage now. It will be good if my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset now speaks specifically to the amendments that he tabled, which might make the Bill more practical and workable in relation to those involved in electronic publication and transmission.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

At the end of Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked me to try to get my head round the problems that clearly confronted internet service providers and others involved in computing, and to come up with better ways of dealing with those issues. The problem goes to the heart of the mission that the Prime Minister set for his whole Government, which is to make the United Kingdom the best place in which to do e-business. I am afraid that, in its present form, the Bill will make the UK the worst place to do e-business. It will lay additional loads on our ISPs even if they carry no tobacco advertising, with the result that those who intend to set up as ISPs will find it easier to set up elsewhere, because the great defence offered is that as long as the internet service provision business is set up elsewhere, it can carry as much tobacco advertising as it wants, and when that advertising arrives in the United Kingdom, it will not be covered by the legislation. I shall explain my amendments as briefly as I can, and hope that the Minister has time to respond in the short time available. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are aimed at the prohibition set out in clause 2. Subsection (4) states: Distributing a tobacco advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission. That might catch a company such as BT, if such an advertisement is sent across its lines; or the Conservative party, if someone goes from its website to another website that happens to carry tobacco advertising. The defence comes later in the Bill. Clause 5(5) states: In relation to a tobacco advertisement which is published or caused to be published by electronic means by an internet service provider, it is a defence for him, if charged with an offence under section 2(1), to prove that he was unaware that what he published or caused to be published was, or contained, a tobacco advertisement. Basically, the clause says that it is an offence to do it, but there is a defence if the person did not know about it. 8 pm I have tried, in the amendments which I have tabled, to deal with the matter more straightforwardly and to say that distributing a tobacco advertisement does not include transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so or providing the means of transmission, unless the person is aware on first transmission of its contents or has had notice from an enforcement authority, having been given reasonable time to have the contents removed. I am saying, via the amendments, that if someone is knowingly involved in publishing the advertisement because he knew that something was promoting tobacco, that is an offence. That is what the Government are trying to do. However, if an authorised authority—I use those words carefully because they are defined in the Bill as meaning a weights and measures authority—comes to the website and says, "You are publishing an advertisement; please get it off," that is the way the matter is dealt with. If the advertisement is not taken off, an offence has been committed. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, when the police go to an internet service provider and say, "You have got something that we want to have information about because someone is distributing pornography"—or whatever it is that they are investigating—it would be right, in terms of amendment No. 33, to pay a sensible administration fee for the matter to be checked out and for someone to do the necessary work. The amendment reads: An internet service provider shall investigate complaints from an enforcement authority"— that is, a weights and measures authority in the United Kingdom— on payment of a fee to cover administrative costs. That is fair to internet service providers. I understand that there is a meeting tomorrow with the Minister or her officials and internet service providers. I am saying, "Don't put an enormous load on internet service providers. Don't leave them worrying about what they might do inadvertently and then find that they do not have a sufficient defence. Say carefully to a provider that if he sets up a deal with a tobacco company of any description, or some other person who is providing tobacco advertising, he is culpable and can be prosecuted." The individual, however, may have been an innocent party to all that. We should remember that an internet service provider has not been clearly defined. The term includes virtually anyone who is doing anything over the internet. The worldwide web is an internet service provider. Many people are involved in the process of getting information on to someone's computer. They are involved as internet service providers. Through amendment No. 36, I criticise the Government for using the term "website". If one so criticises the Government in that context, it is only fair to try to work out something better. I admit that I did so after consideration of the Bill had been completed in Committee, when the other members of the Committee had scooted off home. I was at my computer trying to work out the right way to deal with the matter. Clause 4(2) reads: The appropriate Minister may provide in regulations that no offence is committed under Section 2 in relation to a tobacco advertisement which … is in a place"— that is, where tobacco is being sold— or on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale". That means that someone goes to a shop and receives some information through an advertisement. This might come within the regulations. The individual will buy the tobacco on the basis of the information that he is given. We all understand that. In the virtual world, how is that done? The Minister has gone for the snappy title of website. Perhaps that is on the basis that everyone knows what a website is—it is difficult to define things that are virtual. Someone who accesses a website and obtains a tobacco advertisement is not on a website in the terms that we are discussing. He has not physically gone on to the website. He has downloaded the advertisement to his computer. He has gone to a place where there is an authorised distributor of the advertisement because it is a place that sells tobacco. The advertisement that appears on his computer is legal from the Minister's point of view, but not within the terms of the Bill. That is because it is not still on the website. The website is elsewhere and the information has found its way to the individual's computer. I suggested that if the information were downloaded on to a large billboard, the situation would be exactly the same. In trying to help the Government, I am saying with some difficulty that if we talk of a real place or a virtual place via electronic transmission where tobacco products are offered for sale, we are coming within the ambit of what the Government are trying to do. In other words, the place where it is legal to see the advertisements is the place where the individual has transmitted them. I admit that the entire problem has not been covered. For example, the boyfriend of one of my daughters creates advertisements. It would be legal for an advertisement that he had created to sell a tobacco product at a point of sale on the website. Unfortunately, while he is producing it, he would probably be acting illegally. It is only when the information is on the website that it becomes a legal advertisement. The Government are trying to say that it is legal to have an advertisement when someone is buying tobacco on a website, and it is legal for that advertisement to be created in the United Kingdom, but that is not what the Bill provides. I urge the Minister to consider what we are attempting to do, so as to assist her. I ask her particularly to bear in mind what the poor old internet service provider will find if there is an unlimited number of people who can contact him. He will hear, "I was searching the web the other day and I came across an advertisement which was not selling tobacco. I know that the advertisement is illegal and you must take it off." The individual is asked, "Where were you?" He says, "I clicked on this and on that, and I am not quite sure how I really got there." That is searching the web; we often end up where we do not expect to be. Websites are often designed to try to ensure that information that has not been requested gets on to computers. The arrival of naked ladies on a computer screen is often completely accidental. I accept that many people are doing their very best to get naked ladies on their screen. If someone goes into a search engine, he might discover that someone has downloaded information because he is trying to sell a porn site. In future, people will be trying to sell tobacco. People will ask for information and receive instead information about the selling of tobacco. It has been difficult to cram all these ideas into a short period. I hope that I have given the Minister some time in which to respond. The amendments are intended to be helpful and to ensure that the United Kingdom becomes the best place in the world to do the sort of business that we are discussing.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall deal with the amendments in turn. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would remove electronic distribution from the Bill and leave it to regulations. That is not the right approach; one principle of the Bill is to provide media neutrality, so that it applies to all media. Defences are then tailored, as appropriate, to different media, which is a sensible approach. The amendments would single out electronic distribution for special treatment, but not electronic publishing. There is therefore a lack of consistency. We said in Committee several times that the Government were sympathetic to the position of internet service providers and we will discuss with them the enforcement of the Bill. However, it would be wrong to write them, or others involved in electronic methods of communication, out of the script altogether. I accept the intention behind amendments Nos. 34 and 35. In fact, they tend simply to rejig the provisions in the Bill. The intention of the Bill, and the purpose behind it, is to introduce a comprehensive ban and then introduce appropriately targeted defences. The amendments would try to rejig that by building in the defences even before introducing the comprehensive ban.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Not now, because I have limited time. I will give way if I have time when I have made these points in response. Electronic distributors already have the defences, under clause 5(6), of being unaware, of being unable to prevent further distribution, or of not carrying on business in the United Kingdom. The amendments add nothing to those defences, but add the sense of someone who could tell ISPs about a tobacco advertisement authoritatively. We discussed that in Committee, when I made it clear that the Government are happy to work with ISPs to develop a workable system. However, we see no reason to introduce a bureaucracy to do so in the Bill, and believe that we can get a voluntary arrangement that would be effective in that area. I accept the intention behind amendment No. 36, but I do not think that it adds anything to the Bill or improves it. The term "website" is currently understood to mean a location on the worldwide web, identified by a web address. There is a legitimate concern about what happens in five years' time if the idea of a website becomes redundant because technology has moved on. We have included clause 7 in the Bill so that we can keep up with the technology. The amendment would not add anything to the Bill, and we would still have to rely on clause 7 to keep up. We cannot accept amendment No. 15, which would remove clause 7 and our order-making power to amend the Bill to take account of developments in technology. That power is not open-ended and does not allow us to change any provision on a whim. It is a narrow and specific power, allowing us to change only provisions relating to publishing or distributing by electronic means so as to react to developments in technology. We would not use that power lightly, but given the pace of technological development in that area, it is extremely important to have it, so that the Bill's intention is not rendered pointless by the rapid pace of technology. Amendment No. 33 would allow particular businesses or private individuals to charge public authorities for obeying the law of the land. That is not appropriate and we do not undertake such action in other areas of the law. We are aware that ISPs have legitimate concerns.

Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which has just been passed by the House, does precisely that for precisely those people who are targeted by the provision.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We have said that we recognise that the ISPs have legitimate concerns, in that they should have, first, appropriate defences, especially those regarding the fact that they were not aware. Additionally, they should have additional defences as compared with print distributors and publishers. There should also be an effective system of implementing the Bill that does not put additional burdens or pressures on ISPs beyond what is necessary to implement the Bill sensibly. 8.15 pm The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is right to say that my officials are meeting ISPs. We are keen to work with them to set up a voluntary system, which works in other areas. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 raise issues concerning ISPs similar to those which a previous amendment raised about websites. Again, it is not necessary to provide further definitions in that area, for which we have a normal understanding of the wording. Furthermore, if that definition becomes obsolete because of changes in technology, we will have power, under clause 7, to amend it to respond to developments in technology in future. I therefore propose that we reject all the amendments in this group.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

To make it clear, in seeking to point out to the House— It being a quarter past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [7 November and this day]. Amendment negatived. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

ADVERTISING: EXCLUSIONS

DISPLAYS

PROHIBITION OF FREE DISTRIBUTIONS

PROHIBITION OF SPONSORSHIP

BRANDSHARING

TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING

PENALTIES

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I 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. 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 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.

Liam Fox (Conservative, 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, 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—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I should like to ask my question now, as I sense that my hon. Friend is about comment—no doubt 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?

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

My 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 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 (Conservative, 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.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

I 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 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 Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I 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.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

We deprecate operations of that kind, but, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, the Bill will not cover such advertising.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I 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.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, 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.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Does 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?

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

The 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 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 Emery (Conservative, East Devon)

May 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.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I 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.

Liam Fox (Conservative, Woodspring)

I 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?

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

We 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—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. 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.

Nick Harvey (Liberal Democrat, North Devon)

I 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. 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.

Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)

I 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 doubt We 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. 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.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, 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 Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

With 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.