My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on producing these two amendments, which are worthy of great consideration. Indeed, I have considered them closely; but I have come to the conclusion that they do not go far enough. We shall come to further amendments that do go far enough.
Clause 19 is a restraint in trade. It prevents retailers and all purveyors of tobacco exhibiting their wares as any other trade can do. I believe that is an unacceptable imposition on thousands of small and medium-sized shopkeepers who sell tobacco. Therefore I am opposed to Clause 19 per se.
The Government argue that it will not affect retailers because it will not cost much to hide the displays of tobacco. However, everything that we have heard from independent people and retailers themselves shows that the cost will be very high, and in some cases prohibitive. It will not only cause inconvenience and perhaps danger to tobacconists, but will also put them at risk of going out of business.
The Government will say that that is rubbish, but that is exactly what they said when they banned smoking in public places. We warned them that public houses would close down all over the country, but they said, "Of course, they won’t. The people who don’t smoke will flock to the restaurants and public houses as they have never flocked before". But the truth is that we now have in Parliament a group for the protection of public houses because so many have gone out of business, robbing many of our communities of a social meeting place. Whether that was the Government’s objective, I do not know. They do not seem to like criticism and they certainly do not respond to reasonable argument.
Retailers sell not just tobacco but all sorts of other things that we are told by the medical people and other health experts are very bad for us. Many retailers also sell alcoholic liquor. In my view, that is the most dangerous drug that people can consume. Yet, it is perfectly all right to display alcohol in fancy bottles with very attractive labels. Presumably children will see those, but will they take to drink and become alcoholics because they have seen a bottle on display in some retailer’s shop? I do not believe it.
We are told from time to time that foods such as chocolate are bad for us. Chocolate products are about all you can see when you go into some retailers, so we are encouraging children to eat chocolate which the experts tell us is bad for us. Full-cream ice-cream is supposed to make you fat, yet in most retailers’ shops cornets and so on are on display. There are all sorts of ways you can fill yourself up on ice-cream. Cream cakes and all sorts of other sweets are supposed to be bad for us.
Where are the Government going? Will they stop at cigarettes or tobacco products, or will they go for all those things in the future? I warn all those who like eating chocolates, who like a little drink now and again or who like ice-cream that they may be next on the list. Before very long, if retailers are treated in the same way as they have been treated over tobacco, they will have nothing to display at all. Their shops will be the most boring places to go into.
I do not like going into the medical aspects, but I might do so on the next amendments. I keep newspaper cuttings, particularly on this subject. The Daily Mail on 27 February had a big headline stating: ""Our lifestyles are killing us"."
The report states: ""Almost 78,000 Britons develop cancer needlessly each year because of their unhealthy lifestyles. Researchers found that they could have avoided the disease by eating better, drinking less alcohol and exercising more"."
There is nothing about cigarettes, as a matter of fact.
Thus, 78,000 people are at risk from eating and drinking and not having exercise. There is nothing about smoking. But then today, I read an article in the Daily Mail headed, ""Why smokers are burning fat as well as cigarettes"."
The article states that when cigarette smokers stop smoking, they become fat. If they smoke cigarettes, they will not become fat. So what we really ought to do is to nullify the whole thing—because the figures are just about the same at around 80,000—by suggesting to fat people that they should smoke cigarettes in order to keep slimmer.
That is a logical thing to say, having read these articles. It to illustrate the fact that the anti-tobacco people concentrate on this one product which is supposed to be bad for us, but we really must be careful, because similar campaigns will be taken up against things that perhaps some of us like. I do not drink much alcohol, but other people enjoy it very much. We must be careful that the anti-smoking lobby, when it has completely got its way, does not turn on other people’s delights. Although I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on bringing this amendment forward, I believe that subsequent amendments will more effectively help the small retailers who are at risk of going out of business.
Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
(Independent Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c562-3 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:23:25 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554524
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554524
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554524