Tobacco and Vapes Bill

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

16:02

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time, and it is an honour to do so.

The evidence, despite perhaps some lingering myths and misperceptions, remains stark and compelling: smoking remains unequivocally the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in our nation. Progress has been made, but this is not a problem of the past. Smoking continues to cast a long shadow over our society, remaining a significant public health challenge with persistent rates of prevalence. Every year we witness the loss of approximately 80,000 lives in the UK directly attributed to smoking.

The impact of smoking reverberates throughout lifetimes, increasing the risk of a whole range of conditions from stillbirth through to significantly higher rates of dementia, stroke, heart attacks, lung diseases and many cancers. Smoking also results in a significant loss of productivity in the wider economy and places a considerable burden on our healthcare system. In total it is estimated to cost society approximately £21.3 billion annually.

To correct this course, this Bill will create a smoke-free generation, making it an offence to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009, meaning those who turn 16 this year, and younger, will never legally be sold tobacco in the UK. This will gradually end the sale of tobacco products across the country, protecting future generations from the well-documented and evidenced harms of smoking.

In turning our attention to vaping, we face a nuanced challenge. Vapes are less harmful than smoking and absolutely have a strong role to play as a cessation aid for adult smokers seeking to quit. In fact, clients of stop smoking services who have used a vape to quit have had the highest success rate of any group. Nevertheless, a concerning increase in youth uptake should not be ignored. In 2023, one in four children aged 11 to 15 tried vaping, often drawn in through appealing sweet-like flavours and colourful packaging.

In response to this challenge, the Bill includes measures which address the rise in youth vaping and other nicotine products. We will ban advertising and sponsorship, and implement regulations concerning the flavours, descriptions, ingredients, packaging and point-of-sale displays of these products. The intention here is clear. We will ensure that the marketing of vapes can no longer target minors. However, it is imperative that the Bill strikes a necessary balance, ensuring that vapes remain an accessible option for adult smokers looking to transition away from dependence on tobacco, while clamping down on youth vaping.

The public understand the importance of this Bill and what it aims to achieve. Some 69% support a smoke-free generation policy, while 82% of adults support banning names of sweets, cartoons and bright colours on vape packaging, and 81% support banning the advertising and promotion of vapes at the point of sale.

This Bill is the product of the combined effort of Members of both Houses and many outside Parliament over the course of many years. A key manifesto commitment of this Government is to create a smoke-free generation, and this Bill has rightly received support from across the political parties. I express my thanks to many—over, as I said, many years—but I particularly thank the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Rishi Sunak MP, who committed to the original form of this Bill. I also thank my ministerial colleague, Ashley Dalton MP, and the members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health. Many others have also informed and motivated the action by this Government.

As we turn our attention to the substance of the Bill, I want to highlight its core aims. At its heart, the Bill is about safeguarding the health of our population. Its fundamental principle is to address the cycle of addiction and societal disadvantage. It is a key component of our broader health mission: a commitment to shift from treatment to prevention. Under our Plan for Change, the Government are committed to ensuring a sustainable health system that moves healthcare from hospital to the community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention.

The Bill incorporates a UK-wide approach, reflecting the need for change across our four nations. Health is a devolved matter, so the Bill has been developed in close partnership and collaboration with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. This ensures not only greater consistency across the nations but a more enforceable regime across the UK.

In addition to creating a smoke-free generation, the Bill will amend the existing powers to designate certain outdoor settings as smoke free. This will offer greater protections to those at risk from the harms of second-hand smoke. Any such extension will be carefully considered and subject to consultation. In England, the Government will consult on banning smoking outside locations frequented by children and vulnerable people, such as schools, hospitals and playgrounds, but not outdoor hospitality or wider open spaces. Private outdoor spaces are out of scope of the powers in the Bill.

In addition, the Bill provides regulation-making powers to address the entire life cycle of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, enabling the Government to set appropriate product standards to protect consumers. The introduction of a pre-market registration scheme will provide comprehensive oversight of manufacturers and the products they introduce to our stores. Retail licensing provisions then facilitate ongoing monitoring and modification of retailer practices, strengthening enforcement and ensuring adherence to the measures we put in place.

It is important to acknowledge, as I know many noble Lords do, the dynamic nature of the products we are discussing and the fact that our scientific understanding of their long-term impact continues to evolve. Therefore, the Bill allows for the highly technical details of the regulatory regime to be set out in subsequent regulations that are well placed to adapt to emerging evidence and market innovations.

This is not just about the Bill. The Bill is part of a wider effort across government to address the challenges of smoking and youth vaping. The Government are actively supporting current smokers who wish to quit. We are increasing funding for local stop smoking services by an additional £70 million in 2025-26 and delivering national action, such as the national smoke-free pregnancy incentives scheme and the vaping Swap to Stop scheme.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has laid legislation that will see the ban of single-use vapes from 1 June this year, addressing a key factor in youth vaping as well as environmental concerns. Moreover, to discourage non-smokers and young people from starting vaping, and to generate revenue for public services, the Government will introduce a vaping products duty, which will come into force from 1 October 2026. In order to continue to incentivise smokers to quit and keep the differential in price, duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget, with further additional increases for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes.

We recognise the importance of robust enforcement of our new laws and regulations, so the Government have announced £10 million of new funding in 2025-26 for Trading Standards to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes, and to support implementation of the measures in the Bill. In total, we will invest £30 million of new funding in 2025-26 for enforcement agencies, including Trading Standards, Border Force and HMRC.

I extend my gratitude to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their ongoing support for the Bill and for getting it to this stage. The time to act is now, which is why this is priority legislation for this Government and why we have gone further than the previous Government. I look forward to the collegiate and constructive debate that I know will follow from my engagement thus far, and I will seek to respond to the main questions and themes. I beg to move.

16:13

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the characteristically clear way in which she has opened this debate. As she indicated, the Bill in large measure replicates a Bill introduced in the other place towards the end of the last Parliament. Speaking as someone who helped take through some important anti-smoking legislation during my time in the Department of Health, I begin by saying that the overall aims the Minister has set out for this measure are ones I fully subscribe to.

Some little time has of course passed since I occupied the Minister’s departmental seat and, in the intervening years, we have seen the rise of vaping as an alternative form of nicotine consumption, sometimes as a perfectly valid means of quitting smoking, but increasingly as a habit adopted by non-smokers leading directly to nicotine addiction. I am therefore the first to say that I share the Minister’s acute concern about this trend, which is in part caused by the numbers of young people taking up vaping who have not previously smoked.

The Bill therefore has some laudable aims and some welcome aspects. In the spirit of similarly motivated legislation going back over the past 25 years, it is surely our duty as legislators to look for ways to discourage smoking, to protect those who do not smoke from second-hand smoke and to prevent children accessing tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products as if they were toys or fashion accessories. It is right too, while we are about it, to look at the wider dimensions of the issue, such as the sale of non-nicotine vapes, as well as other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. The Bill before us takes us into all these areas.

At the same time, there are two crucial tests that legislation of this kind needs to pass. They are tests that Parliament has rightly applied to all previous anti-smoking measures: the tests of proportionality and practicality. Much of what we shall need to debate in Committee and beyond will revolve around those two tests, where there is often a delicate balance to be struck—for example, the balance between personal freedoms and health gain, between health gain and business burdens, and between business burdens and free enterprise. Par excellence, in this particular area, we are dealing with another balance that threads its way through all the others: the balance of probabilities around human behaviour.

This Bill bears the same name as the one introduced by the previous Government and shares many of the same features. It is nevertheless substantially different. It will not therefore surprise the Minister to know that there are aspects to it which we shall wish to explore, to question and, in some cases, to directly challenge.

I mention first the most egregious. The Bill before us contains no fewer than 66 delegated powers, which is double the number present in the previous iteration. This should concern us. Whether one supports the main principles of the Bill or not, it cannot be right to condone a legislative model that leaves large swathes of policy areas with scant detail to be amplified later by ministerial decision.

It is not simply the volume of issues to which the regulation-making powers relate; it is also the nature of those issues. When the Bill was reintroduced, it transpired that the Government had inserted a new Part 7, permitting the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers to designate, by regulations, anywhere that is open to the public as smoke-free, including outdoor areas, and to designate any smoke-free place as vape and heated tobacco-free, once again by regulations.

I recall the debates that we had in the House in 2006 on the Health Bill, which banned smoking in all indoor settings and on public transport. I supported that ban from the Front Bench on the grounds that there had recently been conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke indoors posed a serious health risk to those who chose not to smoke. That policy has indeed stood the test of time.

What is less clear-cut is whether there is significant health value in removing the proportionality of the Health Act 2006, which requires the Secretary of State to apply the test of the risk to a person of inhaling “significant quantities of smoke” when deciding where to designate as smoke-free. There was a very good reason for that: it struck a balance between the public health concerns associated with second-hand smoke exposure and the rights of people who wish to smoke. It was deemed to be the correct and most proportionate test. The Government have decided to do away with that. I must simply ask: why?

The Bill’s delegated powers extend to other areas. Part 5 grants the Secretary of State significant power to regulate the features, retail packaging and content of not just tobacco products, which the Secretary of State can already regulate, but all vaping and nicotine products. I do not disagree that there are a number of novel products that should see greater regulation. Nicotine pouches, for example, can currently be sold at extraordinarily high strengths of nicotine, with some being sold online containing 30, 50 or even 100 milligrams of nicotine per pouch. This certainly should be regulated. The problem is that we do not know how these extensive powers will be exercised. What do the Government have in mind? Why can we not see some specific proposals in the Bill? The Minister would have been the first to jump on this kind of open-ended drafting when in opposition.

I have a particular concern around packaging, which is one instance where issues of proportionality rear their heads. Clause 89 grants the Secretary of State expanded powers to regulate retail packaging. The packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco has been heavily regulated for some time, and with good reason. Up to now, though, there have been exemptions for the packaging of cigars and pipe tobacco products. They were exempted from the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 and the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. There were also some exemptions for these products in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Over the years there have been several consultations, all of which have supported the continuation of the exemption. I am not aware of any cogent argument to persuade me that it should now be abandoned. This is certainly something that we shall wish to question at later stages.

The Bill also includes the power to restrict the flavour of nicotine products, and the Government have signalled that they are considering banning certain flavours of vaping liquids. On the face of it, this may seem a reasonable proposal, bearing in mind the troubling rise in youth vaping. The problem here, though, is one of perverse consequences. There is increasingly strong evidence that access to a variety of flavours is a key factor contributing to smokers making the switch to vaping and then not going back to cigarettes. During the Public Bill Committee in the other place, Louise Ross, who launched the world’s first stop smoking service, wrote in her submission:

“Flavours are really important to adult users of the products, whether new users or those who are staying smokefree with a vape”.


She added that those who use vaping products report it is flavours that

“stopped them from going back to cigarettes, which they found tasted terrible after a few weeks of vaping”.

Evidence of that kind should give us pause, before we go hurtling into a ban on what some see as no more than a tempting gimmick to trap unsuspecting teenagers. Once again, we can dig deeper into these questions in Committee.

This leads me to advertising. As noble Lords will know, tobacco advertising has been banned in this country for many years and, although difficult to prove, there seems little doubt that the ban has played its part in bringing about the marked fall in smoking prevalence that we have seen over the past 10 to 15 years. So, if you want to reduce rates of youth vaping—as most right-minded people wish to do—it is only natural to look closely at the idea of extending the advertising ban to vaping products. However, the difficulty with that idea is, once again, the risk of unintended consequences. There is a danger that Part 6, which would ban advertising on all vape and nicotine products in all scenarios, may turn out to work against the valid efforts of the NHS to encourage smokers to give up cigarettes. It is telling that the Government’s own impact assessment for this Bill admits that the ban on vape advertising could lead to more people smoking for longer. It says:

“Whilst smoking prevalence in the UK has been falling for many years, the risk of this policy is that the potential health gains from reduced vaping consumption, could be offset by a slowing of smoking cessation at a societal level”.


So what is the right response? The Government’s manifesto contains a commitment to ban the advertising of vaping products to children, and most of us, I am sure, are deeply uncomfortable with the thought that there are vaping products on the market that have been designed to appeal specifically to young people. Therefore, this is a situation that requires a nuanced and proportionate response. Surely to goodness, adults who use vapes as a smoking-cessation tool should still be able to access information that allows them to make informed decisions on the products they purchase. There could and should be some room for controlled advertising of nicotine products to be permitted in relevant settings within the NHS, in pharmacies, at the point of sale and, potentially, in other retail settings such as specialist vaping shops, in the same way that specialist tobacconists are exempted from tobacco advertising bans. We shall return to this issue in Committee.

This is a further example of how certain aspects of the Bill could hamper the commendable progress we have made in this country on reducing smoking prevalence. It would surely be madness if we allowed this Bill, which is expressly designed to bear down on the incidence of smoking, to unintentionally have the opposite effect. We absolutely must guard against that.

Finally, I turn to the proposal set out in the Bill to introduce a licensing regime for the sale of tobacco and nicotine products. While many have welcomed this as a practical method of dealing with enforcement, many column inches have been devoted to the practicability of an age-verification scheme that will be not just about the need to distinguish a 17 year-old from an 18 year-old; as time passes, it will require retailers to check the ages of people in much older age brackets, so as to distinguish a 37 year-old from a 38 year-old. I do not propose to dwell on this issue now —we can do so, as necessary, at later stages—because there is a much more immediate problem to occupy us.

Once again, the licensing regime is to be established by regulations. This means that we do not yet know any details of what the regime might look like or how it might be implemented. If you are a retailer, this really matters. There is a certain amount of detail in Schedule 1, but the phraseology is, I am afraid, rather vague. The regulations to establish a licensing scheme “may” make

“provision limiting the number of licensed premises”

in a particular area; they

“may make provision about the duration … of licences”;

and they

“may … enable a licensing authority to attach conditions”—

any conditions—“to a licence”. I suppose those are clues, but what will this licensing scheme actually look like? We simply do not know.

The Bill permits the licensing authority to “charge a fee” for an application for a tobacco and nicotine licence. How much might it charge? We do not know. What will be the upper limit that can be charged? Again, we do not know. Will retailers be required to apply for a tobacco licence separately from a nicotine licence or an alcohol licence and be charged for all three? We do not know.

In its written evidence submission to the Public Bill Committee, the Association of Convenience Stores said:

“If the licensing fees replicated the same rates as the alcohol licensing scheme for the convenience sector, we estimate it would result in an additional cost of £11.4 million per year initial sign up and £10.4 million for annual renewal fees for convenience retailers”.


These sums of money represent additional costs at a time when, as I think we all recognise, small retailers simply cannot afford them. The association went on to say that the proposed ID requirements were a major concern and that retailers were already stretched thin trying to manage age verification effectively with current regulations. It said that adding another layer of complexity with the potential for increased fines and penalties would simply make it harder for convenience stores to do their job and increase the likelihood of honest mistakes happening. These are real concerns that retailers have. They are not concerns fed to us from the tobacco industry or the vaping industry; they are concerns relayed to Parliament by the very people that this Bill will impact the most.

In preparing for this Bill, I reread part of our proceedings on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, way back in 2001, when I asked the Minister to accept that there was no difference between us on the end we had in view, which was to reduce the prevalence of smoking, particularly among young people. I repeat that assurance today, and I would add an assurance on youth vaping.

It is indeed our duty to protect the health and well-being of everyone in our United Kingdom. However, we must never forget that it is possible for Governments to champion those worthy aims by imposing regulation and burdens that are disproportionate to the good that they will do, or that, in our desire to change the law for the better, we pay too little regard to the law of unintended consequences.

16:30

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for setting out this Bill so clearly. Most of the provisions were introduced by Rishi Sunak when he was Prime Minister and it is excellent that they are now being taken forward by the current Government. We have a long tradition of cross-party working to reduce tobacco harms and I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has a long history as a committed member of that group, although he is always aware of the variety of views on his own Benches.

When I first came into this House in 2000—I was a health spokesperson and, much later on, deputised for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the coalition—there were a number of people who took the industry briefings, sometimes unaware that these were what they were. Front groups, lobby groups, commercial groups led to be anxious when this was not merited, think tanks, and now social media, were all active. They resisted all kinds of tobacco controls that we now take for granted. The ban on smoking in public places, for example, was castigated as being nanny-state, anti-libertarian, about to destroy all sorts of institutions, disproportionate and so on. Many later said that it felt wrong when they encountered smoking in public places in other countries. And so we moved forward, step by step.

Opponents of action dropped in number, almost to a single voice, although I think the opponents have grown in number now. The industry had for so long denied that it knew what Professor Sir Richard Doll proved through research with the cancer registries—that smoking caused cancer and killed.

It is essential to consider public health and how we best protect children from developing an addiction that is likely to blight their life and their health. The noble Baroness mentioned stillbirths, cancer, heart disease and dementia. Passive smoking, too, causes significant harm. Most smokers wish that they had never started. Tobacco kills about two-thirds of its long-term users.

As the Chief Medical Officer points out, the industry first makes addicts of people; then they are trapped and the industry frames “It can’t be taken away” as freedom of choice. Many ingenious arguments are used to combat changes. I was a development Minister and I saw how the industry gave out cigarettes to build new markets in developing countries as they were squeezed elsewhere.

Of course, people will point to challenges—as we have just heard—in the yearly increase in age. If in a few years the age limit is, say, 35, an 18 year-old will not easily pass as that. So we should focus on the main aim and seek ways to help deliver this. As was said the other day by a former Conservative Minister, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Of course there is push-back; there always is.

Now I come to vaping. If the industry had provided vapes simply as a means to enable people to stop smoking, that would have been fine. But it did not. It made vapes attractive to young people, with flavours and bright covers. It targeted them with nicotine levels that got them hooked. Vapes should never have been sold to those who do not smoke. I have seen this with close young relatives. It is cool to use vapes. You see this on the bus, at the school gates, everywhere. We have a difficult balance here of allowing vapes as smoking cessation but doing our best to prevent the take-up among children.

I welcome the Government’s proposals that branding on vapes that might appeal to children should be banned, that free vapes should never be handed out to children, and that vape contents and flavours should be controlled and displays regulated. We have to do our best to ensure that the Bill is as watertight as possible, given the industry’s inventiveness. I understand why the Government have sought flexibility, given the history of foot-dragging in every instance of tobacco control. I understand their frustration.

I am glad that the Government wish to extend smoke-free arrangements in public places. Working cross-party, we had secured in the pandemic that pubs and restaurants should be smoke-free outside, as they were inside, but the industry was effective at pushing back on that—not through the Department of Health, but through the local government department. I hope we can make further progress here.

There is no doubt now about the harm that tobacco causes to users and those around them. We know the cost to the NHS and the economy. We know that most smokers wish that they had never started. I therefore strongly support this Second Reading.

16:36

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK, and it will not be surprising to learn that CRUK and I strongly support the Bill.

Fundamentally, the tobacco industry has a structural problem, which is that it kills 80,000 of its most loyal customers every year and therefore has to restock annually to keep its coffers full—those people being now, sadly, in their coffins. The point of the Bill is fundamentally to do something about that. As the Minister said, it was very gratifying to see the wide support across all parties in the House of Commons, and I hope we will see that repeated here. However, I suspect there will be some objections during the passage of the Bill—some legitimate and well-intentioned criticisms, but potentially some that bear a strange family resemblance to the arguments that the tobacco industry and its proxies also advance.

One of those objections is that the Bill is not actually needed because smoking is on its way out anyway. I am sure that we can appreciate the irony of the argument that the industry advances that the very measures that it has previously so vigorously opposed on the grounds that they would be ineffective are now allegedly so supremely effective that further regulation is not required. Leaving aside the irony, the fact is simply that 6 million people are still smoking. The rate of progress is nowhere near sufficient to get us to the previous and current Governments’ target of being de facto smoke-free by 2030. In the poorest parts of the country, that is not going to be until 2050, and, since the general election, it is estimated that 100,000 more young people have taken up smoking.

Therefore, it is not true that further action is not needed; nor is it true that we should not take action in the absence of “real-world evidence”, because, of course, that is an entirely circular argument. You will not get real-world evidence until you do it and see the effects. The subtlety of the Bill is that the annual rise by one year in the age of sale will give us that evidence as we see the successive, cumulative effect that these measures bring about.

Another argument that we have heard is, “Why not just raise the age of legal sale to 25?” If you do the maths, for the next nine years, between now and 2034, we will be on that journey anyway. That will give us ample time to see whether the measures in this Bill are working as intended.

Then there are the crocodile tears: “This will be bad for the Treasury because of all the tobacco excise duties which are forgone”. If that is your argument, have the courage of your convictions and go into bat for the Government promoting smoking as a way of boosting the coffers of the Treasury. In any event, that is to ignore the wider economic arguments which the noble Baroness set out.

Then there is the zombie argument, that the black market will develop and prosper with each incremental regulatory step we take. As a matter of fact, rather than a debating point, the number of smuggled cigarettes has fallen by over 85% since regulations of this nature to clamp down were introduced 25 years ago. The most recent data from HMRC shows that the forgone duty from smuggled or black market cigarettes as a proportion of the theoretically available total has fallen from about 17% in 2005 to about 7% now. The question of enforcement is independent from the question of regulation. We can do both.

Finally, we get to: “Can we at least leave vapes out?” Here, again as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Minister have set out, there is a balance to be struck. The current scientific consensus is that smokers switching to vaping will reduce the threats to their health, but equally that there is no health benefit from taking up nicotine addiction if you have not previously been a smoker. That is why it is right that there is flexibility in the Bill. I say to anybody who doubts what is going on out there that as I came into Parliament this afternoon, I stopped at a newsagent. I know that visual aids are not allowed, but there were Pokémon cards with cartoons next to vapes with a little cartoon character of a vampire, at kids’ eye height, being sold near this building. The idea that the industry has changed its spots is untrue. There has been no damascene conversion. It is the sword of Damocles that is producing the change. The Bill deserves our support.

16:42

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I rise to support this important Bill and to express the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who sends her apologies that she cannot be here today. I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction, and other noble Lords for their principled and non-partisan support.

This is an extremely important and effective public health measure that prioritises preventive health at a time when demands on acute services are so significant. Stark inequalities in health remain one of the most persistent and negative health outcomes of modern times. Smoking falls clearly along this line of inequality. Action on Smoking and Health goes so far as to say that smoking is the leading cause of

“the gap in healthy life expectancy”.

The Government have already committed to being smoke-free by 2030 and although the most well-off parts of the country may be on track for that, Cancer Research UK reports, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has said, that the most deprived areas are not likely to meet that target until 2050 at current rates.

We know from the evidence given by Professors Javed Khan and Chris Whitty to the Health and Social Care Select Committee that the tobacco industry continues to target the young and vulnerable and relies, as we have heard, on them becoming addicted. This leads to a highly profitable outcome for the industry and a highly harmful outcome for the individual and the family. In England, 352,000 years of life are lost in this exchange every year. Though unintentional, the inhalation of second-hand smoke is also harmful. The “smoke-free generation” element of the Bill, which raises the age of sale by one year every year, is controversial for some because it is about choice. However, it recognises that our choices are made not in a vacuum but with consequences for others.

We all submit to the law and exercise limited rights for the good and protection of our neighbours. We are called to love our neighbours and seek their good; indeed, what is profoundly Christian is that this may be at the expense of ourselves and our own choices and preferences.

We agree on the need to reduce health inequalities and to reduce the overall smoking rate in line with the Government’s smoke-free commitments. Much of the onus for these tasks is on integrated care boards, so I ask the Minister: what will the impact of the announced 50% cuts to operational costs be on stop-smoking services and, more widely, on the reduction of health inequalities? In the midst of such pressure on the health service, and in such a time of transition for the NHS, a change like this is required to reduce this enduring inequality in health outcomes. It also seems clear that a “polluter pays” levy should be considered to support these and other stop-smoking services.

I am glad to see the introduction of this Bill and commend the Government and the previous Government for their courageous action on the issue.

16:45

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her very clear introduction to this Bill. I also thank many people for the briefings we have been sent, particularly ASH, of whom I am very fond, because it supported me at various times as we have dealt with this issue over many years.

I have to confess to a feeling of déjà vu; indeed, my noble friend the Minister and others, including the noble Earl, may also have feelings of déjà vu, because today we start the next stage to allow our children, and certainly our grandchildren, to live in a tobacco and smoke-free world. I thought it might take longer to get to this point, so I am delighted. I also register the importance of taking powers to deal with vaping, because I agree with many noble Lords that we need to recognise that nicotine is an addictive poison too and one about which we do not know as much as we need to.

