---

Health Bill [HL]

I beg indulgence for two minutes, because I was not here on Thursday and I must confess to being totally lost about what procedural point we have reached. I want to say two sentences, and that is all. The two sentences are these. If the advertising makes no difference, why do it? If it does, there is every reason for us to ban it. I have been going around looking in corner shops recently. It is quite clear to me that the displays are advertising and that the tobacco advertising Act should have ensured that they did not continue. I have spent years dealing with children, their perceptions and how they learn and respond. I know that children are influenced by colour and connection. The displays are colourful and connected to sweets, which says to children, "Sweets are sort of okay"—I have an issue about sweets and obesity, but sweets are a treat—"so cigarettes, which are next to them, must be sort of okay". All those things are true. I apologise for interjecting, but having listened to the last few speakers, I felt provoked to get up to say that there are some unrealities and the real argument is: if they do not make a difference, we do not mind losing them anyway; if they do, there is every reason to ban them.