I do apologise—it is being enforced in Cambridge, where partnerships have worked together and driven down the amount of alcohol being drunk on the streets, particularly by young people. It can be done, if there is a will. I know the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) very well. We do not want young kids to buy tobacco from, or to be given tobacco by, an adult who is making an illicit earning by doing so.
The shops, of course, are doing their best. They are asking whether people are 18 years old, and when someone proves that they are, they can buy the tobacco and sell it on. That cannot be acceptable, and we do not accept it with alcohol. If the hon. Gentleman is right, the Government need to get a grip on alcohol legislation. The key point is that the Government did the right thing by raising the age to 18, but they have not done the right thing in their proposals. That is the reason for new clause 1.
The crux of amendment 1 is the evidence that the measure in the Bill would massively affect businesses in this country at this very difficult time—that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser). Is there sufficient evidence to ban displays at the point of sale, which will affect people’s businesses? I have looked long and hard for evidence from around the world that the Government’s proposals are sufficiently evidence-based, but I do not think that they are. I am sure that the Minister will refer to the experiment in Canada. When the measure was introduced in one state, there was a drop, but in states where it was not introduced, there was also a drop. What is the evidence base from that?
The other thing that worries me about the evidence base, particularly Professor Hastings’s evidence, is that it is based on what people are likely to do rather than on what they have done. I am sure that we have all been canvassing quite a lot lately and knocking on doors. If every single person who said, "Yes, I will vote for you Mike—that is my intention," did so, my majority would be about 10 times greater than it is. We all know about people stating their intent, but surely the evidence base for the Bill should be what people have done. We do not have such evidence.
Health Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Mike Penning
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 October 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
497 c83-4 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:09:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583190
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583190
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583190