New Clause 2 Health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco
manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and
cigarette rolling papers.”—(Mary Kelly Foy.) This new clause would
give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to
print health warnings on individual cigarettes. Brought up, and
read the First time. 16:47:00 Mary Kelly Foy (City of
Durham)...Request free trial
New Clause 2
Health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco
manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes
and cigarette rolling papers.”—(.)
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to
require manufacturers to print health warnings on individual
cigarettes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
16:47:00
(City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Cigarette pack inserts—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco
manufacturers to display a health information message on a
leaflet inserted in cigarette packaging.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to
require manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health
information and information about smoking cessation services
inside cigarette packaging.
New clause 4—Packaging and labelling of nicotine products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about
the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and
other novel nicotine products including requirements for health
warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to
children.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to
prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to
children.
New clause 5—Sale and distribution of nicotine products to
children under the age of 18 years—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the free
distribution of nicotine products to those aged under 18 years,
and prohibit the sale of all nicotine products to those under
18.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include an exception
for medicines or medical devices indicated for the treatment of
persons aged under 18.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to
prohibit the free distribution or sale of any consumer nicotine
product to anyone under 18, while allowing the sale or
distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by
under 18s.
New clause 6—Flavoured tobacco products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations remove the limitation
of the prohibition of flavours in cigarettes or tobacco products
to ‘characterising’ flavours, and extend the flavour prohibition
to all tobacco products as well as smoking accessories including
filter papers, filters and other products designed to flavour
tobacco products.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to
prohibit any flavouring in any tobacco product or smoking
accessory.
New clause 8—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes
(supplementary)—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary
of State considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of
enabling or facilitating—
(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme under section [Tobacco
supplies: Statutory schemes], or
(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed
statutory scheme.
(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom
such a scheme may apply to—
(a) record and keep information,
(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic
form.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in
accordance with subsection (2);
(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this
provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the
need to protect trade secrets duly into account.
(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a
statutory scheme, the Secretary of State may make any provision
the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for
transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a
scheme.”
This new clause and NC7, NC9 and NC10 would enable the Secretary
of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and
profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 9—Tobacco supplies: enforcement—
“(1) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any
provision of regulations or directions under section [Tobacco
supplies: statutory schemes] to be liable to pay a penalty to the
Secretary of State.
(2) The penalty may be—
(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million,
(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which
the contravention occurs or continues.
(3) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to
the Secretary of State by virtue of section [Tobacco supplies:
statutory schemes] (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not
exceeding 50 per cent.
(4) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the
Secretary of State by virtue of provision made under section
[Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b)
(including such an amount as increased under subsection (3)) to
carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the
regulations.
(5) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on
manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement
decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of [Tobacco
supplies: statutory schemes], [Tobacco supplies: statutory
schemes (supplementary)] and this section.
(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5)
includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with
respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and
Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40), reading—
(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to
enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an
enforcement decision,
(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to
interested persons as references to any persons and the reference
to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any
enforcement decision.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘enforcement decision’ means a
decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—
(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide
information to him,
(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer,
any price or profit,
(c) refuse to give approval to a price increase made by a
specific manufacturer or importer,
(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount
(including an amount by way of penalty) to the Secretary of
State,
and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the
decision.
(8) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section
[Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], may only be enforced under
this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other
than proceedings under this section.
(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to any action by the Secretary
of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to
the Secretary of State under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory
schemes] or this section.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further
increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (2).”
This new clause and NC7, NC8 and NC10 would enable the Secretary
of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and
profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 10—Tobacco supplies: controls: (supplementary)—
“(1) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by section
[Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies:
statutory schemes (supplementary)] may be exercised by—
(a) making regulations, or
(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may confer power for the
Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer
or importer; and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in
the direction concerned.
(3) In this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory
schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes
(supplementary)] and [Tobacco supplies: enforcement]—
‘tobacco product’ means a product that can be consumed and
consists, even partly, of tobacco;
‘manufacturer’ means any person who manufactures tobacco
products;
‘importer’ means any person who imports tobacco products into the
UK with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in
the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and
contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with
it.”
This new clause and NC7, NC8 and NC9 would enable the Secretary
of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and
profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 11—Age of sale of tobacco—
“The Secretary of State must consult on raising the age of sale
for tobacco from 18 to 21 within three months of the passage of
this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult
on raising the age of sale for tobacco products to 21.
New clause 14—Implementation of Restrictions on advertising of
less healthy food and drink online—
“The regulator shall put in place a mechanism for the delivery of
the requirements under Part 2 of Schedule 16 which shall require
that advertisers—
(a) apply media targeting filters, based on robust audience
measurement data, to ensure the avoidance of children’s media or
editorial content of particular appeal to children;
(b) use audience targeting tools and, where available,
proprietary audience or other first-party data to further exclude
children; and
(c) use campaign evaluation tools to assess audience impacts and
use any learning to continually improve future targeting
approaches.”
This new clause would require the regulator to put in place a
three-step “filtering” process for restricting online advertising
by managing the targeting of an online advertising campaign for
foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar, as developed by the
Committee of Advertising Practice of the Advertising Standards
Authority.
New clause 15—Alcohol product labelling—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to
ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health
and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in
2018, or in future versions of that guidance, display—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines,
(b) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger
of alcohol consumption,
(c) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger
of alcohol consumption when pregnant,
(d) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the direct
link between alcohol and cancer, and
(e) a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce
secondary legislation on alcohol product labelling.
New clause 16—Annual report on alcohol treatment services:
assessment of outcomes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of
Parliament at the start of each financial year a report on—
(a) the ways in which alcohol treatment providers have been
supported in tackling excess mortality, alcohol related hospital
admissions, and the burden of disease resulting from alcohol
consumption, and
(b) the number of people identified as requiring support who are
receiving treatment.
(2) Alongside the publication of the report, the Secretary of
State must publish an assessment of the impact of the level of
funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to
deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health
and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding
received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work
to improve treatment and reduce harm.
New clause 17—Minimum unit price for alcohol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to
ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health
and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance published in
2018, or in later versions of that document, are liable to a
minimum unit price.
(2) The regulations must provide for the minimum unit price to be
calculated by applying the formula M x S x V, where—
(a) M is the minimum unit price, expressed in pounds
sterling,
(b) S is the percentage strength of the alcohol, expressed as a
cardinal number, and
(c) V is the volume of the alcohol, expressed in litres.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce
secondary legislation that applies a minimum unit price to
alcohol.
Amendment 14, in clause 138,
page 118, line 5, after “drink)”, insert
“and section [Minimum unit price for alcohol]”.
This amendment would bring NC17 into force at the same time as
section 129 and Schedule 16 (advertising of less healthy food and
drink).
Amendment 3, in schedule
16, page 222, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) A brand may continue to advertise, or provide sponsorship,
if the advertisement or sponsorship does not include an
identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.
This amendment makes an explicit exemption from the advertising
restrictions on television programme services between 5.30 am and
9.00 pm for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no
identifiable less healthy food and drink product.
Government amendments 31 and 32.
Amendment 11, in schedule
16, page 222, line 26, at end insert—
“(da) a drink product is ‘less healthy’ if it is an alcoholic
product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social
Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or
future versions of that guidance;”.
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less
healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed
for TV programme services.
Amendment 111, in schedule 16,
page 222, line 28, leave out from “meaning” to end
of line 30 and insert
“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies
qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.
This amendment, and Amendments 112 and 113, aims to define
companies to whom the advertising restrictions imposed by this
schedule would apply as medium-sized companies within the meaning
given by section 465 of the Companies Act 2006.
Government amendment 33.
Amendment 6, in schedule 16,
page 222, line 38, after “unless”, insert
“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed
change to the relevant guidance, and”.
This amendment requires a public consultation to take place
before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical
Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as
“less healthy” and its advertising restricted on television
programme services between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm.
Amendment 4, in schedule
16, page 223, line 4, at end insert—
“(3) A brand may continue to advertise, and provide sponsorship
as a brand, if the advertisement or sponsorship does not include
an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.
This amendment makes explicit exemptions from the advertising
restrictions on on-demand programme services for brand
advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less
healthy food and drink product.
Government amendments 34 and 35.
Amendment 12, in schedule
16, page 223, line 24, at end insert—
“(da) a drink product is “less healthy” if it is an alcoholic
product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social
Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or
future versions of that guidance;”.
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less
healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed
for TV programme services.
Amendment 112, in schedule
16, page 223, line 26, leave out from
“meaning” to end of line 27 and insert
“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies
qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 111.
Government amendment 36.
Amendment 7, in schedule
16, page 223, line 36, after “unless”,
insert
“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed
change to the relevant guidance, and”.
This amendment requires a public consultation to take place
before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical
Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as
“less healthy” and its advertising restricted on on-demand
programme services.
Amendment 106, in schedule
16, page 224, line 8, leave out “must not pay
for” and insert
“must not market, sell or arrange”.
This series of connected probing amendments is intended to create
parity in treatment of television and online advertising. The
platform carrying the advertising, rather than those paying for
advertising, would be responsible for the placing of
advertisements. The wording to denote a platform mirrors that
used by Ofcom in its recent regulation of Video Sharing Platforms
consultation.
Amendment 110, in schedule
16, page 224, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) in relation to advertisements placed on distributor or
retailer websites which are associated with the sale of food or
drink”.
This amendment aims to ensure paid-for branded HFSS product
advertisements are treated as equivalent to HFSS own-brand
products on retailer-owned spaces.
Government amendment 37.
Amendment 5, in schedule
16, page 224, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) A brand may continue to advertise, and provide sponsorship
as a brand, if the advertisement does not include an identifiable
less healthy food and drink product.”.
This amendment makes an explicit exemption from the restrictions
on online advertising for brand advertising and sponsorship,
where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink
product.
Government amendment 38.
Amendment 13, in schedule
16, page 225, line 10, at end insert—
“(fa) a drink product is “less healthy” if it is an alcoholic
product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social
Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or
future versions of that guidance;”.
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less
healthy” product and therefore liable to the online ban.
Amendment 113, in schedule
16, page 225, line 12, leave out from
“meaning” to end of line 14 and insert
“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies
qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 111.
Government amendment 39.
Amendment 8, in schedule
16, page 225, line 24, after “unless”,
insert
“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed
change to the relevant guidance, and”.
This amendment requires a public consultation to take place
before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical
Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as
“less healthy” and its advertising restricted online.
Amendment 107, in schedule
16, page 225, line 28, leave out “made a
payment for” and insert “marketed, sold or arranged”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Amendment 108, in schedule
16, page 225, line 30, leave out “made” and
insert “received”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Amendment 109, in schedule
16, page 227, line 3, leave out from “with”
to end of line 4 and insert
“the person marketing, selling or arranging advertisements
published on the internet”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Before I address the amendments tabled in my name, I want to
briefly voice my support for amendments 11 to 13 and new clauses
15 to 17, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool,
Walton (), which call for improved
regulation of alcohol marketing and labelling, for minimum unit
pricing in England and for better assessment of treatment
outcomes. Sadly, my hon. Friend cannot be here today, as he is
with his family and his father Mike, who is receiving palliative
care after many months of treatment for lung cancer. I know how
important these issues are to my hon. Friend; I express my love
and solidarity, and that of the whole House, at this difficult
time for him and his loved ones.
Smoking is one of the biggest causes of ill health. It has a
devastating impact on our population: it killed approximately the
same number of people in 2019 as covid 19 in 2020, and one in
every two smokers will die from smoking-related illnesses. The
Government and the Opposition both support a smoke-free 2030, but
without meaningful action, that ambition will be missed by seven
years—or by double that number of years, in the case of the
poorest in society.
(Hornsey and Wood Green)
(Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Professor Marmot’s work on social
and health inequalities shows that 0.5% of GDP should be spent on
health inequalities such as those she describes?
I could not agree more. Michael Marmot is one of the most
important health inequalities experts around.
