Lords Chamber

Wednesday 23rd April 2025

(began 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
crime and migration. The UK has supported the efforts against resilience, against interference from Russia and his elites for the Western Balkans freedom, £30 million program, next year involves local civil society organisations at the frontline of all of this work. This is all funded through official development assistance, can I appeal to the Minister the when decisions are being made to reduce ODA, which are regrettable, that there will be a specific carveout for those areas that are linked with the future interest for British national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security. I think the noble Lord is a right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord is a right that in terms of our review we would be absolutely focused on the U.K.'s national interest and of course the national interest and of course the decisions are made on the basis of the first duty of any government in the first duty of any government in terms of protecting its population, can I just say we have been engaged across a wide range of different areas of development and the soft areas of development and the soft power space.

Our development efforts have never been as solely about aid we row mobilise a range in the Western Balkans and we will continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do that, influencing policy. I understand that there is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand that there is an arrest warrant issued, in Bosnia- arrest warrant issued, in Bosnia- Herzegovina against Mr Dick Dodik. I
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Since the establishment of the Scottish parliament, the proportion of income raised from taxes on Scottish citizens has risen 110% to 40%. Accountability and scrutiny need to be improved. Can I suggest that it might be to great mutual benefit of the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, the Constitution Committee in this house reach out to relevant committees and the Scottish parliament and other devolved assemblies to see how we can improve financial scrutiny and accountability across other parliaments because none of it is as good as it should be.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable -- noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable -- noble Lord for his question. There is nothing wrong with parliaments across the UK to work together to deliver mutual benefit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In response to Lord Wigley's question about the Barnett Formula, is it not also the case that the law

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for England is the same way? I thank the noble Lord for the question. It gives me the opportunity to talk about the excellent work that the Labour mayor As at the centre of her project for As at the centre of her project for the north-east, and assuring growth that happens in this country, in outreach and where I belong, is outreach and where I belong, is therefore all the people. I know what happened to areas, now that the what happened to areas, now that the region is United that can only be for the benefit of all of us.

 Is the former head of a devolved government, at a time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Achieving value for money ought to be a priority for any government, whether national or regional, or local government, especially the government committed to growth. Can government committed to growth. Can Back to Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Back to Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, does the Government consider that the SNP Scottish government actions on trans rights represented a good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

use of taxpayers money? I think, again, I appreciate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, again, I appreciate the question that the noble Lord, Lady has made, but I think one thing I should focus on is, beside the outcome of the Supreme Court, what the Scottish government should do and we all should be doing is what is in the best interest of all of the Scottish people. That must be to secure growth, to make sure that the secure growth, to make sure that the support that we have for our cities and our people and for the NHS is of and our people and for the NHS is of all the people, in Scotland.

It would be great to see Scotland and would be great to see Scotland and the Scottish government and the UK government work closely together to ensure that happens. As the former head of a devolved government, at a time and cooperation between governments, across at this island was rare. UK Government became very fond of its position through the Subsidy Control Bill, act as it became the Internal Market Act. Can I welcome the new relationship between London and Cardiff. With that in mind could I ask the noble Lord to outline what the UK government is doing, working with the Welsh Government to deliver for the people of Wales?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Of course I've already question. Of course I've already mentioned similar things that the Labour government has done. I think Labour government has done. I think the two areas that might be of interest to the House is obviously what is happening in Port Talbot and the electric arc furnaces, the budget 2024, the UK government budget 2024, the UK government confirmed £80 billion funding for the transition board, funding will
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
None Portrait Business of the House
-

of interests was that many of the concerns expressed in all the benches of this House on this question, particularly the question from the noble Earl can be answered by, with the noble of the Minister, by, with the noble of the Minister, agree with me, that many of these concerns will be answered by the speedy rollout of a small modular nuclear reactors which will provide nuclear reactors which will provide the energy that we need this country, badly needs. country, badly needs. The noble Lord may no I'm on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

record of rather agreeing with the importance of small modular reactors. That is being looked at very carefully. That concludes Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That concludes Oral Questions for today. Motion with the Senior Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. A bid to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Regretfully, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton is unable to continue as the chair of the Conduct Committee, I am however very pleased to recommend to the House, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar take up the position in his place. I think to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. ... Be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, it My Lords, it may My Lords, it may be My Lords, it may be an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it may be an opportunity for those to move if
15:47
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Health Bill. I would first like to make a brief statement on the devolution state -- status of the bill. It state -- status of the bill. It extends to England and Wales, and extends to England and Wales, and initial consent memorandum was laid during the bill's introduction. Following further amendments to the Following further amendments to the bill supplementary consent memorandum's have been laid. I would like to thank the Welsh Government for the constructive engagement and I'm pleased that they are recommending consent.