I was a Back-Bencher supporting the ground-breaking legislation in 2006 to make all workplaces and enclosed public places smoke-free. I confess I was proud when England went smoke-free in 2007. Early results showed that, within the first two weeks of the smoke-free law, compliance rates were 97%. I was the Health Minister when the Health Act 2009 received Royal Assent: from April 2012, large shops in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were prevented from displaying tobacco products, and cigarette sales from vending machines were also prohibited; and, in 2015, small shops had to do likewise. I supported the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as the new Health Minister, in carrying through the necessary regulations.

I have had the great privilege of working with many noble Lords across the House to deliver these crucial public health reforms. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is not with us today because I know his wise words would have helped us take this Bill through the House over the next few months. There has developed a cross-party support, which saw this legislation start its life during the last Government. That signals to me that there is broad recognition that smoking is addictive and not a choice. It is not a result of freedom of choice, except perhaps for the first cigarette. There is no freedom in addiction. Most smokers want to quit but cannot, and it takes an average of 30 attempts to stay smoke-free. Often the choice to start is made at a young age, therefore locking smokers in for a lifetime, leading to early disability and death.

For many of us, this is not just a huge public health prevention initiative with savings for our NHS, but it is also a rather personal matter too. My mother, Jean Thornton, spent the last 10 years or so of her life with COPD. It was only after severe illness, and when she was initially diagnosed, that she actually ceased smoking, which she had started at the age of 14. She was the eldest of 11 children; all those working-class men and women were smokers; all of them ended their lives with smoking-related disease. That is why this is personal to me indeed.

The smoke-free generation is a long-term investment in the good health of our nation. This Government have an explicit aim at the heart of the health mission to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and the poorest. Smoking is responsible for half of that gap. According to government modelling, gradually raising the age of sale year by year could prevent nearly 500,000 cases of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and other serious illnesses by the end of the century. This is not only a public health victory; it is also a major economic victory, with total societal benefits projected at £77.3 billion.

There are those who will undoubtedly seek to amend this Bill, as happened in the other place, to remove the rising age of sale and replace it with a static age of sale. We must resist that. By increasing the age of sale every year, we prevent the tobacco industry targeting new audiences and recruiting the next generation of smokers. Two out of three people who try cigarettes become daily smokers, regardless of when they start. I look forward to working across the House to make sure this Bill gets on to the statute book.

16:51

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and indeed to join her in saying how important it is that this is a further step in the process of strengthening our tobacco control regime and that we should do that on a cross-party basis. I agree with her that we should certainly put this, as I think the Front-Bench speeches did, in the context of a range of measures over a substantial period of time.

I was part of the health team—with my noble friend Lord Howe and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—back in 2010, when in the coalition Government we took the measures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, just referred and implemented those regulations. My noble friend Lord Howe was quite right to stress the importance of understanding how such powers are to be used, and in the passage of this legislation I hope we will understand very well and, if necessary, challenge the powers that are to be given and how they are going to be used, all the while, I hope, as my noble friend Lord Howe was doing, supporting the principles and trying to ensure that they are carried through with effective enforcement and a lack of unintended consequences.

We had supported the 2006 ban on smoking in public places from the Front Bench, but gave, as I think the Labour Party did at the time, a free vote on that measure, which helped, I think, to ensure that it was pursued without some of the complex exemptions which the Government were considering. I think that led us to the conclusion that, where some of these public health measures are concerned, as Horatio Nelson said, the boldest measures are the safest, and we were bold in 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, that boldness was very rapidly proved successful, so I think we may once again be bold. We set out, after 2010, with the ban on vending machine sales, the display ban and the consultation, which I initiated, on standardised packaging that was completed in 2015. All of this was very much focused on trying to ensure that we did not have a constant re-creation of a cohort of young people who went on to spend much of their lives trying and failing to quit smoking. The reduction of the initiation of smoking is a central part of this.

It is a less attractive habit to quote oneself, but back in March 2012, as Secretary of State, I said:

“My objective is to achieve smoke-free communities”.


That was over 13 years ago now. It was pretty controversial at the time, but I think it is now much less controversial and much more of a widely shared objective. The question was always how to achieve it, and I reinforce the credit to Prime Minister Sunak and my friend the then Secretary of State Sajid Javid for asking Dr Javed Khan, in his review back in 2022, to propose that bold step of an incremental rise in the age bar on cigarette sales. I very much support that, because it was not clear how we were going to achieve it and I think this now shows us the path to achieving it.

I support the Bill. I want to look at it constructively to ensure that it delivers what we are aiming for, including such practical measures as securing that trading standards officers have the powers and resources needed to secure compliance. Many noble Lords will talk about why we need to achieve this. From my point of view, it is not just that so many smokers suffer so much from their addiction to cigarette smoking; it is how it contributes so dramatically in society to the inequalities between parts of the country. We have to reduce those.

I have one point on vaping: I hope we will also look to take an evidence-led approach, think about what the long-term consequences may be and give ourselves the powers to respond to that over time rather than necessarily making all the judgments that we need to make now. I hope we will look at how we can make the enforcement procedures more effective as well. With all those thoughts yet to come, I very much support the Bill.

16:56

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I am firmly in favour of legislation to reduce the harmful effects of smoking. More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland die every year from illnesses associated with smoking. More than 1,000 die each year from lung cancer, accounting for 23% of all cancer-related deaths. I cite these figures in relation to the suffering they represent in Northern Ireland to demonstrate that we need measures in this legislation that will apply right across our United Kingdom. I am concerned that they may not do so, for reasons I will elaborate on in a few moments. We also need proposals that are workable, evidence-based and capable of addressing the harm caused by smoking.

The main practical problem, as we know, is enforcement. The main burden of enforcement will fall on retailers, particularly small shopkeepers. Many retailers—we have listened to their evidence and heard their representations—work long hours providing a service to their communities. They and their staff, some of whom will be young people, are going to have to differentiate between people in middle age. There is a real fear among many of them about the effects on their security and safety and that it risks criminalising shopkeepers rather than those seeking to purchase tobacco illegally. I am sure that these issues can be addressed in Committee.

As has been mentioned, the significant level of illicit trade in cigarettes and tobacco is already a particular problem in Northern Ireland because of the involvement of criminal gangs and paramilitaries on both sides. What assurances can the Government give that they will continue to drive down the illegal trade in tobacco at the same time as this legislation?

As I said, I want to highlight a potentially significant failing in the Bill as drafted. As your Lordships will know, the EU continues to have full authority in Northern Ireland over 300 areas of the economy and other matters, and the relevant laws concerning many aspects of our day-to-day life. One specific provision that applies in Northern Ireland is the EU’s second tobacco products directive. Its purpose is to set out the various requirements that must be met for tobacco and vape products to be sold in the EU. It requires that there should be free movement within the EU of tobacco products that satisfy its requirements.

The Government have described this as a four-nation Bill, but it appears to me and many commentators that the Bill is incompatible with the tobacco directive as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, since the Bill purports to introduce a restriction on the placing of tobacco products on the market in Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic, subject to exactly the same directive, did not pursue a generational smoking ban explicitly because of the directive, instead introducing legislation to raise the minimum age for the sale of tobacco products to 21. Denmark also considered introducing a generational smoking ban in 2022, and its Health Minister announced that the tobacco directive prevented the Danish Government introducing the ban. So I fear that, unless there is a provision in the legislation that excludes the application of the tobacco directive in respect of Northern Ireland, it may well be the case that the generational smoking ban that we want to see applied across the United Kingdom cannot apply in part of the United Kingdom.

The Government have stated—and no doubt the Minister will say in response today—that they have considered all their domestic and international obligations. One such obligation is the implementation of the protocol/Windsor Framework, but that very framework requires Northern Ireland to abide by the tobacco directive. The protocol/Windsor Framework, by virtue of Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, rules supreme over UK legislation. It takes precedence. That has been decided in court case after court case in Northern Ireland, whether it be on legacy matters, such as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, or in respect of immigration matters, such as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. In those cases the Government gave the same sort of assurances that they gave in the other place on this issue, yet the courts ruled otherwise, as we predicted they would.

I hope that in response to this debate the Minister can clarify the matter, give a guarantee that the Bill will apply across all parts of the United Kingdom and indicate that the Government are prepared, if necessary, to ensure a four-nation, UK-wide approach to override the application of the tobacco directive. This is an important practical measure that affects the health of everyone across the United Kingdom, with not only constitutional implications but practical health implications.

17:02

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, there are two Bills that we debate this week, both of which originated with the last Conservative Government—the other one being the Renters’ Rights Bill—so this should be a harmonious few days in your Lordships’ House.

I recognise the concerns that some of my noble friends on the libertarian wing of my party may have about this Bill. They may feel that it is an intrusion on the freedom of the individual and an excessive intervention by the state. I want to try to allay those concerns. Like others who have spoken, I was a Health Minister, nearly 50 years ago. I recall a conversation that I had in the context of the debate about seat belts with a consultant at St George’s Hospital, which was then at Hyde Park Corner. He was preparing a patient for an organ transplant; the patient had a rare blood type, and it had taken him some time to procure the supplies. Just before the patient was wheeled into the operating theatre, there was a traffic accident at Hyde Park Corner. The driver, not wearing a seat belt, had life-threatening injuries. He was wheeled into St George’s and had the same rare blood type as the transplant patient, so the patient’s operation was postponed. That shows that, in the interconnected world in which we live, a decision by one person to take a personal risk has consequences for other people.

I say to my friends that the Conservative Party actually has a proud record in the history of public health. In 1973 the compulsory wearing of crash-helmets was introduced by the Ted Heath Government. In 1983, under the Margaret Thatcher Government, seat belts were made compulsory for drivers, and in 1991 they were made compulsory for passengers. As my noble friend Lord Lansley has said, the coalition Government took further steps, and the last Government introduced the Health and Care Act, which unblocked progress in adding fluoride to the water supply to promote dental health. So this measure is perfectly consistent with my party’s approach to public health over 50 years.

The Bill that we are debating, unlike others to which I have referred, would not impact on the freedom of anyone today. The Bill, as published, enables adults who buy cigarettes and smoke legally today to continue to be able to do so. My criticism of the Bill is that it does not do enough to discourage existing smokers to stop or to discourage new smokers starting. The Minister referred to the Government’s three-pronged approach to health—switching from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention —but that latter switch requires resources, currently in short supply.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. Again, that is a principle introduced by previous Conservative Governments: the landfill levy was introduced in 1996; the soft drinks levy was introduced in 2018; and, after the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Conservative Government, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley referred, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his recommendations. His preferred option was a “polluter pays” industry levy. A tobacco “polluter pays” levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied to a percentage of profits. It would not impact on the CPI, nor on the cost to the consumer, but it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022. Responding to Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, the then shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, stated:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


The noble Baroness will not be surprised to learn that that commitment will be tested when we reach Report, to make this an even better Bill than it is now.

17:07

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to offer my support for this Bill and to join every other speaker so far in this debate. There have been nine before me, who have expressed their complete support for what the Government are doing.

It is rare that a Bill introduced by the Government of one party finds it is then picked up in substantially the same form by a new Administration after a general election. This is consistent with the all-party approach on which many of us across the Chamber worked, from the early years of this century, to reduce the scourge of tobacco and nicotine addiction. Most important among this work, as has been referred to already today, was the decision to make pubs and clubs smoke-free, after the free votes in 2006. There can be hardly anyone in your Lordships’ House or outside who wishes to go back to the days when pubs were full of smoke and patrons needed to change their clothes and wash their hair to get rid of the stench when they got home. Those laws were the most significant contribution to public health since the clean air laws of the 1950s and the Victorians’ improvement to the quality of drinking water.

In 2013, our cross-party group moved amendments to the Children and Families Bill, designed to protect children and help prevent them starting to smoke. Those amendments required cigarettes and other tobacco products to be sold in standardised packaging and made it an offence to smoke in cars where children under 18 were present. The Health Minister who accepted the arguments in the amendments we tabled in Committee was none other than the noble Earl, Lord Howe—and I congratulate him on his speech today, particularly for his consistency. The policy to phase out the sale of tobacco to the next generation was not only in the Labour and Conservative manifestos but enjoys strong public support, with over two-thirds of adults backing the proposal. History tells us that tobacco control measures grow in popularity over time, and all the more so once they are enacted.

We were told that implementation was impossible, yet when those smoke-free laws were introduced in 2007, compliance was almost universal from day one. We were told that the measures would fuel illicit trade, but in fact illicit sales have fallen, despite substantial tax increases. We were told that small businesses would suffer, but research by independent agencies consistently shows that small retailers adapt well, experience few problems and then support new regulations; many of them are parents as well, and want to protect their children and their communities. We were told that this is an infringement on freedom, but there is no freedom in addiction, only harm, cost and premature death.

What about the freedom for non-smokers to enjoy a smoke-free environment? This Bill gives powers to strengthen existing smoke-free laws by extending restrictions to certain outdoor public places. This is a sensible step, but I am disappointed that the Government have ruled out further protections in hospitality settings in England, where workers remain exposed. These restrictions were supported in a vote in this House in the last Parliament but were not carried through in the legislation. Why are those working in pubs, bars and cafés less entitled to a smoke-free environment than others?

There is one loophole that this Bill is particularly well-placed to close: the exemption for so-called cigar lounges. When the 2007 legislation was passed, an exemption was made for specialist tobacconists to allow customers to “sample” products. This exemption is now being exploited and abused. Venues, including luxury hotels, host lounges that serve food and drink and allow full cigar smoking indoors. That is far outside the spirit of the law. We would not tolerate this in other workplaces and we should not here. Every worker has the right to a healthy environment. The licensing powers in the Bill will allow us to understand how many of these establishments exist, but I urge the Government not to delay in dealing with it.

While the legislation is a major step forward, it is not in itself a strategy to end smoking. The All-Party Group on Smoking and Health—of which I am a long-standing member, as are a number of other Members of this House—published A Roadmap to a Smokefree Country last month. It sets out what is needed to make smoking obsolete within 20 years. That strategy will need sustainable funding. The APPG has long called for a levy on tobacco manufacturers—in exactly the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just did in his speech—which continue to profit from a product that kills half its users. That the polluter must pay is a very strong argument.

This Bill can help ensure that future generations grow up free from the harms of tobacco. Let us ensure that it is not just a milestone but a stepping stone to a smoke-free future.

17:13

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone who has spoken so far in this debate, I give my general support to the Bill. Indeed, I am prepared to support almost anything which reduces the curse of smoking.

I had a similar thought to that of my noble friend Lord Howe in his speech—particularly when the previous Government made similar proposals—as to how it would work in practice. Attempts to impose an age limit on the right to acquire tobacco and smoking products is one thing when 17 year-olds can but 16 year-olds cannot, but that may look and be treated as arbitrary and more theoretical in years to come, when you are talking about 56 year-olds who can and 55 year-olds who cannot.

I have always found it difficult to understand why about 12% of the population still smoke—6 million people. We are told that smoking kills two-thirds of the long-term users of tobacco and that they will die of lung cancer. That is, of course, totally contrary to the wicked campaign pursued by the tobacco companies over so many years. The evidence seems quite overwhelming; indeed, it has become more and more compelling over the years. I can only describe a decision to smoke as insane, and I support all steps to educate, prohibit and tax in a way to reduce smoking.

I will give the House an example of my own experience of smoking. At the end of my first year at the University of Newcastle in 1950, I became seriously ill and spent many weeks in hospital. I was about to be discharged when the professor of thoracic medicine came to me and said that he thought I was going to be all right. He asked whether I smoked and I said yes, I did. He asked me how many and I said, “Too many”. He told me that he thought that was a serious mistake and that I should stop smoking. When I demurred and said I thought it was perfectly all right to continue smoking, he said, “One of my students has just written a thesis where he claims to have found a connection between smoking and lung cancer. I’ve only briefly skimmed over the thesis, but it seems to me to be very compelling”. He then went on to say, “You have completed the first year of a science degree so you will understand most of the thesis, and I am going to let you see it”.

The following day, this thesis by a Dr Strang—who later became a very distinguished surgeon in thoracic surgery—arrived on my bed. I read it and was horrified to read this new and, in those days, almost unheard of connection, showing the insanity of smoking. That connection did not get general publicity until five years later; there was practically nothing said publicly about this until the mid-1950s. Having read it, I decided enough was enough, and I have never had a cigarette in my hand or my mouth since that day. I have lived a joyous life for 94 years and hope for many more to come, but if I had not taken that decision that day I am sure I would not have been here today to contribute to this debate.

17:18

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this Bill, and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is still alive to speak so eloquently on the topic of prevention. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for navigating us so clearly through a path to prevention. This Bill presents an intergenerational approach to prevention that is a real step change towards smoking cessation.

As a relative newcomer to the House and to this topic, it has been fascinating to listen to the veterans among us who have lived this campaign for so many years and have personal experience. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Thornton, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and many who have been in the seats of policy-making before. I also commend the arguments mounted to take well-targeted aim at the pre-emptive points that might be made from libertarian quarters against this Bill. The myth busting must continue in this regard.

As a nurse and former president of the Royal College of Nursing, I welcome the Bill and the impact it can have on reducing tobacco use and negative health outcomes. I support the Royal College of Nursing as a member of the Smoke-free Action Coalition. It is important to call time on the legacy effects of harm from tobacco and reinforce its regulatory rigour.

As a young nurse, I witnessed at first hand the consequences of smoking for patients in the vascular ward where I worked as a staff nurse. I will spare noble Lords the gory details, but having your leg amputated was no incentive for patients to give up smoking, reflecting its deadly hold over human behaviour. That was in the 1970s, when there were few, if any, smoking cessation programmes. The prevailing wisdom was that smoking could calm nerves and relieve stress, until evidence suggested that the relationship between tobacco use and mental health is bidirectional and much more complex. Recent evidence suggests that smoking cessation is associated with reduced depression, reduced anxiety and stress, and improved mood and quality of life compared with continuing to smoke.

A more recent myth busted in many psychiatric hospitals concerns increased violence resulting from smoking cessation as one of the factors preventing the introduction of smoke-free policies. Research led by King’s College London revealed an almost 40% drop in physical assaults between patients and towards staff following the introduction of a comprehensive smoke-free policy at a large NHS mental health trust. Such interventions need to be multipronged and aligned with NICE guidelines. Smoke-free policies in hospitals have included staff training and engagement alongside tobacco dependence treatment, including offering nicotine replacement therapy within 30 minutes of arrival on a ward and permitting the use of e-cigarettes.

We have reached an important inflection point in taking action to extend smoke-free spaces and bolster population health. Evidence suggests that smoking cessation needs support, and encounters within healthcare settings provide the perfect opportunity. That support includes funding. Our manifesto commitment to ensure that all hospitals integrate opt-out smoking cessation interventions into routine care means that supporting smokers must be a priority in the Government’s shift to prevention.

Nurses and midwives represent the largest healthcare workforce and have historically been at the forefront of delivering smoking cessation programmes. As we have heard, exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy is the single biggest modifiable risk factor for poor birth outcomes, including stillbirth, miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, heart defects and sudden infant death. It is therefore gratifying to hear our Chief Nursing Officer, Duncan Burton, advocate that nurses and midwives get behind the new Bill.

School and public health nurses have also spoken out about children who are struggling at school seeing vaping not only as cool but as a coping mechanism, often in response to unmet mental health needs. We need to support regulatory measures with wraparound mental health service provision.

The Royal College of Midwives has been strongly advocating for smoke-free pregnancy pathways. Although many nurses and midwives are already leading this work, we need to ensure that new nurses have the competencies to deliver tobacco dependence treatment and act as advocates of this Bill.

The Bill is an important public and population health intervention, with the capacity to reduce health inequalities. As a noble Lord mentioned, we need to use Nelson’s mantra and be bold. I commend the Bill to your Lordships’ House.

17:24

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to hear her bring her considerable expertise to bear on this Bill.

I am a smoker. At least, I think I am. I certainly smoked in the womb; my mother smoked when she was pregnant with me. I smoked as a teenager and I smoked through my twenties, my thirties and my forties. Like every smoker, I yearned to give up. I went cold Turkey, I used nicotine patches, I turned to vapes— I tried everything. Five or six years ago, I switched to heated tobacco, and that works for me. I am told by Philip Morris who makes the IQOS products that I smoke that I am not a smoker, because I am not ingesting tobacco smoke. In fact, I have taken such a great interest in this issue that I visited the Philip Morris labs in Switzerland and met some of the people who are doing the research on heated tobacco, as I have declared in the register of interests. I am a user of the IQOS products—but I ask myself, as I ask all noble Lords, am I a smoker?

It has made me think about the purpose of this Bill. The important question for me as a layman to ask the experts is what are we trying to ban? I think everyone agrees that, in a perfect world, we should ban cigarettes. Cigarettes are a vector for nicotine, but they are extraordinarily destructive, as we all know. Burning tobacco is a very convenient way to get nicotine, and also to kill oneself eventually. Nobody disputes that at all. But are we trying to ban cigarettes or smoking? What do we mean by smoking? Are we trying to ban all tobacco products or nicotine? These are important questions. There is an argument which says that people should be able to access nicotine if it can be done in a safe way. Maybe someone will tell me that this is absolute rubbish, that nicotine is very dangerous, and that we should do everything we can to eradicate it. Maybe one should be allowed to access nicotine via tobacco, provided that it can be accessed in a safe way, but maybe the experts will tell me that it cannot be done.

I fully accept that measures which appeared unpopular at the time have had a huge and good impact on smoking. I have a fond memory of voting against the Labour Government in 2006 when they were tightening up their legislation on banning outside smoking. The only reason why my memory is so fond is that, as I went through the No Lobby, John Reid, who was then a Cabinet Minister, walked past me and thanked me for voting for the Labour manifesto. The original proposals in the Labour manifesto were being taken further by the Government. There were huge rows about the impact on communities. I find it unimaginable now that I was able to smoke on an aeroplane, in the Tube, and so on and so forth. I fully support that ban.

There are questions to ask. Let us look at Sweden, which describes itself as smoke free. Some 5.4% of its population smoke cigarettes—the lowest in Europe—but 22% use this thing called snus. I grant that the Swedish can be odd. This is basically tobacco put into the mouth. Sweden has the lowest rate of lung cancer in Europe, but I do not know from the people who briefed me whether it has the highest rate of mouth cancer. I would love to know. Is Sweden a success story from the perspective of this Bill, or does it remain a complete basket case and a disaster?

I went to Philip Morris to find out more about their product. I met the people working on it, which included a former academic molecular biologist, a neuroscientist who has worked in public health for 25 years and a physiologist who has spent his entire life fighting addictions and coming up with drugs to combat things such as opioid addiction. I want to say something controversial: a lot of the tone of this debate looks backward at the sins of the big tobacco. It does not perhaps acknowledge—though that might be too kind a word—that big tobacco has perhaps moved forward in terms of heated tobacco.

As we debate the Second Reading, the question for the House is what are we trying to get rid of—cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine or smoking?

17:30

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this Second Reading debate. I feel pretty clear about what we are trying to do here. This is a forward-looking Bill. It is about creating opportunities for the future, to have the next generations come through free from the dreadful impacts of tobacco on their lives. The Bill is about reducing the harms associated with tobacco and taking a broad view about that. I can understand why a trip to William Morris would—

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

Philip Morris.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

Philip. I should not say William Morris, I rather like William Morris. I understand why such a trip would prompt these questions, which is what we are trying to do. I think the Bill is forward-looking, focused, proportionate and well balanced.

I want to talk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, did very movingly, about the impact that smoking has had on my family. I do not know whether I would define myself as a smoker. I certainly smoked when I was a rebellious teenager, but my family was terribly affected by the impact of smoking. My father was diagnosed with lung cancer when I was a teenager, which caused immense hardship for my family, propelled me and my sisters on to the free school meals list, queuing up with all the other children in the special school meal queue in the way we used to in the past. Both my parents went on to die prematurely of smoking-related cancer. It has been a terrible blight on my family and many thousands of families in this country. So, I am hugely in favour of the Bill.

I have enjoyed listening to colleagues from all sides of the House looking back at the journey we have been on to get here, the different debates we had in 2006 that looked at advertising and so on. We have come such a long way and it has been in the face of enormous opposition. To add my anecdote to the journey, when I first came into this House in 2004, smoking cigars and pipes in the Peers’ Guest Room was considered absolutely acceptable. As the day went by, you might bring a guest in and gradually the height of the smoke would descend to such a level that by about 5 pm you could not go in there without a gas mask. We have seen such an enormous amount of progress in tackling the blight of tobacco.