To make matters worse, smoking rates among young adults have
surged to 25% above pre-lockdown rates. However, despite the
damage that missing the 2030 target would cause, there is nothing
in the Bill that would help to achieve the Government’s ambition
to make smoking obsolete. That is why the all-party parliamentary
group on smoking and health, of which I am the vice-chair, is
fighting to get the 2030 ambition back on track. I was delighted
to hear the Minister say in Committee that the Government would
review the APPG’s proposals as they developed their own tobacco
control plan, but that plan, which was due this year and expected
in July, is now likely to be delayed beyond the end of the year.
If the Government are serious about creating a smoke-free England
by 2030, they will implement the APPG’s recommendations as soon
as possible, and the Bill provides the ideal opportunity for them
to do so.
Let me quickly summarise new clause 2. It gives the Secretary of
State powers to add health warnings to cigarettes and cigarette
papers. The Government are reviewing the proposal, but have said
that more research is needed. Health warnings such as “Smoking
Kills” have been shown to be effective on billboards and tobacco
packs, so why on earth would they not be effective on individual
cigarettes? At least eight peer-reviewed papers have been
published in the last five years showing that the measures are
effective. Similarly, new clause 3 would give the Secretary of
State powers to require health information messages to be
inserted in cigarette packs. That has been a legal requirement in
Canada since 2000, and there is substantial evidence to show that
it works there. Research carried out in the UK supports its use
here as well.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
The hon. Lady will, of course, understand that one of our key
aims must be to stop younger generations taking up smoking in the
first place. Does she believe that her proposals—which I fully
support—will help to achieve that key strategic aim?
Most of my new clauses are indeed intended to prevent young
people from starting to smoke in the first place.
(Arfon) (PC)
The hon. Lady has said that these measures apply to England, but
they will of course have an effect throughout the United
Kingdom—and rightly so—contributing to our aim to bring about a
smoke-free Wales as well.
Again, I could not agree more.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Department could already
legislate under the Children and Families Act 2014 to require the
insertion of such information messages. In that case, why do the
Government not commit themselves to doing so now?
New clauses 4 to 6 address loopholes in current legislation. Now
that those loopholes have been identified to the Government, they
should be fixed without delay, and today we have the opportunity
to do so. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State powers
to remove child-friendly branding elements from nicotine
products. There are e-liquids on the market that are given sweet
names, such as “gummy bears”, and that have branding that is in
garish colours and features cartoon characters. Surely more
evidence is not necessary to prove that such branding risks
attracting children.
(Central Ayrshire)
(SNP)
Is this not one of the most important of the hon. Lady’s new
clauses? As people age and die—events often driven by
cigarettes—or perhaps manage to give up, the tobacco companies
must recruit the young, with the indefensible aim of persuading
them to start smoking.
I entirely agree. Tobacco is the only legal product that kills
one in two of those who use it, and most people start smoking at
a young age. These new clauses are therefore extremely important,
because they would tackle that problem.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The figures back up what the hon. Lady says. Two thirds of
smokers in the UK start smoking under the age of 18, and over a
third—39%—start under the age of 16. What she proposes will
address that issue in a substantial way. We need legislation in
place, and there needs to be punishment as well; that is the only
way forward.
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I will address that issue.
New clause 5 would close another loophole in the law, which
allows the free distribution of e-cigarettes and other consumer
nicotine products to children under 18. The Government rejected
the proposal, saying that there was no evidence of a serious
problem, but the Minister sympathised with the argument for
preventive action. Prevention is precisely our intention. Fixing
this loophole is an appropriate application of the precautionary
principle.
New clause 6 would remove the limitations on the ban on
flavourings in tobacco products. That ban currently applies only
to characterising flavours. The new clause would extend the
flavour ban to all tobacco products, as well as to smoking
accessories, including filter papers, filters and other products
designed to favour tobacco products. In Committee, the Minister
claimed it was unclear how a ban could be enforced in practice,
as it would include a ban on flavours that did not give a
noticeable flavour to the product. I suggest that he seek advice
from Canada on this point, where a complete ban on flavours is
already in place and has been highly effective.
The new clauses on the tobacco levy would give powers to the
Secretary of State to implement a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco
manufacturers. The Minister dismissed this in Committee as a
matter of taxation for the Treasury to consider. However, we are
not proposing additional taxation. Our new clauses are modelled
on the American user fee and on the pharmaceutical pricing scheme
in the UK.
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that prevention is much better than
cure, because so many adult smokers have a terrible experience
when trying to give up, and it comes at a huge cost to their
health?
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A theme throughout
these new clauses is that most people start smoking when they are
children or when they are young, and most of them say that they
wish they had never started. The new clauses would tackle young
people’s access to tobacco-related products.
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
It is often vulnerable children, and often those in care, who
start smoking early, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is
incredible that the Government have so far said that they will
not support these new clauses?
Yes, it is absolutely incredible. We have heard that a tobacco
plan might be on its way, but every day that goes by without our
putting these recommendations in place is another day on which
someone dies of tobacco harm, and on which more young people
become addicted to nicotine products.
Discussions with the Treasury on the “polluter pays” levy would
not be necessary. The Food and Drug Administration administers
the user fee in the United States, and the Department of Health
and Social Care could and should administer such a scheme
here.
New clause 11 has been revised in the light of the Government’s
response to our proposal in the Committee, in which they cited
the need to
“review the evidence base of increasing the age of sale to 21 in
more detail”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill
Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 816.]
They also stated the need for a public consultation. I agree that
a consultation is the appropriate next step, so the new clause
has been revised to require the Government to consult on raising
the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21 within three months of
the passage of this legislation.
To sum up, my new clauses address loopholes in the law. They
would take incremental and obvious next steps to strengthen
tobacco regulation still further, and they would provide the
funding that is desperately needed to deliver the Government’s
smoke-free 2030 ambition—funding that the spending review failed
to deliver. When I was chair of the Gateshead tobacco control
alliance, I saw the damage that smoking can do. It shortens life
expectancy, increases the pressure on our health services, drives
down productivity and drains wealth from our poorest
communities—and for one in every two smokers, it will kill them.
Eventually, the Government will have to accept that the measures
proposed are necessary. The only question is how long they will
wait, and how many lives will be ruined by tobacco in the
meantime. I urge the Government to accept these new clauses in
full.
17:00:00
(Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in this debate to outline the case behind
amendments 106 to 109 in my name, and to speak in favour of those
in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle () and for North East
Bedfordshire (). I am also grateful from
the outset for the time that my right hon. Friends the
Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport have afforded me in recent weeks to
discuss these matters.
First and foremost, I want to set out that in principle I am
opposed to the expansion of the nanny state. I did not get into
politics to tell people what they should or should not eat, or
businesses how they should go about advertising their products
and wares. However, I equally do not doubt for one moment that
obesity is a serious health concern for this country. It is a
question of the detail and the manner in which we go about
tackling it as a country—principally, that we go about it through
education and ensuring people are able to make choices for
themselves, rather than using blunt tools that I fear will not
work. As I highlighted in a Backbench Business debate on the
obesity strategy some months ago, the Government’s own research
shows that the measures in the Bill will reduce calorie intake
among children by only 1.74 calories a day. If that is the
outcome, we must seriously question the measures before us.
The amendments in my name, however, seek to rectify an unfairness
that will exist if the Government push ahead with these
advertising restrictions, which have businesses in my
constituency very concerned. For example, farmers such as Morris
of Hoggeston, who grow oats, are concerned that within the
categories under the HFSS, or high in fat, sugar or salt,
measures, products such as porridge and granola, which are hardly
the choice of most children—certainly not my children—are in
scope. We need to do something to sort that out. Great British
broadcasters, both public service and fully commercial, also
stand to lose some £200 million a year from the restrictions we
have before us.
My amendments are about fundamental fairness, and seek to treat
broadcasters the same way as online platforms. In the first
place, research shows that children, who these measures are most
prominently aimed at, do not watch broadcast television as much
as they used to. They look more and more to YouTube, on-demand
services and online; I can testify to that from my own home,
where my five-year-old much prefers YouTube to watching CBeebies
or other children’s television programmes, and I think that is
the same for most children. [Interruption.] I am not sure what is
causing amusement on the Opposition Benches.
In fact, 95% of viewing of broadcast television before the 9 pm
watershed is by adults, not children, and there are already
regulations in place during scheduled children’s programming. So
I fear the measures in this Bill will not work, and the
fundamental unfairness that I spoke of earlier is the manner in
which broadcasters will be treated compared with the online
platforms.
(Brent North) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Given that there is this disparity between the online advertiser
and the broadcaster advertiser, and if we are seeking to restrict
broadcasting advertisement to children so that they do not become
unhealthy, would not the logic follow that we should equally
restrict the online advertiser, rather than saying, “Let’s allow
more of a free for all because this is more difficult to do for
the online”?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he
will let me make a little more progress, I think he will find
that my amendments seek to put a harsher perspective of this on
the online platforms, rather than letting anyone off anything
whatsoever. I repeat that my fundamental position is one of
opposition to the nanny state and restrictions, but recognising
that if the Government are going to push these restrictions
forward, we have to have fairness and parity across broadcast and
online sectors, otherwise there will be loopholes, things will
fall through the cracks and the Government will not achieve their
objectives.
(Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I certainly support the argument that my hon. Friend is putting
forward. Does he feel that the Government have found themselves
in a position where they feel they need to react because of the
genuine obesity crisis among young people and this would seem to
be the highest-profile publicity effort, but that really we
should be focusing on the evidence of the case and the argument,
so that we can actually have an impact on it, rather than steal
the headline that might just last a couple of days?
My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: if we are to
tackle obesity as a country, we have to look at the most
successful outcomes. Fundamentally, I believe those to be ones of
education, ensuring that parents are empowered to be able to make
the best decisions for their children and ensuring that people
are empowered to come to the right choices for themselves. The
point about these amendments is to ensure that we are not giving
a green light to one side while harshly penalising another for
hosting these adverts.
The nub of the point is that the broadcasters will, in effect,
have to pre-clear any advertising that is put on to their
platform and there will be very harsh penalties, leading right up
to the point of revocation of their broadcast licence, if they
fail to do this. By contrast, although the Bill puts significant
restrictions on the online platforms, they are not put through
that same test. They are not put through the same harsh
restrictions and requirements that are broadcasters are. This is
especially important when we consider recent evidence that has
been put into the public domain. The Advertising Standards
Authority recently drew considerable attention to the mass
flouting of the rules by online influencers across many sectors.
This House’s Select Committee on Work and Pensions made an
important point about online regulation in a report in March this
year on protecting pension savers. It said:
“Regulators appear powerless to hold online firms to
account”—
for online advertisements—
“in the same way they would be able to for traditional
media.”
We need to bear that in mind as we consider this Bill, because if
current regulations do not work in that field, I fear that the
regulations on online providers proposed in this Bill will not
either.
I offer these amendments as a call to those on the Treasury
Bench, including the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the
Member for Charnwood ()—an excellent Minister who
will consider these points carefully—to rethink the
practicalities of what we are saying to the broadcast and online
sectors. If the Government are intent on pushing this forward, I
ask them to find that parity that ensures that broadcasters are
not unfairly penalised. Great British broadcasters—ITV, Channel
4, Channel Five, Sky—already produce some incredible educational
programming about diet, cooking, wellbeing and lifestyle. It
would be horrendous for us to cut off their lifeline of
funding.
(Staffordshire Moorlands)
(Con)
I have put my name to my hon. Friend’s amendments because I agree
with the points that he makes.
It is surely vital that those responsible broadcasters should not
be penalised when they are doing the right thing—and yet there is
effectively a wild west on the internet, where we are simply not
able to manage the issue. I recognise that the Minister will be
concerned that the online harms Bill will also deal with some of
these matters, but we need to find a cross-Government way of
dealing with this.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with great
experience from her time as Secretary of State at DCMS. That is
the fundamental point of the amendments; it is not a complex or
difficult case, but purely one of fairness and treating the
different platforms—the diverse media of 2021—the same, rather
than pretending that the media from the old analogue age can
somehow be treated differently from those of the digital age.
Let us not cut off the lifeline that funds so many good
educational programmes. Let us think again about restrictions on
advertisers, move forward in a way that can enable people to make
the right and healthy choices about what they and their children
eat without this level of restriction, and ensure that, when
restriction is brought in, it is fair.