The third it will hold a vote. A bit to me that this bill been around for 1/3 time. The question is that this bill be The question is that this bill be now read a third time. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Baroness Merron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now bid to move amendment one which is a minor technical amendment which is a minor technical amendment to reduce the period in which an application can be made from six months to three months were a patient was transferred from guardianship to hospital under section 19. This will ensure that section 19. This will ensure that the relevant period within which transferred guardianship patients can make an application to the can make an application to the tribunal aligns with the relevant period for section 3 patients.

This period for section 3 patients. This is consequential to the changes the bill makes in clause 29 to reduce the initial detention period for patients admitted for treatment from six months to three months as part of our intention to provide patients with faster access to tribunals, to review relevant decisions about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their care. About to move. Amendment proposed, $$TRANSMIT'

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, $$TRANSMIT'

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, $$TRANSMIT' line 24, at end insert C and paragraph E. Substitute six months paragraph E. Substitute six months for three months. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. All of those in favour say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, I big to move that this bill do now pass -- beg. It has been a pleasure to take this bill through the house with my noble friend. As we are all aware, numerous aspects of the 1983 mental health act are not serving us today. Over the decades, we have seen racial inequalities, inadequate care for individuals with learning disabilities and autism and insufficient empowerment of patients who have not had an adequate voice.

Reform to the Mental Health Act is therefore long overdue. Many of the processes in the act are out of step with the modern mental health system and with society at large. For me, it has been a privilege to advance these reforms to deliver the government's manifesto commit and to modernise the act to give patients greater choice, autonomy in rights and support and ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and with respect throughout treatment, whilst ensuring that public and patient safety is paramount.

This bill is, as noble Lords will be aware, the product of a combined effort of many years -- over many years of members of both houses and many outside of Parliament who have worked for change and to whom thanks are due. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to members of the former Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. Noble Lady Baroness Buscombe is the Chair as well as my noble friends Lord Bradley and Baroness McIntosh, as well as noble Lady's Baroness Barker, Baroness Berridge and Baroness Hollins.

The work and careful consideration that went into their rigorous scrutiny of the draft bill, along with the constructive recommendations made have undoubtedly strengthened this bill. I also pay tribute to the former minister, noble Lady Baroness May who identified the need for modernisation and set up the independent review of the act in 2017, which was chaired by Sir Simon Wessely and supported by Baroness Neuberger as one of the visitors. Without this, we would not be here today. I now wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to all peers who have engaged with the bill's reforms.

In addition to those previously mentioned, my gratitude is due to both front benches, to the noble Lords Lord Kamall, but Howell, Lord Scriven and the noble Lady Baroness Tyler. I'm also grateful to all noble Lords across the house who have spoken during the various stages of the bill and who have engaged with me and my officials over the past few months. Because I would like to think I am wise, I would also like to thank my Whip and the previous Whip.

I would like to thank the whole Whips team. My appreciation as ever to the clerks Commodore keepers and staff of the house. I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all the officials who have played a crucial role in the progression of this bill and I hope Your Lordships' House will indulge me while I give them the honour of mentioning them by name because I believe they deserve Cally Mulligan, Recce Hose. I'm also deeply appreciative to Cathy and Caroline as well as the DHSC officials, including Esther, Hannah, officials, including Esther, Hannah, Alice, Matt, Tabatha, David, Megan, Mahiri, and their teams.

I also want to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the government legal departments officials Matt Smith, Nicky Richardson, Tim Spencer and their wider team, along with my and their wider team, along with my Carl Plain and Victoria Griggs. Whilst I cannot list every individual, want to express my appreciation to all officials who have played a part. This includes officials from the Ministry of Justice. Their unwavering support and dedication have been instrumental in the successful investments -- advancements of this bill and their work has been exemplary.

I'm confident that this legislation will make the Mental Health Act fit for the 21st century and give greater and better support to people when they need it and I look forward to its receiving support in the other place. A bid to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. -- I beg to move. The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lady the Minister said, debating the passage through the house has been a pleasure. We the house has been a pleasure. We have seen a general spirit of constructive engagement which will constructive engagement which will help patients who encounter mental help patients who encounter mental health services. It wasn't a health services. It wasn't a Saw alliances across political lines. We all wanted to make sure that patients receive the best possible care.

