UK Parliament / Open data

Health Bill [HL]

It would be most difficult for me to put anything delicately. I think that it has been frightened and lily-livered and that it has not stood up to government edicts hard enough. It has not, in fact, put its point of view forward as it should have done or protected its customers as it should have done. It has allowed its retailers to be abused and allowed smokers to be abused and made pariahs. When is it going to get a say? Why should it not be able to promote its product in a free commercial sense, in a free country? The industry is not the only group that promotes itself. A lot of promotion is done by the Government, either directly, with tens of millions of pounds, but also through single-issue organisations such as ASH. I, too, tabled Questions about smoking. In fact, I have a file on smoking about so high, because I have been around the subject for well over 20 years. I asked a Question recently, ""whether the Action for Smoking on Health Group (ASH) or other anti-smoking organisations have received Government funding in 2006, 2007 and 2008; and, if so, how much in each year".—[Official Report, 26/1/09; cols. WA22-23.]" The Answer was £180,000 in 2005-06, £185,400 in 2006-07, and £191,000 in 2007-08. That is a total of £556,400. Of course, it has gone from being a voluntary organisation to one with a chief executive. It has really grown in importance as the Government continue to support it. That is not all. As was mentioned earlier, this is No Smoking Day, which is going to cost the taxpayers £250,000. All sorts of other people are being promoted, the anti-smoking lobby in particular.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

708 c463-4GC 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top