(Nottingham North)
(Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this first part
of the debate on the Bill.
A decade ago, virtually to the day, I was a young activist taking
part in marches, protests, online campaigns, letter writing
campaigns, petitions and much more in opposition to what would
become the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We argued that it
would lead to more fragmentation, less integration, confused
decision making and more privatisation and that it would not make
anybody any healthier.
Despite significant opposition to the legislation, the Government
pushed on. But as campaigners, we were right, weren’t we? The
2012 Act created a fragmented system that did not promote health
and care integration. Performance against NHS targets, even
pre-pandemic, was dismal and now it is even worse. Waiting lists
have grown extraordinarily, and staff vacancies have grown to
crisis proportions.
We are here today and tomorrow to consign that legislation to
history—perhaps less the end of an era and more the end of an
error. But the same Government who broke the system now offer a
new package of reforms, and that should really scare us. These
are the wrong reforms at the wrong time. There are no answers in
them to the waiting times crisis, no answers to the capacity
issues in accident and emergency or our ambulance services, no
answers to access issues for our GPs or dentists, and no answers
to the environmental factors that make a country with so many
assets so unhealthy.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister agree that the Bill gives the green
light to private profit making companies sitting on integrated
care organisations?
Yes. That was a strong theme in Committee that we on the
Opposition Benches are very much against; it is likely to be a
prominent theme during our discussion of upcoming amendments.
Through what we are discussing now, we at least have the chance
to put something in the Bill that might improve the public’s
health.
My hon. Friend talked about waiting lists. Would he confirm that
at the moment approximately 5.6 million people are on the waiting
list and that the Government’s own projections are that that
figure could rise to 13 million? What in the Bill does my hon.
Friend believe can address that extraordinary situation?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Secretary of State
must be the first in the history of the NHS who came into that
important role saying that he was expecting waiting times to grow
to the extent that they are. That is of course pandemic-related,
but it also has a reality far beyond this extraordinary last 18
months. There are more than 125 clauses in the Bill and the
Government have proposed more new clauses in Committee and on
Report, but not one of them will have a meaningful impact on
waiting times, so people should be really disquieted.
17:15:00
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member’s comments about
waiting times in England and the measures that are to be
introduced here. He urged disquiet; can I assume that his
disquiet is even louder when he considers my constituents in
Wales who have much longer waiting times?
There is a danger that the right hon. Gentleman has missed the
point. The reality is that for a decade there has been
historically low investment in our health service, which of
course has Barnett consequentials for Wales. That is the reality
and why the system is as distressed as it is. I do not think he
can put that at the door of the Welsh Government.
Let me come back to public health. Over the past five years we
have removed £1 billion in public health funding, which means
that the challenges in respect of childhood obesity, smoking,
sexual health and access to drug and alcohol services are all
developing and growing. The sad thing is that such cuts make an
immediate local government saving for the Treasury but create
greater costs for the public purse later, never mind the impact
on people’s lives. They are the falsest of false economies. For
all the talk of the end of austerity, last month’s Budget did
nothing to tackle that reality. Indeed, local authorities are
under greater pressure and the cycle will continue.
Being smoke-free by 2030 is a major national prize, and with that
I turn to new clauses 2 to 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for City of Durham (). She made an excellent
case and has shown tremendous leadership on this issue, in
concert with the hon. Member for Harrow East (), through the all-party parliamentary group on
smoking and health. They have given the Government a number of
really good ways to improve our nation’s efforts and I hope we
will hear from the Minister that they will be taken on.
Tackling smoking is a crucial part of not only improving the
nation’s health but addressing health inequalities. A child born
where I live, Nottingham, can expect to live seven years fewer
than a child born here in Westminster. When it comes to healthy
life expectancy, we can expect that difference to double.
Tackling that inequality should be a core part of the business of
this place. Nearly half that inequality is attributable to
smoking—that is how pivotal this issue is.
Successive Governments have shown over the past 25 years that we
can make inroads with public policy on smoking, but the benefits
have been unevenly felt: the smoking rate among those in
professional occupations is now down to just one in 10, so is
well on track to meet the 2030 target, but incidence rates among
those in manual or routine occupations remain a stubborn one in
four, so we must now renew our efforts with that group of people
who are, of course, disproportionately likely to use stop smoking
services—the very services we have lost over the past decade. Of
course, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the
pandemic has posed new challenges, with a new group of people who
have started smoking but would not otherwise have done so.
We have been promised a new tobacco control plan by the end of
this year, but that promise looks a little less secure by the
day—I hope the Minister will tell me I am wrong. We could get on
with impactful interventions right away. The labelling and
information interventions set out in new clauses 2 to 4 have very
strong evidence bases from other countries, as my hon. Friend the
Member for City of Durham said, and would be quick, easy to
implement and impactful.
On new clause 4 in particular, we know that e-cigarettes and
vaping are important quit aids, but we would not want them to be
a gateway for children to smart smoking. We should be concerned
about the 2021 YouGov research for ASH—Action on Smoking and
Health—that suggests that more than 200,000 11 to 17-year-olds
who had never smoked previously had tried vaping this year. As my
hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, we must make sure
that that age group does not take smoking through that route and
that products are not targeted at it.
New clause 5 would tackle the bizarre loophole, which colleagues
sometimes struggle to believe is true, that would allow the
egregious practice whereby e-cigarettes or similar kit could be
given free to someone under 18, although they cannot be sold.
That is an extraordinary part of the law and I know that the
Minister agrees it is daft—he said that in Committee, but also
that he did not feel there was quite the evidence that it was a
risk. Well, risk or not, I think the loophole should be closed,
because I suspect that eventually someone will happen on it as a
bright idea.
New clauses 8 and 10 are a beautiful support to any Minister who
wants to improve smoking outcomes in this country, as I know this
Minister does, but is conscious about the finances. This gives
the Minister a chance, through a US-style polluter pays model, to
fund all these interventions, including the restoration of the
lost smoking cessation services in this country. He did not close
the door to that in Committee when we talked about it, so I hope
that he might tell us today that it is likely to form part of the
new tobacco control plan. New clause 11 promotes a consultation
on raising the age of sale, as we know that the older a person
gets, the less likely they are to start smoking.
Let me turn to new clauses 15 to 17 and amendments 11 to 14 in
the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton
(). Colleagues will have been
profoundly moved to hear him speak of his battle with alcoholism,
and I know that his bravery has connected with people across the
country. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend
the Member for City of Durham regarding his entirely
understandable absence from the Chamber today. With him in mind,
I speak in support of those new clauses and amendments.
New clause 15 seeks to improve alcohol product labelling. This is
overdue and it is popular. It is about not taking alcohol
products out of people’s hands, but instead making sure that they
can make an informed choice.
(Bury South) (Con)
While an energy drink carries not only calorific information but
a health warning that drinking too much can have a laxative
effect, alcoholic drinks carry no calorific information and no
health warning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a
damning indictment of where we are in society and that a change,
which the amendment could make, is needed?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I
completely agree with him. I would be the last one to police
people’s consumption habits in the night-time economy for fear of
being a hypocrite, but I do think that we should all have
informed choice. What we have at the moment is inconsistent and
unclear. We know that that frustrates people. A recent survey has
shown that: 75% of people would like to know the number of units
in a product; 61% would like to know the calorie information, as
he mentions; and 53% would like to know the amount of sugar. We
should give people the chance to have that full information to
make their own decisions.
(Swansea West)
(Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know that two thirds of people in Britain are
overweight and that one in four is obese. An enormous amount of
added sugar is put into processed foods that people do not know
about. Men, for instance, are not supposed to have more than nine
teaspoons of added sugar, and women six, which is the equivalent
of a can of coke and a light yoghurt. Does he not agree that this
Bill is tremendously light on the killer that sugar is, and that
not only should we be labelling it, but that the Budget should
tax added sugar in processed food to reduce the waiting list?
My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I will be coming on
to the modesty of the Government’s plans for tackling obesity,
but I have to finish my remarks about new clause 16.
New clause 16 compels the Secretary of State to publish an annual
statement about the spend and impact of alcohol treatment
funding. After a decade of reduced commitment in this vital area,
the Secretary of State should seek to embrace this opportunity.
At the moment, national Government cannot say they are meeting
their responsibility to tackle alcohol harm with the requisite
financial commitment and in the right place, which should
discomfort them greatly. New clause 17 would replicate in England
the minimum unit pricing restrictions that we see in Scotland and
Wales, and we are all watching with great interest as evidence
gathers as to their impact.
Let me now turn to the amendments and new clauses relating to
advertising. The Government have included a couple of elements of
their obesity strategy in the Bill. As I have already said to the
Minister—in Committee and upstairs in the delegated legislation
Committee—I wish that they had put the entire obesity strategy in
this legislation, because there are bits that could have been
improved by amendment, by debate and by discussion, as we heard
in the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (), and as I dare say we will in
that of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (). We should have taken that
approach to the entire document, and it is sad that we did
not.
On the obesity strategy itself, it is too modest and it fails to
attack a major cause of obesity, which is poverty.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he is saying. I am
a type 2 diabetic and I am well aware of the issues. As I
understand it, figures that have been gathered during the
covid-19 pandemic showed that the number of diabetics rose by
some 200,000. That tells me that, if we are going to address the
issue of diabetes, we need to have a tax process in place, which
I think is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, rather than a
regulation, because that is the only way that we can control
diabetes.
I think that a solution might be a little from column A and a
little from column B, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
making that point.
We have heard about the modesty of the strategy from the hon.
Member for Buckingham. The reality is that any benefits from the
obesity strategy will be outstripped by losses in the nation’s
health caused by the impact of the cut to universal credit. We
want the strategy to succeed, but it needs to be seen in that
broader category.
Obesity is an important issue, with nearly two thirds of adults
carrying excess weight. Childhood obesity is also a significant
issue, with one in 10 children starting primary school obese,
rising to one in five by the time they leave—extraordinary at
such a young age.
I thank the shadow Minister, who is making an excellent argument,
and colleagues across the House for all their work on this
important Bill. Does he agree that we could do an enormous amount
for the health of the nation by looking holistically at the role
of exercise and prescribing exercise through the national health
service, including swimming—the statistics on 11-year-olds who
can swim 25 metres are going backwards due to all the lessons
they have missed during coronavirus—and other important
sports?
Yes, I agree. I look with real sadness at the loss of
exercise-on-prescription schemes that were part of the public
health grant but have gone over the last decade. Similarly, on
swimming, the decisions in the Budget relating to local
authorities will lead to councils, which are setting their
budgets as we speak, closing more leisure centres and swimming
pools. We should mourn those losses, which come as a result of a
weak bit of public policy.
In the Bill, the proposed watershed with regard to high fat,
sugar and salt products is broadly a good thing. With that in
mind, we do not oppose Government amendments 31 to 39, which are
relatively modest tweaks, but we should not lose sight of the
fact that we are talking about a significant proposal; I know
that colleagues have interest in this. Beyond a watershed on
traditional broadcast media, we will also see a complete online
ban of high fat, sugar and salt advertising. This is a blunt tool
in pursuit of an important goal.
New clause 14 in the name of the hon. Member for North East
Bedfordshire would implement a more nuanced system, as proposed
by the advertising industry itself. This is mirrored in
amendments 106 to 109 in the name of the hon. Member for
Buckingham. We probed this point in Committee. I was surprised
then, and remain surprised, that there seems to be little
interest from Ministers or the Department in even having that
conversation and exploring creative alternatives. The desired
benefits are non-negotiables. If there are other ways to achieve
those benefits, they ought to be approached with an open
mind.
(North East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my new clause.
We have a number of issues potentially to put to a vote later.
Given what he has said and given that the Minister was a bit hazy
about this issue in Committee, would he be minded to support my
new clause if it were put to a vote and the Minister did not come
forward with something more robust?
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but my problem is that I want to
know that the conversations have taken place and that the
proposal has been considered as an option. I would not say today
that I think it is the best option, but I am surprised that that
conversation has not taken place, which is why I have highlighted
it. There is still time for the Minister to reconsider, and he
should.
I was less persuaded by amendments 3 to 5 in the name of the hon.