It's a wonderful
15:57
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
demonstration of the values of this has. I want to extend my thanks to all the peers who took part in the all the peers who took part in the debate. I also want to thank the members of the pre-legislative committee. I also want to committee. I also want to acknowledge Lady May for beginning the process of this will. My friend identify the issue of racial disparities and wanted to reduce the disparities and wanted to reduce the involvement of police where they are not needed.

And even though my noble friend was unable to be at her friend was unable to be at her place, I'm grateful to noble Lord who supported them. We look forward to how that will be debated in the other place. Is also welcome to see the house rally behind the amendment by Lady Berridge to ensure it aligns with the children's act 1989. There has to be consistency between different bills. We don't want people falling between bills and falling into harms way.

She has highlighted this and gave some harrowing examples of what could have happened or could happen if we don't align these and we need to make sure that we align as much as possible. Can I also thank the noble Lord Lord Scriven and Baroness Tyler for their dedication to improving Community Treatment Orders but also addressing racial disparities. Noble Lords will probably remember that this is the issue closest to my heart and we spoke very heavily on it. There are still too many racial disparities.

Understand it is a complicated issue. Of course, I have to thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his stalwart support and advice on this bill. Obviously, has experience, not only a parliamentary procedure but also with previous iterations of this bill. I have to say I appreciate his tenacity and I'm grateful whenever he agrees to work with me. Sometimes to curb my scuba enthusiasm, as it were, but also to keep me on the right path. I'm grateful that he has also agreed to work with me on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Can I also thank the Minister for taking her time but only at the dispatch box but also for the fact that her officials were always available and the noble Lady was available to meet with us and try to iron out some of the disagreements or find compromises. It is very much appreciated I think by all noble Lords and this has. Can I also thank the special adviser as well for his input. Can I end by mentioning a quote that was sent to myself and my noble friend Lord Howell from the charity Blooming Howell from the charity Blooming Change.

A younger person said, I genuinely for the longest time felt I didn't matter to anyone or anything. That what I went through didn't matter. It took so long to build my confidence and to find my voice. I'm glad I decided to use my experiences to fight for change and experiences to fight for change and I'm so happy I work has made a difference. We will fight for change difference. We will fight for change little biblical. As the bill progresses, I hope those involved will heed those words.
16:00
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's been a privilege to be involved in scrutinising and improving this vital bill for which we have waited so long. Our debates have been rightly exhaustive and at times quite rightly passionate. I make one general observation. And did, this point was made a number of occasions director deliberations. You only get one chance about every 15 years or so to reform and modernise mental health legislation so it's really important to get it right and to include all the relevant issues before the ship sails.

Some I know would have liked to have seen more fundamental fusion legislation. That was not on the table so you worked with what you had. This bill was a fascinating process to be part of and I think it enabled us to think about all aspects of mental health, from the need for prevention and early intervention in the community, right the way through to severe crisis and attention. It was the latter which was the prime subject of this bill but our debate shed important light on interrelated issue -- nature of mental health.

I would like to thank the Minister, the noble Lady Baroness and indeed her colleagues are Thomson for her good humour and willingness to engage at all times. There levels of engagement have helped us fashion this bill. I'd also like to thank the noble Lord Lord Howell and Lord Kumar -- Lord Kakkar. I also thank Ross benchers who made a very important I appreciate the expertise to work and collaborate on a cross-party basis, something that is so often been a feature of mental health legislation.

Special thanks go to Lord Scriven, Baroness Barker and Baroness Parminter and a very big thank you to our legislative support officer who has supported us so ably. As others have said, this bill now moves to the other place, certainly in an improved state and I think about what has happened around racial disparities and restrictions on renewals of immunity treatment orders. Still with room for further strengthening. There remain several omissions. I look forward to seeing how that transpires, in the other how that transpires, in the other place and when the bill reaches the statute book, what role this House statute book, what role this House is able to play in monitoring implementation.

My Lords implementation will be key.
16:03
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
The question is that this building now past. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Second reading of the tobacco and spill, Baroness the tobacco and spill, Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. -- Baroness Merron. I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time. It is an now read a second time. It is an honour to do so. The evidence, despite, perhaps, some lingering despite, perhaps, some lingering myths and perceptions remains stark and compelling. Smoking remains unequivocally the number one preventable cause of death and disability and ill-health, in our 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 travellers. 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, and the wider economy and places at the considerable burden on our healthcare system.

In total this is estimated to cost society approximately 21.3 In total this is estimated to cost society approximately £21.3 million, annually. To correct this course, this bill will create a smokefree generation, making it an offence to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after January 1, 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 a well documented and evidenced harm of smoking.