People think that tobacco—smoking—just affects the lungs, but I served as the chief executive of a breast cancer charity for a few decades and, over those years, I have seen the evidence building to show that smoking causes breast cancer as well as lung cancer and all the other impacts that we know about. Cancer Research UK now says that it causes around 2,200 breast cancers a year. So, we need to be mindful that evidence is unfolding all the time about the impact of smoking on our health.

We have heard that around four in 10 cancers in the UK are preventable and the biggest step forward we could take to prevent cancers would be to reduce cancers caused by smoking. We know that vaping, as we have heard, provides important assistance to those who want to quit smoking, and it is absolutely right that the Bill takes that into account. We know that a lot of the marketing and so on, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, so clearly demonstrated, is targeted at children.

I close by saying that I fully support those aspects of the Bill. I really congratulate the Government on taking seriously the terrible issues around single-use vapes. Only two weeks ago, I was in a children’s playground looking after a great-nephew. He said to me, “Do you know what? You can find a red box that can make smoke come out of your mouth—sweet smoke. It’s really great”. He is six, and he found a single-use vape in the bushes in the park and had a go on it. We do not want to see that as the norm in our society. This Bill is about the future and the kind of future that we want for our young people—I support it wholeheartedly.

17:35

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, for the wonderful work she has done as chief executive of the Breast Cancer Campaign, fighting cancer there, and for her wise words in this Chamber of Parliament here today. My concern with the Bill is that we might not hear those wise words—or anyone else’s wise words —in Parliament again, since the Government in this Bill are taking so many powers away and delegating them to Ministers.

Like every other Member who has spoken, I generally support the thrust of the Bill. As we know, the last Conservative Government introduced a similar Bill with these generational restrictions, and which many people thought were possibly unenforceable. The new Government have also reintroduced it with the generational powers, which again may be possibly unenforceable.

My main concern about the Bill are the unacceptable parts with excessive amounts of parliamentary scrutiny being taken away and given to Ministers and others in the delegated powers. As has been said by others, the previous Bill had 33 delegated powers and this one has 66. Some are repeats of the same powers, duplicated for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England but, nevertheless, the extent of the delegated powers is a slap in the face for the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, which was praised by the current Government.

In that report, we warned about the four major abuses we increasingly see in legislation—but this Bill has every sin we warned against. It has 17 Henry VIII powers, enabling Ministers to change Acts of Parliament, avoiding proper parliamentary scrutiny. It has skeleton clauses saying that Ministers can create offences on a range of topics and set a maximum penalty. That is not good enough. Any and all criminal offences should be set out in detail in primary legislation.

It has subdelegation of powers. It is bad enough that Ministers have been given excessive delegated powers, but some clauses permit subdelegation of these powers to other organisations. Clause 104 simply says:

“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions”.


There is identical wording in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and local authorities are given carte blanche to invent their own licensing conditions without Parliament ever looking at one word of them. At least with statutory instruments there is a slim chance that Parliament can debate them, but not when the power to make these laws is delegated to some other body.

The Delegated Powers Committee also slammed the increasing trend for disguised legislation, where the Minister issues guidance which everyone must have regard to. This is a way to get round making a statutory instrument, which of course might get some Parliamentary scrutiny. Technically and legally, the words “must have regard to” are not compulsory, but they can only be disregarded if the target organisation or persons can show exceptionally good reasons not to follow them, which is a heavy bridge to cross. Of course, all government information when the guidance is issued gives the impression that it must be followed on pain of death—we have that here also in Schedule 1.

We have heard from every noble Lord today that there is a justifiable case to add more restrictions to the sale of tobacco and vapes. If that is the case, the myriad offences in the Bill should be set out in detail and not hidden. Let us justify what the Government are doing in legislation.

I leave it to other noble Lords to point out the difficulties of enforcement of the age and generations restrictions, not least the thousands of extra inspectors who may be required and the impossibility of retailers checking the ages of people between their twenties and thirties, thirties and forties, and forties and fifties. Two weeks ago, I was in the Little Waitrose down Victoria Street, and a lady in front of me was stopped at the till because they wanted to check her age for a bottle of Nyetimber champagne that she was buying. She said, “I’m in my forties”, but the assistant said they needed to check her age. The rather elegant lady in her forties had some choice language to give to the Waitrose staff who wanted to check the age of a lady who was obviously older than 21. That is just in a professional Waitrose store; I shudder to think of what will happen in the thousands of little retailers around the country.

I conclude with a word about the illicit market. Illicit is not counterfeit, but real cigarettes made by legitimate companies in Romania, say, and intended for the Romanian market or other eastern European markets—where there may be no duty or taxes—are being brought here illegally. It is massive, and this Bill will add to it. In 2023, one in four cigarettes consumed was illicit—that is 6.7 billion cigarettes—losing HMRC £3 billion per annum. Every single expert, and everyone in the tobacco companies, says that this Bill will further boost this dodgy market. My concern is not around the potential loss of revenue to HMRC but that 25% of cigarettes are able to be sourced illegally in pubs around the country.

We have a Bill with excessive powers and with large parts that are possibly unenforceable; it will lose the Government money and give young people a way to get cigarettes illegally in any case. Although I support the Bill, I hope that we will explore these issues in Committee.

17:40

[Baroness Mattinson (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying how delighted I would be to be asked my age in Waitrose; it has not happened for a very long time.

I join pretty much everybody who has spoken in thanking the Minister for this important and much-needed Bill, which I support absolutely wholeheartedly. I want to make two points, one specific and one more general. The first, specific point is about children and vaping. Children are now twice as likely to vape as they are to smoke. This really matters, as we have no idea what the long-term consequences might be; they might be grave. Banning ads and restricting sales are essential steps forward but, to deal with the issue, we need to understand the motivation driving these children to start vaping. We know very well why they continue once they have started—it is incredibly addictive—but we do not know why they start in the first place.

I have a hunch, which is the same as that of my noble friend Lady Rafferty and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It is based on my own experience as a teenage smoker. They probably do it because, like me at that age, they think that it is cool. Also like me, they will spend the rest of their lives regretting that decision. However, a hunch is not enough. We need detailed research that gives real insight into why children start vaping then a targeted campaign to de-cool vaping—if that is what it takes—in places that those children will see, such as on social media, TikTok and so on. It needs to be a campaign developed by people who really understand that motivation in the first place. Only that can truly counter this growing habit and its terrible consequences.

My second point is more general but important, because, although I am a newcomer here, this Bill seems a rare beast. It has cross-party support, pretty much, and, despite the public’s occasional scepticism of nanny state-ism, it has strong and unequivocal support from the public. Against the backdrop of failing trust in government, this represents a rare opportunity to show what government intervention can achieve in terms of outcomes, whether that is ending illness and suffering, cutting hospital waiting lists or saving lives; lots of noble Lords have spoken movingly about that today. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the impact of these measures is carefully monitored so that there is a positive story to tell and so that that story, when it is ready to be told, is told loudly and clearly, as I know it can be. I look forward to supporting this Bill as it goes forward.

17:44

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I have been involved with the tobacco industry since 1963, when I joined a major advertising agency. I was responsible for the marketing of all Gallaher’s products. I have taken part, I think, in every debate since then on the subject, both in the other place and here.

This is an important Bill. One of the biggest problems today is the differential between the price of a packet of cigarettes for the ordinary consumer and the price on the black market: it is roughly £17 at the tobacconist or wherever but £3.50 illegally. That amounts to a market of £6 billion—a frightening figure. I accept that His Majesty’s Government have said that they will provide an extra £10 million to try to add some control, but that is very small beer against the rampant use of illegal tobacco and cigarettes. The Government have the report from the Home Office that the National Business Crime Centre commissioned. It clearly says:

“The UK has one of the highest tobacco taxation regimes in the world. As the retail price of tobacco products increases, and legislative changes are introduced to restrict their availability … the demand for illegal tobacco products is set to grow dramatically”.


I am also an economist, and that is absolutely right—that is what will happen.

Secondly, I guess that all of us who buy our newspapers still use CTNs or other tobacconists. Those people are suffering. We have to recognise that crime against them—the way they are being beaten up or forced to make payments—is growing exponentially, which is really worrying.

Then there is the case history of Australia. As politicians, we know that we should look at case histories. I am sure that the Minister knows about the written evidence given by the Australians to the other place. They make it quite clear that the way that the legislation, which is not far different from what we are proposing here, was implemented in Australia was a disaster. We should at least look at that and weigh it up; it is a very strong case history.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is not in his place, but he raised Northern Ireland. Having been a PPS on Northern Ireland a while ago, I believe that the Bill as it is now is totally incompatible with the Windsor Framework rules and TPD2. I do not see how His Majesty’s Government will get around that, because Northern Ireland will have to follow exactly what southern Ireland does, which is setting its controls at the age of 21.

Someone mentioned Sweden. That is a nice case history of the education of young people. Again, we could look at that and learn something. The whole success of Sweden as far as I can see—I have looked at it fairly carefully—rested on how it made young people understand the risks they were running. As has been said, that is now the biggest success in Europe.

I do not think that a generational Bill is necessary. I am sure that there has to be control but, frankly, the generational dimension makes it needlessly complicated. We should look at the experience of other people and take the decision that 21 should be the age for alcohol as well as for cigarettes and all other tobacco products. We will know where we are, and then we can really enforce it and make sure that our young people do not take up tobacco, et cetera.

17:48

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. He talked about his long history in the industry since 1963; I was born three years after he started. For nine months in my mother’s womb I was a passive smoker, because she was a smoker.

The Bill is driven by noble intentions. Quite rightly, it seeks to protect future generations from the serious harms of smoking and the trend of vaping in young people. These are very good public health objectives and ones that I support, as I saw both of my parents’ lives cut short due to smoking-related diseases. I support many provisions within the Bill, but I have serious reservations about the centrepiece: the so-called smoke-free generation. This mechanism raises profound practical, legal and philosophical problems.

I start with the principle which underpins my objections: individual liberty, which I, as a Liberal, consider to be the foundation of a free society. In the United Kingdom, the legal age of adulthood is 18 and, at 18, citizens can make many bad choices that carry risks with them. These include drinking alcohol, gambling and, currently, purchasing tobacco. The Bill proposes to strip away one of these rights from some adults because of the year in which they were born. Personal liberty and individual choice play no part for those adults.

Consider, if you will, two young adults, perhaps twins, born a minute apart, one just before midnight on 31 December 2008 and the other just after, on 1 January 2009. Under the Bill, when they become 18, one would be able to legally buy tobacco for the rest of their lives and the other may never do so. The Bill creates, for the first time, two classes of adult citizens with different legal rights based not on action or consent but on something entirely out of their control: their date of birth. The Government have an interest in protecting public health, but that interest must always be balanced against personal liberty and equity before the law. The Bill does not do that. It creates an unjustifiable inequity in the law.

Even if one were to set aside these philosophical concerns, there is a more immediate issue that we must grapple with: enforcement. Laws that cannot be enforced are worse than being ineffective; they breed contempt for the very institutions that create them. I fear this Bill falls squarely into that category. Not only will retailers be expected to verify that a consumer is over 18 but that will continue for years to come. Imagine the confusion at the tills and the inevitable mistakes, disputes and frustrations. In time, a 35 year-old will be legally permitted to buy tobacco while a 34 year-old will not be. Who will be checking their ID, and how will they make sure that that distinction is absolutely clear?

Also, let us not forget the social dynamics: siblings, friends and parents still legally allowed to purchase tobacco will inevitably be asked to buy—and even pressured into buying—tobacco for adults who cannot. Can you imagine a smoking wife, who can purchase tobacco, refusing to supply her younger husband who cannot buy it? Enforcement agencies are already under immense pressure. Are we truly expecting officers to monitor our gardens, beer gardens and private homes in search of cigarette sharing between consenting adults? Such a law invites ridicule because it is unenforceable.

History gives us a clear warning that any form of prohibition rarely eliminates demand. Instead, it often pushes it underground, where criminal networks thrive. We see it with alcohol and we have seen it with drugs. International evidence shows us what happens when you try to significantly restrict the sale of tobacco: illicit tobacco sales start showing up more, especially in communities where there are fewer legal retailers. Convenience stores in New Zealand reported increased thefts and robberies targeting tobacco products, indicating an underground demand. Customs and law enforcement in New Zealand also noted a rise in smuggling and illegal imports. When legitimate, regulated access is denied, serious illegal alternatives fill the vacuum. So I caution noble Lords as we go forward against totally believing that age restriction can and will work. I ask noble Lords to look at the core mechanism in Committee.

17:54

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and I agree with much of what he said in his speech. I start by saying how much I welcome the tone of both opening speeches. That reflects that there is very broad support for the aims of this legislation. Principally, those aims are to protect children from being drawn into the dangers of vaping—we would all want to see that tackled—and to support and assist smoking cessation to encourage and help people to give up smoking. I certainly share those goals. However, I strongly endorse the initial comments made by my noble friend Lord Howe on the danger of unintended consequences—the possibility that, by regulating some things in certain ways, you might drive more people to the illegal market and that, by regulating the current products available in certain ways, you might make it less likely that people who are currently smokers would use certain types of vapes to assist them in giving up.

I was going to say that, as the 19th speaker in this debate, I was completely shocked to discover that I was going to make two points that nobody else had made, but the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has slightly spoilt that for me. The first point I was going to make, which I never hear anybody raise in debates on this topic, and I would really like to hear something on this from the Minister, is that, as we all congratulate ourselves on the great success of smoking cessation, the number of people who have given up smoking and how the number of young people smoking has fallen, I think we all know from our own experience that anywhere you walk in London, and pretty much anywhere you walk in the country, there has been a massive increase in smoking cannabis. It is an illegal class B drug which is often smoked with tobacco, and the evidence suggests causes more damage—both in mental and physical health—than smoking tobacco would. Nobody ever talks about the percentages of young people who are now smoking illegal cannabis and the harm that might arise from that, so I would really like to hear the Government’s assessment of that. It would be deeply unfortunate if measures now being taken to regulate smoking cigarettes, heated tobacco—as my noble friend Lord Vaizey spoke about—and other products might actually drive people to some worse products instead.

The other point I wanted to raise—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised some of these concerns as well—and this is why I voted against the Bill in its earlier iteration when I was a Member of the House of Commons, is that it sets a very dangerous and worrying precedent. I am talking not about smoking but about the principle which the generational ban assaults: the principle of adult citizenship. The idea that we have always accepted and worked upon in this country is the premise that when you achieve or attain an age of majority you will be in an equal position to other citizens to exercise choices as to whether you use certain legal products or not and other choices that you make in life. I cannot think of another example where legislation has so blatantly sought to discriminate against different adult citizens according to their exact date of birth, and I find that deeply worrying. It is wrong in principle, and it is something we really need to think about far more. I find it slightly remarkable that, at least until we got to the 18th speaker in this debate, nobody had even raised the concern about that.

17:58

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Bill. I do not propose to make any attempt at analysis of it or the breadth of its implications. Happily, there is no need for me to do that because my noble friend the Minister did so in an excellent opening speech, for which I thank and congratulate her. I agree that, in particular, the complementary speech of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, covered the other issues that I may have tried to get involved in, but I have nothing like the experience that there is in this House of this journey to try to improve the health of the nation—despite the fact that the tobacco companies are determined to kill our citizens—that I could contribute, so I intend to focus on only a couple of very specific points.

The first is the philosophical divide that I have heard about between those who, like me, support the Bill and those who feel it represents an unacceptable curtailment of individual liberty. I will leave it to the parliamentary colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to deal with his speech rather than get involved in that. The Bill is obviously consonant with the traditions of the Labour Party—mobilising the resources of the state to ameliorate the health and general condition of the people—but, as many Conservative MPs, including Jesse Norman, have made clear, it also tallies with the mainstream traditions of the Official Opposition. It takes a Conservative approach in effecting reform gradually; protects young people from a dangerous, addictive drug; supports the NHS; and will save taxpayers and society an enormous cost in money and, more importantly, lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has persuaded your Lordships better than I could, there may be libertarian arguments against the Bill, but there are few truly Conservative ones.

Given the overwhelming majority afforded the Bill at Second Reading in the other place, we know that it will progress to the statute book, but it is important to win arguments as well as votes. Of course, the genesis of the Bill took place under the last Conservative Administration and, in that context, I trust that the viewpoint of those who are friends—even if critical friends—of the Bill on the other side of your Lordships’ House will be given due weight.

My other point is a very specific one related to the devolved Administrations, which has been dealt with partly already by a contribution from Northern Ireland. In this context, it is worth saying that the implementation of the provisions of the Bill would proportionally affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland slightly more than England, given the greater incidence of smoking in these parts of the UK.

I have met wholly unrepentant smokers in my life; I have met countless more who tell me that they wish that they had never started; but I have never, ever met any non-smoker who ruefully confessed that they wished they had started smoking at an early age before rushing out, like one of Tennyson’s lotus eaters, to abandon themselves to the pleasures of nicotine. It is instructive that fewer than 1% of smokers start after the age of 26, and 75% have their first cigarettes before they are even legally allowed so to do. What follows is that two-thirds of adult smokers in Scotland wish that they had never taken up the habit in the first place. What does that suggest? It suggests that this habit takes hold at an age when impulse control is at its weakest and when people are more susceptible to influence. By the time that the demerits of smoking become unpleasantly clear, smokers are in the grip of a potent addiction.

I do not have time to do more than mention this statistic in the hope that others will take it up, but it is worth mentioning the fourfold increase in e-cigarette use among 16 to 24 year-olds in Scotland, with 22% using e-cigarettes in 2023. This has not been met with a correspondingly large drop-off in smoking rates in that age group over that period. Almost all of Part 2 of the Bill requires a legislative consent Motion. Happily, there is already one lodged with the Scottish Parliament. If the Bill goes through relatively untroubled by significant amendment, I hope that we can see its provisions come into force across the UK at speed. It will have my full support as it makes its way through your Lordships’ House.

18:05

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, nobody can fault the good intentions of the Bill, which are to be applauded, but it has the potential to profoundly impact personal choice and responsibility in our society. While I acknowledge the pressing health concerns surrounding smoking, I stand before your Lordships to advocate for the preservation of individual freedoms and the minimisation of state interference in our personal lives.

At the heart of the discussion lies a fundamental question: should government dictate what individuals can consume? In a truly free society, the right to make personal choices, even those which may be deemed to be unwise, should be respected. The role of government should not be to shield people from every risk but to empower them with information, education and support, so that they may choose for themselves. The Bill before us proposes sweeping regulations on tobacco and vaping products, ostensibly in the name of health, but with significant implications for personal freedom, economic viability and the effective use of public resources.

First, let us consider the economic consequences. The weight of compliance will fall heaviest on small businesses—corner shops, independent retailers and family-run enterprises—which often lack the resources to keep up with ever expanding regulatory demands. These businesses form the backbone of our local communities, but they will struggle to meet the stringent requirements outlined in the Bill.

Secondly, the cost of enforcing legislation will be significant. Trading standards will require a colossal increase in funding to successfully monitor compliance, conduct inspections and prosecute violations. In a time of constrained public finances, we must ask: is this the best use of taxpayers’ money? Could these resources not be more effectively deployed towards improving our schools, strengthening palliative care or tackling crime?

Thirdly, there are the unintended consequences. Restrictions on advertising and sponsorship may hinder the ability of companies to provide essential information about safer alternatives to smoking. Many adults are already making the transition to vaping and heated tobacco products that, when properly regulated, may pose fewer health risks than combustible cigarettes. If we silence responsible communication in this space, we risk keeping smokers in the dark, prolonging harm rather than reducing it. A well-informed public are better equipped to make choices to look after their health, and it is our responsibility to ensure that accurate information is accessible to all adults who smoke.

Finally, history teaches us that prohibition does not eliminate demand. As a number of your Lordships have pointed out this afternoon, it merely drives it underground. Excessive restrictions on tobacco and vaping products will pave the way for a mass unregulated black market where safety and quality are sacrificed. This is not mere speculation, it is a lesson that has been learned time and again. If nicotine products are pushed underground, we risk turning law-abiding citizens into criminals and jeopardising the health and safety of consumers. The potential for unregulated products to proliferate in the shadows poses a far greater risk than responsible regulation in a legal market. What we need is not coercion, but education; not prohibition, but harm reduction. By providing accurate, evidence-based information, we can empower individuals to make decisions that benefit their health. This is the path of a mature, democratic society, one that trusts its citizens to act responsibly.

In conclusion, while the intentions behind the Bill are to be applauded, I urge the House to reconsider our approach. Let us instead reaffirm our commitment to personal freedoms, informed choice and responsible government. Let this be a Government of facilitators, not enforcers.

18:09

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I well understand the good intentions of this Bill. The Government want to be seen to be doing something about public health rather than just talk. The last Government introduced a very similar Bill, but I am afraid that this very draconian Bill goes so much further. Very worryingly, it gives the Secretary of State huge powers to change things as they feel in the future, using delegated legislation. That is something that your Lordships will want to examine.

We all want fewer people to become addicted to smoking. I have never smoked. I had very well-intentioned parents who taught me very early on that smoking would not be good for my health. Most of all, I hated the smell in my clothes, as someone else has mentioned, after you had been in the company of a smoker. But no matter how good the intentions of this Bill, there are consequences that need addressing. I hope they will be addressed in Committee.

Like others, I had a meeting with the Federation of Independent Retailers. I was genuinely shocked to hear just how difficult its job already is in stopping those under the age of 18 buying tobacco. It has a genuine concern about the difficulties it will face in trying to assess the age of older people. There has been an increase in attacks on workers in small shops more recently. They face regular abuse and physical threats; ID checks already cause a lot of verbal abuse. The idea that our shop workers will bear the brunt of this new legislation seems very unfair. That is not even counting the extra costs of the proposed new licensing arrangements that, without doubt, will threaten the viability of some of our local family-run shops.

Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, said, I have yet to see any evidence that the Bill will not simply cause a growth in illicit trade, as was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Even now, a large percentage of smokers will admit to purchasing tobacco from under-the-counter dealers or other underground places. The real winners from the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will be the organised crime gangs, which no doubt are already gearing up to benefit. They certainly could not care less about the age of anyone who is buying from them. I wonder whether the Government have thought through any strategy to deal with this.

Part 3 of the Bill, Clauses 68 to 87, deals with the changes to apply the Bill in Northern Ireland, which the noble Lords, Lord Dodds of Duncairn and Lord Naseby, have already spoken on. The European Union tobacco directive applies to Northern Ireland and, under the protocol through Section 7A of the 2018 Act and the directive, forbids the type of proposition in the Bill. I and many others, including many learned KCs, fail to see how the Bill can apply in Northern Ireland while the tobacco directive applies.

The Minister in the other place sought to dismiss this, but then the Government dismissed similar points on the legacy Bill, only to have the Northern Ireland High Court rule against, and now we are awaiting a hearing in the Supreme Court. The very welcome Supreme Court ruling last week on sex and gender has also raised concerns about whether that judgment can apply to Northern Ireland, as we are under EU law. The tobacco directive is one of some 288 other EU laws that, through Section 7A of the EU withdrawal Act, are applied as being superior law to UK law in Northern Ireland—law that we here in the UK Parliament cannot disapply. As has been mentioned, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland attempted to put through similar generational smoking bans but could not. There is no doubt that if this Bill goes through, the tobacco industry will judicially review whether it can apply to Northern Ireland. It will end up in the Supreme Court. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to see whether the rather head-in-the-sand approach taken in the other place has been changed, because this will certainly be an area where amendments will be tabled.

I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, raised something that I wanted to raise. Why are the Government turning a blind eye to police forces that are going soft on cannabis use in public and in private? Cannabis is an illegal drug. The stronger versions of it such as skunk are, according to research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College, known to increase the risk of psychosis by three times compared with non-use. There is an increasing burden on our mental health services, and I see this as just as important a risk to health as tobacco. Does the Minister agree? What do the Government intend to do to deal with this?

Finally, I am concerned about the whole generational risk, as it has been put by other noble Lords, in differentiating in age between adults. One of the fundamental principles of a free society must be personal and family responsibility. The more that the Government ban and regulate, the less that families and people feel they have to make their own decisions. The state getting involved too much causes the influence of families, and individual responsibility, to be taken away. I hope that in Committee we can deal with these issues and get a better Bill to come out at the end; I think we all agree with its aim.

18:15

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I support many aspects of the Bill. I strongly dislike both smoking and vaping. I grew up in a house where both my parents smoked. My mother used it for hunger suppression and weight management. My father smoked just because people did. They both stopped later in life as the detriment to health was more widely realised.