Member for North East Bedfordshire, which seek to permit brand
advertising as long as it does not refer to an HFSS product. In
many cases, the brand and product are so inexorably intertwined
that it might undermine the goals and aims of the whole
intervention. I do, however, support amendments 6 to 8, which
refer to the nutrient profiling model—the model that is used to
determine what is and is not considered to be a high fat, sugar
and salt product. It is important that there is certainty and
that it does not move around more than the science would say that
it ought to.
We talked about this issue at length in Committee. If we are
asking the industry to reformulate and change, companies ought to
be able to base product decisions on the certainty that the
Government will not arbitrarily change the criteria. Such
companies may have made significant time, financial or
infrastructure investments in a certain product and then could
see the criteria change overnight. In Committee, we extracted a
commitment from the Minister to a Government amendment on this
matter. That was reiterated in a letter on 13 November, when the
Minister wrote to Committee members and committed to
“introducing a Government amendment at Commons Report Stage to
include a duty to consult before changing the NPM technical
guidance.”
I am surprised not to see that at this point. I hope that we will
get clarity from the Minister, or indeed that he is minded to
accept these amendments, because this is an important
development. We also want the level playing field suggested by
amendments 110 to 113, so we will be listening with great
interest to his reply.
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. It does nothing to
address the real causes of ill-health in this country today. In
this part of the proceedings, colleagues have given the Minister
a chance to change that and I hope he is minded to take it.
17:30:00
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham
North (). I will speak to new clause
14 and the other amendments in my name. I am grateful for the
Opposition’s support for amendments 6, 7 and 8 and for an
industry-led alternative—in spirit, if not necessarily in voting.
I think the hon. Gentleman, as well as many of my hon. Friends,
will be wanting to hear something from the Minister to show that
he has been listening to concerns that have been raised across
the House.
I was surprised and delighted to see on some of my amendments the
name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but
she advised me that that was an error, so I am sorry that the
potential amity between me and those on the Scottish National
party Benches will have to wait for another day.
Dr Whitford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that has saved me
from having to put a disclaimer at the start of my speech, as I
was rather shocked to find my name on his amendments. I just
reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North
(). It is a concern that the
names of companies, as we saw in F1 racing and other things,
simply promote certain types of food and drink and you cannot
separate the brand from the product.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her point clear.
As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know, my amendments
relate to the ways in which the Government are seeking to
restrict advertising for foods that are high in fat, sugar and
salt as part of their obesity strategy. Those measures
essentially ban such advertising on TV before the 9 pm watershed
and ban all paid-for HFSS advertising online at any time of the
day or night. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham () has already done a very good
job in drawing out some concerns about that.
What are the concerns about what the Government are doing? First,
I should mention that I have a number of important food
businesses based in my constituency, including Unilever and the
cereal company Jordans Dorset Ryvita, and I think everyone would
be surprised to hear that products such as porridge, muesli and
granola are going to be subject to these bans. All these products
have ingredients such as naturally occurring oils and sugars, as
well as fibre, vitamins and minerals, and because of those
natural ingredients they will be caught by the Government’s
definition of “HFSS”.
It is also worth considering—I was not on the Committee and I do
not know if it was considered at length—the impact on food
services such as takeaways and home-delivered foods. Papa John’s,
which is located near me in Milton Keynes, supports hundreds of
entrepreneurs and small businesses through its franchise model,
and it writes to warn me:
“These would restrict our ability to invest in our businesses and
our people, at a time of significant economic uncertainty for the
UK economy, and would also place our franchisees, many of whom
are single owner small businesses, on an unsustainable financial
footing.”
I think the Government have to do a few more hard yards in
support of our small businesses, and this is not a very good way
of showing any support for them.
The number of diabetics, both type 1 and type 2, across the
United Kingdom and the number of children with obesity is rising.
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that new clause 14 cannot address
the issue of those rising numbers? If it cannot, what more needs
to be done?
I absolutely do not agree. The reason why the Opposition
Front-Bench team are probing on this is that we are not
harnessing all the talents to come up with the solution. As the
hon. Member for Nottingham North said, he does not have, or want,
any objection to the objective—he just feels that there may be
better ways to do it. That is what my amendments are trying to
create. They would introduce a better way, working with
established principles and with the industry—let us face it, it
has the experts in this—rather than undermining issues to do with
how the Advertising Standards Authority has managed how products
are advertised and rather than bulldozing through the industry,
which is the current process that the Government, or this
Department anyway, are proposing.
Let us just remember that this pressure on our food and drink
manufacturers is part of a wider effort of social responsibility
that we are putting on them. The proposal does not sit alone, but
with other things, in particular around environmental protection.
The Food and Drink Federation has calculated that the cost of the
UK Government’s proposed environmental health policies is at
least £8 billion. That is equivalent to £160 a year on household
food bills that we are asking the industry to take on.
It is estimated that the introduction of this policy will cost
£833 million, but the Government’s own impact assessment
estimates that the benefits are likely to be in the order of only
£118 million. That is a real dead loss that we will be putting,
let us face it, on food bills, primarily of those in lower income
brackets. Members on all sides should take a moment to consider
whether this is the right time and the right process for doing
that. As the Government’s own assessment shows, the actual effect
on diet for those who are targeted is estimated to be 1.7
calories a day, so it is a lot of effort and cost, but not very
much impact.
New clause 14 proposes an alternative that would require the
regulator to implement an alternative set of increased
restrictions for online, but developed through the industry by
the Committee of Advertising Practice. The new clause would
legislate for a three-step filtering process drawn up by the
industry to appropriately manage the targeting of online ad
campaigns.
Another of my amendments would introduce brand exemptions. I take
a different view from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who
said that brands are intrinsically tied to their product. The
truth of the matter is that Coca Cola is made by Coke and Coke
Zero is made by Coke. Coke Zero is advertised with the word
“Coke” on it. This issue is not necessarily covered by the
legislation, but Coke is not tied to one thing. Brands are
extraordinarily flexible in how they can assist progress in
achieving some social means. The Minister should consider looking
again at this area.
Finally, on the nutritional profile, the issue is consultation. I
can see that the Secretary of State has tabled some amendments on
that, and perhaps the Minister can talk about that. They do not
seem to make the changes I would like to see, but I would be
interested to hear what he has to say.
It is worrying that the Government have undermined the
Advertising Standards Authority with their approach. One of the
other things is targeted advertising. I am sure it has struck
hon. Members here as it has me that the tech revolution of the
dotcom era was 20 years ago, and two decades of technical
expertise in understanding how adverts are targeted is being
swept away or ignored by the Department of Health and Social
Care, which would much rather have “nanny knows what’s best”. The
truth of the matter is that, by harnessing technology, the
Government could get a better outcome than this official ban. As
my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, there are plenty
of other ways to do it that would be hard for advertisers to get
around.
I say to the Minister that I am trying to be helpful, as always,
and, to be serious, as are the Opposition. The Government have
made a slight misstep by adopting a top-down, state-driven model.
I say to the Minister that the path of good intentions is
littered with unintended consequences. The essence of
conservatism is not to use the state to bully or, as perhaps the
advisers in the various Departments say in modern parlance, to
nudge. It amounts to one and the same thing. The Department’s
attempt to censor products such as these is profoundly
un-Conservative. Our party believes in individual responsibility
and that families are the foundation of society where choices and
power in society most naturally lie. Nowhere is that more
important than in health matters, yet these proposals extend the
role of the state and undermine parental responsibilities.
The measures make the Department of Health and Social Care look
like a new outpost of cancel culture that denies free speech and
has a predisposition that individuals should conform to what the
state determines, rather than enabling informed free choice. It
is desperately sad to see them being pushed through by a
Conservative Administration. I say to my colleagues on the Back
Benches: when will we wake up and realise that we need a
Government who support free enterprise and individual
responsibility, and who understand that the way to create growth
in the economy is through enabling people to make free choices,
rather than expecting the state to be the answer to every
problem? With that question, I will wait to listen to what the
Minister has to say.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire () for clarifying that I had
not voluntarily added my name to his amendment.
Whenever we talk about such subjects, we hear a lot about the
nanny state. As a surgeon working in A&E in general surgery,
however, the difference when seatbelts, airbags and speed limits
came in was night and day in how much time I spent dealing with
people in operating theatres who had been involved in car
crashes. Sometimes the state has to take action to protect
people’s health and wellbeing.
The Bill focuses largely on reversing some of the most egregious
aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which I welcome,
but these measures focus on improving public health. There is no
question that obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases
associated with obesity pose not just a real threat to individual
health but a threat that will overwhelm national health services
in future. When I looked at the original Bill, however, I was
surprised that, apart from the measures around obesity, there was
little in the way of public health policy to improve and promote
health, and there is also little enough about care.
It is not the national health service that delivers health. I
have often said that it would be more appropriate to call it the
national illness service, but who would want to work somewhere
called that? The NHS spends most of its time catching people when
they fall. Health comes from a decent start in life, a warm dry
home, enough to eat and a decent education. Those are the things
that deliver health, but there is nothing like them in the
Bill.
Particularly, and surprisingly, there is nothing in the Bill on
reducing harm from tobacco products and alcohol, which is why I
rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 to 4, which seek to
strengthen the health warnings on all tobacco products; new
clauses 7 to 10, which seek to allow regulation of tobacco
pricing; and particularly new clause 6, because the use of sweet
flavourings to entice children and young people to take up
smoking is indefensible.
I heartily commend the hon. Lady for her comments. Does she
experience in her constituency, as I do in mine, that smoking
cessation services are diminishing and becoming less successful?
As the tobacco industry concentrates on a core group of existing
addicts, it is desperate to move down the age range and encourage
new addicts. That is why that element of the new clause is
important.
Dr Whitford
I agree that new clause 6 is the most important of the new
clauses, because tobacco companies are driven to recruit new
victims—as I would have to call them, as a doctor—and they are
recruiting them from young people.
Public health is devolved, so we have not had the cuts in public
health funding that we have unfortunately seen in England since
2016. Therefore, we have not had the cuts to smoking cessation
and sexual health services that many local authorities
experienced across England when public health moved into local
government.
Smoking does not just cause respiratory problems such as chronic
obstructive airway disease, but affects all the blood vessels
causing peripheral vascular disease, vascular dementia, strokes,
heart attacks and many forms of cancer, not just lung cancer.
Stopping smoking is the best favour anyone can do themselves, but
many people require the very smoking cessation services that the
hon. Gentleman mentioned.
17:45:00
I find it surprising that there was nothing in this Bill about
tackling not just the health harms, but the social harms
associated with alcohol abuse. Indeed, alcohol has not even been
included in the definition of less healthy foods, despite that
clearly being the case. There is no health argument for alcohol.
I am not saying that people have to abstain, but the research
many people cite about how having some alcohol is of health
benefit over full abstention has all been discredited. That was
because people who actually had alcoholic disease and were made
to give up alcohol were put in the abstention group, and
therefore brought their liver disease, their varices and
everything else with them. More recent research shows that,
unfortunately, alcohol does cause harm. It is only about 10 or 15
years since we learned about its association with breast cancer,
my specialty as a surgeon, and with that it is absolutely the
case that the more alcohol a woman drinks, the higher her risk of
breast cancer.
Obviously, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group
on alcohol harm, I know that part of the issue with treatment—I
am thinking in particular of new clause 16—is the stigma behind
alcohol dependency and its still being seen as a personal choice.
While we need to overcome the stigma of addiction, we first need
to be having a conversation about alcohol. Does the hon. Member
agree that, as part of the treatment, we need to be having this
conversation on a national level?
Dr Whitford
I would say that really no one who has a health problem should be
stigmatised. Having dealt over 33 years in the NHS with many
people who were problem drinkers, I know that the public image of
someone who abuses alcohol is quite a caricature. There will be
many people across this House who drink more than is healthy for
them and I have met many people as patients from the middle and
upper classes who had serious alcohol problems, so we should get
away from the stigma and the caricature. We will not spot
everyone who needs to deal with alcohol just by looking at
them.
I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool,
Walton () in this regard. Does the hon.
