Tobacco Packaging

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and the other Members who went to the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that it took place. However, my comments will not be particularly supportive of my hon. Friend’s views on the issue. I look at the matter from the perspective of a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently produced a significant report on the impact of tobacco smuggling on the loss of tax revenue in the UK. Having seen the evidence, I came to the strong conclusion that the case for plain packaging is certainly unproven.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said that she wanted to ensure that 1,000 children in her constituency do not take up smoking. I wonder what the evidence is to suggest that those 1,000 children will not take up smoking simply because of a change in the product’s packaging. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) explained that he started smoking by stealing cigarettes from his father. I wonder whether his father’s choice of brand had any significant impact on his decision to steal a single cigarette. When I was growing up in Caernarfon, when people wanted to smoke they went to a local post office to buy singles. I suspect that they gave no consideration whatsoever to the brand; the point was that they could buy cigarettes very cheaply, usually one at a time. It was an important development when that was made an illegal practice that would not be tolerated. However, it is still the case that the driver is the price, not the branding. That is what I want to talk about.

When the Public Accounts Committee researched the smuggling of tobacco products into the UK, some of the information that emerged from that work was shocking. For example, in the top 10 recognised consumer brands of cigarettes in this country there are often two or three that are illicit and that it is illegal to supply in this country—for example Jin Ling, Richman and Raquel. Strictly speaking, those brands should not be available and so they would not be affected by legislation on plain packaging, yet independent consumer surveys show that those brands, despite being illicit and illegal, are recognised by the public.

The question we must ask, therefore, is why and how those brands are gaining a foothold in this country. Clearly it is unacceptable that they are smuggled into the country, and at such a rate that they are now recognised consumer brands. The key point we must recognise is that the driver for the sale of those products is not the branding or the so-called attractive packaging; it is the price. A packet of 20 cigarettes costs between £7.50 and £8. My son, who is lucky enough to have a paper round, would have to spend half his weekly wage if he decided to buy a packet of cigarettes legally, yet he could go out to any estate or high street in my constituency and, if he was switched on, find a packet of illicit tobacco for between £2 and £2.50.

I therefore argue that the driver encouraging young people to start smoking is more likely to be the price than the branding. If a young person can buy a packet of 20 cigarettes for 15% or 20% of their weekly paper round wage, they would be more tempted to do so than if they could buy it for 50% of their wage. By concentrating on plain packaging, we are ignoring an important fact: price is a driver for the sale of these products.

Time and again hon. Members have argued that plain packaging is about protecting young people, yet in university towns the young people often smoke roll-your-owns. The figure for roll-your-own tobacco is absolutely atrocious. In my constituency, which has no higher education facility, 48% of loose-leaf tobacco will be smuggled and illicit. The vast majority will not be recognised UK brands. In any town with a university or further education college, the percentage of illegal and smuggled loose-leaf tobacco will be even higher. What is the driver? What is persuading young people to buy tobacco products that are not officially marketed in the United Kingdom? The answer, I argue, is price.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that people who are already addicted, such as older students, will smoke anything, but that is not surprising. We have repeatedly argued that young people get addicted in their early teens, and his arguments do not negate that.

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Lady completely misrepresents my view. I said clearly at the outset that the temptation for young people is much enhanced if the product is affordable, and I think she fully understood my point.

It is important to recognise the problem of illicit and smuggled products because evidence—yes, to be tested and argued about—has been presented to suggest that plain packaging will actually make it easier for these products to be made available. I am fully aware that there are arguments on both sides. However, what is being said in this debate is, in effect, that the Government’s decision to wait to look at the evidence from Australia somehow indicates that they are in league with the tobacco companies. I find that quite distasteful.

I genuinely approach this debate from the point of view that I would like the number of people who smoke to be reduced—to nothing, I hope. I have never smoked, and if any of my children smoked I would be absolutely furious. Indeed, I lost my father to lung cancer at the young age of 63. My children never saw their grandfather simply because of his smoking. If the evidence was clear that plain packaging would be the answer, I would be supportive. I find it very odd that Members are saying that looking at the evidence is somehow condemning people to die. That is emotional and unacceptable language.

When Populus recently surveyed a number of police officers about whether they thought that plain packaging would be helpful, 86% of them clearly stated that they thought it would make it easier for illicit tobacco products to be supplied and that those products would be targeted at young people who could afford them. Sixty-eight per cent. of the police officers thought that plain packaging would lead to an increase in the size of the black economy in relation to tobacco products. A full 62% thought that an increase in cheap tobacco products would result in an increase in the use of tobacco products by children. Those are very interesting and important findings from a poll of police officers. Are their views correct? We need to look at the evidence and consider very carefully whether it supports them.

[Mr Barron]

The latest figures from HMRC, at a mid-point estimate, show that the market share of illicit cigarettes has fallen from 15% in 2006-07 to 9% in 2010-11. There is no evidence that this is not going the right way; it is enforcement that we lack.

[Guto Bebb]

The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps read the report by the Public Accounts Committee, which presented evidence that there has been an uplift since 2010-11. I thought that the whole point of this Chamber was to debate on the basis of the facts, and that we liked evidence to be up to date. If he wants to quote evidence from 2010-11, that is absolutely fine, but I refer him to the PAC report, which has updated figures. It is interesting that he would probably be very supportive of today’s PAC report on universal credit, but when the facts do not suit him he seems to ignore them.

The key thing we need to remember is that time and again this place has legislated in haste. There is a significant question mark over both sides of the debate. What the Government have said is very simple: let us see the evidence and consider it. If the evidence from Australia and other countries that decide to go down this route proves that there has been a reduction in the use of tobacco products, a reduction in illicit tobacco being taken into the country, a fall in the availability of illicit products, and a fall in the number of smuggled products, it would be worth taking the issue extremely seriously and moving to legislate. However, the argument advanced by some hon. Members is about their prejudice rather than the facts. We should congratulate the Government on being willing to wait and legislate correctly rather than acting in haste and possibly contributing to and supporting the behaviour of people who are making tobacco products available to young people not at £7.50 or £8 but at £2.50 or less.

We should consider very carefully what is tempting young people to take up smoking. I am very clearly of the view that the temptation is not necessarily branding but more likely to be price. Labour Members might like to have a good feeling about doing something in this place to help young people, but they should do it on the basis of facts, not their ill-informed opinions.