I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham raised Cancer Research UK. Smoking is the leading cause of health inequalities in the UK and accounts for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in society. Some would argue that vaping is okay and not as harmful as smoking. The UK Vaping Industry Association briefing stated that vapes continue to drive smoking to historic lows. The association states that Public Health England has shown that vaping is

“at least 95% less harmful than smoking”

and that the NHS Better Health guidelines affirm that while vaping is not without risk, it is

“substantially less harmful than smoking”.

It might be better, slightly, but it is hardly good for you, as early smoking ads would suggest.

As an athlete, I never directly smoked. When I was competing, I spent most of my time avoiding anywhere that anybody smoked. One of the reasons I really dislike vaping is that I do not seem to be able to walk around anywhere without being vaped on or over. Vaping allows for nicotine to be more prevalent in the air, allowing for inhalation by third parties. I can try to be as healthy as possible—I can eat well and I can exercise—but ultimately I am inhaling vape smoke. I am pleased that a couple of noble Lords have raised cannabis, because I seem to spend quite a lot of my life swerving along the street trying to avoid that as well. I am no longer an athlete, but it is still on the banned list for athletes. The fact that it is so available should be cause for concern.

I realise that I am sounding old and grumpy. Quite a lot of things irritate me, but one of the things that irritate me quite a lot is people who pretend that they are not vaping while trying to hide it. People vape in places where they would never normally smoke, such as on buses. I am certain that I have smelt vape smoke in this very building. Being British, all I do is tut loudly. I am worried that vaping is seen as an alternative to smoking.

I accept that the initial reason for vapes and e-cigarettes was to provide a safer alternative, but the evidence has shown that the introduction of vapes has led to the gradual increase of vaping among children and minors. There are loads of statistics out there—72% of 11 to 17 year-olds report that they are exposed to some form of vape promotion. The main source has been in shops, at 55%, while online it is 29%. In March and April 2023, the proportion of children experimenting with vaping had grown 50% year on year, from one in 13 to one in nine. Young people who had used an e-cigarette were seven times more likely to become smokers one year later. The reasons that young people give are anxiety, stress and depression, but nicotine addiction just links these symptoms. We end up being in a Catch-22 situation.

Beyond my personal dislike, we have to look at environmental issues around smoking and vaping. Cigarette butts are currently made of cellulose acetate, which is synthetic plastic. We spent a lot of time in this building banning straws. Each cigarette butt contains around two straws’ worth of plastic. Globally, 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered. Even in the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered.

Wildlife and Countryside Link reported more than a million disposable vapes going into incineration or landfill every week. When I go to lots of sporting events, I see disposable vapes and vapes littered everywhere; the only thing that horrifies me more is the number of nitrous oxide cartridges that I see.

I am supportive of this Bill. Committee will be very interesting. I know we are going to get on to some contentious issues around smoking around hospitals. I would ban it from all entrances, but I realise that is possibly not possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the impact of smoking on her family, and it has probably impacted every single person in this building. I support any Bill that supports a smoke and vape-free future.

18:20

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely welcome this Bill, for a number of reasons.

The first is that it has been described as bold on the basis of the advice given by the late Viscount Nelson. But there is a fine line, even he would have acknowledged, between being bold and being reckless. I regard this as essentially a reckless Bill, because it invites us to set out on a wholly untested course of a generational ban, with all the difficulties of enforcement, when the Government’s own impact assessment, or their modelling, shows that a very similar effect on the trajectory to a smoke-free future would be achieved by raising from 18 to 21 the age at which cigarettes and tobacco can be sold. That would be an incremental approach, much more easily understood by the public and much more easily enforceable by shopkeepers. But no, we choose the reckless course, because there is something exciting, brilliant and brand new about it, but we do not ask whether it is going to work.

Given the large expertise in local government in your Lordships’ House, I am surprised to be the first speaker who is saying that I have had experience of political responsibility for trading standards in a local authority. I know how very difficult it is to manage test purchases, especially with younger people who need to be protected, briefed and counselled before they are put in a situation that could turn violent. That is one of the reasons why there are so few enforcement activities. According to the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill:

“In 2023 to 2024, Trading Standards conducted over 650 tobacco test purchases in England and Wales”.


That is approximately one, or one and a bit, per local authority in an entire year.

Anyone who thinks there is going to be effective enforcement of a generational smoking ban has to understand that that is the base of enforcement from which you are starting, and it is going to have to be huge if it is to be effective. Part of the explanation for that low number is that it is clear that trading standards has switched its focus to vaping—I will come to vapes in a moment—because there were 3,400 test purchases of vapes. But even 3,400 divided by the number of local trading standards departments is a very small number indeed.

There is also the effect on crime. I was really struck by the wonderfully optimistic figures cited by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on the basis of Treasury figures, about the number of smuggled cigarettes falling. What world does the Treasury live in? If asked, it would probably say that the amount of marijuana being smoked on the streets is falling, because it has not properly measured it. Only two weeks ago the BBC news was filled with some very interesting reporting, basically saying that for many of our high streets up and down the country, the sale of illicit cigarettes is now the principal economic activity and is closely associated with money laundering and foreign drugs dealing. Who cannot imagine that this is going to expand?

I come also to vapes. In the Government there is clearly a state of confusion about vapes. On the one hand, vaping is a core part of the Government’s and the National Health Service’s smoking cessation approach. On the other hand, it is obvious that the Government do not really approve of it and are not terribly in favour of it. What we can all agree on is that vapes should not be sold or marketed to children. One of the best ways of doing that would be to stop the importation into this country of a large number of illicit vapes deliberately designed to be marketed to children. I suspect from his description of it that the one rather naughtily waved around earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, may have been in that category.

Finally, the question of flavours is a mistake on the part of the Government. It is not flavours that are marketed to children; it is the descriptors. It is the fact that something is called bubblegum, say, that makes it attractive to children, not that it tastes like bubblegum. What does bubblegum taste like anyway? It is not flavours that the Government should be aiming at but descriptors, and I think that is something we should see an amendment on in Committee.

18:25

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Library, to ASH, to Professor Theresa Marteau of Cambridge University and to the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I am an ambassador.

It has been a privilege to listen to reflections across the House from those noble Lords who have helped steer the country along over recent years on this important legislative journey to help save lives and improve the nation’s health. I express my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for taking up the baton or the cudgels—I do not know which of those my noble friend thinks she has taken up.

My professional interest in helping people stop smoking began over 20 years ago when I became chair of Lambeth Primary Care Trust just across the river. Smoking was the main cause of preventable ill health and health inequalities, resulting in poor quality of life and premature mortality. The then Labour Government required local primary health services to provide support and advice to smokers wanting to quit, as well as prevention activities to stop youngsters taking up smoking, to tackle underage and counterfeit tobacco sales and to promote smoke-free environments to minimise the effects of second-hand smoke, as so eloquently described by the noble Baroness a few minutes ago. Over three years, smoking in Lambeth fell from 35% to 28%, with more than 9,000 smokers quitting and a decline in cancer and circulatory disease.

But my personal interest in stopping smoking, as for many others in this Chamber, dates to much longer ago than that, when as a child I sat in the back of our family car, travelling weekends up and down the M6 motorway between the Midlands and Lancashire to visit family. The car filled with my dad’s cigarette and sometimes pipe smoke. I loathed it, as did my younger sister. Neither of us has ever smoked, and we longed for our father to give up. He tried and tried, which in the 1970s seemed to consist of him eating a lot of Polo mints and other sweets, and it failed, no matter how hard he tried. He had started smoking when he was 12, picking up the ends of his older brother’s cigarettes and soon becoming a committed smoker. He died far too soon, in 1990, of lung cancer, and then my older sister also died of it, sadly, in 2018. So, as a result of both personal and professional experience, I cheer every development that prevents or reduces people’s use of tobacco and dependence on it.

The Bill provides the opportunity for a huge step forward, a big next step, seeking to prevent today’s children ever becoming smokers by making it illegal to sell them tobacco for the whole of their lives. Tobacco manufacturers and their supporters argue that this is a matter of civil liberties. They ask why today’s children should not be free to choose to smoke when they turn 18. The plain answer is that smoking is an addiction and the only free choice is that first cigarette, as I saw at first hand. Two out of three people who try one cigarette become daily smokers, and on average it takes 30 attempts to quit, which is why implementing this Bill has the potential to prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of serious illness and tens of thousands of premature deaths. Even this is not enough for the tobacco lobby, which likes to claim that the tax take from smoking is greater than the cost to the NHS. It conveniently ignores the huge cost of time off work, which far exceeds the income generated.

Moving now to vaping, I am delighted to see the provisions in the Bill to put the necessary regulations in place because while vapes may be helpful for smokers wanting to quit, they are harmful to non-smokers and, in particular, to children by introducing them to a world of nicotine and addiction. Some studies have suggested the possibility of vaping acting as a gateway to smoking, and while others have simply suggested correlation rather than causation, why would we want to take a chance on our children’s health?

As well as the well-established health concerns around vaping, there is the risk that some vapes can pose for people with severe allergies. Many people are not aware that vapes can cause a severe allergic reaction, but in 2019 a 16 year-old boy from Nottingham suffered potentially life-threatening lung failure after a suspected allergic reaction while vaping, in a case which doctors say highlights the potential dangers of young people using e-cigarettes. The evidence linking vape smoke and allergic reactions is still emerging, but we know that propylene glycol, one of the two ingredients in most e-liquids, is a known allergen. As we continue to learn more about the effects of vaping, it is vital that people have a clear understanding of the risks and that labelling law keeps up when it comes to highlighting allergens. I would be grateful if the Minister were willing to meet me and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation in the near future to discuss these concerns in greater depth.

For all these reasons, I am delighted to support the passage of the Bill.

18:31

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, but I am afraid I have some philosophical reservations about aspects of the Bill, in particular about the proportionality in the relationship between the individual and the state. I believe that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, and that, of course, includes bad choices. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that individuals are armed with as much information as possible to encourage them to make good choices, so I accept that the Bill has at its heart good aims and intentions that I broadly support. Who could realistically argue against reducing harms for young people? There is no argument that some vaping products deliberately target young people, which, if nothing else is, is immoral.

While acknowledging this and speaking solely on the subject of the sale of tobacco, like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do not think that writing a law where those born at one minute to midnight on 31 December 2008 have more freedoms than those born two minutes later makes any sense at all. Surely it would be far better to introduce a much higher age limit before individuals can legally make that choice, while increasing education and incentives to help them make a good choice. I accept that that would negatively impact a small group of people who are currently smoking legally. I also acknowledge the apparent illogicality of making this argument, as the Government intend to legislate to allow someone born on 1 January 2009 to vote in public elections. If they can make that informed decision, then maybe for the sake of consistency, we should argue for lower legal age limits across the board.

I also have some practical concerns about how the Bill would be enforced, and others have also made this case. What actually happens in a few years’ time, when two young men visit a corner shop late at night and decline to provide age verification to the only staff member working? If the shopkeeper hands over the tobacco, they will commit an offence. If they do not, what might they face? Perhaps it might be rather more than my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s choice language. The Labour Party has a proud tradition of standing against harassment of and violence against retail workers—indeed, it has made it clear that it would like that to be an aggravated offence—so does it make sense to create conditions that seem highly likely to increase precisely that behaviour? I thought that was described very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Some will argue that this will encourage smaller shops to cease selling tobacco and vaping products, and that is obviously a good thing, but history and current events teach us what happens when there is an absence of a product for which there is considerable demand or when that product becomes prohibitively expensive. What happens is, of course, that organised crime spots an opportunity.

Prohibition is the most obvious example of the former, and that did not work, although it did help the Mafia establish solid roots in the United States. A more current example is provided by the enormous wealth of the drug cartels. On the subject of the cost, we need only to look at Australia, already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Naseby, where a packet of cigarettes costs more than $50 and where a vicious gang war has broken out to control what 9Network news describes as a booming black market. This is not, to use the word in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, a zombie argument but a factual one. One in five cigarettes sold in Australia is apparently supplied by a criminal syndicate. This gang war is so vicious that it has led to a spate of fire-bombings of in excess of 200 small shops.

As my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, criminal activity is already a problem here. I looked at it from the bottom up, and a cursory survey of recent BBC News stories indicates that, for example, trading standards and police raids on only 50 stores in Devon and Cornwall yielded £186,000-worth of illegal product in March. In Northamptonshire, 30 shops in the north of the county yielded £394,000-worth. In Grimsby and Cleethorpes, 90,000 cigarettes, 20 kg of rolling tobacco and 4,800 vapes were seized in April. I commend the agencies for their efforts, but that is sure to be only the tip of a much larger iceberg because, again, the zombie objection makes no allowance for the fact that organised criminals are not stupid. I cannot see how writing laws that will inevitably encourage criminal activity can ever be justified.

The fact is that demand will always be satisfied, so it is surely much more effective to tackle the demand side of the equation. We should educate, incentivise and encourage. We should not place unnecessary burdens on small businesses and, in particular, on small shopkeepers who are having a hard time of it at the moment for all sorts of other reasons. We should not place individuals in those shops at personal risk because in 2034 they are unable to judge whether a 25 year-old was born on or before 1 January 2009.

A smoke-free future is obviously in everyone’s interest, and I say that as an unrepentant smoker, but so would be an alcohol-free future, a drug-free future and probably a cream bun-free future. These are noble aspirations, but in practice they are not going to happen. This aspect of the Bill as written will cause more problems than it solves. As this is St George’s Day, we should channel that spirit and slay the right dragon, which in this case is demand.

18:37

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a number of quotations and reminiscences about family. My father was a general practitioner in a very deprived part of the East End of London: Old Ford. He became as aware of the huge dangers of smoking as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, did at roughly the same time in the late 1950s and early 1960s and of the terrible effects that smoking can have on individuals’ health, communities and families. I followed that very much. I have always supported the legislation so far on restricting the consumption of tobacco. I feel that one of the positive things about the Bill is that we should bring the vaping legislation pretty well up to where tobacco legislation is now. However, I have severe concerns that the first part of the Bill about the rolling age ban is not going to work. In fact, it is not just not going to work but could have certain other ills more broadly for society in the form of unintended consequences.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, mentioned cannabis because when it comes to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and evidence, we should look at the cannabis market because the one difference the Bill makes is that it proposes that, in effect, tobacco will become an illegal substance for the first time, and over time it will be like cannabis and other banned drugs. It will be of a similar status. What has happened in the cannabis market? We have heard some of that. The statistics are difficult because it is a dark market, obviously, but it is thought that the annual turnover for cannabis, excluding medical cannabis, is about £2.5 billion to £3 billion per annum, and there are some 3 million regular users of this particular drug. That £3 billion is a proportion of the £10 billion illicit drugs market in this country, so it is very substantial.

The issue about this piece of tobacco legislation is that, as other noble Lords have said, cannabis legislation is hardly enforced at all, and where it is, it is very patchy—and I believe quite rightly. Where I live down in the West Country, rural crime is an issue; cannabis is not a social problem, although it is used, and many of us would prefer that the police spend their time more on issues other than drugs. The forces have obviously made that decision, and different forces make different decisions throughout the country. It varies very greatly. We all know that cannabis is hugely and easily available—it just is—but when it comes to tobacco, that will be even easier for the newly banned generations to obtain because they can just take it from their family or from those people who were born before 2009.

So, what we have is a problem in society where we encourage people to break the law regularly, and I seriously believe that that is an ill that we should not encourage. It is too easy to circumvent. Certainly, enforcement is incredibly difficult because of the transfer between friends, families and communities when for some of them it is not illegal. I find the area of age identity very difficult in terms of how that will be solved practically. In terms of cost to society, I believe that broad area of people breaking the law and not feeling it is a problem because that is what they do is something that eats away at respect for the law and for legislation. I have always strongly believed, as a legislator here and in the European Parliament, that we should not legislate unless we are able to enforce. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of us, the law and the rule of law, which is an important part of our democracy.

I also agree that this will be a market opportunity for organised crime. It is just obvious. That is what happens. We know that in this industry—and we have heard examples here of illegal or under-the-counter sales—there is a history of the tobacco industry exporting cigarettes to third-world countries which come back into this country. Those channels already exist and will continue to exist.

Another issue with drugs that are prohibited—I am not saying that they should not be prohibited—is quality control, as we see with cannabis again. What we risk when we ban tobacco to certain sectors of society is that the quality control and administration of those substances disappears completely, which becomes a risk to individuals, societies and communities.

I support bringing vaping legislation back up to where tobacco is at the moment, but I am highly sceptical that you can make a rolling age ban work in this country, given the resources, history and evidence that we have.

18:43

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I say many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for such an interesting speech. It has been quite refreshing today to hear members of the Liberal Democrats talking about liberalism—something of a shock to the system, but I am delighted. It is also a bit dispiriting that a Government who promised change keep introducing cut-and-paste Bills from the previous Tory Administration, only worse. The ministerial power grab in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill means that democratic accountability could be going up in smoke.

Ministers from both parties have boasted that this law, which bans all future generations from purchasing tobacco, is world-leading, but what if the world has not gone that way for good reasons? There is certainly no evidence that this is a workable policy. The Bill’s own impact assessment admits that there are no international case studies to follow. This is all a gamble, based on academic modelling. Has the Minister read the document from Trading Standards Wales that challenges the efficacy of such an “aggressive prohibitionist approach”, noting that the New Zealand Government abandoned its version as unenforceable? Meanwhile, in Malaysia the Attorney-General rejected a similar ban as unconstitutional on the grounds that it denies citizens equal treatment under the law. How would it be different in the UK if a future 40 year-old will be legally able to buy cigarettes whereas his 39 year-old sister will be criminalised if she does the same? How is that not discriminatory?

We also have to be honest about just how illiberal this legislation is, and I am delighted the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, reminded us of why that matters. We should drop the F-word a lot more in this Chamber, even if it offends some, but querying the state’s criminalising of adults’ freedom—that F-word—to buy legal products is not some sign of a dangerous, mad, libertarian ideologue or because we are in hock to big tobacco, as has been suggested by some, which, to be frank, is a cheap and insulting avoidance of debate. It is because, in a democratic, free society, we should be careful not to be careless with civil liberties.

Regardless, let us take the Bill’s motives at face value: to stop people smoking for the sake of their health. Luckily, some innovative geniuses have invented vapes, with unambiguous evidence that they actually work and have enabled millions to quit. Even the NHS Better Health web page includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use nicotine vapes compared with other nicotine replacement products. But instead of celebrating this success and seeing vaping as an opportunity, this Bill irrationally treats it as a threat.

I know the Government say that the Bill is targeting youth vaping, but hugely disproportionate regulation, such as the proposal to make it illegal to publish any marketing materials for vapes or nicotine products, can only create an information void and ensure that adults will be confused by scaremongering misinformation about the dangers of vaping. Alarmingly, over half of adults who smoke mistakenly believe that vapes are equally or more harmful compared to smoking.

Similarly, why, oh why, are the Government so fixated on demonising flavoured vapes? Does the Minister really believe that only children like sweet things? Has she not noticed the exponential rise in the flavoured gin market for adults? Research shows that 65% of adult vapers find fruit and sweet liquids preferable—ironically, often because of the perceived difference to the tobacco they are quitting.

Let me tell you a story. Once the proud winner of the smoker of the year award, I quit smoking 18 months ago after 40 years of chain-smoking. It was tough, but, advised by no less than two doctors, I tried disposable vapes. Banana and strawberry worked a treat, and now I am smoke-free. But rather than patting me on the back, along comes Defra, which, with scant regard for public health, has prioritised the environment. I now live in dread of 1 June and an outright ban and I am stocking up. Now we have this Bill’s counterproductive attack on flavours, despite the evidence that four in 10 vapers say that if there are no flavoured vapes, they will return to smoking. Indeed, in America, in 375 localities that adopted permanent restriction on vape flavours, the results were increased sales in cigarettes.

On the theme of counterproductive outcomes, over Easter the Government issued flashy filmed adverts promising a new law against assaulting shop workers. I am not sure that law is necessary—it is not legal to attack retail staff now, surely—but did the Government consider that this Bill is guaranteed to make matters worse? The latest British Retail Consortium crime survey reveals 130,000 instances of shop workers being verbally and physically assaulted every day in 2024—a 340% increase since 2020—and a significant number of these attacks followed requests for age verification. There is unanimous agreement among retailers that a law which will force staff of convenience stores at the heart of our local communities to increase proof-of-age ID checks on tobacco buyers of any age will trigger a huge escalation of violence and abuse.

The cost-benefit analysis of this Bill means there are massive costs for many people. Just saying we want to stamp out smoking is not good enough. In Committee, we should ensure that we follow and track those costs and do not allow unaccountability to happen, at least here before it gets passed.

18:50

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

I declare two somewhat different interests. One is as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, in which role I welcome the additional £10 million for enforcement that the Minister mentioned. The other, though, is as a cigar lover, and it is in the latter capacity that I am speaking today.

I support any and all efforts to discourage young people from taking up cigarette smoking, but I am disappointed about the inclusion in the Bill of cigars and pipe tobacco, which the Government themselves do not consider to be a significant public health concern. These products differ markedly from cigarettes and rolling tobacco in their consumer base, their usage patterns and their risk profiles. Representing less than 2% of the UK tobacco market, the consumption of handmade cigars is statistically insignificant, leading the ONS to cease data collection in 2016 and the DHSC to ignore it in its 2023 adult smoking habits report.

More pertinently, cigar usage is not prevalent among the 18 to 24 age group, primarily due to its higher cost. The evidence indicates that cigars and tobacco are predominantly used by an older demographic, with 78% of cigar smokers being 35 or older and the average age of a cigar smoker being 52. Usage patterns also diverge significantly, with cigar consumption being occasional, driven by appreciation rather than by nicotine addiction and limited by price and availability.

The most compelling fact is that there is no evidence suggesting that cigars act as a gateway product to cigarette smoking. The lack of data linking cigars to youth uptake of tobacco products, addiction or significant public health harms explains why previous legislation has consistently differentiated cigars from cigarettes in respect of packaging and other requirements. The inclusion of cigars and pipe tobacco in this Bill is therefore at odds with the principles of evidence-based and proportionate regulation. This echoes the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Howe about proportionality and the balance between personal freedom and health gain.

The Regulatory Policy Committee, among others, raised concerns about the impact assessment, which relies almost entirely on cigarette-related studies, with cigars hardly mentioned and their distinctively different consumer profiles, demographics and levels of risk completely ignored.

The IA also fails to adequately assess the Bill’s impact on businesses specialising in cigars and pipe tobacco. The specialist tobacco sector is composed of over 130 enterprises, supporting 794 jobs. They are mostly small or micro family-run retail businesses, with generations of experience and expertise in the niche and complex supply chains around handmade cigars. Being small-scale and specialist, and with handmade cigars constituting up to 70% of their turnover, these businesses will be facing closure if their primary revenue from cigars begins to dry up.

A considerably more urgent concern for them with the Bill, however, is the proposed power to extend standardised packaging to handmade cigars. Handmade cigars and their packaging are artisan products produced by small manufacturers, mostly in developing countries, with low-volume runs of diverse product lines that are packaged manually. Unlike the highly automated cigarette industry, with a high volume production of limited product variations, the handmade cigar sector has over 2,000 distinct products, with unique packaging for each one. This makes it impossible for producers to accommodate specific packaging for one small market, such as the UK, and extending standardised packaging to handmade cigars would require importers to develop packaging in the UK and repack each cigar manually. That is financially unviable, and a disproportionate requirement compared to other mass-produced tobacco products.

As importers will not be able to meet plain-packaging requirements, choice and supply to retailers and consumers will be dramatically reduced. Consumers will choose to purchase from other markets, leading to the closure of all specialist tobacconists in the UK and the likely loss of nearly 800 jobs within an estimated two to three years. That sounds alarmist but it is based on evidence: in the Republic of Ireland, similar measures in 2017 resulted in specialist tobacconists seeing their sales of boxes of handmade cigars drop from around 70% to zero.

The Bill’s one-size-fits-all approach to tobacco products is, as I have said, at odds with the Government’s own better regulation principles when it comes to cigars and pipe tobacco. There is no clear evidence that they contribute to youth cigarette uptake or to public health issues. It will endanger jobs and businesses without achieving corresponding health benefits. A more intelligent, proportionate and evidence-based approach would be to exempt cigars and pipe tobacco from the Bill and to exempt handmade cigars from plain packaging. Other options that might be considered alongside exemptions could be raising the minimum purchase age of cigars and pipe tobacco to 25 or introducing a five-year post-implementation review to assess the consequences of such exemptions.