Lady agree with me that the whys and wherefores are all very well
in this debate, but in the end the cuts to local government,
which would primarily be providing services in relation to
alcohol abuse, have been most disgraceful, and that is why we are
seeing the huge increase in the number of people who have passed
away from alcohol disease in the last couple of years following
covid?
Dr Whitford
There is no question but that, after public health moved into
local government—we can absolutely defend that because, as I have
said, health is often delivered by things that are nothing to do
with the NHS—the problem was that the budget was then cut, so the
potential benefit of putting public health into local government
was lost due to the cuts to services.
On alcohol not being classed as a less healthy food, with this
Government I find it hard not to ask: why not, and what or who
may have influenced that decision? I certainly support amendments
11 to 13 from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (), which would include alcohol,
particularly the medium and high-strength alcohols, under less
healthy foods, so that alcohol is covered by advertising
regulations. I also support his new clause 15, which would
mandate much clearer labelling of alcohol units, or whatever
measure, on labels. It is no good just saying “Drink aware” or
“Drink Responsibly” when the consumer has not actually been given
the tools on the product to make a proper choice, such as by
asking, “How much is in this?” Why not agree to use a simple,
straightforward approach? A lot of public health advice is in
units, so why not actually use them? People would then learn to
be aware and ask, “How many units have I already drunk today?” or
“How many units have I already drunk this week?”
New clause 17 calls on the UK Government to follow Scotland, and
now Wales, by introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol. The
UK Government have the advantage in that they can do that by
setting alcohol duty based on unit, instead of on classes of
drink. In every Budget we hear about a penny on a pint of beer,
or so much on spirits, but why not do it by unit? It is much more
accurate, and it would still allow the raising of taxation to
help fund alcohol services, as well as those public services most
hit by alcohol abuse, such as healthcare and policing. Under
devolution the Scottish Government, and now the Welsh Government,
did not have that power.
Over the past year and a half of the pandemic we have,
unfortunately, seen a big increase in both smoking and alcohol
consumption, as people struggled to cope with the loneliness and
boredom associated with lockdowns and pandemic restrictions.
However, the initial valuation of minimum unit pricing in
Scotland showed that alcohol sales fell, for the first time in
many years, by more than 7% in Scotland, compared with a
continued rise in England and Wales. It was not possible to
demonstrate a reduction in overall alcohol-associated admissions
to hospital, which may include car accidents, violence and so on,
but there was a drop in admissions due to alcoholic liver
disease, suggesting that the policy was working. More evaluation
after the pandemic will be required, but an immediate impact was
an almost three-quarters drop in the sales of cheap white cider.
That product is cheaper than soft drinks, and predominantly used
by young—indeed, often under-age—drinkers, who purchase it, or
get someone else to purchase it, so that they can drink it at
home. However, that sector is literally disappearing
overnight.
It will be important to review and maintain the pressure of the
unit price on a regular basis, because young drinkers also drink
many other products—this is the same issue as young smokers; more
people are being recruited, often into problem drinking and
problem products. Minimum unit pricing does not affect good wine,
high-end spirits, or what is sold in a pub, but it does affect
what someone can buy in a small shop to then hang out with their
mates in their bedroom. Some of those products are not affected
by the 50p unit price, and that must be kept under review.
I was disappointed that new clause 30, which is listed for
discussion tomorrow, was not included in this group. It calls on
the Government to reform the out-of-date Misuse of Drugs Act
1971, and to devolve it so to allow the devolved nations to take
a public health approach to tackling drug addiction, in the same
way as we take a public health approach to dealing with alcohol.
Such an approach has already been demonstrated in many countries
across the world, yet the Government keep sticking their head in
the sand.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning new clause 30,
which I still hope against hope we might be able to discuss
tomorrow. I am sure she will agree that problematic drug abuse is
an illness and a social ill, not a crime, and our emphasis must
be on harm reduction, treatment, and support for the problematic
drug user.
Dr Whitford
That is the policy of the Scottish Government, and we would
absolutely support the new clause if it is voted on tomorrow.
As Opposition Members have said, key to improving public health
would be restoring the non-covid related public health budget in
England. We cannot hide behind covid funding, because that is
used up by the pandemic and does not help us with smoking,
alcohol, or drug addiction. The biggest contribution the
Government could make would be to abandon their plans for yet
another decade of austerity. We hear the slogan all the
time—levelling up—but it rings hollow after taking away £1,000 a
year from the poorest families and most vulnerable households.
Over the past decade, cuts to social security have caused a rise
in poverty among pensioners, disabled people, and particularly
children. Sir Michael Marmot was mentioned earlier, and his
research was clear: poverty is the biggest single driver of ill
health, and the biggest driver of poverty is Tory austerity.
(Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire
(Dr Whitford), who brings her knowledge of the medical profession
to this House on every occasion. I agreed with almost everything
she had to say, apart from the last comment.
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on smoking
and health, and I support all the new clauses tabled in the name
of the hon. Member for City of Durham (). These comprehensive
proposals are complementary and can be picked up by the
Government. The new clauses were tabled in a different form in
Committee. They were discussed and debated, and I think Ministers
said they would take them away and have a further look. We have
refined the proposals on the basis of the debate in Committee,
strengthened them, and brought them back again, and they address
the loopholes in current legislation. They strengthen the
regulation of tobacco products still further, and they provide
funding for the tobacco control measures that are so desperately
needed if we are to deliver the Government’s Smokefree 2030
ambition.
We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week, to
which the new Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
() responded. Questions were
posed to the Government from across the Chamber about when we
will see the long-promised tobacco control plan, which is
presumably due to be delivered by 31 December this year. We got
no firm commitment on when we will see it, and I would like my
hon. Friend the Minister to bring that forward as soon as
possible. We can then measure what will happen.
The problem we have with tobacco control right now is that if we
do nothing and none of these measures is introduced, the risk is
that, as the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly articulated,
we will miss the target by seven years. For those on low incomes
and in deprived circumstances, it will be 14 years. We must
consider how many people will die from smoking-related diseases
as a direct result of the Government’s failure to achieve their
Smokefree 2030 ambition. It is clear that we need to take further
action, and I urge the Minister, who I know is a doughty
campaigner for public health, to make sure that we deliver on the
proposals.
My main focus is obviously on the new clauses that seek to
provide funding for tobacco control. We all accept that not only
can we implement measures, but we have somehow to fund them. That
is critical. We must also consider raising the age of sale, as
that, unfortunately, is a key proponent in encouraging young
people to start smoking. The spending review failed to address
the 25% real-terms cut to public health funding since 2015.
Reductions in spending on tobacco control have bitten even
deeper, by a third, since 2015. We need new sources of
funding.
The Government promised to consider a polluter pays levy in the
2019 Prevention Green Paper, when they announced the Smokefree
2030 ambition. The all-party group on smoking and health has done
the analysis, and we estimate that in the first year alone of a
polluter pays levy, £700 million could be raised. That would
benefit not only England, but the whole United Kingdom. It is
more than twice the estimated cost of the tobacco control
measures that we are proposing tonight, and that would then leave
the Government with further funding to spend on other health
priorities. The proposal is for a user fee, along United States
lines, rather than an additional tax. Now that we have exited the
European Union and can set our own rules, EU tobacco
manufacturers’ profits can be controlled. They cannot pass the
cost on to the consumer, but we can control their profits and use
those for preventing people from smoking in the first place. It
is quite justified that we should tax the manufacturers’ profits.
This is the most highly addictive product that is legally
available, and it kills those who use it for the purpose for
which it was intended.
18:00:00
(Bootle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman refers to public health funding since 2015,
but is he aware that in 2015, it was identified that the cost to
the NHS of smoking was £144.8 million in prescriptions, almost
£900 million in out-patient visits, almost £900 million in
hospital admissions, and a total of £2.6 billion? Is not
investing in smoking cessation money well spent?
Clearly, if we invest in public health and smoking cessation, we
prevent costs in the health service later. It is estimated that
most of the cost of people’s healthcare arises in the last two
years of their life. Individuals who suffer from cancer or other
respiratory diseases caused by smoking will cost the health
service dramatic sums of money, so through cessation, we are
helping the nation to be healthier and, indeed, saving money for
the health service in the long run.
To quote the chief medical officer, the great majority of people
who die from lung cancer
“die so that a small number of companies can make profits from
the people who they have addicted in young ages, and then keep
addicted to something which they know will kill them.”
The time has come to make the tobacco manufacturers pay for the
damage that they do, not only to older people but to young people
in particular. We need to bring forward the day when smoking is
finally obsolete in this country, and I regret to say that if we
do not take measures, the time before that day arrives will be
lengthened quite considerably.
However, funding alone is not enough; we have to consider tough
regulation. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned that
since lockdown, we have seen the smoking rate among young adults
surge by 25%. In the United States, raising the age of sale from
18 to 21 reduced the smoking rate among 18 to 20-year-olds by
30%. We could do the same thing here. We talk about complementary
measures; giving tobacco products away is not illegal at the
moment. Just imagine—tobacco manufacturers may say, “If we give
tobacco products away for free, we can encourage people to become
addicted, and then they will buy them, and that will lead them on
to a lifetime of smoking.” We have to break that chain of events
and make sure that people do not do that.
I have a passion for ensuring that women do not smoke in
pregnancy. That is one of the most stubborn measures, and we have
to overcome it. Some 11% of women still smoke in pregnancy. We
must give them every incentive and introduce every measure to
ensure that they give up smoking, and that their partners give up
smoking at the same time. That is something that I passionately
support.
Our revised amendment, new clause 11, addresses the concerns that
the Government raised in Committee about a review of the
evidence. I hope that the Government will adopt the new clause at
this stage, and then look at the evidence and consult.
People start smoking at certain key points in their life. They
may take it up when they are at school and their friends are
smokers and they want to be part of the team or the gang. They
may take it up when they go to college or university or start a
new job, when they are in a new social environment, or at a
dreadful time of stress in their life. We have to make sure that
they understand that if they take up smoking, they will shorten
their life and cause damage to their health—and, indeed, to the
health of the people around them.
(North East Hertfordshire)
(Con)
I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely. Does he agree
that there is an interrelationship between the issues to do with
alcohol dependency that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr
Whitford) mentioned and the issue of smoking? One of the things
that comes out from the book “Alcohol Reconsidered” by Lesley
Miller and Catheryn Kell-Clarke is that the science shows that
alcohol reduces people’s inhibitions, and it is therefore more
likely that they will smoke. If we had a culture of moderation in
alcohol, we would probably do better on smoking.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising that point.
Clearly, the fact that people can no longer smoke in public
houses or restaurants has dramatically reduced the incidence of
smoking. Someone has to make a deliberate decision to go outside
and inflict their smoke on the outside world rather than on the
people in the public house or restaurant.
We who support these amendments tabled them in Committee—we
sought Government support and we debated them in Committee—and
now we are debating them on Report. I understand that we may not
be successful tonight, but I give fair warning that these
amendments, in another form, will be tabled in the other place,
and we will see what happens. We know that there is very strong
support in the other place for anti-tobacco legislation. In July
2021, the Lords passed by 254 votes to 224 a motion to regret
that the Government had failed to make it a requirement that
smoke-free pavement licences must be 100% smoke free. That is
smoking in the open air; we are talking about measures to combat
smoking overall.
Finally, if we look back over the years, the measures on smoking
in public places, on smoking in vehicles, on smoking when
children are present and on standardised packaging of tobacco
products were all led from the Back Benches. Governments of all
persuasions resisted them, for various reasons. I suspect that my
hon. Friend the Minister, whom I know well, may resist these
measures tonight, but we on the Back Benches who are determined
to improve the health of this country will continue to press on
with them, and we will win eventually. It may not be tonight, but
those measures will come soon. I support the measures that are
proposed.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East
(), who gave an eloquent speech about smoking. What he
did not include, and what the Minister is not considering, is the
mass passive smoking from air pollution, which causes 64,000
deaths a year. I know that I am in danger of being outside the
scope of the Bill, but I will make this point just briefly,
because it is about public health.
Indoor and outdoor air pollution is endemic. It costs £20 billion
a year. We could simply ban wood-burning stoves, which 2.5
million people have and which contribute 38% of the PM2.5
emissions in our atmosphere. That is particularly problematic in
poorer areas. I make this point partly as I chair the all-party
parliamentary group on air pollution, but this is a critical
public health issue, so I feel that the Department of Health and
Social Care should look at it centrally, rather than leaving it
to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as an
air quality issue.
