THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

  325.  Given such a widespread awareness of the risks involved in smoking, the question is what approach should the Government take to issues of smoking and health. The alternatives range from a laissez faire approach (ie, given the level of available information, leave it to the market to sort out) to a social engineering approach (where the Government intervenes in the personal lawful lifestyle choices of its citizens and drives them to make lifestyle choices that the Government believes are worthy). British American Tobacco does not believe that such "nannyism" is the proper role of the Government; however, neither do we believe that Government should have no role and leave it to the market alone. A scientifically based, soundly supported and proportionate response by the Government is fundamental in a democratic society where what is at issue is the restriction of the freedom of individual citizens to choose a particular lifestyle activity or the freedom of corporate citizens to conduct their lawful business.

  326.  We think that it is instructive to look at the conduct of previous Governments when dealing with cigarettes as a consumer product. Beginning in 1956, when the Minister of Health announced the association between smoking and lung cancer, and continuing up to the present day, each successive Government has been involved in discussions with the cigarette industry and others about how to address concerns about smoking and health. The relationship between State and the UK tobacco manufacturers that has resulted has been constructive and co-operative on both sides, recognising that the State does not wish to prohibit the sale to adults of cigarettes, and that it is in the interests of both sides to do whatever can reasonably be done to address the legitimate concerns of public health authorities.

  327.  Governments have been willing to allow the products to be manufactured, advertised, and sold, subject to a number of important restrictions. Some of these restrictions have had statutory backing (eg excise tax and the requirement that retailers only sell to those aged 16 or over) and some have been the subject of self-regulation (such as the advertising codes).

  328.  This Government has made two important commitments that suggest that in principle it supports a continuation of its co-operative and constructive relationship with the industry.

  329.  First, the White Paper has made it clear that the UK Government, whilst wishing to see consumption drop further, will not interfere with an adult's right to choose to smoke.

". . . we recognise that Government action in areas of personal choice like smoking is a difficult and sensitive issue. Tobacco is a uniquely dangerous product. If introduced today, it would not stand the remotest chance of being legal. But smoking is not against the law. We do not intend to make smoking unlawful. We are not banning smoking.

Currently, well over a quarter of the people of Britain smoke. The Government fully recognises their right to do so. We will not in any of our proposals infringe upon that right." ("Smoking Kills. A White Paper on Tobacco", CM 4177, p 11, 1998).

  330,  Secondly, as Prime Minister Blair stated in the foreword to the Better Regulation Guide, this Government will only regulate where there is a good case for regulation, an approach we support.

"It is vital that Government regulates wisely. If our regulatory framework is excessive or poorly conceived, we all suffer from the resultant red tape. The intended benefits of regulation disappear, often to be replaced by less choice, higher prices and lower employment and investment." (Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit, p 1, 1998).

  331.  We fully support the Government's efforts, driven by the Cabinet Office's Regulatory Impact Unit, to ensure that any regulations are fair, transparent, evidenced-based and proportionate.

  332.  In spite of these statements, the current Government seems intent on implementing a number of measures, principally taxation and regulating where people can smoke, to make it very much more difficult for adults to choose to smoke. A tax policy which is driven by the object of reducing consumption by making cigarettes prohibitively costly is not consistent with the Prime Minister's statement that people should be free to choose, quite apart from the serious smuggling problem that this policy has already caused. Further, to adopt regulations restricting where people can smoke on the pretext that they are necessary to protect non-smokers from ETS is a classic example of unsound regulation, when the primary intention appears to be to ostracise smokers and to make it more difficult for them to find opportunities to smoke.

  333.  We fully accept that it is the role of government to ensure that its citizens understand the risks involved in certain choices, and to protect those deemed underage from making choices that should not be available to them. We think that more can be done on underage smoking and would like to play our part in addressing this problem. One clear initiative to tackle this issue would be to raise the legal age for sale of tobacco products from 16 to 18, and we encourage the Government to take this step. Another helpful approach is the CitizenCard which assists retailers in identifying the age of persons to whom they sell tobacco products.

  334.  We also encourage the Government to consider more education, for those who continue to choose to smoke, on how those risks differ by various choices. Epidemiology clearly shows that groups of people who start smoking earlier, smoke for longer and smoke more cigarettes per day have much higher risks than those who smoke less. Science does not suggest a "safe" level of smoking, and such studies typically report higher risks in all groups that smoke compared to non-smokers.

  335.  We take the view that all Government information should be accurate, including that aimed at public health. Bad science, for what might be seen by some as a good cause, is poor policy. For example, a comparison of the consumption trends in countries with or without advertising bans does not indicate that there is a correlation between tobacco advertising and consumption. Such a ban will, though, clearly infringe on the rights of the manufacturers of cigarettes and those who choose to smoke by prohibiting the provision of information on the choice of brands.

  336.  Similarly, any change in public policy on low tar cigarettes should only be made on the basis of a serious consideration of the science. We would be pleased to play our proper role in this.

  337.  We believe that there is a danger at the moment, particularly given the recent apparent reluctance to consult with the tobacco manufacturers, of public policy being unduly influenced by pressure groups, such as ASH, who make smoking policy recommendations to the Government, not always soundly based in science or the experience of the past.

  338.  We certainly hope for a return to proper consultation and open discussion between the Government and the manufacturers and other interested groups on matters related to smoking, and for our part, are very willing to go forward on that basis.

October 1999