18:56

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill is a massively significant public health intervention that will save lives. I have heard the arguments today about personal freedoms, and I say this: anyone in my age group grew up in a cloud of toxic second-hand smoke in our homes, on public transport and in our workplaces, and many of us saw our parents die prematurely from smoking-related diseases. Later generations have been spared those harms by regulation and strong public health messaging, and the Bill before the House goes a long way to completing the job. We know that regulation works.

We were reminded at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that 11.9% of adults in the UK still smoke today. It is worth repeating that that is too many, and we know that most of them want to stop. They are risking their health and they risk untimely death. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, spoke with the authority of Cancer Research UK in reminding us that tobacco is the biggest cause of cancer deaths in the UK, with tobacco killing one person every seven minutes. So the Bill’s phased-in smoking ban is a vital public health benefit, as will be the later restrictions on smoking in outdoor spaces.

There is agreement across the House that no child should be vaping. It has been illegal to sell nicotine vapes to under-18s for 10 years, but a survey last year by Action on Smoking and Health showed that 18% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping. That is nearly 1 million children, and most children who vape use nicotine vapes. The harm is obvious, yet, as many others have said today, these products are blatantly marketed to children, with bright packaging and child-friendly names. Children are being sold these products every day on our high streets. That is why the powers in the Bill to regulate packaging and display—and, yes, flavours—are essential, along with the ban on disposable vapes and more robust enforcement.

In opening the debate, my noble friend the Minister talked about a balance. The Bill does strike the right balance. These restrictions on vapes should protect young people, while not preventing adults who want to use vapes doing so—whether or not they use them as a way to stop smoking cigarettes.

Several speakers have expressed concern that the Bill contains many new and amended delegated powers. I accept the Government’s argument that this is necessary to enable flexibility and future adjustments as new evidence, products and loopholes emerge. On the detail, the new and amended delegated powers will mean that there is space for further consultation, including on the new licensing and registration schemes.

It has been suggested in the debate that the Bill will encourage a black market. There is no evidence showing us that previous restrictions on tobacco have increased the black market in tobacco products as a direct consequence of that legislation. But I concede that there needs to be vigilance. Each month, tens of thousands of illegal vapes are seized from black market sellers across the UK. There are no safety checks on those products. Heaven knows what is in them—they are a health hazard. However, the new licensing and registration schemes will bring us greater enforcement opportunities, as will the new vaping products tax. Nevertheless, there will need to be continued monitoring and realistic levels of resourcing for enforcement bodies.

I end with an invitation to the Minister to pick up in her response the points that other speakers have made about the consequences for retail workers, who are already in the front line of enforcing age-restricted sales. I would welcome assurances that the protections for retail workers in the current Crime and Policing Bill will be robust and flexible enough to deal with the additional pressures that shop workers could face when the provisions of this important and welcome Bill come into force.

19:02

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the Second Reading of this Bill. It is urgently required to reduce the increasing levels of youth vaping and to target the illicit vape market, which we are all aware has future consequences, particularly for very young users. This continues to have implications for vaping on school premises up and down the country; no area seems immune.

Vaping is the UK’s most successful smoking cessation tool, but I emphasise that we have not gone far enough to protect those under 18. Whatever restrictions are placed on packaging and advertising, they will not completely prevent those under 18 from accessing disposable vapes. We all know that once a vape leaves the shop, or any location, it can easily be passed to children. It is young children whom I am particularly concerned about, so I welcome the Bill’s ban on disposable vapes, and I look forward to bringing it forward.

Tackling underage vaping must involve age verification at the point of use, which is not only practical but is supported by the majority of people. We should ban disposable vapes and restrict certain flavours and bright, colourful packaging descriptions, which are novelty factors. Importantly, they are an attractive tool for marketing these products, which are clearly aimed at children. Unfortunately, this is set against the backdrop of many parents having little or no idea about vapes’ dangerous chemical composition and the resulting possible future health implications.

Teachers, too, believe that vaping is a growing problem on school grounds, causing many safety and behaviour issues and, in some instances, damage to school property. I want schools and colleges to engage with public, private and third-sector organisations regarding the health implications of vaping and future participation in tobacco smoking, in parallel with up-to-date public health advertising. There is, of course, a need for additional funding for enforcement and a serious licensing scheme. We also need to address the retailers, as many shops openly display various flavoured vapes. Important, too, are the distributors and importers, which is an issue that needs to be revisited.

In restoring vaping to its original intention, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is less harmful than the tobacco alternative, with positive outcomes for people transferring from tobacco smoking to vaping. Vapes are a valuable aid for many adults in stopping smoking, but the elephant in the room is the young people who are now vaping when they have never smoked before. There is also the issue of exposure to second-hand smoke, which causes thousands of people to be diagnosed with cancer and other health issues. It must not be forgotten that smoking is a huge cost to society and individuals and is still the leading cause of premature death and disability in the UK.

Finally, I welcome the creation of the first smoke-free generation.

19:06

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, coming so far down the list in your Lordships’ debate—the number of speakers demonstrating the strength of feeling on the issue on all sides of the House, mostly slanted in the direction of seeking to do more to take on big tobacco—I am seeking not to repeat what has already been said, but rather, to highlight a couple of issues that I expect to pick up in Committee.

However, first, I will answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, not currently in his place, about what the Bill is for—or rather, what the Green Party thinks it should be for. The Bill should aim to sound the death knell of big tobacco: the merchants of death who have preyed on vulnerable people, particularly children, hooking them for life. Their products have shortened lives, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out, at great financial and personal cost to those individuals, while providing spectacular profits for those companies. As regulation has sought to restrict their indefensible trade, they have twisted and turned, lobbied and wrestled, dodged and shapeshifted into new and harmful forms.

One of those forms is nicotine pouches, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, highlighted. This issue was brought home to me on 9 September 2024; I know that because I documented what I saw on social media. At Manchester Piccadilly station, a giant yellow booth almost blocked the entrance. It was surrounded by a group of smiling young people, welcoming and warm, seeking to hand out such pouches to random passers-by. The company’s name is Velo, and a little research uncovered that it is owned by British American Tobacco. Well, shame on you, British American Tobacco, for peddling to young people, at random, a dangerous and addictive poison. You are besmirching the good name of our country by your actions.

Of course, those actions are taking place around the world. Our focus today has been on the UK, but I ask the Minister—I will understand if she chooses to write to me later—what steps the Government are taking to stop British-based and British-linked companies continuing their immoral peddling around the world. The UK was known back in the age of the opium wars as a narco-state; we surely do not want to be one today. I am going to see whether it is possible to address this issue in Committee.

The World Health Organization estimates that there are 1.25 billion adult tobacco users around the world. So, about one in five adults worldwide consume tobacco, which is an improvement on the figure for 2000, when one in three did so. But that is not on track to meet the global goal of a 30% reduction from the 2010 baseline. Why? Let us take a clue from the slogan for this year’s World No Tobacco Day, which is 31 May. The slogan is:

“Protecting children from tobacco industry interference”.


My final point picks up an issue raised powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the deceptive, deceitful behaviour of the industry and its regular indulging in healthwashing, greenwashing and astroturfing—all the techniques of well-funded dodgy public relations. On the subject I am about to raise, the industry even took a shot at me. The email to me came from [e-mail] via parliament.uk, and was signed “Mariana”—first name only, no company name, no other identification. It asked me to back an amendment to bring in a ban on plastic filters on cigarettes.

In my reference to this, I am drawing on the great work of Action on Smoking and Health to highlight the fact that cigarette filters offer no health benefits. They were introduced by the tobacco industry not to protect health but to create the illusion of a safer cigarette. They have rightly been called the deadliest fraud in human history. These filters are made from single-use plastics and are an environmental disaster. In the UK they account for two-thirds of all littered items and cost councils £40 million a year to clean up. But so-called biodegradable filters are still toxic, break down only under certain conditions and provide a false sense that there is some kind of eco-responsibility so you do not have to worry about the problem. They give tobacco companies the chance to continue their greenwashing and healthwashing. The real solution is simple: ban all cigarette filters. I hope the Government will consider bringing in such a ban.

19:11

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I still remember well the berating I got from my local pub landlord the Sunday after I voted to ban smoking in public places, back in 2006—it was going to be the end of the pub. I am delighted to say that, 20 years on, while Graham is sadly no longer with us, the Swan Inn, in Olney, in Buckinghamshire, continues to thrive. I support this Bill in principle as a progressive step to reduce smoking in the United Kingdom, but it is far from perfect.

On the face of it, smoking, and specifically smoking tobacco, has done untold damage. The health of the general public has suffered as a result of the well-documented effects of regular smoking. Smoking is also a driver of social and economic inequality. Smokers earn on average around 7% less than non-smokers. This should not surprise noble Lords—if you take more time off work due to the inevitable ill-health effects, spend more of your disposable income on tobacco, and develop a dependency on a drug such as nicotine, that is going to impact your earnings over time. Across a range of metrics, there is a higher prevalence of smoking among the less well off.

I can see why this Government have kept with the previous Government’s ambition to phase out smoking. If there were no adverse reactions to the Bill, it would mean the average individual smoker recouping the £2,300 annual amount spent on buying tobacco, and further millions reclaimed across the UK from smoking-related productivity loss, as well as from the costs of care for those who have contracted smoking-related illnesses. But not everything is as black and white as the Government are suggesting, and this Bill is not a silver bullet.

There is already a thriving black market for tobacco in the UK and that prohibition will only increase the problem. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the Government will do alongside the Bill to prevent the explosion of this black market.

As has been well documented, smoking rates are already falling across the UK through a number of policy interventions, including education, smoking support and awareness campaigns on tobacco alternatives. Interventions such as these are proving to be successful. Has the Minister weighed up their merits against the possible implications of this Bill?

Today, I want to briefly flag up three areas where I believe a Bill strengthened with appropriate amendments could make a significant difference. The first area I would like to see strengthened is the banning of single-use vapes. Ahead of this Bill, Defra has released new guidance outlining what can be considered a reusable product. However, the intent does not appear to have been put on a statutory footing to ensure its consistent and effective application. Without this, regulations can be bent—for example, with superficial recharging and refilling. While some batteries may be recharged through a USB port, the vapes still use non- disposable mesh coils like traditional disposable vapes; therefore, once the coil is burnt out, the device must be disposed of in the same manner as a single-use vape. All I am asking is that the Minister looks carefully at the legislation to ensure that the banning of single-use vapes, which I support, is not in practice easy to circumvent.

Interestingly, of all the people to follow I get to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, where we agree in principle but not in conclusion. The second area is a ban on the use of plastic filters in cigarettes. While she is quite right that banning plastic filters will do absolutely nothing for public health, it will make a great deal of difference to the environment. Although our figures may differ slightly, it is estimated that 27 billion cigarette butts are littered or dropped across the country each year, which equates to approximately 120 tonnes of cigarette-related waste discarded on streets daily, at an estimated clear-up cost of £40 million a year, with many of them inevitably ending up flushed into our waterways, rivers and seas. In fact, cigarette butts account for 66% of all littered items in the UK.

One cigarette butt left to soak in water for 96 hours will release enough toxins to kill half of the saltwater or freshwater fish that are exposed to it. Some 40% of chemicals contained in cigarette butt leachate have been found to be either toxic or very toxic to marine life, and take up to 12 years to degrade. There is even a chance that the slow degradation of these plastic butts is contributing to the rise in microplastics found in the human body.

Companies have demonstrated that it is easy to make the switch in production from plastic to paper that would be required to accommodate this change in the law. For example, it has been six years since McDonald’s made the decision to switch to paper straws. However, unlike paper straws, biodegradable filters will make no discernible difference to the user experience, which explains why polling suggests that this measure is supported by 86% of UK adults. This really is a no-brainer, with massive public support.

However, as has been said, in response to the amendment proposed in the other place by Dame Caroline Dinenage—somebody who I have great respect for—the Government dismissed the proposal as greenwashing. Switching to paper filters is not simply greenwashing but a move that will make a tangible difference to the environment. I hope the Government will reflect on their earlier decision and support the move.

19:17

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, and good to hear that the Swan at Olney is still thriving, despite the tobacco ban.

It is very good to see this Bill and to see that it is supported so strongly in the Commons, by all sides. One thing that strikes me strongly about this debate is how public opinion has changed, and the noble Lord just gave a very good example of that. Some of that change has happened in response to some of the actions taken—for example, we have seen change coming from the banning of cigarette smoking in public places—but it seems to have been continuing since. We have had a number of strong quotations from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others about how public opinion will support radical action in this area—much more radical than perhaps we would expect.

With this in mind, I want to mention two areas which I would be particularly interested in seeing taken forward. The first is the “polluter pays” levy, first mentioned in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and later by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and no doubt by others as well. This is an important way of making progress here. It is worth remembering that the tobacco companies make their profits at the expense of others. Duty raises about £7 billion a year on UK sales, but the costs to the public sector for dealing with the consequences of smoking are estimated to be about £16.5 billion a year, and lost productivity adds a further £20 billion or so.

Those figures are suspiciously round, but, nevertheless, they show that, even more than the tax that comes in, there is a very large cost to clearing up the mess left behind by tobacco and the trail, if you like, of pain and misery caused by the tobacco industry. It is an expensive habit for society, as well as for individuals. I would certainly want to see amendments being moved in that area and I would support them.

In passing, it is important that those of us in favour do not dismiss the very practical arguments that have been made by Peers from different sides of the House. There are some real practical issues here that need to be dealt with, such as those concerning age, which have been talked about—how we check age and so on—or about the black market. Happily, we will have time in Committee to debate those. I hope we will also debate other options, including what would happen by 2040, which is, I think, the WHO date for the prohibition of tobacco products. We should be looking at the consequences and the implications of that as well.

The second area I want to raise is the whole issue around vaping. It seems that while to some extent the management of smoking tobacco is being controlled and we are moving forward, the whole area of vaping is out of control—and not just vaping but the adding of nicotine to sweets and other ways of attracting children. This seems too far out of control, and I am not sure that the Bill goes far enough on how that needs to be handled. I would like to see that coming back in Committee, and I would be interested in discussing it.

I recognise the point made by the Minister and others that vapes can help people give up smoking, and that most public health specialists assess them as significantly safer than smoking. However, as the Chief Medical Officer has said, it is a very low bar for vapes to be safer than smoking. His advice, which I think one has to follow, is:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.


It is utterly unacceptable to market vapes to children.

To finish on a slightly lighter note, it has been interesting to hear in this debate how cunning the tobacco companies are. They have shown themselves to be extremely agile—cunning is perhaps a better word —at getting around regulations and provisions, and designing new products to get customers of all ages addicted. What would it be like if this great wealth of enterprise and determination were put to the development of something that enhanced, rather than damaged, society? It is such a waste of all that talent and energy to use it to damage people’s lives.

19:22

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a non-smoker, but I am also not a supporter of the Bill. I tried unsuccessfully to stop my children taking up the habit, though I am pleased to report to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that my three eldest children, aged 26, 24 and 21, have all given up this year and were therefore not hooked for life.

The Bill as currently drafted will have profound repercussions that will be felt by consumers, retailers and law enforcement agencies across the UK. It will, I am afraid, not wholly contribute to the improved health outcomes that a majority of noble Lords in the debate expect, because it will not stop smokers smoking. Granted, it will undoubtedly reduce the number, but, again, not to the levels expected. If the Government are committed to reducing smoking rates, they should focus on stronger enforcement action against those criminals trading in illegal tobacco, as well as clamping down on rogue traders who for years have been selling tobacco to minors. I am afraid that the £10 million the Minister referred to that is being allocated to trading standards this year, and the further £30 million in subsequent years to enforcement agencies, will simply not touch the sides.

Reading the 33-page Library briefing, I was amazed that there were only two lines referring to the possibility of a black market in cigarettes and missed tax revenue. That is utter naivety. Evidence—indeed, fact—from Australia’s experience of prohibition highlights significant unintended consequences, including a thriving illicit tobacco market, organised crime and increased enforcement challenges. There are important lessons we must learn from Australia’s failed tobacco policy. Written evidence from an Australian Border Force detective superintendent, Rohan Pike, who set up Australia’s Tobacco Strike Team, states that, in order to justify their smoking prohibition policy,

“relevant Federal agencies such as the Australian Border Force, the Taxation Office and the Health Department have deliberately under-estimated the size and danger of the illicit tobacco market”.

We have heard a bit of that today. This has come back to bite the Australians as the reality of the situation has become more apparent, causing their Government much embarrassment, while the various agencies are struggling to mount a meaningful response.

Three things undermined the Australian Government’s previous stance on this illicit market. The first was unwittingly undertaken by the Government’s own agency, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Nine years ago, it began sampling wastewater at numerous locations around the country. That analysis, while directed primarily at uncovering illicit drug consumption, also tracked the consumption of nicotine. The results showed that nicotine consumption had remained level throughout, thereby nullifying the Government’s claims that their tobacco policies were reducing consumption.

The second factor that showed government rhetoric to lack credibility has been the outbreak of widespread violence—as we heard from my noble friend Lord Sharpe —between criminal gangs as they fight tobacco turf wars. In the state of Victoria alone—a state that, I might add, enthusiastically adopted the Government’s policies more than any other state—has suffered 130 fire- bombings of tobacco outlets. These problems have directly affected both the state and federal Governments’ credibility regarding law and order in the community.

The third consequence of Australia’s unbalanced tobacco policy has been the effect that the exponential tobacco excise duty rises have had on government revenue. Whereas in 2021 the Australian Government received $16 billion in tobacco tax receipts per year—and they had forecast similar future returns—the last three years have seen a year-on-year reduction to an expected $9 billion this year. This revenue decline would be understandable, even desirable, if it came with a corresponding drop-off in tobacco consumption, but it has not. Consumers are merely accessing the illicit market in ever expanding numbers. The excise rate is now so extreme, it is the primary driver of the criminal market and all the violence it brings. The Australian excise rate is the highest in the world—Britain’s is the second highest.

Just imagine the good if even half of that $7 billion in lost revenue, had it been earned, had been spent on targeted education campaigns, youth access prevention, smoking support services and campaigns to educate smokers on less harmful alternative nicotine products. These are wholly worthy aims that many people supporting the Bill have been advocating, but we need the income to action them. HMRC is just one of the bodies that point out the risk the illegal trade poses in giving children access to tobacco, noting in a recent policy paper that criminals

“sell tobacco products to children who would otherwise be unable to legally purchase tobacco products and become smokers”.

Throughout history, prohibition has never extinguished consumer demand. In fact, too often it has the opposite effect: it creates new demand.

19:28

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, an argument we have heard over the years from those opposing measures to reduce the prevalence of smoking is that those who smoke are harming only themselves. But, as we have frequently heard today, they are not. When I was 16 and preparing to go to school, I could not wake my mother. She had died suddenly and unexpectedly from hypertensive heart disease, in which her heavy smoking was a factor. It was not her choice to become addicted to tobacco, nor to make her three children orphans.

There are many victims of smoking beyond those who smoke who suffer from the consequences, including ill health, poverty and death. Families suffer and the country suffers. Today smoking is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments a year. It costs the country approximately £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost £2 billion a year and local authorities almost £4 billion a year in social care costs.

The claims about the cost of enforcing measures in this Bill do not stand up when the costs of smoking and the savings made by reducing smoking levels are considered. It is in everyone’s interest to reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking. Let us create a future in which today’s children will never smoke tobacco and the country will benefit enormously from the habit gradually coming to an end.

From all parts of the House, we have pressed previous Governments to do more to regulate the smoking and vapes industry. It is because of the exceptional deadly deceit by the tobacco industry that we need legislation that can respond flexibly. I tabled amendments during the passage of the recent Health and Care Act that sought to provide health warnings within cigarette packs, so I am very glad that the Government are moving forward on this. Such inserts can highlight routes to smoking cessation services that are effectively targeted at those who need to receive those warnings the most. I hope the Government can be persuaded to go further and put warnings on the cigarettes themselves, as happens in Canada and is soon to be the case in Australia. This will help to deter young people being offered their first cigarette from beginning the addiction.

Raising tobacco taxes has been successful in reducing tobacco consumption. Claims about the proportion of illicit cigarettes should be seen in the context of the vast reduction in the volume of cigarettes sold as a result of cumulative smoking cessation measures. Many of these claims are based on the tobacco industry’s purported concerns about illicit sales. The truth is that the tobacco industry itself has been directly responsible for tobacco smuggling. The claims of its lobbyists about illicit sales have been clearly refuted by National Trading Standards and HMRC.

We should therefore be mindful of the fairness of increasing taxes on many smokers, some of whom are made poor by their habit, while not further increasing taxes on the very rich tobacco companies which have profited from their ill health. Why not make the tobacco industry pay from its vast profits towards the cost of helping its victims to quit? It would make us a healthier nation, with fewer of the costs of smoking passed on to the taxpayer, and help us provide a boost to economic growth as more people will be healthy enough to work.

Integrated care boards have been told to cut running costs by 50%. This financial year is the first in which budgets for smoking cessation services in the NHS are rolled into the baseline budgets of ICBs. Smoking cessation services are being funded on a slow drip feed only, with future funding uncertain. Meanwhile, big tobacco companies reap £900 million a year in profit and pay shockingly little corporation tax. Therefore, it should not be assumed that, with these big profits, an appropriate levy would not raise much money. A tobacco levy could go a little way towards filling the black hole the Government speak frequently about. It will be filled further as smoking rates reduce further.

19:33

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, observed, the joy of being so far down the speakers’ list is that one can greatly abbreviate one’s remarks. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, although it is my misfortune to take a slightly different view on the Bill.

I have two significant concerns about the tobacco side of the Bill. The first is its impact on shops and staff; the second is the black market consequences of these measures. These two points are linked. The ONS tells us that the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes is £16.60. It is estimated that, on the black market, a packet of 20 will cost you between £3 and £6. It is obvious, therefore, that the black market is a lucrative business to engage in. It is clear, from the impact assessment and utterances from Ministers in the other place, that there is a great deal of complacency about the threat posed by the black market. I need only refer to the eloquent remarks of my noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Sharpe of Epsom in that regard.

Not only does a flourishing black market mean there is a risk of counterfeit or substandard cigarettes being sold to individuals, but there is also the significant risk that purchasing on the black market will potentially expose the young purchaser to a range of other, illegal substances, such as cannabis and other drugs, which would be a much more damaging health path for them to go down. There is also the risk that purchasing on the black market is done in an entirely unregulated atmosphere; there will be no age limits on the black market. There will be a very significant loss to the taxman. The £10 million this year and £30 million in the future promised to trading standards will not even touch the sides.

I turn to my second point. The idea that, in a few years hence, a staff member in a corner shop will routinely deny tobacco to a 37 year-old but allow it for a 38 year-old is a circumstance bordering on the incredible. The suggestion that they will demand sight of an identity card to allow someone to buy tobacco if they are in the potential range of looking in their mid to late 30s, rather than their late 30s, is hard to credit. One can entirely understand that, in many cases, this may lead to an atmosphere of tension and aggression, which will be most disadvantageous to those staff members. This must be seen in the context of its environment: a lot of these shops work late at night, and they are often single staffed. These staff are, sadly, routinely assaulted and crimes are committed in their shops already. This Bill will make matters worse as it stands.

Furthermore, tobacco and vapes make up 20% of the revenues of many of these small shops. The likelihood is that, without these sales and with them being conducted on shady street corners on the black market instead, a lot of these shops will go bust—with all that that means for community cohesion, for the convenience of the people who live near those shops, and for those who own and work in those shops—but the gangs will thrive. We have much to consider in Committee.

19:37

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I have reflected on the number of Peers, some of them probably as old as me if not older, who have recounted the story of having to survive in homes full of cigar or cigarette smoke. My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester spoke about the unpleasant atmosphere in many pubs.

Noble Lords will remember—if they can—the Underground, when one coach in a train of seven coaches was non-smoking. In the others you had to survive the smoke in a very unpleasant atmosphere. It is well to remember that smoking kills, inevitably, and it costs a lot of money, as my noble friend Lady Carberry told us.

For me, this Bill is welcome and is not before time, but I want to say a word or two about enforcement, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and many other noble Lords mentioned. Corner shops are very important parts of our community, but in the last 10 years they have changed their methods of trading quite significantly, largely due to Covid. Ten years ago, how many of us went into one and bought a paper—for £5 or whatever it costs these days—with a credit card? We did not. We paid cash. I know many shops which will now not accept cash; they will only accept credit cards. There is no reason why the banks which issue these cards should not also be able to incorporate some kind of age recognition into them. There must be a way of doing this which is not going to cost a lot of money, although it is much easier to say that it cannot be done—and, to be fair, the tobacco industry has probably worked very hard on many noble Lords to say that this Bill is unnecessary and will make you fat, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said.