I turn to the comments by the hon. Member for North East
Bedfordshire (), who sadly is not in his
place, about free choice in advertising. Advertising is not about
free choice; one would not need to advertise unless one was
trying to convince somebody to do something they would not
otherwise do. That is not to say that advertising is always
bad—good things and bad things can be advertised—but let us be
straightforward.
As it happens, I have a background in multinational marketing; I
have been involved with PG Tips and Colgate toothpaste—good
products. However, the reality is that if someone wanted to make
money from a product such as a potato, which is intrinsically
good for people, they could impregnate it with salt, sugar and
fat, make it into the shape of a dinosaur, get a jingle and call
it “Dennis’s Dinosaurs”, and make a lot of money out of that
simple potato. That is the way a lot of processed foods work.
Going back to the point about diabetes and added sugar, it is
important to remember that diabetes in Britain costs something
like £10 billion a year. There is a compelling case for the
Government to do more about added sugar, as opposed to natural
sugar; obviously, we could discriminate between the two, though a
lot of manufacturers will say, “Are you going to tax an apple?”.
Clearly, when a child or adult can find a huge bar of chocolate
in a shop for £1, we have problems, in terms of the amount of
sugar we are supposed to have. Henry Dimbleby put forward a
national food strategy, which is worth a read. He makes the key
point that reducing the overall amount of money people have—for
instance, through universal credit—has a major impact: we find
that when universal credit goes down, consumption of alcohol and
smoking go up.
It is important for the Department of Health and Social Care to
have an idea of how the nutrition of particular natural foods can
be increased through better farming. An app will be available
next year that will enable people to test a carrot in their local
shop. The carrot will have different levels of antioxidant,
depending on how it is grown. If it is organic and not
impregnated with all sorts of fertiliser and chemicals, it
develops a natural resistance to pesticides and is much better
for human health. The Government should, in this post-Brexit
world, be actively encouraging local high-value, high-nutrition
products for export and local consumption.
A whole range of public health measures that need to be moved
forward are not in the strategy; but some are, such as those
raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call . Do you wish to remain
seated?
That is greatly appreciated, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I would like to put on record my support for amendments 11, 12
and 13, and new clauses 15 and 16. I also thank the hon. Member
for Liverpool, Walton (). We have heard why he cannot
be here; I wish him well with what is going on in his family.
These much-needed amendments and new clauses are aimed at
reducing alcohol harm by introducing advertising restrictions,
transparent alcohol labelling and support for effective alcohol
treatment. Alcohol abuse leads to many harmful things, and
deserves to be called the silent killer. I am chair of the
all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, and the group has
heard in our evidence sessions the stories of those affected by
alcohol. It has the potential to destroy individuals, families
and wider society. Alcohol has a very public face, but it harms
privately. Hospital admissions and deaths from alcohol are at
record levels, and have been exacerbated by the covid-19
pandemic. Some 70 people die every day in the UK due to alcohol.
Alcohol harm is a hidden health crisis that needs to be
recognised.
The Bill does not go far enough to stem the rising tide of this
issue. For instance, the Bill introduces restrictions on
advertising for “less healthy” products, such as sugary soft
drinks, but the same restrictions do not apply to adverts for
alcoholic drinks, despite alcohol being linked to more than 200
health conditions, as well as having very high calorie and sugar
content. There is significant evidence that children who are
exposed to alcohol marketing will drink more earlier than they
otherwise would. Existing laws are failing to protect children
and vulnerable people. In fact, four in five 11 to 17-year-olds
have seen alcohol advertising in the past month. The advertising
they are exposed to builds alcoholic brand awareness and
influences their perceptions of alcohol. A forthcoming report by
Alcohol Health Alliance found that seven in 10 young people
recognise the beer brand Guinness, including more than half of 11
to 12-year-olds. Amendments 11 to 13 would ensure that alcohol
was considered a less healthy product and was therefore liable to
the same proposed restrictions as sugary soft drinks when it
comes to advertising on TV, on demand and online.
Awareness of the risks of alcohol is low: about 80% of people do
not know the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines
of 14 units a week; only 25% are aware that alcohol can cause
breast cancer; and only 20% know the calories in a large glass of
wine. I need only refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Six
Nations championship earlier this year—you may have a slightly
better recollection of it than I do. There was alcohol-related
advertising on billboards around the stadiums. There were many
billboards advertising alcoholic brands. There were also drink
awareness campaigns, but they were not seen, due to where those
advertisements were placed. People were seeing adverts for
Guinness, but not for Guinness 0.0 or for drink awareness
campaigns. This is something that the Government really need to
look into.
18:15:00
New clause 15 requires the Secretary of State to introduce
secondary legislation on alcohol product labelling. Consumers
have a right to know what is in their drinks to make informed
choices about hat and how much they drink. However, there are
currently no legal requirements for alcohol products to include
health warnings, drinking guidelines, calorie information or even
ingredients. Research by Alcohol Heath Alliance found that over
70% of products did not include the low-risk drinking guidelines
and only 7% displayed full nutritional information, including
calories. The Government's forthcoming consultation on alcohol
calorie labelling is welcome. However, more needs to be done to
ensure other health information is provided on labels. Many
companies are already looking at e-labelling, so that anyone with
a smartphone can access the information online. That is a very
welcome step, but we need to do more.
Lastly, alcohol treatment services are essential to support
recovery for those with alcohol dependence. Pre-pandemic, only
one in five dependent drinkers was believed to be in treatment,
leaving a shocking 80% lacking help. My own brother was one of
those. Unfortunately, six years ago I lost him to alcohol
dependency, which is why I take this matter incredibly seriously.
New clause 16 requires the Secretary of State to report on the
ability of alcohol treatment providers to offer support and
reduce alcohol harm, and on the levels of funding required. Low
levels of access to alcohol treatment are largely due to
insufficient funding. Since 2012, there have been real-terms
funding cuts of over £100 million—an average of 30% per service
in England. Alcohol treatment is cost-effective: every £1
invested in alcohol treatment yields £3 in return, rising to £26
over 10 years. Recovery also yields powerful dividends for
families affected by addiction.
In conclusion, the Bill needs to go further than it currently
does to include evidence-based measures that reduce alcohol harm.
I encourage Members across the House to support these much-needed
amendments, so that we can tackle this silent health crisis
affecting so many of our constituents.
(Carlisle) (Con)
I rise to support the amendments in my name: 110, 111, 112 and
113. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have a
significant number of food and drink manufacturers in my
constituency, and that I chair the all-party parliamentary group
for food and drink manufacturing. I also support the amendments
tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire
() and for Buckingham (), and fully support and endorse
their comments.
In reality, I and many others would have preferred clause 125 and
the whole of schedule 16 to have been removed from the Bill. I
and I think many others are not convinced that that is really the
way forward or that it will achieve very much. That view is
shared by many of my colleagues, but also by many in the
advertising industry and the food and drink sector. That is not
because they are against the Government’s attempts to respond to
the challenge of obesity, which is and should be a concern for
all of us, but because their impact is likely to be so
insignificant that it is disproportionate to what is proposed. We
should also remember that the industry has already done a huge
amount. It is incredibly innovative—reformulation, reductions in
salt and sugar—and the reductions we have already seen are very
significant. The industry continues to make changes and I believe
it will continue to do so in the future. We should also remember
that there is something called personal responsibility.
There is an opportunity, however, for compromise and improvements
to schedule 16—hence the various amendments that have been
tabled. I very much hope that the Government will be willing to
compromise in their approach and see the benefits of the
amendments that stand in my hon. Friends’ names and mine. I do
not intend to detain the House for long, because my amendments
are primarily technical rather than anything greater.
I tabled amendments 111, 112 and 113 because I believe that we
want a food and drink manufacturing sector that is competitive
and is based in the UK as much as possible. As presently drafted,
the Bill exempts certain businesses, but the criteria are based
on UK employee numbers. Large multinational companies could
therefore be exempt if the UK element of their business has under
250 employees; conversely, a UK business with 250-plus employees
would not be exempt. That has the potential to be unfair in many
respects to UK businesses from a competition perspective, and
could lead them to divert manufacturing abroad. A simple solution
would be to take account of turnover as well as staff numbers. I
have suggested using the definition in section 465 of the
Companies Act 2006, which I believe would deal with the
situation.
Under the Bill, paid-for branded adverts for products that are
high in fat, salt or sugar would be prevented on retailer-owned
spaces, but retailers would still be able to advertise equivalent
HFSS own-brand products. That could distort competition directly
between retailers’ and manufacturers’ products. Amendment 110
would ensure a level playing field, which in my view would be
much fairer.
I hope that the Government will be receptive to my amendments—if
not now, via changes introduced in the other place. In
anticipation of such a compromise, I do not intend to put them to
the vote.
The Minister for Health ()
I am grateful for this evening’s debate. More than once during
the passage of the Bill, I have put on the record the
Government’s commitment to improving and protecting the public’s
health and have paid tribute to the hard work and dedication of
our NHS and public health professionals in rising to the greatest
infectious disease challenge of modern times. I would again like
to put on the record those important points, with which I know
Opposition Front Benchers agree.
Our commitment to public health is clear in the Bill, in the
proposals set out in the Government’s recently published plan for
health and care, “Build Back Better”, and in our wider programme
of public health reform. A focus on the prevention of avoidable
diseases is a central principle in delivering a sustainable NHS
and in levelling up health outcomes across the country.
Childhood obesity is one of the biggest health challenges that
this nation faces. The latest data from the national childhood
measurement programme revealed that approximately 40% of children
leaving primary school in England were overweight or living with
obesity.
The Minister is being generous in allowing interventions. Is the
Bill silent on the challenge around prescriptions for exercise?
In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the impact of school
swimming. Unfortunately, we are going backwards: fewer
11-year-olds can swim 25 metres—that is just an example. On
childhood obesity, we need to address both: not just diet, but
exercise.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, with whom I worked in London
local government many moons ago on issues not dissimilar to those
that we are debating. The Bill focuses on diet and the obesity
that it causes, but she is right to highlight that exercise and a
healthy lifestyle also play a key role in tackling obesity. We do
not believe that the Bill is the right place to put that role
into legislation, but I join in the sentiment underpinning what
the hon. Lady says. Schools, local authorities and health bodies
need to consider the issue in the round.
Nearly two thirds of adults—64%—are also overweight or living
with obesity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for
North East Bedfordshire () for gently tempting me to
respond to his points about the nanny state, but I would argue
that it is not being a nanny state to look out for the health of
our citizens. Yes, it is about giving advice and giving people
the information to make informed judgments, but it is also about
putting in place a proportionate framework in legislation.
As with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East
(), I did not agree with everything that the hon.
Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, particularly her
concluding comments, but I listened carefully to her comments
about seatbelts. She said that she, as a clinician, saw the
impact that legislation on that public health and public safety
measure had on reducing injuries.
Does the Minister agree that the industry itself is doing an
awful lot now to support the Government’s agenda? Does he also
acknowledge that personal responsibility is very important?
I wondered what I was about to have bowled at me there, but my
hon. Friend is absolutely right. I entirely agree that a huge
amount of progress has been made; we believe that we need to go
further with our proposals, but he is right to highlight that
progress. He is also right to highlight the relevance of the
central role of personal responsibility and the decisions that we
and our families all take.
To meet the ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030, it is
imperative that we reduce children’s exposure to less healthy
food and drink product advertising on TV and online. We want to
ensure that the media our children engage with the most promote a
healthy diet. The Bill therefore contains provisions to restrict
the advertising of less healthy food and drink products on TV, in
on-demand programme services and online.
The Minister has just mentioned seatbelts, and earlier he talked
about alcohol and cigarette smoking, but this is about porridge
and muesli. There is a sense that there is no end to what the
Department of Health and Social Care feels is its responsibility
to legislate on for what people should be able to do for
themselves and their family. My point is that this is overreach
by the state, as well as perhaps being the incorrect process for
achieving the Government’s aims.
