Health Bill [HL]

I shall speak briefly on this issue, about which everyone in the Room obviously feels strongly whichever side of the argument they are on. I have an enormous respect for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but we part company on this issue. Albeit that I listened with great interest to the noble Earl’s persuasive speech—I sat here thinking, "Well, yes"—I am hanging on to my position. Before I looked into the amendment I was concerned about the possible impact of Clause 19 on newsagents but, on reflection, it is of course true that if someone goes to a newsagent to buy cigarettes, they will have made that decision before going in and the display will not affect them when they walk into the shop. Such people may then, if they wish, make other purchases. We know that a major part of the attraction of cigarettes for newsagents is that people come in, buy the cigarettes and then spot other things they want to buy. So, on that basis, I do not think this clause will have much impact on newsagents, but it is true that if people come in to buy other things, they will be less likely to make spontaneous purchases of cigarettes. I know that the noble Earl is busy. However, I should like an assurance from him that he would regard it as a good thing if a person was to go into a newsagent to buy some pencils, but was less likely to spot some cigarettes and think, "Oh my gosh, I would really like some of those". There is a clear benefit in terms of stopping the spontaneous purchase of cigarettes. I accept that for newsagents the more serious issue is that, if Clause 19 leads to a reduction in young people and teenagers smoking, over time, there will be an enormous drop in the number of smokers in general and in the demand for cigarettes from newsagents. Surely that is what we all want, which is why I am confused. The noble Earl has argued that this proposal will not have any effect, but other Members of the Committee have argued quite desperately that it will have a major effect. In a sense, one can have it one way or another. I know that in part the noble Earl was indicating that people might go from smaller newsagents to supermarkets. But my contention is that for every 100 young people who did not go into a newsagent, not all of that 100 would go along to a supermarket. There would be an effect.