I want to raise two issues for the benefit of my noble friend the Minister. These may seem quite small, but I think they are significant. First, Clause 46 makes the Crown immune from prosecution. There are many clauses in legislation which have the same wording because the Crown is supposed to be kept clear of this sort of thing. Clause 46(2) says:

“Nothing in this Part or regulations made under it makes the Crown criminally liable”.


Why should the Crown get away with it? It is not that the Crown is very likely to be selling under-age cannabis or tobacco or anything else, but you could see a situation where members of the Crown let people go round their palaces with a café at the end selling things. If they are not allowed to sell tobacco, so be it, but Prince Andrew might have a party one night and start selling cannabis or something like that. I do not see why the Crown should be exempt. If my noble friend is not able to answer this today, I am sure that she can write to me and we can have a bit of a discussion about it.

Finally, on shipping, Clause 157 says that the Bill applies under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which I think is even thicker than this Bill. It does not say where these products can be bought or sold on a ship in relation to where the ship is going. Does it have to have a UK flag, or could it be registered in Guatemala or somewhere? Where is it travelling from? Can the law be enforced in a British port? If it is a Dover to Calais ship, is it permitted to smoke until halfway across the channel and not in the other half? I am sure there is an answer—if we studied the Merchant Shipping Act for the next week, we would probably find out. I am sure that the Minister will be able to come back to me on this at some stage.

To conclude, I think this is a really good Bill. There are things to talk about at the next stages, but I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward.

19:43

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, there is a real problem about being number 39 to speak in this debate, because other noble Lords have said everything that I am going to say. There is an even bigger problem in that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, stole my speech. I do not know on how many other issues we would be on the same side, but on this one we are 100%.

Of course we should support smokers to quit, and of course we must discourage young people from ever starting, but I do not believe that this Government’s ban is the answer. As many other noble Lords have said, imagine a 40-year-old going to the shops and buying a pack of cigarettes, which for his friend next to him, who is a day younger, would be doing something criminal. This does not work. It is silly and unfair. It undermines equality before the law. It is discriminatory.

The policy is also impractical. It forces retailers to check birth dates indefinitely, creating confusion and increasing the risk of fraud. Retailers are already under financial stress. The British Retail Consortium reports 2,000 incidents of abuse a day. This ban would make it worse. Many retailers say that they would have to close, leaving communities without vital services.

Meanwhile, the black market is thriving. As we have already heard, UK consumers spend £21 billion on tobacco, including £6.1 billion on illegal products. With legal cigarettes at £16.60 a pack and illicit ones at £3, the incentive is obvious. This is not about saving a few pennies, as the Minister said; it is about saving pounds.

We know where this leads. Operation Machinize exposed hundreds of high-street shops, many of which were barbers, fronting for organised crime, including illegal tobacco. This ban would only strengthen criminal networks.

History also shows that bans do not work. Remember prohibition in the United States in the 1920s. It did not end up stopping drinking; it empowered gangs and created the mafia. In 2021, South Africa’s Covid tobacco ban saw criminals fill the gap, with 93% of smokers switching to illegal sources. In Australia, a similar crackdown led to turf wars and gang violence. Yet the warnings from their law enforcement were ignored by the Public Bill Committee. The lesson is clear: bans do not stop demand; they push it underground. Illegal drugs continue to flourish despite decades of enforcement, because demand drives supply.

I speak as a former smoker. I managed to quit only with the help of Nicorette inhalators, which many noble Lords may have seen me using. A ban would not have stopped me; it was the alternative that did. Smoking rates among young people have fallen, thanks to safer alternatives and effective campaigns. If we are serious about reducing smoking, we should focus essentially on demand and seek a more balanced approach.

The Bill also raises serious constitutional concerns. It gives Ministers sweeping powers, about which many noble Lords have spoken. These include 17 Henry VIII clauses, some allowing the creation of new criminal offences without parliamentary scrutiny. This is executive overreach. No proper impact assessment has been made. Small businesses, retailers and the hospitality sector were excluded from the committee. Even the Government’s own consultation promised targeted restrictions, as opposed to a ban. Does the Minister not agree that raising the legal age to 21—a policy which retailers support—would be a fairer, more enforceable and simpler way to deter children from smoking?

I do not have any more time, but I just want to say that, as a smoker, I think people need to realise that it is a personality trait: you are a smoker, or you are not a smoker. I do not think a ban will solve it.

19:49

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, in the lead-up to today’s Second Reading, I was contacted by several people from Llanfaes, the community where I grew up, who expressed just how important the Bill is to them. One voice in particular stood out—Sylvia Evans’. Sylvia underwent a laryngectomy 26 years ago, after developing cancer of the voice box caused by smoking. At the time, her diagnosis was rare, but today she told me that three others in her local area have received the same operation. If current trends persist, around 350 new cancer cases caused by smoking are expected in Ynys Môn over the next five years. Across Wales, that figure could exceed 15,000 people. That is the reality of inaction.

Smoking remains the leading cause of cancer in the UK. According to Cancer Research UK, more than 40,000 cases have been attributed to smoking since the last general election alone. That is a staggering number, and it is preventable. The Bill offers a historic opportunity to protect future generations from the harms of smoking and sends a clear message: we can and must act now to break this cycle.

A Race for Life volunteer, Trefor Hughes-Morris, recently reached out to me regarding the Bill. He often asks the thousands of participants at his events to raise their hand if they or someone they know has been affected by cancer. He told me that every hand goes up. That is the scale of the challenge and the urgency.

Smoking rates do not fall on their own; they fall when the Government lead. The Bill represents the most significant opportunity in over a decade to prevent cancer before it starts. It secured cross-party support in the other place. Of course, there are concerns, including from Trading Standards Wales, about how realistic it is to believe that people born before January 2009 will be challenged about their age in the future when they are decades older, and about the lack of a strategy for dealing with the legislation’s impact on the illegal tobacco and vapes market. Indeed, this legislation must draw a clear distinction between legal and illegal vapes, which are already posing problems.

When used responsibly, as we have heard, legal vapes can be a powerful tool to help people quit smoking. According to Action on Smoking and Health, over half of those who quit smoking in the last five years used a vape to do so. ASH Wales actively encourages smokers to switch to vaping, based on

“the most up-to-date evidence”.

That said, we urgently need more research into the long-term effects of vaping to better inform regulation as the industry evolves. In the meantime, the lack of clear standards has allowed illegal and non-compliant products to proliferate. Some contain illegally high levels of nicotine or e-liquid, and even dangerous substances such as mercury and lead.

According to Trading Standards, already one in three disposable vapes sold is illegal. This matters because the bright colours and flashy branding of disposable vapes are attracting children and young people. In Wales, 24% of pupils in years 7 to 11 have vaped. Of those who vape regularly, 92% use products containing nicotine. Nearly half report being unable to get through a school day without vaping, impacting on their focus and education. Better regulation of the vape industry is not optional, it is essential.

In the Senedd, Plaid Cymru has long advocated a national mandatory register of all retailers selling tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. This would ensure that only compliant businesses operate and allow for enforcement action against those that break the rules. This proposal is backed by Public Health Wales’s youth vaping response group, which includes leading health charities, trading standards officials and medical professionals. We have also called for and supported Senedd legislation to ban the sale of disposable vapes, which will curb the rise in youth vaping and tackle their detrimental environmental impact.

In conclusion, I support effective, forward-looking legislation that protects people and encourages collaboration across all four nations of the UK. The biggest cause of cancer has no place in our future. While we will work through some concerns in Committee, I urge Members across your Lordships’ House to support the Bill.

19:54

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I totally agree with the point she made about vaping and the need for research into the long-term effects of vaping—that is absolutely right.

This part of the speakers’ list looks like a Welsh odyssey, with speakers from Llanfaes in north Wales, Aberystwyth in mid Wales and, following me, my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, in south Wales. A tiny corner of the House of Lords Chamber is for ever Wales on St George’s Day.

I thank the Minister very much indeed for setting out the rationale of this legislation, which she did very effectively—it seems a long while ago now. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

This is the most significant piece of public health legislation for a generation and I think there is a danger that some of my colleagues may be losing sight of that. The mainspring of this legislation is to protect the health of generations to come and talk of an age limit of 21 does not achieve that. This legislation is remarkably like legislation introduced by the last Government under Rishi Sunak. I was very proud of that legislation and the current Government deserve some credit for bringing forward similar legislation, rather than to be attacked for bringing forward Tory legislation, as one noble Baroness put it. I am very pleased that this legislation is remarkably similar to the legislation we saw then.

It is fairly clear that this legislation is not perfect. This is Second Reading. There will be amendments and there will be discussions on funding for trading standards and how we combat illicit tobacco sales. It would be good to have some reliable figures on that. We have heard people bandying figures about. I do not think anybody really knows. Age verification is something we need to look at as well, but people talked about that as though it was difficult. I looked at my wallet because I was pretty confident that this was the case: your driving licence has your date of birth. You just have to show that—it is straightforward. I am not suggesting there are not issues with this legislation but that is not an insuperable one.

Against all this, we should not lose sight of the fact that smoking is the largest cause of death in the United Kingdom, causing some 74,000 deaths in 2019. Since the last election, over 100,000 young people will have taken up smoking. That is not something we should glory in by pretending this is some libertarian nirvana and they are all rushing to say, “Let’s exercise our freedom to smoke”. I do not believe for a minute that that is what is happening. Smoking, as we know, substantially increases the risk of major health conditions—heart disease, dementia, asthma, diabetes, and the list could go on.

The cost to the NHS is £3 billion a year and social care costs must be added to that. The time lost from smoking-induced illness costs £18 billion a year. The cost easily outweighs the revenue loss of £10 billion, so let us just nail that one.

It is a depressing national picture that is made up of many millions of individual heart-rending stories of loss of loved ones. We have heard today that everybody here will have been touched by somebody in their family, somebody they know, perhaps many people they know, who have lost years of their life or had bad health at the end of their life brought about by smoking. Ranged against that we have some people arguing for, as I say, a libertarian nirvana of allowing teenagers to smoke to exercise their fundamental freedom. I look forward to seeing a petition from those suffering from smoking-induced illnesses, or from their families or friends, to halt this legislation. I do not suppose we will be seeing that, to add to the objections of the tobacco industry.

I will say a quick word about vaping. Like many others, I agree that vaping appears to be less deleterious than smoking. It would be good to have further information and evidence on that. Seen correctly as an aid to quit smoking it could be encouraged, within that narrow band, but there is nothing desirable about vaping. It is not great—it is just better than smoking. I support age-gating technology to ensure that those using vapes are those who could legitimately smoke. To that extent, it is to be welcomed.

This is powerful, desirable legislation. I hope we will support it as it goes forward on the basis that it is good legislation which can be improved.

20:00

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak with great pleasure after my compatriots and certainly rejoice in the fact that we can add some Celtic flavouring—not vaped at all—on St George’s Day.

I had naively thought, since the legislation, as the noble Lord said, came originally from the other side when in government, that this would be a nice, easy debate with everybody agreeing, and that my noble friend the Minister, who has already laboured under the Mental Health Bill and put it to bed just earlier this afternoon, would have a clear run for the next one. But the battle lines have been drawn—and I have to say that I am very pleased about that. We have highlighted the negatives, the things to be feared, and the things we think have been exaggerated in the discourse thus far, which need to be heard as part of the debate if we are to have a good Bill.

I am very sympathetic to the view expressed by one noble Lord that bringing legislation relating to vapes to the same level that is already in existence for tobacco would seem like a legitimate, logical and realisable aim. I fear the enactment and enforcement of any of the claims in the Bill, but that will come in Committee and beyond. This is just to say that this is clearly going to be a Bill where certain points are fought hard for.

I have been amazed at the number of families that have been brought to our attention in this debate that gave noble Lords sitting on these Benches smoke-filled beginnings to their lives. I feel under an obligation to add yet another one right now: we lived in just one room, and it was filled with smoke. The facts are very simple. I have been meditating on this question for just about all my life, to be quite honest. First, there was the fact that my mother, who had an industrial injury plus lung cancer, died at the age of 62. My dear brother, his lungs riddled with cancer and a heavy smoker, died 25 years ago at the age of 57.

I am married to a woman whose entire life has been dedicated to radiotherapy in an oncology department, where she has treated people with lung cancer. Of all the things she might have thought would have impacted on our children without having to say so, the fact that she was trying day by day, through her skills and as part of a team, to alleviate the suffering of such people might have made its own point. The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, who is not now in his place, has three children who all smoked for a while. He was glad that they no longer do. All mine smoked. I just could never understand it: I am married to this woman and I have these children. The boys gave it up but our daughter moved from smoking to vaping. Her daughter also vapes. I cannot understand the dynamics and the nuances. All that leads me to think that passing a law would do nothing to affect any of the circumstances that I have lived through. Prohibition does not work; people will find other ways of achieving their pleasures, whether we like it or not.

So I am left with mixed feelings. Here I stand proudly on these Benches—indeed, I have nothing but affection for the Minister—but I am going to be an awkward so-and-so in the course of these debates. It is complicated. We need a good Bill, and we must unpack the mystery—at least, it is a mystery to me—as to why these forces, such as the subtle, nuanced peer pressure, the commercial advantage and all the rest of it, give us the outcomes that they have, which we then have to live with. It is not a simple matter.

20:04

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to this House so thoughtfully and clearly. I also declare my interest as a consultant to Oviva, an obesity treatment company, and my wife’s role as a non-executive director at Tesco and Diageo.

It is a great honour to be so far down the list, because this has been a very rich debate and we have heard some very touching and powerful testimony. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, put it, we have heard some particularly personal stories, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, of people who were brought up with smoking and who either were orphaned or had their lives devastated by it. These stories should move us, and it is very powerful that they were brought to the House in this way.

We have also heard a lot of depressing talk of violence, gangs, the diminution of civil rights, the breakdown of societal values and a complete collapse of market mechanisms because of the unintended consequences of the Bill. I will spend a moment to talk about some of the other unintended consequences, which are the huge benefits that the Bill might bring to our economy, society and national security.

We are really blessed to live in a time when modern medicine is delivering miracles that can keep us alive well into our 70s, 80s and 90s, but the things that hold us back are the bad habits and pollutions which mean that chronic disease in this country is exploding. The projection is of 40 million people with a chronic disease by 2040, according to the Health Foundation. The reason for that is junk food, inactivity, bad air, filth on the internet that gives us mental health issues, and smoking. That kind of pollutant is causing immense harm to our families, our communities and our economy.

I welcome the Bill’s emphatic intervention. It is not a half-measure protecting big tobacco’s grip on our lives. Let us have no more Treasury nihilism or medical fatalism, and no more free market complacency. I like the Bill because it will ultimately get rid of smoking forever, and I celebrate that decisive step towards a healthier, more prosperous Britain. The unintended consequence will be a massively more prosperous life.

My only regret is that the Bill does not go further and faster. I hear very clearly the reservations people have about the Bill and I do not want to give the impression that I do not understand the practical restrictions on the Government. However, there are two measures that could make a big difference, and one more on vaping.

First, there is an opportunity to integrate the Khan review’s recommendations more emphatically by increasing funding to cessation programmes and tightening market controls even further, and moving towards a complete smoking extinction target of 2040. By that, I mean completely eradicating smoking in the UK. In other words, I mean upgrading the Bill from a transition measure towards gradual reduction to an absolute and total eradication, saving lives, reducing inequality and setting a global precedent.

If we did that, we would give clarity to the industry, which I hope many in the Chamber would welcome. It would recognise and answer many of the concerns about the extended generational nature of the Bill that creates potentially ludicrous scenarios a long time in the future. I hope the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Sharpe, Lord Brady, Lord Murray and Lord Scriven, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, will think about supporting this measure when I bring it to the House as an amendment, in order to answer their concerns on that point.

Secondly, I strongly back the introduction of a profit-based levy, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to. This measure, with 79% public approval, would ensure that the industry contributes fully to cessation programmes and our overstretched public health.

On vaping, I welcome the thoughtful debate we have had already. The question for me is: what kind of vaping industry do we want? Do we want a small, tightly controlled market selling vapes to former smokers, turning over around £1 billion, which is where it is at the moment, or something bigger? My instincts are that a sprawling, £10 billion industry that leaves our children to pay for the potential long-term health consequences is something that we should try to avoid.

This Bill is a huge opportunity. Let us not allow exaggerated concerns from the tobacco industry playbook to hold us back. Instead, let us lean in.

20:10

[Lord Mott (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Second Reading of this important Bill. It is right that we scrutinise it carefully, and I am pleased to be following my noble friend Lord Bethell. This is a landmark piece of legislation, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, with the ambition of delivering a smoke-free 2030.

As a father of two daughters, I care deeply about the future we are building for the next generation. Protecting children from smoking and vaping is vital, but to achieve that we must ensure that the Bill is practical, enforceable and fair to those who act responsibly. My concern is that in its current form, the Bill risks harming responsible retailers and manufacturers, while driving trade into the hands of the illicit market. Many of these retailers are already under pressure from inflation and increased costs, as highlighted very clearly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe.

I support the introduction of the retail licensing scheme. Reputable retailers have been calling for a scheme like this for years. Licensing will help distinguish responsible businesses from those that sell illegally. We know from ASH that nearly half of underage vapers buy their products from retailers, and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute says that around a third of vaping products in the UK are non-compliant. A proper licensing scheme will help enforcement and protect children, but there is no implementation date in the Bill. Without enforcement, this legislation will not succeed. Trading Standards Wales has already raised concerns about the risk of the expanding illicit market. I will support amendments to strengthen and accelerate the delivery of the retail licensing scheme. Responsible retailers must be supported, and those that break the rules must be held to account.

Another urgent issue is the rise of “mega puff”, or carousel, vape devices. These are being marketed as reusable, but in reality they are often thrown away after the coil burns out, as mentioned by other noble Lords. These devices are cheaper per puff, contain more liquid and plastic, and are proving popular with young people. Material Focus estimates that 3 million of these “big puff” devices are sold every week, and nearly half are sold to 16 to 34 year-olds. If we do not act now, this loophole will undermine the disposable vape ban coming into force in June. The Government must be empowered to remove these products and prevent future redesigns that bend the rules.

I find myself in the unique place, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Lancaster, of agreeing not only with him but with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. While the Bill rightly focuses on reducing the health harms of tobacco and vaping, we must also recognise the significant environmental damage caused by cigarette litter. Cigarette butts are made of a synthetic plastic. Each cigarette butt contains around two straws’ worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, of which 4.5 trillion are littered. Even here in the UK, an estimated 3.9 million cigarette butts are discarded every day.

These butts are not just unsightly; they pose a real threat to wildlife, pollute waterways and are expensive for local authorities to clean up. Each plastic cigarette filter can take up to 10 years to break down into microplastics—tiny particles that now pollute every corner of our planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest parts of the ocean. Microplastics are now found in our food, our water and even the air we breathe. The scale of this problem is growing. According to the Marine Conservation Society, the amount of plastic waste found on UK beaches rose by 9.5% in 2024, compared with the previous year. As we look to shape a smoke-free generation, we must also address the long-term environmental consequences of tobacco use. I urge the Government to consider measures to reduce cigarette filter pollution as part of this legislation.

I have focused on two areas that are critical to the success of the Bill. We must support enforcement and close dangerous loopholes so that the legislation achieves what it sets out to do. Above all, we must protect our children and reduce smoking-related harm. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and working with colleagues to ensure that the Bill delivers a truly smoke-free generation.

20:15

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, where we seek to restrict individual freedom, we should always approach that with a certain level of caution. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the horrendous, and often fatal, consequences of smoking go well beyond the individual. They are deeply detrimental to families, as we have heard today with so many personal testimonies from around the Chamber. They are deeply damaging to the health service and to our economy. In opening the debate, the Minister estimated the annual cost to the UK at about £21 billion. The British Heart Foundation suggests that the figure is around £43 billion. While there can be a debate around statistics, it is undoubtedly the case that the scale of the cost, both in economic and more importantly in human terms, is enormous. Therefore, the prize of seeking a smoke-free generation is one that we should support, and I strongly support the principles and aims of the Bill.

As the Minister indicated in her opening remarks, it goes beyond legislation itself. If, in this House, we could ensure virtuous behaviour within society simply by legislating, we would be living in a much easier world—but it requires a lot more than that. As we move forward, we need to have legislation that is the most practical and effective. Therefore, while we should embrace the principles of the Bill, the Government and this House, particularly in Committee, need to address the real and genuine concerns that have been raised, particularly through this debate. I will list just four of them in the short time I have available.

First, while many retailers will strongly support the Bill’s aims, there are genuine concerns raised by small retailers over issues around enforcement, age identification and the threats of potential violence to themselves and shop workers, putting them on the front line. We cannot be blasé about those claims and simply say that it is a relatively small problem that will be overcome, and it will all work out. We need to hear from the Government how they intend to address those genuine concerns and meet the concerns raised by retailers.

Secondly, it is right that the principal focus of the Bill is to try to deter young people from smoking. Mention has been made about the best routes to give up smoking. The most effective way to give up smoking is never to start it in the first place. We know that, on average, about 350 young people take up smoking each day, so it is also incumbent on the Government, if we are looking at the most practical measures, to explain in detail why what has been suggested as a different practical approach—instead of a rolling age target, having a higher fixed age of either 21 or 25—is not the way forward. The Government need to go into a greater level of detail on why that would not work, because we are all concerned about the effectiveness of this.

Thirdly, as has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, it is welcome that we have a Bill that operates throughout the United Kingdom. The Minister was right to say that that is critical to the Bill’s effectiveness and to the equality of its impact. However, a strong concern has been raised because of Northern Ireland being linked in with the European Union tobacco directive and its implications through the Windsor Framework. We have seen the tobacco directive have a major impact on what has happened in Europe. The Republic of Ireland—which, to its credit, was the brand leader in taking action against smoking; I think it was the first jurisdiction in western democracy to ban smoking indoors—has been prevented from taking measures of this nature because of that directive.

It is undoubtedly the case that those associated with the tobacco industry will seek to challenge this legally through judicial action. We need to see more substance than simply the Government saying that they are confident that that will not succeed. There is no point in passing legislation only to find, six months or a year down the line, that this loophole is opened up again in Northern Ireland because of a court decision, and we all just shrug our shoulders. The Government need to address this seriously, through amendments.

Finally, we need to acknowledge that there is a real risk of both smuggling and additional criminality. That has been the experience of prohibition in any set of circumstances. It is not the case that we should say that we must abandon prohibition—otherwise, we would simply legalise everything—but it is incumbent on the Government to say what additional measures will be taken to ensure that organised crime is combated. It cannot be more of the same. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to detailed scrutiny in Committee and on Report.

20:21

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, it is universally recognised that nicotine dependence is greatly harmful to the health of the individual and very costly to the state. The Explanatory Notes that accompany this Bill make that abundantly clear.

The issue has been addressed over many years by parliamentary legislation. There are hopeful signs that nicotine addiction has been declining throughout this period. About one in eight people in the UK—12.5%—are smokers, and the number has been declining since 1974, when systematic and detailed records were first compiled. Even with the present, much-diminished levels of smoking, the harm done by nicotine is immense. The campaign group ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—estimates that smoking currently costs England £21.8 billion per annum, which far exceeds the £8.8 billion in taxes paid in the year 2023-24 on the sales of tobacco.

There are stark differences in the incidence of the affliction among different groups in the population. Those most affected are the poorest members in society, and those suffering mental ill-health are among the most vulnerable. The physiological detriments of smoking are now well understood, and they are well represented in the statistics of illness and mortality. Most people who smoke do so with great regret, notwithstanding any tendency they may have to defend their right to smoke.

The attraction of smoking and the addiction to nicotine are also well understood. An effect of nicotine is to stimulate the release of endorphins—the body’s natural narcotics—and the dopamine hormone from the hypothalamus in the brain. Dopamine is popularly known as the “feel-good” hormone. A release of endorphins and dopamine is also an accompaniment of a healthy dose of exercise, which suggests that good habits can be as addictive as bad habits.

The link between cancer and smoking began to be established in the 1950s. After the Royal College’s recommendations in 1962, restrictions were placed on advertising, selling to children and smoking in public places. The taxes on tobacco were raised and information on the tar and nicotine content of tobacco products was mandated, and the sales began to fall continuously.

However, circumstances have been altered radically by the emergence of a new form of nicotine inhalation, described as vaping, which is deemed to be less injurious than smoking. The NHS website recommends a transition from smoking to vaping as a means of gradually overcoming a dependence on nicotine, but the full detriment of vaping has yet to be determined. Vaping also threatens to become the predominant means by which young people are induced into nicotine dependence.