I know my hon. Friend well and entirely understand the
perspective that he brings, but I would argue as a counterpoint
that the Bill strikes a proportionate balance, in the same vein
as with seatbelts and other issues. Alongside personal choice and
giving people the information to make choices, I believe that it
is a proportionate and balanced approach—not the thin end of the
wedge, as he might suggest, although perhaps I am characterising
his words unfairly.
(New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
May I make a little more progress? I have more to say on obesity,
so my right hon. Friend should not worry.
We held two consultations, the first in 2019 and the second in
2020, which have informed our policy on introducing further
restrictions to the advertising of less healthy food and drink
products. I welcome the devolved Administrations’ engagement and
support for the policy, which is being brought forward UK-wide.
The UK Government have engaged with them extensively on the
matter since early 2021; I put on the record my gratitude for the
spirit in which they have approached it.
Dr Lewis
I happen to agree that there is a question of proportionality on
the alleged nanny state issues, but does my hon. Friend agree
that where an issue is contentious—such as the fluoridation of
water supplies, which has been contentious over many years in
this House—it should be properly debated before the state takes
control of it, not just tucked away at the end of a very long
Bill? That causes me concern.
I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but I would argue that we
are placing the matter before the House in a Bill that has been
debated and has gone through its stages, including one of the
longest Committee stages of a Bill in my time in this House.
There is, or was, the opportunity for Members to table amendments
on Report on the aspect that he mentions, and I suspect that it
will be extensively debated in the other place as well. I take
his point, but I would argue that we have provided sufficient
time and have brought the issue to the House in that way.
Dr Lewis
Would the Minister be as surprised as I was to know that quite a
lot of Members of this House are completely unaware that that
provision has been added at the end of the Bill?
All I would say—without in any way implying any criticism of
right hon. or hon. Members—is that soon after I entered the House
I was a member of the Procedure Committee for a year, and one of
the first pieces of advice I was given was to read the
legislation and go through it in its entirety. I recognise that
this is a long and complex piece of legislation, but I would make
that point.
Telecommunications and internet services are reserved matters.
The UK Government are clear about the fact that the primary
purpose of provisions on the advertising of less-healthy food and
drink for TV and internet services is to regulate content on
reserved media, and on that basis the policy is reserved. The
purpose is not incidental. Therefore, the provisions do not fall
within the competence of the devolved legislatures or engage the
legislative consent process. While the Scottish and Welsh
Governments have agreed with our policy ambitions, they disagree
with our legal assessment, and thus far we have had to agree to
disagree on this matter, but we have had extensive engagement,
and I suspect that we will continue to do so. I see that the hon.
Member for Central Ayrshire is in her place, and while she is
present I would like to thank both Governments for their
engagement and offer my assurances that it will continue as we
implement the policy for the benefit of citizens across the
UK.
18:30:00
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East
Bedfordshire for his amendments 6 to 8, which would require the
Secretary of State to conduct a public consultation before any
changes could be made to the relevant guidance, the nutrient
profiling model, in which I know the shadow Minister, the hon.
Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (), takes a particular
interest. The principle and importance of the amendments is
recognised, but we fear that, as drafted, they may create a
number of unintended consequences. When consultation exercises
need to reach a diverse audience, several approaches may be
appropriate. For example, words such as “public” may be
interpreted in a number of ways in different contexts, and would
risk rendering the legislation insufficiently clear. However, as
I confirmed in Committee, the Government have now tabled their
own amendments to ensure that a requirement for the Secretary of
State to consult before making any changes to the relevant
guidance appears in the Bill.
Let me now turn to amendments 31, 33, 34, 36, 38 and 39, tabled
in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. These
new amendments to schedule 16 will insert a requirement for the
Secretary of State to consult persons whom he or she considers
relevant before any changes can be made to the use of the
technical guidance known as the nutrient profile model. This
applies to the restrictions on less-healthy food and drink
advertising outlined in the Communications Act 2003. An amendment
has been made to each of the TV, on-demand programming services
and online sections, ensuring that all parts of the policy are
covered by this new duty to consult before changing the NPM.
The less-healthy food and drink advertising restrictions outlined
in schedule 16 use a two-step approach to determine whether a
product is “less healthy” and therefore within the scope of the
policy. First the products need to fall into one of the
categories identified as significant contributors to childhood
obesity; then the product needs to be classed as “less healthy”
in accordance with the relevant guidance. That guidance is the
Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance of January 2011, which sets
out the requirements of the existing nutrient profiling model of
2004-05. The Secretary of State has the power to make regulations
to change the meaning of “the relevant guidance” in the future,
for example if the guidance needs to be materially modified to
reflect changes in nutritional advice on what constitutes “more”
or “less” healthy or an alternative model is developed.
This power is subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that
there will be clear parliamentary scrutiny at the point at which
any changes are brought forward.
Although, as Members may know, over the past few years work has
been under way to update the NPM in line with updated dietary
recommendations, it is not our current intention to apply it to
the less-healthy food and drink advertising restrictions policy
that the House is now debating. We made it clear throughout the
2019 and 2020 consultations that if we wanted to use the updated
NPM in the future, we would first need to consult and invite
views from interested stakeholders.
I appreciate the concerns that Members have raised, and would
like to reassure them, the House and, indeed, industry. These
technical amendments will not change the policy intent of the
original provisions. I hope that they will address the valid
concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for North East
Bedfordshire has understandably raised today, and I hope that he
and colleagues across the House will be able to support them in
place of his amendments.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
It was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire who
inspired my intervention. I just want the Government to make it
clear that they are not contributing to a strange paradox which
seems to prevail in modern society, that of being simultaneously
more puritanical and more prurient. We are prurient in that we
let the tech giants corrupt our children in all kinds of ways,
and puritanical in that we are censorious about the jokes people
tell, the language they use, and how much ice cream—or indeed
Christmas cake—they eat.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It has been a while since
he intervened while I was at the Dispatch Box, so this has been a
pleasure. I have never seen him as in any way a puritan; I
suspect that he is rather more a cavalier in his approach to
life.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire has also
tabled amendments to schedule 16 which would insert in the Bill
an exemption from the advertising restrictions for brand
advertising. I am grateful to him, but I can reassure him that
the Bill already delivers that exemption, and I therefore believe
that his amendments are not necessary to achieve the effect that
he seeks. We made that clear in the consultation response
published in June this year, and in speeches made in
Committee.
My hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 14. As I am sure he and
other Members are aware, the Government consulted on different
approaches for restricting online advertising in 2019, and
considered alternatives submitted through the consultation
process. However, it was felt that the alternatives, including
the proposal from the Committee of Advertising Practice to use a
self-regulatory mechanism based on targeting, were sufficiently
similar to the policy options previously consulted on. These were
not sufficient to meet the objective of the policy, namely to
protect children from advertisements for less-healthy food and
drink.
Does the Minister accept that there is a significant
inconsistency between the approach to television broadcasters and
the approach to those who use social media and online provision,
and that a consistent approach would help? Does he also accept
that a considerable array of views has been expressed by those
seeking to help him to develop the Bill in a positive way, and
will he maintain an open mind as it passes through the other
place to establish whether it can be refined to achieve some of
these objectives?
I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend, and other Members,
that I always seek to maintain an open mind, and always seek to
reflect carefully on the contributions made by Members. I will
turn shortly to the challenges posed by television, which is
essentially a linear broadcasting medium, in comparison with
those posed by online broadcasting. I am conscious that I must
conclude my speech before 7 pm.
There is evidence to suggest that the targeting of online adverts
does not account for the use of shared devices and profiles
between parents and children, the communal viewing of content or
false reporting of children’s ages. This, combined with concerns
about the accuracy of interest-based targeting and other
behavioural data as a way of guessing a user’s age and a lack of
transparency and reporting data online, shows why the Government
believe that we need to introduce strong advertising restrictions
online. Any alternative proposals would therefore need to meet a
high bar in terms of protecting children online, and we consider
alternatives that rely on a targeting approach to
be—currently—potentially insufficient to meet the policy
objectives.
Amendments 106 to 109 are relevant to the point that my right
hon. Friend has just made. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the
Member for Buckingham () for raising these matters. His
amendments mean that liability for online advertisements found to
be in breach of the restrictions included in the Bill would shift
to become the responsibility of the platforms rather than the
advertisers, which some may see as providing parity with the
enforcement mechanisms for broadcast television.
During the 2020 consultation, we considered whether other actors
in the online advertising sphere should have responsibility for
breaches, alongside those of advertisers. However, we concluded
that this was not the right place to consider that broader
issue.
The online advertising ecosystem is complex and dynamic. The
scale and speed of advertising online, as well as the
personalised nature of advertising and the lack of transparency
in this system, makes it difficult for platforms to have control
over what is placed on them. The approach that we are taking in
the Bill best aligns with the current enforcement frameworks
across TV, online and on-demand programme services advertising,
and is familiar to industry. It will ensure that there is limited
confusion for broadcasters, platforms or advertisers, as the
liable parties for less-healthy food and drink product
advertising breaches will be the same as those for any other
advertising breaches. The Government intend to consider this
issue as part of the wider online advertising programme, on which
the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will consult
in the coming months.
I am grateful to the Minister for that commitment to consider the
points in my amendments, and with that commitment in place, I
will not seek to push them to vote. However, may I ask him, as he
makes these considerations along with colleagues in the DCMS, to
ensure that broadcasters are fully consulted so that they can
point out the loopholes that any online provisions could throw
up?
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s confirmation that he does not
intend to press his amendments to a Division, and I will ensure
that his point will be heard not only in the Department of Health
and Social Care but in DCMS as well.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle () for his amendments 111 to
113 and for bringing this debate before the House. I would like
to reassure him that small and medium-sized
enterprises—businesses with 249 employees or fewer—that pay to
advertise less healthy food and drink products that they
manufacture and/or sell will be exempt from the less healthy food
and drink restrictions and can continue to advertise. The
definition of SMEs will be provided in secondary legislation and
not on the face of the Bill, which will enable Ministers to act
promptly in future years if new or emerging evidence suggests
that amendments are needed. We will conduct a short consultation
as soon as possible on the SME definition to be included in the
draft regulations. The Government want to ensure consistency with
other definitions for size of business that have been used for
other obesity policies, such as the out-of-home calorie labelling
policy, to create a level playing field. Our preferred
definition, therefore, is a standard definition used by
Government across other policies.
On the point about an industry-led alternative, on which the
Minister has kindly made some comments today, I think that this
discussion will continue, particularly when the Bill is
considered in the other place, so would he be prepared to meet me
so that I can continue to make representations about certain
improvements that could be made?
I am certainly happy to commit that either I, as the Bill
Minister, or the relevant policy Minister will meet my hon.
Friend to discuss his views in this space.
Amendment 110 would ensure that advertisements placed on
distributor or retailer websites are out of scope of the less
healthy food and drink advertising restrictions. Again, I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle for tabling
the amendment, and I would seek to reassure him that the
Government’s intention is to ensure that restrictions are
proportionate to the scale of the problem. It is not our
intention to prohibit the sale of less healthy food and drink
products on the internet. Our aim is to reduce children’s
exposure to advertisements of less healthy food and drink
products, which is why the restrictions are being applied only to
paid-for advertising online—namely, where an advertiser pays by
monetary or other reciprocal means for the placement of adverts
online.
We appreciate that there will be consumers who seek less healthy
food and drink products, which is why this restriction applies
only to paid-for advertising, and companies will be able to
continue to use owned media in the same way as they do now. The
restrictions will not apply to spaces online where full editorial
control and ownership apply, such as a brand’s own blog, website
or social media page. This means that retailers are able to
continue promoting their own products on their own website, as
this would not be covered by the restrictions.
I shall turn briefly to Government amendments 32, 35 and 37,
tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for Health and
Social Care. Amendments 32 and 35 will amend the definition of an
advertisement placed on television and on-demand programme
services to ensure that sponsorship credits around programmes and
sponsorship announcements respectively are included for the
purpose of this Bill. Members will be aware that sponsorship
announcements and sponsorship credits are required so that
viewers know which product is sponsoring any particular
programme. Although these are not routinely considered to be
advertisements in other contexts, the Government’s view is that
they could reasonably be considered to be advertising less
healthy food and drink products for the purposes of the Bill’s
restrictions.
