Health Bill [HL]

With the opportunity of this clause stand part debate, we can now discuss what is undoubtedly the most contentious issue in the Bill—the Government’s proposal to ban point-of-sale displays of tobacco products. I said at Second Reading that I did not regard such a measure as being justified. Since then I have made it my business to read extensively on the whole subject and have had a number of meetings with, among others, Ash and Cancer Research UK. On Monday I had a long discussion on the telephone with Professor Gerard Hastings, who has done a great deal of work on behalf of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and who was kind enough to come and give a presentation to noble Lords a few days ago. I have to tell the Committee that not only have I not changed my mind but I am even more firmly persuaded of the opinion that I previously expressed. I shall try to explain why. We are dealing here with a proposal that the Government justify with reference to public health objectives. I am not disputing those objectives; indeed, I am fully signed up to them. As with any proposal to extend the criminal law, though, we have to be clear about two things: first, that the evidence justifying the policy is robust and, secondly, that the collateral damage likely to be caused by the measure in question is proportionate to the good that we are trying to achieve. The proposal does not pass either test. The principal justification for a point-of-sale display ban, in the view of the Government, is that it will remove an important influence on would-be smokers to take up smoking, more especially teenagers. What evidence is there that displays of cigarettes have that effect? We are told that since the passing of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, tobacco companies have sought to get around the spirit of the law on advertising by encouraging retailers to install ever larger and more elaborate gantries to display cigarettes, and that these have in effect become a means of advertising. If that statement is to be believed, we need to show that that is happening on a wide scale and, moreover, that display gantries in themselves act as an enticement to people to take up smoking. Evidence for large gantries exists. Many of us have seen photographs of them. However, the Government said in their consultation paper at paragraph 31: ""Increases in size or prominence of display of tobacco products since TAPA came into force have yet to be confirmed by research"." I am not sure therefore whether we can say more at this stage other than that some examples of large gantries have been observed. We cannot say that they are typical. However, more importantly, what actual effect are displays having? At the presentation attended by noble Lords last week—I shall paraphrase—it was said that awareness of new packs among the young has increased since the ad ban; that young people still know their brands; and that this must be a function of point of sale display. A greater leap of logic, especially from an academic source, is not often found. We are supposed to believe that young people never see a cigarette pack other than in shops. A moment’s reflection should make us realise that that proposition is ridiculous. We need therefore to look more widely for evidence that point-of-sale displays influence the take-up of smoking. There are various jurisdictions around the world where display bans have been implemented. The Department of Health place reliance on two in particular; namely, Iceland and the province of Saskatchewan in Canada. In neither of those places do the data, when examined, prove the department’s case or go anywhere near showing that they may even have a ghost of a case. I am talking here about proving cause and effect. In Canada as a whole, smoking prevalence has reduced pretty steadily over the past 10 years. In Saskatchewan, where a display ban was first introduced in 2002, the rate of decline in smoking prevalence has been less steep than in a number of provinces where there has been no display ban in force. So I am far from convinced that Saskatchewan has anything useful to tell us.