The aspiration of the Government now is for a smoke-free Britain, and the present Bill imposes significant additional restrictions on nicotine products. Its most striking measure is the proposal to ban the sale of tobacco to people born on or after 1 January 2009, in the hope that future adult generations will never experience the affliction. The ban also applies to the sale of nicotine vapes to young people. In this connection, I appreciate the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that credit cards should convey information to enable easy age verification.

A ban on the sale and supply of single-use vapes in England will come into force on 1 June 2025. This was proposed both as an environmental measure to overcome the litter of disposable vapes and as a way of limiting the access of young people to vapes. Future legislation might limit the sale of nicotine vapes to those who have a medical certificate to indicate that they are endeavouring to overcome their nicotine addiction. To be effective, the measures of this Bill need to be buttressed by a vigorous inspection routine and stiff penalties for infringements. Education in schools concerning the detriment of nicotine must also be pursued.

Finally, there may be push-back by the manufacturers of vapes, of which there are a handful in this country. However, 90% on these items are manufactured in China, in the Shenzhen region. It is interesting to observe that China has banned the sale of fruity vapes in its own country, even though they are still exported to the UK. Fruity vapes have been envisaged as a way of inducing children into the vaping habit, and they must be banned.

20:26

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I support this Bill. This is a once-in-a-multigeneration opportunity to take concerted action to prolong human life. The key to making this legislation successful is making it much harder for young people to start smoking or vaping and working to provide the resources required to enforce this legislation effectively.

I will concentrate my remarks on the use and regulation of vapes, an area which needs further work to make the measures fit for purpose. Vaping was supposed to be a smoking-cessation aid and not a new product for the tobacco-manufacturing industry to exploit, creating a new generations of nicotine addicts to guarantee future profits. It is shameful that we have allowed so many of our young people to become addicted to nicotine through vaping products that have been deliberately targeted at them by big tobacco and sold to them mostly illegally. The scale of the numbers of young people vaping is truly shocking.

Nicotine is more psychologically addictive than heroin. While vaping is less harmful than smoking, we still have very little understanding of the long-term health implications that these products will have on people, particularly when they are very young. I call on the Government to fund further research in these areas. I welcome the fact that, two years ago, legislation was passed to ban single-use vapes, and this legislation comes into force on 1 June. Low-cost vaping products supporting packaging and flavours marketed deliberately at children, combined with a lack of enforcement, mean that they are both desirable and readily available to our young people.

As well as causing addiction, disposable vapes are an environmental disaster, as many Peers have said. It is estimated that 8.2 million vapes are now thrown away—mostly littered—every week. They are impossible to recycle, they waste precious minerals and the batteries have caused untold fires. It is hard to understand why we ever allowed these harmful products to be targeted at our children and to damage our environment.

For this Bill to work, the previous ban on single-use vapes must work, and I am not certain that it will in practice. The previous legislation outlawed any vaping product that was single use, which was defined as not being both rechargeable and refillable with a replacement coil. If the aim of this Bill is to stop young people starting to vape, setting the starting price point of vapes would be a key deterrence. If vapes remain, in effect, disposable and very cheap, more young people will continue to take up vaping.

Manufacturers are already working hard to circumvent the disposable vape restrictions: add a charging point for a few pence and replace a pod with a contained coil for a few more pence and, hey presto, you have a product that is compliant with the new regulations. In everyday use, the cost is the same as disposable vapes, and for the end-user it is still mostly used and discarded once. This is the case in Europe, where these products already exist.

I call on the Government to introduce a minimum pricing point for vaping products and ensure they are genuinely not single use. A genuine reusable vape should cost around £30. If reusable vapes costing less than £10 will still be available, there must be a deposit-and-return scheme to make sure that manufacturers are responsible for the recycling and reprocessing of their waste. Wasteful plastic pods should also be banned.

Turning to other aspects, I welcome the closure of the free products loophole. I support plain packaging and ensuring that these products are not on public display in our convenience stores.

The arguments on flavoured vapes are more nuanced. It is undeniable that the names and flavours have been deliberately targeted at children, but adults also like flavoured vapes. It is important that we look at this carefully, because it could have an impact on smoking cessation measures.

We must address illegal vapes. I welcome the illegal vapes enforcement squad and the £30 million that the Government have said they will provide every year, but these are not enough to deal with the problem. Illegal vapes are part of a huge criminal enterprise and our teenagers are the victims. Their illegality makes them cheap and age-verification free, so the young are the victims. Many of these products contain high levels of dangerous chemicals like cadmium and lead, and they are dangerous and cause harm. I call on the Government to seek additional funds from the industry—big tobacco—for further enforcement measures and research and regular, random sampling to establish the true scale of the illegal vape problem.

20:31

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was a smoker for about 50 years or so and gave up seven years ago. If I am honest, it was not that hard. I do not find it possible to support the Bill as it stands. I am one of the Conservative libertarians that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred to earlier today.

As we know, the Bill is designed to achieve a long-term aim of ending smoking, with the introduction of a growing, year-by-year ban on our centuries-old freedom to buy tobacco products. Through those centuries, we have learnt about the health hazards attached to smoking, but we have also been learning how to handle them with rules of containment and treatments, based on growing scientific knowledge, but not before now with a total ban.

Let me be clear: I recognise that smoking can lead to serious, sometimes life-threatening, health conditions, and I support limits on where smoking can take place. A ban on smoking in indoor public places makes sense—and indeed, outside schools—but certainly not outside pubs and their gardens. Smokers should always be mindful of people around them when they light up, but there is space for considerate smokers, and that is surely a reasonable balance.

Smoking can be a very expensive burden on the NHS, but so can other choices we make. What about sports with high injury rates, such as boxing, football or ice hockey? What about the growing obesity problem? Should there be more control over what people can eat? And, of course, alcohol causes huge additional pressure on the NHS, serious health problems as well as damage and injuries from drunken behaviour—but I do not hear a call for a ban for grabbing a pint or two, and nor do I want to.

Meanwhile, smoker numbers in the UK have fallen significantly over the years. Back in the 1960s, some 51% of the population smoked, which was down to around 11% by 2023. The figures go up and down, but the overall direction is clear. This fall is due to successful health campaigns and a growing interest in healthy living, not a total ban.

As we have discussed, we face an extraordinary proposal in this Bill: anyone born in 2009 onwards will not be allowed to buy cigarettes at any age, while those born even a day before them can. Surely that is simple generational discrimination, which will continue until the last person born before 2009 has passed on? In 2027, two adults of a similar age will have different rights, based entirely on their birth date—this is arbitrary lawmaking and very divisive.

Further regulation of vapes is also planned, despite them being considered less harmful than smoking cigarettes, because young teenagers are attracted to them. Disposable vapes are to be banned—I agree that they pile up as horrible litter. The advertising designed to promote vapes, because they appeal to a young audience, is also to be banned. Many of the popular vape flavours are to be banned. It is right to try to protect young people from getting hooked on vaping, but this will also affect many adults who are finding that various vape flavours they like are helping them give up cigarettes. There needs to be a balanced approach to this. It is already illegal to sell cigarettes and vapes to under-18s.

The Bill proposes new demands on retailers, including requiring much clearer evidence of purchasers’ birth date details. This needs careful thought. Some retailers may decide to close due to the increasing demands, including the introduction and management of new age-verification systems, more training for staff and compliance with regulations. Some reports suggest that many closures are possible. As we have been hearing, if those local shops—which have always been one of the main sources for buying tobacco products in local communities—start to close, the black market is always there to fill the gap. That way, there is very little control over who buys and what they buy. It is a very dangerous presence where it sets up.

As I said, the Bill proposes that everyone born in 2009 onwards will be banned from buying all tobacco products, but it seems that there is no ban on possession or consumption, so presumably that means that at 18 they will be allowed to smoke, just not to buy the products. Although it will be illegal for those who can still buy tobacco to buy for someone who cannot, how on earth will that actually be policed? Will sharing a cigarette also be illegal, and how will that get policed? New Zealand has now dropped its plans for a similar ban. So should we—and we should allow the number of smokers to continue to dwindle, as it is, as smoking becomes increasingly uncool.

20:37

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this legislation and am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for outlining the rationale for the Bill. I support the principles, which I believe we should all embrace. We have had a very interesting debate this evening, ebbing and flowing between those who totally embrace those principles and the libertarians who have certain reservations. I think people are generally united on the viewpoint that there should be some way to deal with smoking and the side-effects of smoking and vaping.

I am also grateful to Asthma + Lung UK and the BMA for their briefings. I come with a personal testimony as well. Both my late mum and my late cousin had lung cancer. Neither of them smoked, but they were exposed to passive smoking because in all public arenas—some 40, 30, 20 and even 15 years ago—there was a lot of public smoking.

As this legislation extends to all of the UK, I want to give a Northern Ireland-specific viewpoint. This legislation was given consent by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 10 February. To ensure that the legislation is meaningful and given its best chance, I urge my noble friend the Minister to encourage the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland to introduce lung screening. It does not exist on a scheduled basis in Northern Ireland but is vital, as it can look for a cancer or other lung-related disease in a person long before they have developed all the various symptoms. There is growing evidence supporting the benefits of early detection. Although screening and research projects are under way, a fully funded and implemented programme has yet to be established. I therefore urge my noble friend to make contact with the Northern Ireland Minister, urging him to move from thinking about the issue to actually doing something about it. I have talked to consultant oncologists who deal specifically with lung cancer in Northern Ireland and they urgently want to see this lung screening implemented, because they believe that if it is implemented, they can deal with the disease in patients before it has reached such an advanced stage, when they have restricted means of dealing with it.

The statistics are there as evidence. Around 2,400 people die every year in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking-related conditions, and there are around 35,000 smoking-related hospital admissions in Northern Ireland annually. I join my friends from Northern Ireland, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Dodds, in asking to ensure that the enforcement measures in the Bill are made effective and capable of implementation, because in Clause 81 it is up to district councils. There are 11 district councils in Northern Ireland, and I would like to think that they were all on the same page and did not operate a variety of implementation enforcement schemes. It is important that the legislation is sufficiently mandatory to ensure that happens, because we want to eradicate disease and to ensure that everybody is on the same page and that the impact of smoking and of using tobacco and vapes is mitigated.

Finally, I ask that drastic funding cuts for smoking cessation services be reversed. Also like my friends from Northern Ireland, I suggest that not only enforcement but other measures to do with money laundering must be ensured. There must be work between all the law enforcement agencies, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to ensure that it does not happen. If people can purchase vapes and tobacco under the counter or by some other means, that will not help in dealing with disease eradication in the various cancers and emphysemas that are prevalent in Northern Ireland.

20:42

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Trading Standards Board, which is responsible for the most complex trading standards prosecutions and which works with government on a number of key priorities, including preventing the sale of illicit tobacco and vapes. Since trading standards receives so little parliamentary attention, I hope the House will excuse me if I pay tribute tonight to the officers across the country who do an outstanding job in protecting consumers and legitimate businesses. Thank you for allowing me that.

The trading standards community, it must be said, strongly supports this Bill, for four main reasons. First, we believe that, overall, it strikes the right balance between the need to protect consumers, especially young people, and the need to achieve the public health benefit of vaping as an alternative for those who already smoke. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made one or two points which need to be given attention, but we think that, overall, the balance is about right. Secondly, we welcome that the Secretary of State will be able to regulate vape advertising, packaging, flavour descriptors and retail displays so that products can no longer be deliberately—some might even say cynically—designed to attract children. We hope that those relevant regulations can be introduced swiftly.

Thirdly, we believe that the introduction of a licensing scheme for businesses selling tobacco, vapes and nicotine products is long overdue. It will clarify and strengthen enforcement, support legitimate business and deter rogue retailers. Finally—a point that has not been mentioned yet today—we support the introduction of fixed penalty notices to enable action to be taken more swiftly, and to take some of the pressure off our court system.

So there is a great deal of support for this legislation in the trading standards community, but we are also confident that we can enforce it. We are already used to policing regulations which cover advertising products, product content and age of sale, although clearly, there is more work and thinking to be done on that issue. We are also increasingly effective at dealing with illicit tobacco and vapes. Last year alone, 1 million vapes, 19 million cigarettes and 5,000 kilograms of illicit tobacco were seized. The important point is that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute feels quite strongly, and has evidence, that better regulation, better enforcement and tax disincentives do not lead to a thriving black market. In the last 20 years in the UK there has been a reduction in the sale of illicit cigarettes—down from 17 billion to 2.5 billion.

The trading standards community supports the Bill and thinks it can enforce it, but with four caveats. Of course, there are always “buts”. First, successful enforcement depends on resources. Over the last decade, spending on trading standards has been cut by 50%, staffing numbers have reduced by between 30% and 50%, and last year one London borough did not even employ a trading standards officer. The promised additional £10 million is welcome, but it should be seen as a downpayment. If the Government cannot support more funding, they should seriously look at the idea of a “polluter pays” levy, as the Khan review and the APPG have suggested, and as the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Crisp and Lord Bethell, have suggested this evening.

The second caveat is that when introduced, regulations need to be clear and simple to make enforcement straightforward. That means that enforcement agencies should be involved in drafting the regulations to avoid loopholes. Policy experts in Whitehall are not the best people to draft such regulations. Thirdly, the Government need swiftly to regulate nicotine pouches because of their rapid growth and great danger. Finally, we need to take more seriously the illegal importation of tobacco and nicotine products at our ports. I recently visited Southampton and Dover. The trading standards and Border Force officials there were committed and working hard to avoid illegal products being imported, but frankly, I left feeling that they did not have the resources to do the job well. We need to stem the flow of illegal products into our ports. Legislation without resources achieves very little.

20:48

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, in that a minority investor in one of my companies also manufactures vapes, although my concerns for this Bill have nothing to do with vapes but relate to its treatment of cigars and pipes, and the fact that a generational ban is, in practice, unenforceable and therefore unworkable.

It is an unfortunate part of this Bill that, as drafted, pipe tobacco and cigars are lumped together with cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco where they do not need or deserve to be. In fact, cigar smokers are such a vanishingly rare breed that the ONS stopped collecting data on them in 2018, at which point it was recording that one cigar is smoked per 22 adults in a year. Looking around your Lordships’ House, with about 25 noble Lords attending, this means that, between us all here right now, we smoke one cigar a year.

The noble Lord smoking that one imaginary cigar—probably me—will know that it is made from pure tobacco leaves, without any of the added chemicals found in cigarettes or their filters; that the cigar smoke is not inhaled, and therefore the health risk relative to cigarette smoking is non-existent; and that, as a result, cigars are not addictive and there is no evidence at all that they are a gateway to other forms of smoking—in fact, it is quite the opposite, as smokers migrate from harmful cigarettes to harmless cigars and pipes as part of the quitting process. Cigars are such a non-existent problem that they are referenced only three times in the entire 294-page impact assessment report.

There are also drastic implications for shops and SMEs, especially related to the unintended consequences of the new packaging requirements, which we will have time to explore more in Committee.

My second concern with this Bill is more fundamental: a generational ban is unworkable and unenforceable, and surely we should not be passing legislation that we know is doomed to fail before it even starts. It is almost as if the whole idea was thought up by someone who has never smoked, drunk, gambled or smuggled. Versions of a generational ban have been tried twice before: first, in New Zealand, from where the idea came, where it was abandoned as soon as it became clear that it would not work; and, secondly, in Australia, where they now have contraband wars, with tobacconists being firebombed, as the regulated market is taken over by smuggler gang activities.

As anyone even passingly familiar with drugs policy or prohibitions will know, it is one thing to ban something but quite another to prevent people ignoring the ban. Of course, when they ignore the ban, they are, by definition, breaking the law, which begs the question: do we really want to classify as criminals whole swathes of people who are law-abiding in every other way?

As drafted, the Bill will require shopkeepers to be its enforcers. But really, how realistic is it to ask a shopkeeper to tell whether someone who comes in to buy a pack of cigarettes was born in this year or that year? A moment’s thought, or time spent in a busy shop, will confirm that it is impossible and unreasonable to expect it to be otherwise. As the designated enforcers of this unworkable scheme, shopkeepers are, rightly, up in arms about it. They do, however, offer a solution which is enforceable and which will work: that is to make the sale of any tobacco product illegal to anyone under 21. Just as it is very difficult for any of us to tell the precise age of a teenager, it is comparatively easy for us to tell whether or not someone is an adult. To reinforce this common-sense solution, all the evidence suggests that hardly anybody starts smoking over the age of 21.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that smoking is already dying out among the young—dramatically so—because they are choosing not to smoke, not because they are banned from doing so. Over 21 is an obvious and simple solution, supported by its enforcers, and more likely to make the Bill succeed in the way in which it was originally intended than the way it is currently drafted.

20:53

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

My Lords, I greatly appreciate the comments of my noble friends and noble Lords across the House. I am particularly grateful for the introduction by my noble friend the Minister.

As someone who has spent a good part of my life working with young people, I support the Bill. In contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, I wish to focus my remarks on the measures that protect children from the physical, psychological, social and financial harms of vaping.

I worked for the Salvation Army as a youth worker in the 1990s. At that time, young people seemed to have less to worry about—and I definitely had more hair. That said, even then, I remember thinking that these children were working with greater challenges than I faced in my own childhood. This was well before the invention of social media, the long-term impact of the Covid pandemic, or the current teenage mental health crisis.

At a time when young people are facing unprecedented challenges, I am glad to support the measures in the Bill that reduce vaping. This is just one more thing that our young people simply can do without right now. In 2023, Sarah Griffin was a normal, fun-loving 12 year-old girl. Her bedroom looked no different from those of thousands of her contemporaries, with a dressing table littered with perfume, make-up and hair products. At first sight, there was nothing unusual to see there. However, those bottles and jars were actually the hiding place for Sarah’s vaping materials. In October 2023, Sarah was admitted to hospital after excessive vaping caused her to collapse her own lung. For four days, Sarah’s mother, who had fought hard but unsuccessfully to free her daughter from the addiction, thought she had lost her child. At the time she entered hospital, Sarah had been finishing off a 4,000-puff vape every few days.

The vaping and tobacco industries present multiple dangers to society and subsequent real dilemmas for public policy. I am grateful for the efforts of the Government, as well as the previous Government and Members of your Lordships’ House, and the collective determination to deal with this dilemma and protect young people through this much-needed legislation.

There are some who wish to raise a different dilemma altogether. For some, the Bill represents a dilemma that is less about the tobacco and vaping industry and more concerned with a choice between protecting human freedom and protecting vulnerable groups. With respect, I think that dilemma is false. As a long- time champion of freedom of speech and freedom of religion or belief, I welcome any discussion in your Lordships’ House of the importance of freedom for a healthy society. I, too, prize the long-fought-for freedoms and hard-won liberties that we enjoy today, but the simple fact is that societies that promote freedom are most often the societies that provide the greatest protections for the vulnerable. The inverse is also the case: in societies where freedom is diminished, the vulnerable are often endangered and exploited.

The idea that we in this House must choose between safeguarding freedom and safeguarding children is a fallacy. These measures do not threaten freedom, but they will increase protections for one of the most precious and vulnerable parts of our population. Currently in this country, teenagers and young adults are the group most likely to become addicted to vaping. In 2024, 18% of 11 to 17 year-olds, almost 1 million children in all, tried vaping and nearly 5% of 11 to 15 year-olds admit to being regular vapers today.

While the NHS has said that vapes can be used to help adults quit smoking, there is no long-term research to demonstrate the potentially harmful effects of long-term use. The jury may be out on the negative impact of vaping on child health but the damage done in other areas is clear for all to see. Teachers report a growing number of young people unable to concentrate. Parents fear their children falling into addiction and lack resources to help them quit. Young people find themselves trapped in addiction and go to dangerous lengths to fund and support a habit.

Where the health of our young people is concerned, far from helping teenagers to quit smoking, vapes are providing a gateway to more harmful and addictive behaviours. Recent research indicates that one in six disposable vapes consumed in the UK contains elements of the drug spice. An honourable friend in the other place informed me only yesterday that a vape shop had been closed down in her constituency. On analysis, the police had found that its vapes consistently included the horse tranquiliser ketamine.

As I mentioned before, some believe that the Bill leaves us on the horns of a dilemma between freedom and protection. I believe the Bill is about freedom. In the words of a previous Conservative Health Minister, Andrea Leadsom, only a few months ago, this Bill is about freedom—“freedom from addiction”. After she had spent four days in a medically induced coma, doctors saved Sarah Griffin’s life. I believe we should support the Bill. In doing so, we will give a life of freedom to the next generation and protect our own future.

20:59

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, nobody in this House would ever dispute the virtues of creating a smoke-free generation and protecting public health, but the reality is that legislation, if we want it to be effective, has to be both practical and enforceable, and it is there that I have real difficulties with this Bill. In the short time I have, I will touch on just one area: the undue burden that is now going to be placed on local councils. We are going to create laws that are ultimately unenforceable and will inadvertently encourage illicit trading and limit our personal freedoms.

On enforcement, we know that trading standards, the police and licensing teams right across the UK are already under-resourced and overstretched. The notion that we can somehow police every corner shop in Britain—all 50,000 of them—and regulate every e-commerce website and cross-border shipment is farcical. Even if we accept the premise of this Bill, which I do not, the Government have yet to properly explain how they plan to adequately enforce it. I might add that the previous Bill, put forward by the Conservative Party, was little better on that point.

We know that when Governments seek to overregulate or ban products outright, if people want those products and are used to getting them, the demand is not eliminated simply by passing an Act. Instead, over- regulation pushes the trade underground, resulting in illicit trades and dangerous counterfeit products entering the market that pose even greater risks to public health than the blueberry vape that somebody wants to buy over the counter at their local convenience store. Who is going to fund the additional staff and resourcing that trading standards teams will require to enforce the clauses of this proposed legislation?

The pressure this Bill will place on local authorities concerns me, because the Government have failed to understand that our councils are already overstretched, thin on the ground and struggling with limited resources. The Bill requires councils to become the front line—the very coalface enforcers of a sprawling new licensing regime for tobacco and vaping products. Anybody with any experience of local authority licensing will tell you that councils are already struggling to cope with existing alcohol licensing. Due to funding and recruitment issues, not to mention severe backlogs in our magistrates’ courts, they are already unable to achieve this.

Do the Government realise that this legislation will require councils to monitor shops, issue licences, carry out inspections, support businesses with training, resolve disputes and take legal action against offenders? If the answer to that is yes, will the Minister explain to the House where this army of enforcement and licensing officers is going to come from and where the funding is? For years, as we have already heard from a previous speaker, the trading standards sector has been making the case that more needs to be done to encourage recruitment and training of new officers. After all, trading standards are currently responsible for enforcing over 300 laws. Given the new burdens placed on trading standards by this Bill, I would like to see the Government commit to investing in the training of qualified trading standards officers through a new and dedicated apprenticeship fund. We must not set up our councils to fail, as we are doing. In the interests of protecting local authorities and strengthening our trading standards teams, I will be seeking to amend the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.

I further fear that the Bill is a grave attack on personal freedom and liberty. Sadly, it represents another step in the creep of the nanny state. As it stands, the Bill erodes personal freedoms, makes life harder for small business owners and places undue burdens on local councils, all without addressing the root cause of vaping and tobacco use. If the Government are serious about creating a smoke-free generation, they should note that education and support work carried out by public health is the way forward, not prohibition.

Finally, is it really the Government’s intention to ignore the ancient principle of equality under the law? For if left unamended, the Bill will result in individuals born just a day apart having permanently different rights. I believe that the duty of Parliament, and indeed of this House, is to preserve equality under the law, and therefore I cannot support this.

21:04

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to speak in the gap.

Laws send social messages. My maiden speech was on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Having looked after so many people dying young, leaving children bereaved, through lung cancer and mouth cancers, as well as amputees so addicted to cigarettes that they sat in wheelchairs in the snow at the hospital entrance to smoke, I know that addiction is not a choice; it dominates people’s lives.

At that time, we never imagined the tobacco industry’s creativity, developing nicotine vapes with high levels of highly addictive nicotine salts in one disposable vape that is equal to two packs of cigarettes. The companies have seen a transfer of two-thirds of their customers from cigarettes to vapes long-term. Their profits remain. The number of never-regular-smoking vapers—that is, vapers who had never regularly smoked—using the highest strength e-liquids of over 20 milligrams per millilitre has increased dramatically, to almost 45% in 2023-24. Over 81% of those had been vaping for more than six months and over 67% for more than a year. These high levels deliberately promote addiction and alter biological function, and young vapers are now showing damaged lung function.