Amendments 32 and 35 will therefore clarify the status of those
announcements, in effect to prohibit identifiable less healthy
food and drink products from sponsoring programmes before the
watershed, in line with the Government’s original policy aims.
Amendment 37, meanwhile, will make it clear that UK businesses
producing online advertisements intended to be accessed
principally by audiences outside the UK fall in scope of the
exemption and will not be in breach of the less healthy food and
drink advertising restrictions set out in the Bill. This
amendment is needed to ensure that the legislation aligns with
the Government’s policy intention to exempt advertisements made
to be viewed outside the UK. We are confident that the likely
frontline regulator already has a clear remit and tests in place
that should allow it to apply this exemption effectively.
18:45:00
I shall now turn to the amendments relating to alcohol. I join
the shadow Minister and put on record my tribute to the bravery
of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (), who has spoken so openly
about the challenges he has faced, and to my hon. Friend the
Member for Bury South () for talking about his
familial experiences. I am grateful to both of them for their
bravery in doing that in a public place in this House.
As with meeting the challenge presented by obesity, this
Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable who
are at risk from alcohol misuse, and we have an existing agenda
for tackling alcohol-related harms. As part of the NHS long-term
plan, we have invested £27 million in an ambitious programme to
establish or improve specialist alcohol care teams in the 25% of
hospitals with the highest rates of alcohol-dependence-related
admissions. This is expected to prevent 50,000 admissions over
five years. We have also made the largest increase in substance
misuse treatment funding for 15 years, with £80 million of new
investment in 2021-22.
I reiterate the comment I made earlier that the best way to treat
alcohol addiction and dependency is to treat it like a mental
health illness, because that is what it is. The best way to do
that is to remove the stigma and put more money into mental
health, but in trying to overcome the stigma, we need to ensure
that there is parity between mental and physical health. If we
treat the mental health issue, we treat the alcohol issue. We
cannot do one without the other. Will the Minister commit today
to going some way towards doing that and to putting more money
into mental health to deal with this?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that this
Government have continued not only to highlight and promote
parity of esteem between mental and physical health but to
increase the funding available to mental health, reflecting that
reality on the ground. He is right to highlight that issue.
We have announced a comprehensive set of reforms to alcohol duty
in this year’s Budget which, taken with the steps we have put in
place on a public health basis, have put in place a strong regime
to tackle the consequences of alcohol misuse. We do not feel that
this Bill is the place to legislate further on this issue but, as
I have said, I am none the less grateful to the hon. Member for
Liverpool, Walton for his amendments and for this opportunity to
debate them.
On amendments 11, 12 and 13, this Bill would introduce a 9 pm TV
watershed for less healthy food and drink products and a
restriction on paid-for advertising of less healthy food and
drink online. Those amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for
Liverpool, Walton, would expand the definition of a less healthy
product to include alcohol. This would have the effect of making
alcohol advertising liable to the watershed proposed for TV
programme services and the online restriction on paid-for
advertising.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman, through Opposition Members, that
the Government have existing measures in place to protect
children and young people from alcohol advertising through the
alcohol advertising code. Material in the broadcast code and the
non-broadcast code relating to the advertising and marketing of
alcohol products is already robust, recognising the social
imperative of ensuring that alcohol advertising is responsible
and, in particular, that children and young people are suitably
protected. If new evidence emerges that clearly highlights major
problems with the existing codes, the Advertising Standards
Authority has a duty to revisit the codes and take appropriate
action. Furthermore, the Government introduced additional
restrictions last year on alcohol advertising on on-demand
programme services, through amendments to the Communications Act
2003.
Clause 129 and schedule 16 are aimed at reducing the exposure of
children to less healthy food and drink advertising and the
impact of such advertising on child obesity. Less healthy food
and drink products—
Will the Minister give way?
I fear that I have only a few minutes left, and I have already
taken a number of interventions on this. I want to conclude by
covering the tobacco amendments as well, which I know that some
colleagues are keen to see a response to. I apologise to the hon.
Gentleman.
Less healthy food and drink products are not age restricted at
the point of purchase, unlike alcohol. Finally, the 2019 and 2020
consultations on advertising restrictions for less healthy food
and drink did not consult on alcohol within the restrictions,
either online or on TV, so we cannot be sure of the impact these
amendments would have on the industry more broadly.
Turning to tobacco in the time I have left, because I know the
shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North () , has taken a close interest
in the issue, I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham () and others, including my
hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who have tabled a number
of amendments that seek to address the harm caused by smoking in
this country. I reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham of
the Government’s commitment to becoming smoke free by 2030.
We have successfully introduced many regulatory reforms over the
past two decades, and the UK is a global leader in tobacco
control. Our reforms include raising the age of sale from 16 to
18, the introduction of a tobacco display ban, standardised
packaging and a ban on smoking in cars with children, which all
place important barriers between young people and tobacco
products. The Government are currently developing our new tobacco
control plan, and I reassure the hon. Lady that that will reflect
carefully on the APPG’s findings and report.
I am afraid I cannot be tempted to go further than the
Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon.
Friend the Member for Erewash (), did in the recent
Westminster Hall debate on this question, but I can reassure the
hon. Member for City of Durham that we remain committed to
bringing forward the tobacco control plan.
rose—
Forgive me; I only have a few minutes and I want to cover the
amendments from the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon.
Member for Swansea West () did manage dexterously to
shoehorn air quality more broadly within the scope of these
debates, and what he said will have been heard.
New clause 2, which seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of
State to impose a requirement for tobacco manufacturers
“to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette
rolling papers”,
is intended, as I understand from the hon. Member for City of
Durham, to further strengthen our current public health messaging
and encourage smokers to quit. We strongly support measures to
stop people smoking, to make smoking less attractive to young
people and to educate smokers of its dangers, as we have done
through graphic warnings on cigarette packs.
We would need to conduct further research and build a further
robust evidence base in support of any such additional measures
before bringing them forward. To date, no country has introduced
such a measure, so there is currently limited evidence of its
impact in supporting smokers to quit. If evidence showed that the
requirement would not be effective, it would not be an
appropriate power to have in place.
New clause 3, also tabled by the hon. Lady, seeks to provide a
power for the Secretary of State to introduce a requirement for
manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information
and information about smoking cessation services into cigarette
packaging. As I set out in Committee, we believe this power is
unnecessary, since the Department could legislate to do that
already under the Children and Families Act 2014; inserts could
be required for public health messaging through amendments to the
Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. We
already have in place strong graphic images and warnings of the
health harms of smoking on the outside of cigarette packs. As
part of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, the
address for the NHS website, which provides advice for people
seeking to quit smoking, is also required on packaging.
The current SPoT regulations prohibit the use of inserts, as
there was limited evidence that placing public health messaging
inserts inside cigarette packages was more effective than
messaging on the outside of packs. Further research would need to
be undertaken to help to establish the public health benefit if
we were to go further.
Turning briefly to new clause 4, I am grateful again to the hon.
Lady for tabling this clause. The Government are clear that they
only support the use of e-cigarettes as a tool for smokers who
are trying to quit, and we strongly discourage non-smokers and
young people from using them. We are committed to ensuring that
our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and
non-smokers from using e-cigarettes.
Current regulations include requirements on the packaging and
labelling of e-cigarettes, along with restrictions on their
marketing and the prohibiting of advertising on mainstream media
such as TV and radio. While we strongly support measures to
protect young people further from cigarettes, we believe the
current regime remains appropriate and has the powers in place
within it to make changes where required, although I suspect my
hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East may yet be proved right
when he suggests that the other place may return to this at some
point.
I have outlined the many steps this Government are taking to
address some of the major lifestyle challenges to our health. The
Bill represents another step in the direction of preventive
healthcare and building a healthier society, an aim I know we all
share. I hope the House will support the amendments we have
tabled at this stage to strengthen those measures.
I also want to update the House at this point, in the context of
the importance of an integrated approach and how it can improve
public health measures, on two steps the Secretary of State has
taken today that will put NHS staff and technology at the heart
of our long-term planning and allow us to take forward the
integrated approach that has proved so vital during this pandemic
and is so vital to public health.
Will the Minister give way?
I am afraid I will not. I suspect that point will be pertinent to
the debate on the first group of amendments tomorrow.
First, we intend to merge Health Education England with NHS
England and NHS Improvement, putting education and training of
our health workforce at the forefront of the NHS. By bringing
this vital function inside the NHS, we can plan more effectively
for the long term and have clear accountability for delivery.
Secondly, we also intend to take forward the recommendations of
the Wade-Gery report, which included merging NHSX and NHS Digital
with NHS England and NHS Improvement, building on the huge
progress made on digital transformation during the pandemic and
bringing together the digital leadership of the NHS in one place.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our colleagues at
Health Education England, NHS Digital and NHSX for their
exceptional work. These changes build on that contribution and
allow us to drive forward further integration and changes that
will put the NHS on a firmer footing.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members of the Government’s
commitment to improving public health. I urge those who have
tabled amendments to consider not pressing them to a
Division.
I have listened carefully to the debate, and I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Packaging and labelling of nicotine products
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about
the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and
other novel nicotine products including requirements for health
warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to
children.”—(.)
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to
prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to
children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Division 113
22/11/2021 18:57:00
The House divided:
Ayes: 230
Noes: 297
Question accordingly negatived.
19:11:00
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the
disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing
Order No. 83E).
New Clause 16
Annual report on alcohol treatment services: assessment of
outcomes
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of
Parliament at the start of each financial year a report on—
(a) the ways in which alcohol treatment providers have been
supported in tackling excess mortality, alcohol related hospital
admissions, and the burden of disease resulting from alcohol
consumption, and
(b) the number of people identified as requiring support who are
receiving treatment.
(2) Alongside the publication of the report, the Secretary of
State must publish an assessment of the impact of the level of
funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to
deliver a high-quality service that enables patient
choice.”—(.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health
and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding
received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work
to improve treatment and reduce harm.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Division 114
22/11/2021 19:11:00
The Committee divided:
Ayes: 194
Noes: 298
Question accordingly negatived.
Schedule 16
Advertising of less healthy food and drink
Amendments made: 31, page 222, leave out lines 9 to
11.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment 32, page 222, line 14, at end
insert
“and anything else which, under a sponsorship agreement, is
included in a television programme service, other than in a
television programme;”.
This amendment makes it clearer that sponsorship credits in
television programme services are included in the meaning of
“advertising” in the new section 321A of the Communications Act
2003 inserted by Schedule 16.
Amendment 33, page 222, line 36, at end
insert—
“(6A) Before making regulations under subsection (2)(b) or (6),
the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary
of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult before
making regulations changing the meaning of “the relevant
guidance” for the purposes of the television advertising
provisions of Schedule 16.
Amendment 34, page 223, leave out lines 7 to 9.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 36.
Amendment 35, page 223, line 11, after second
“advertisements” insert
“and sponsorship announcements (within the meaning given by
section 368G(17))”.
This amendment makes it clearer that sponsorship announcements in
on-demand programme services are included in the meaning of
“advertising” in the new section 368FA of the Communications Act
2003 inserted by Schedule 16.
Amendment 36, page 223, line 34, at end
insert—
“(7A) Before making regulations under subsection (3) or (7), the
Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of
State considers appropriate.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult before
making regulations changing the meaning of “the relevant
guidance” for the purposes of the provisions of Schedule 16
relating to advertising in on-demand programme services.
Amendment 37, page 224, line 21, leave out
from “to” to “advertisements” in line 24.
This amendment widens the exception from the prohibition in new
section 368Z14(3)(d) (online advertising of less healthy food and
drink) for advertising not intended to be accessed principally
from the UK, so that the exception applies to businesses in the
UK as well as those outside it.
Amendment 38, page 224, leave out lines 29 to 31.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.
Amendment 39, page 225, line 22, at end
insert—
“(8A) Before making regulations under subsection (4) or (8), the
Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of
State considers appropriate.”—(.)
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult before
making regulations changing the meaning of “the relevant
guidance” for the purposes of the provisions of Schedule 16
relating to online advertising.
|
