Health Bill [HL]

May I come back to that in a moment? The figure is not quite as high as 99 per cent, but it is substantial. That is partly why we have a muddle here because children actually do find it relatively easy to get access to vending machines. As I have said, 17 per cent of children use vending machines as their usual source of supply. A survey in 2008 showed that 5 per cent of adults had used a vending machine in the past six months. So there is a simple argument that these machines make it much more convenient for children to purchase cigarettes, but that if they were not there selling tobacco, they would not disadvantage many adults who in any case have other sources of supply. That is the major part of the argument, but I want to make a number of subsidiary points in support and to look at the level of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has described as the "collateral damage" of introducing such a prohibition. First, this would be in line with every other bit of government legislation dealing with products that are banned for children. It would be ridiculous if alcohol was available in vending machines; we would find that quite extraordinary. There is some comfort for the noble Baroness in that every other aspect of UK legislation treats products not available to children in the same way. We know also that 22 countries in Europe do not permit the sale of tobacco in vending machines. Again I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but that is not a reason for us to do it. However, if the body of opinion suggests that people are not allowing cigarettes to be sold in vending machines, the burden is on us to show why we are different, not why we would be the same if we did what other people in Europe do. The third point is that public opinion would probably be with a prohibition. Again, like the Minister, I am somewhat suspicious of surveys of public opinion. Nevertheless, the figures I see here show that 65 per cent of the general public would support a prohibition on the sale of tobacco in vending machines. In other words, the public are two to one in favour of such a prohibition. So there are many reasons why I would encourage the noble Baroness to be brave enough to put this prohibition in the Bill. After all, she can simply say to the public without appearing as though she is a nanny, or whatever else she may be accused of, "We are prohibiting the sale of cigarettes in vending machines because, although relatively few adults use them, they are a significant source of supply for children. Adults have other ways of obtaining cigarettes; children will find it much more difficult". That seems to be a very straightforward argument. Let us look at the collateral damage. I started by talking about vending machines as being about convenience, and I think that they are about convenience rather than liberty. I do not think that the Government are infringing people’s liberty by prohibiting the sale of tobacco from vending machines. It is hard to argue that buying a smaller packet of cigarettes at a higher price from a machine rather than having to go and get it from a man or a woman at a bar is a pretty fundamental liberty. The commercial arguments, in general, do not look very strong either. Presumably adults will switch to other sources and that may benefit the small newsagents and traders, although I have seen no evidence as to what the effect will be on overall sales of tobacco. Therefore, it is difficult to judge what the effect will be on tobacco companies, although I appreciate that they will want as many outlets and opportunities as possible to put their product in front of the customer. I imagine that the real losers will be those who manufacture and maintain vending machines, but perhaps they have other products that they can put in them. I come to where I think we are at a compromise—