In sessions of Learn with the Lords, for some time now I have asked every class to vote on vaping and whether vapes should be banned. They overwhelmingly want a ban. In 2023, one in five children used a vape, often at school. Their young brains are particularly susceptible to addiction, and their behaviour changes.

As for our high streets, we promote addiction with vape shops, betting shops and booze shops. The “polluter pays” principle, as so well outlined already, could mean that they pay much higher rates than food and other shops.

The Bill is important. It can ensure that levels of toxins, including addictive nicotine in vapes, are limited, but we need to be alert to the creativity of the tobacco industry.

21:07

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important public health Bill, and for my own part I support it. Who among us would not, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling?

Your Lordships will have heard some concerns expressed by colleagues on these Benches. I can therefore clarify that the environmental protection measures in the Bill are party policy, and all my colleagues will support them. However, there are some aspects of the Bill where colleagues have different views, which I respect but do not share, and on those we will have a free vote wherever necessary. I am on the side of my noble friend Lord Scriven’s fortunate twin, who was born a minute after midnight, because he could well live a longer and healthier life than his very slightly older sibling.

As we have heard, smoking is the biggest cause of preventable death. There is no safe way to use tobacco products, including when they are mixed with cannabis, so the legislation must cover all tobacco products. My noble friend Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and many others have pointed out that tobacco is unique because it kills two out of every three people who use it as directed, so serious measures are going to be needed to protect new generations. About 80% of smokers have tried to quit—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, told us, it takes an average of 30 attempts to do so—and they need help. Vaping has proved to be the most successful aid to quitting smoking, which is why access to these devices must be protected for that purpose.

Smoking tobacco damages our economy. Yes, smokers pay tobacco taxes, but the cost to the NHS and in lost years of working life is much greater. We have heard some figures from my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Crisp and a number of other noble Lords. Why not therefore have a levy on these very profitable companies to pay for the measures recommended by my noble friend Lord Russell?

Smoking is an inequalities issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, emphasised. People on low incomes or living in areas of deprivation, or who have mental health issues, are more likely to smoke. Some 21% of pregnant women in the most deprived areas smoke, compared to only 5.6% in the least-deprived areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, told us that this has contributed to the large differential in rates of stillbirth. We must take action on this, with more help for pregnant smokers to quit.

Smoking is not being banned or criminalised by the Bill; it just protects young people from becoming addicted to tobacco. People who already smoke will be able to continue to do so. Of course, this Bill will not help with poverty, except in the savings in smokers’ pockets if they quit, but it will reduce the number of people suffering ill health or early death through tobacco use. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid young people taking up smoking, because we know that nine in 10 smokers began before the age of 21. Adults who already smoke can continue to buy tobacco legally.

I welcome the announced increased funding for smoking cessation services, but would like to know if funding will go only to services that offer help to quit nicotine, as well as tobacco, as recommended by NICE. I congratulate the Government on reintroducing this Bill and the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on setting the ball rolling. However, time is of the essence, because 35,000 18 to 25 year-olds have started smoking since the King’s Speech—so we need to get on with it.

Raising the legal age of sale incrementally is the best way to move towards a smoke-free generation, for two reasons. First, it will enable retailers to adjust gradually to the new regulations, by compensating for profits lost on tobacco products by introducing other products to their stock. Removing a one-year cohort at a time from the potential market will minimise the impact of this adjustment. I suppose that is why so many retailers support these measures. It is interesting to note that the retail margin on tobacco products is 8.5%, compared to around 21% on other products, while the tobacco manufacturers make 50%. I agree with the introduction of licensing to sell tobacco and vapes, but would like to know what sort of burden the application process will put on small retailers. What about the rest of the supply chain? Should not importers and wholesalers also be licensed?

Secondly, the gradual implementation answers the claim from the tobacco companies that the Bill will encourage the illicit market—well, they would say that, would they not? A single-year cohort of potential smokers does not introduce a vast new market for illicit traders to prey upon. The numbers are small, and the Minister may know how small. Previous legislative measures did not increase illicit sales because of effective enforcement, and those enforcement measures have recently had some considerable successes. However, adequate funding for Border Force and local trading standards continues to be vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said. Will the Government monitor the adequacy of this funding as things progress?

Some of my colleagues are concerned that the Bill restricts the freedom of adults to buy a legal product, and that the way in which it is done would allow one 37 year-old to buy tobacco while another, whose birthday was a month later, could not. I will leave it to the Minister to explain why a particular birth date was chosen, rather than a particular age. My personal view is that, once people are hooked on nicotine, they are no longer free to choose because it is so highly addictive. That is why it is so important that they should not take it up in the first place. Most people who smoke regret having started, and many of them try hard to give up. I quote Professor Chris Whitty, who stated:

“I’ve seen many people in hospital desperate to stop … yet they cannot—their choice has been removed”.


Nicotine takes away their freedom. That is why it is so important to stop people taking it up in the first place and to disincentivise taking up nicotine-containing vapes, except as a quitting aid.

Some say that age verification may raise the spectre of ID cards, which my party and I are very much against. However, most young people are already quite used to having to show ID when buying a beer or cigarettes, and small retailers often ask for it. I was asked for ID this week when collecting a parcel from the Post Office and taking rubbish to the local tip. I think that extending the range of products for which age verification is required is a small price to pay for eliminating this dangerous and costly product within a generation.

Some suggest that we could achieve the same objective through education, public information and smoking cessation services, but we have found that government action works better. Since the indoor smoking ban and advertising restrictions, young people now smoke at half the rate of their parents’ generation. However, we must not let up on education about the dangers of smoking and indeed vaping, especially since there is evidence that refillable vapes are being spiked with spice or cannabis.

As mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others, some smokers believe that filter cigarettes give some protection from the harms of tobacco, but of course they have no health benefit at all and may give a false sense that they do. However, filters do have an environmental impact as many are made of plastic that does not decompose, and even the biodegradable ones take a long time to rot down and can pollute our rivers. There is therefore a strong case for banning cigarette filters on environmental grounds.

There has been an exponential rise in young people vaping, and the Bill gives Ministers the power to regulate vapes without presenting a barrier to smokers using vapes to quit. Vapes are relatively new, so the effects of long-term use are unknown, although the fact that it is illegal to sell vapes to children is because there is some evidence of negative effects of inhaling vaping products on the developing lungs and brain. However, although vapes may be less harmful than smoking, the purpose of the Bill is to discourage non-smokers from taking up vaping. The nicotine in vapes is just as addictive as that in cigarettes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rook, told us, some schools are reporting concerning effects on children who are managing to get hold of them. As Professor Chris Whitty says,

“if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.

Once you start, they have got you—like any other addiction—and that is why the tobacco companies have turned to vapes to protect their profits.

On the powers for Ministers to regulate aspects of vapes such as flavours, colours, advertising and packaging, I say that the industry has cynically targeted children—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, showed us very graphically —with brightly coloured packaging and flavours that are attractive to children. The powers to stop this are welcome, but the Government must engage with young people, and existing smokers who want to quit, to make the regulations successful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, said, we need to make vapes really boring and unattractive.

On the powers to extend the smoking and vaping ban to new outdoor areas, I say that if you can smell smoke, you are inhaling it. That reduces your freedom to breathe clean air, and nobody has given you any choice. However, I would like assurance that before this power is used there will be serious consultation to establish whether there is really any harm to non-smokers. There must be evidence of harm.

Prevention of one of the major causes of illness is better and cheaper than cure. We have to plug the hole in the leaky bucket of public money by stopping preventable diseases wherever we can, and that includes action on bad food and obesity. Do we want to pay higher taxes to pay for the NHS to treat more generations made ill by tobacco dependency? That is what the tobacco and vape manufacturers would like us to do. I encourage the Government to stand up to them.

21:19

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests as set out in the register. I am an unpaid member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs and have written for the Politeia think tank, both of which have published on health issues. The former has also examined some of the evidence published by the Government and others on the Bill. As a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, I am helping it set up its new medical school and am giving it advice on that. I am a visiting scholar at the Vinson Centre at the University of Buckingham, which also has a medical school. I am also an unpaid member of the advisory council of the Startup Coalition, some members of which are health-related start-ups, and some are perhaps even related to smoking cessation. I just wanted to be clear and get all that out.

This has been a long but excellent debate with many speakers—so long, in fact, that I suspect that noble Lords who are members of the informal Terrace smoking club will be longing to reach for their cigarettes or vapes. In detaining them a little longer, I thank all noble Lords who took part in today’s Second Reading. I am also grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill in her usual clear way, and to her officials for meeting us earlier.

We have heard a range of views. At one end of the spectrum, there are those who believe that smoking should be banned as soon as possible and in as many places as possible. At the other end, there are those who see the debate in terms of freedom of choice and the right to smoke despite knowing the harm that it causes. Earlier today, when I was discussing this with another noble Lord, he quoted Kingsley Amis to me:

“No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home”.


I respect the range of views, but in doing so, I think there are probably a few truths on which I hope we can agree. First, smoking is not good for you. That might sound like British understatement; maybe I should go stronger and say that smoking kills and nicotine is addictive. Secondly, the current evidence suggests that vaping is safer than smoking. The current evidence also suggests that not vaping is healthier than vaping. In recognising these three truths, I appreciate that the Government are trying to achieve a difficult balance—or, as the Minister said earlier, a “nuance”—between these two positions. The first is that vaping is a useful pathway away from smoking. The second is: how do we stop young people from taking up vaping and encourage current vapers to quit? The noble Lord, Lord Rook, very eloquently put the case of how we need to tackle youth vaping.

To achieve this difficult balance, we on these Benches want to see the Government making laws based on evidence, but also in a way that is effective, accountable and pragmatic. My noble friend Lord Howe raised the Government’s additions to the previous version of the Bill, especially the huge number of delegated powers. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra, a former chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for highlighting his concerns over criminal offences being made by secondary legislation or even just by delegated powers. That is something that we will probe from this side.

Among these delegated powers are the new powers in Part 7 to expand smoke-free places and impose further restrictions on where people can vape. We will want to probe whether it would be more appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill to make healthcare settings, children’s playgrounds and educational establishments smoke-free, rather than relying on the intention of some future Government. We should also consider the evidence for expanding vape-free areas, given the current lack of evidence about the harms of second-hand vape inhalation, and as that evidence evolves, we should find ways of reacting. I can understand that as an argument for delegated powers, but we have to get that balance right and not use it as an excuse.

We will also want to probe the possible unintended consequences of being seen to treat vaping and nicotine products in the same way that we treat tobacco products. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, research has shown that approximately 50% of all UK adults believe that vaping is as harmful as, or even more harmful than, smoking. We know that current evidence does not suggest that. This is despite the fact that the NHS website says:

“In 2022, UK experts reviewed the international evidence and found that ‘in the short and medium-term, vaping poses a small fraction of the risks of smoking’”.


It also says:

“Vaping has not been around for long enough to know the risks of long-term use. While vaping is less harmful than smoking, it is unlikely to be totally harmless”.


We will probe whether placing similar restrictions to those on cigarettes on vaping and nicotine products will unintentionally deter current smokers from switching to less harmful vaping products.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the impact of the Bill on small businesses, as did many of my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Sharpe. Small independent retailers and convenience store owners have faced increased costs, such as the increase in national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage. Whatever their merits, the cost of those increases has clearly been passed on to small businesses.

Some worry about the cost of the Employment Rights Bill and now there is the additional licence fee for implementing the generational sales ban and the advertising ban on nicotine products. There will also probably be further regulations and restrictions under the number of secondary powers in this Bill.

I will quote Gurpal Jhutty, who runs a Nisa local in Leamington Spa. In a submission to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, he said:

“Look, I’m not a lobbyist. I’m not a politician. I’m just a shopkeeper trying to make a living, and I’m writing to you today because the proposed Tobacco and Vapes Bill has me seriously worried about the future of my business. You can consider this a retailer’s plea for common sense … I’m tired of being ignored. Retailers are on the front lines of this issue, and we have valuable insights to offer. Let’s ditch the bureaucratic nonsense and work together to create a policy that actually makes sense”.


Let me be clear: we are not asking to ditch this Bill, but we will probe it to create a Bill that is workable and makes sense.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have rightly raised concerns about personal liberty, problems with prohibition and the practicality of the measures, especially age differentiation. We have heard both sides of that debate.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brady and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have pointed out that smoking cannabis is illegal but is pervasive in many parts of London. The point is that this is not a Bill against smoking; it is a Bill against the sale of tobacco and vape products. We have to be clear about that.

Having said that, Inga Becker-Hansen of the British Retail Consortium told the Public Bill Committee on 7 January:

“in 30 years’ time if you have someone who is 45 versus 44 from the date of January 2009, it may lead to ID for each sale of a given product … Points of sale can be a flashpoint for violence and abuse against retail and shop workers, so it is a real concern for retailers”.—[Official Report, Commons, Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, 7/1/25; col. 58.]

We will also probe the impact of this Bill on the illicit trade in tobacco and vaping products. HMRC has estimated that in 2022-23 illicit tobacco accounted for 14.5% of the total UK market. Current estimates show that illicit vapes account for about 30% of the total vaping market. A 2024 report by the Home Office’s National Business Crime Centre found that the provisions in this Bill mean that

“the demand for illegal tobacco products is set to grow dramatically”.

We have to be careful about these unintended consequences.

Like my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Leicester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, we will want to probe whether restrictions on vaping products could lead to an increase in the illegal trade, leading to a risk of more dangerous and unregulated products being used and finding their way into circulation. We are all united in wanting to tackle illicit and illegal products.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Murray, have expressed concern that the Government appear complacent about the illicit tobacco trade. While they rely on figures that show a drop in illicit tobacco sales, a Europe-wide report from KPMG—based on looking at discarded tobacco packages, rather than on assumptions and mathematical formulae—reported an increase in illicit consumption in the UK in 2023. I understand why these figures have been dismissed, because the report was funded by a tobacco company; I completely understand that reasoning.

However, I would be interested in understanding whether the Government will commission similar research looking at discarded tobacco packets as a method of understanding the illicit tobacco trade. If they will not, can they explain why—not immediately, but in writing? Could they explain why they have doubts about this methodology and prefer the formula used by HMRC, which has been criticised by many people for the assumptions it makes around smoking? We will be probing the Government on this and on what action they will take to tackle this rise in illicit sales. We know that all noble Lords will agree on tackling illicit sales of illegal products.

Finally, I am a huge believer in the role of local community non-state initiatives that improve people’s health. I have worked with organisations that help to tackle obesity and local financial and other problems. We will probe the Government on what they have learned and can learn from local community initiatives that have reduced smoking. We have not heard enough today about local community initiatives, the people who understand their local communities and the projects in those communities that could reduce smoking. Most of it has been about top-down measures to try and reduce smoking.

Whether noble Lords smoke or not, I hope we are united in our desire to reduce the incidence of smoking-related deaths and share concerns over the rise in youth vaping. I am also sure many of us will want to help the Government achieve an appropriate balance based on evidence, pragmatism and proportionality. I thank all noble Lords who spoke and look forward to the many days of debate ahead.

21:29

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate on a very important issue.

Today’s debate has been very well supported. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I will not be able to cover in my summary every issue that has been raised, but I will endeavour to respond to as many of the themes and questions as possible. Of course, I will be happy to have further discussions with noble Lords, and we will have the opportunity for these ahead of and during future stages of the Bill. I too look forward to Committee.

It seems many hours ago since my noble friend Lady Thornton spoke of the measures in this Bill being a further step along the way. I share that view, which has been expressed by a number of other noble Lords, particularly those in what I shall politely call the cohort of former Health Ministers. I do not know what the collective term is, but I am sure we will work on that. I am in that cohort, and I too worked towards the initial smoking ban in 2007. As a Public Health Minister, I introduced the display regulations we are now so used to. When we introduced the original ban in 2007, no one could have dreamed of the challenges we have today, including vaping; this was not something we had considered. It was also important to go with the public, which is why I was keen to outline the public’s support in my opening remarks.

I am grateful for the challenge. I have heard many concerns being expressed today, along with outright opposition to the Bill. I have also heard much support for the Bill, although there are rightly questions about the measures in it. Many noble Lords have been supportive, including the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Stevens, who assisted me by anticipating some of the arguments that will be deployed. The noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Smith, and many others, were also very supportive.

I am grateful to my colleagues on both Front Benches for taking a line similar to the one I am about to take in respect of the Chief Medical Officer’s views. These include:

“If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape.”


I am also very grateful to noble Lords who were good enough to join me yesterday at a briefing with the Chief Medical Officer and officials, which I certainly found helpful. I know that others did too.

I understand that there are different perspectives on a number of issues, and I now turn to some of the points that were raised. I heard concerns about the smoke-free generation policy from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Scriven, Lord Brady, Lord Naseby, Lord Sharpe, Lord Teverson and Lord Moylan. However, the reality is that smoking leads to significant harm. A clear majority of smokers regret ever having started. My noble friend Lord Browne spoke about this, as did the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who recounted his own personal experience. Many people struggle to give up due to the addictive nature of nicotine.

I am grateful to a number of noble Lords for sharing their personal experiences, which brought colour and a human touch to our debate. These included the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Rennard, my noble friends Lady Rafferty, Lady Ramsey and Lord Griffiths, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.

However, let us remember that the harms of smoking extend beyond the individual. They impact on non-smokers, especially children and pregnant women, through second-hand smoke. This policy will be the most significant public health measure in a generation. It will build on the previous steps I spoke of, such as the 2007 indoor smoking ban, with the goal of safe- guarding the health of future generations from preventable and serious harm. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, decried the Bill on a number of levels, including—she must forgive me if I am wrong on this—that it is Tory legislation. Actually, this is a Bill on which we are agreed across the House and across parties. Of course there are questions, but a wise Government and wise Opposition Benches acknowledge good when they see it. That is where we are today.

A number of noble Lords suggested raising the age of sale to a particular age—for example, 21 or 25—as a potential way to address smoking. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, put so well, that would not stop young people starting to smoke. The whole point is that, once you have started to smoke, the challenge of giving up is tremendous, because it is an addiction. Introducing a particular age could have a positive impact but it will not fully achieve the ambition of a smoke-free UK. Our goal is to go further, to break the cycle of addiction. We want to drive smoking rates down to 0%. That is why we have suggested a smoke-free generation.

On the practicalities, implementation is absolutely key. On ID checks, the majority of retailers sell tobacco and vapes responsibly—I acknowledge that. They follow the recommended practice and regularly ask for ID from customers. The Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age, to provide clarity and to support retailers. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke to this point. We are exploring how we can enhance age verification with digital verification services, providing an opportunity to securely verify age, both in person and online.

With regard to the products in scope, the Bill captures all tobacco products, as tobacco is uniquely harmful. There are around five times more people smoking non-cigarette tobacco, such as cigars, than a decade ago, and the greatest increase is among young adults. To the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I would say that this is why the Bill, importantly, captures all tobacco products and must not be watered down to exclude certain products.

The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron, Lord Scriven and Lord Brady, referred to other products outside of this range. I again call upon the words of the Chief Medical Officer: there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. That is what sets it apart from other products that we might feel are harmful. There is no safe level, not even a little bit; that is the key. Therefore, cigars, shisha and heated tobacco are all in scope. To the point raised earlier about heated tobacco, there is evidence from laboratory studies of its toxicity, and there are, as noble Lords have spoken of, less harmful tobacco-free products to support people to quit, rather than heated tobacco.

A number of noble Lords raised points about the growth in illicit sales. The noble Lords, Lord Dodds, Lord Blencathra, Lord Naseby, Lord Scriven, Lord Howard and Lord Murray, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, were concerned that the Bill’s ambitions could be undermined in this respect. As other noble Lords have said, history shows that when we have introduced targeted tobacco control measures, the size of the illicit market has not increased. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, told the House, it has in fact continued to fall. When the age of sale increased from 16 to 18, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25%.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Government are cracking down on the demand for illicit trade, as well as the supply, with the joint strategy with HMRC and Border Force backed up by over £100 million of new funding over five years.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for articulating support for those who work in trading standards as well as acknowledging their worth, and I share his views on that. As these were points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister, it might be helpful to reiterate that we have announced £10 million of new funding in 2025-26 for trading standards to boost the workforce and tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes.

A number of questions were raised about whether driving down the smoking of tobacco could lead to an increase in the smoking of cannabis. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, accurately said, the Bill is not banning the smoking of anything—it is in reference only to tobacco and vapes. I also ought to say that we are not aware of any link between the rates of smoking cannabis and the rates of smoking tobacco. I know that noble Lords are more than aware that cannabis is, of course, illegal.

On the matter of abuse against retail staff, raised by my noble friend Lady Carberry, we are working closely with retailers and will utilise the long lead-in time to best support them in preparing for and implementing these changes. That includes rolling out information campaigns for both the public and retail workers. We will not stand for violence and abuse against shop workers; everyone has the right to feel safe. To protect hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, this Government will introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker.

On the issue of smoke-free places, in England we intend to consult on extending smoke-free outdoor places to outside schools, children’s playgrounds and hospitals, but not—I say to my noble friend Lord Faulkner —to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces such as beaches. This is because—and it might be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, as an assurance—we judge that this adequately balances a range of priorities by protecting the most vulnerable while ensuring that businesses are not financially impacted.

There was a lot of discussion about the rationale for the broad powers, including within the Bill. Noble Lords are right to point to the high number of regulation-making powers that the Bill takes. I have no doubt that noble Lords have enjoyed or will enjoy scrutinising the 96-page delegated powers memorandum, which sets out in full the detail of the rationale for each and every one of the powers. I recommend it as good reading. Concerns were particularly raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Meyer. I assure noble Lords that each of these powers has been carefully considered and aims to ensure that the Bill establishes a clear regulatory regime for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, and that we have worked very closely with the Attorney-General’s Office to get it in the right place.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke to, given the need to adapt to emerging scientific understanding and to market innovations, it is crucial that the details of the regime are set out in regulations, to ensure sufficient flexibility. In addition, most of the regulations require significant technical detail, which is more appropriate for secondary legislation.

As some noble Lords referred to, the Bill is UK-wide, so certain powers are being repeated for each part of the UK. Equally, the Bill restates or amends a number of existing powers from across tobacco control legislation, to bring it together in one place. That will help to make legislation more useful and accessible.

I can assure noble Lords that the Bill provides a statutory requirement to consult on regulations, and we are working constructively with retail associations and the Local Government Association to help shape the early design of the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, was right to say that we should support responsible retailers, who are the majority and who want to do the right thing. They do not want to be undermined by those who are not being responsible. I put that to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, who was concerned about impact.

On the matter of balance in respect of vapes, there was a useful debate, both in the Chamber and at a meeting I held with the Opposition Front Bench, about the matter of flavours. To avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, the scope of restrictions will be carefully considered and consulted on. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of exemptions from the advertising ban for public health purposes. We are clear that healthcare providers can continue to provide advice about vaping as a smoking cessation tool. For example, pharmacists could display public health campaign messaging or provide advice to customers about vaping as a smoking cessation tool. I wish to say to my noble friends Lady Mattinson and Lord Hanworth, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we will keep emerging evidence under review, and have already commissioned a 10-year study to investigate the long-term effects of vaping on the health of 100,000 young people, which I hope will be helpful.

On the matter of filters and the environment, I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns raised by noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Bennett. The environmental harm of items with tobacco butts is evident, as it is the most littered item in the UK. Ultimately, the best way to tackle this littering is through reducing smoking rates, but we are where we are. Local authorities already have powers to tackle littering, including through the ability to issue fixed penalty notices of up to £500. We are working closely with Defra to take a systematic approach to what is indeed something of a blight.

On the matter of age and the concerns, including twins born either side of midnight, should such a thing ever happen, I remind noble Lords that other policies already do this, such as universal credit increases, NHS screening programmes and access to vaccines.

On the “polluter pays” levy, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Young of Cookham, my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Government’s present preference is, as I think noble Lords are aware, to continue with a proven and effective method of dealing with tobacco products through increases in tobacco duties, to incentivise those who currently smoke to quit, and to generate finances that can be put back into public services.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for his support for the Bill and appreciate the intentions behind his suggestion to be smoke-free by 2040.

On the points about the Windsor Framework, I have heard the concerns about the application of smoke-free generation policy in Northern Ireland from the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Weir, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie. I have met the Northern Ireland Health Minister, and we continue to work well with his office. I assure noble Lords that we are content that the measures intended to apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations in the Windsor Framework.

In closing, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. This is a landmark Bill, and it will be the most significant public health intervention in a generation, so I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.