The main arguments against the new clause have already been made by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Naseby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, but there are aspects other than legal ones about it that should be put to the Committee.
We are supposed to be a free democracy in favour of freedom of speech and against censorship, yet we have this new clause before us today. What does it do? I will not read it all out, as the Committee would be a bit bored by that. However, in essence it says to the Government, "Here are a list of things you must do"—after consultation, true—but the list involves not only manufacturers but purveyors of tobacco. It does not really give Parliament the proper opportunity to discuss the matter, because, right at the end, it says: ""The powers of the Secretary of State under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment"."
In other words, it is a negative instrument, not an affirmative instrument, so carte blanche is being given to a Minister of the Crown to do exactly as he or she likes, without proper parliamentary discussion or approval. In the House of Commons, they would have an hour and a half—is that still right?—to discuss this important matter, which takes away the right of manufacturers and purveyors of a legal product to display it in a way that they think will make it attractive. It does not matter whether the product is cigarettes or anything else; a right is being taken away from people, affecting their ability to sell a legal product.
I find it amazing and absurd that the Government are in favour of covering up displays in the shops so that people cannot see the packaging anyway. But they are not satisfied with preventing retailers from displaying a legal product—they now want to say that what is hidden must be in terms agreed by the Secretary of State without parliamentary approval. Where on earth are we going in this country? Do we no longer believe in individual freedom or choice? It is going so far as to become frightening. Of course, once you do it with tobacco, it sets a dangerous precedent. Tobacco is not the only product dangerous to health, we are told, day in and grinding day out in the newspapers. One day they tell you something is bad for you, the next day that it is good for you. I am talking about chocolate, sweets and, of course, alcohol. Last Monday the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was telling us that although she agrees with the non-display, or the covering up of displays, of tobacco products, she does not believe that the same sort of thing should happen with alcohol.
Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
(Independent Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Health Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c450GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:45:24 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536987
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536987
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_536987