The Government's decision to levy the tobacco industry and smokers in order to fund a new cardiovascular health strategy makes sense. The "polluter pays" principle is already an integral part of our environmental law; there is no reason why the tobacco industry should not be asked to help pay for the huge cost to the State of treating those with smoking-related illnesses. The Minister for Health, Mr Cowen, is to be commended for his initiative; as a general rule, the Department of Finance does not allow tax revenue to be earmarked for specific purposes. But, on this occasion, it is logical to make the tobacco industry underwrite the new funding initiatives in cardiovascular health, at a time when 6,500 people die in the State every year from smoking-related illness.
Whether it makes good sense to punish smokers for their sins is another question. Cigarettes have been routinely targeted in every budget for a generation and more but the impact on tobacco sales has been patchy. Earlier this year, the National Health and Lifestyle Survey indicated that smoking rates among adults and children are running at more than 50 per cent above the target level set by the Government. One-third of those aged between 15 and 17 are regular smokers and 31 per cent of adults are regular or occasional smokers. The hope must be that the imposition of a significant levy by the Government at this juncture will, at the very least, dissuade young people from purchasing their first cigarette. But, on past evidence, this may be a forlorn hope.
A more pertinent question may be whether the latest initiative signals a tougher approach by government towards the tobacco industry. In truth, the relationship between the two has always been ambiguous, not least because of the £700 million in revenue that the Exchequer collects in tobacco taxes and duties every year. A similar ambiguity is evident throughout the EU. Tobacco may be directly responsible for upwards of half a million deaths per year in the EU, but successive European ministers for health have been slow to curtail tobacco advertising and sponsorship by tobacco companies. For example, it will be October 2006 before the provisions agreed by EU ministers on tobacco advertising and promotion come fully into effect.
In truth, tobacco companies in the EU continue to escape lightly, certainly in comparison with the US experience. Last November, the American tobacco industry agreed to pay $206 billion towards the cost of treating smoking-induced illnesses. In another landmark case earlier this month, a Florida court ruled that five tobacco companies were responsible for deaths and illness from more than 20 diseases linked with smoking. It is to be hoped that these judgements, and the succession of similar actions planned by individual US states and smokers themselves, will provide encouragement for those contemplating similar actions in this State and across the EU. Mr Cowen's initiative signals how at least one arm of government is ready to take strong action. It is to be hoped that the courts adopt a similarly robust approach when a member of the public sues for the damage that smoking has done to themselves or to their family members.