In turning attention to vaping, we face a new challenge here. Vapes are less harmful than smoking and absolutely have a strong role to play, in the cessation aid of adult smokers seeking to quit. In fact, clients have stopped smoking services who have used a vote to quit have had the highest success rate of any group. Nevertheless, it should not be ignored that there has been a concerning increase in use uptake. In 2023, one in four children aged 11 to 15 tried vaping, often drawn in through appealing, sweet like flavours and colourful packaging.

So, in response to this challenge, the bill includes measures which addressed 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 the vapes can no longer target minors. However, it is imperative that the bill strikes a necessary balance, to ensure that the vapes do remain an accessible option, for adult smokers, who are looking to transition away from the dependence on tobacco.

While cutting down on youth vaping. The public understand the importance of this bill and what it aims to achieve. 69% of the public support a smokefree generation policy. 82% of adults support banning, names of sweets, cartoons and bright colours, on fake packaging. And 81% support banning the advertising and promotion of vapes, the point of sale. This bill is the product of the combined effort of members of both houses and many outside parliament, over many years. A key manifesto commitment, for this government, is to create a smokefree generation and this bill has rightly received support from across the political parties.

I would like to express my thanks to many, over, as I have said, many years. I would like to particularly highlight thanks to the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Rishi Sunak MP, who committed to the original form of this bill. My thanks also to my ministerial colleague, Ashley Dalton MP and also to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, on smoking and health and its members. And many others who have informed and motivated the action, by this government.

As we turn our attention to the substance of this bill I want to highlight its core aims. At its heart, this bill is about safeguarding the health of our population. This fundamental Buddhist address of the cycle of addiction and societal disadvantage. It is a key component of our broader health emission, from treatment to prevention. Under our Plan for Change the government has committed to ensuring, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. The bill does incorporate a UK wide approach, reflecting the need for change across our four nations.

Health is a devolved matter, of course and so this bill has been developed in close partnership and collaboration with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. This not only ensures greater consistency across the nations, but also more enforceable regime, across the UK. In addition to creating a smokefree generation, the bill will amend the existing smoke-free powers to designate certain outdoor settings smoke-free. This will offer greater protections to those at risk of second-hand smoke. Any such extension will be carefully considered and subject to consultation.

And in England, the Government will consult on banning smoking outside locations are frequented by children and vulnerable people, such as schools, hospitals and playgrounds. Not outdoor hospitality, or wide-open spaces. Whilst private, outdoor spaces are out of scope of the powers, in the bill. The bill provides, in addition, 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 premarket registration scheme will provide comprehensive oversight of manufacturers and products that introduced our stores.

Retail licensing provisions, facilitate ongoing monitoring, notification of retailer practices, strengthening enforcement and ensuring adherence to the measures that we put in place. It is important, as I know many noble Lords acknowledge that the dynamic nature of the products we are discussing and the fact that our scientific understanding of the long-term impact continues to evolve. Therefore, the bill does allow 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.

It is not just about this bill. The bill is part of a wider effort, across government to address challenges of smoking and youth vaping. The Government is actively supporting current smokers who wish to quit. We are increasing funding for local stop smoking services, by an additional £70 million, and 25/26 and delivering national action, such as the National smoke-free pregnancy initiative, incentive scheme and the vaping. Scheme. Defra has allayed legislation which will see the ban of a single use vapes, from 1 June, of this year.

Addressing a key factor in youth vaping as well as environmental concerns. Aiming to discourage smokers and young people from starting vaping and degenerate revenue for public services, the government will introduce a vaping product duty that will come into force, from 1 October, 2026. And in order to get to continue to incentivise smokers to quit and to keep differential in price, duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2%, above inflation, the Autumn Budget, with further additional increases for handrolling tobacco, to reduce the gap, with cigarettes.

We do recognise the importance of a robust enforcement of our new laws and regulations. The Government has announced a £10 million of new funding, and 25/26, for trading standards to tackle the illicit underage sale of tobacco and to support the implementation from the matters in the bill. And we will introduce funding and 25/26 four enforcement agencies, including trading standards, Border Force and HMRC. I do extend my gratitude to noble Lords, on all sides of the House, for their ongoing support, for this bill and getting to this for this bill and getting to this stage.

I believe that the time to act is now. This is why this is a piece of priority legislation for this government. What we have gone further than the previous government. I look forward to collegiate and constructive debate, that I know will follow, from my engagement thus far and will seek to respond to the main questions and themes. And so, my lords, I am, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time. The House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for the characteristically clear way in the characteristically clear way in which she has opened this debate as she has indicated this is the bill, which in large measure, replicates the bill introduced into the other place, towards the end of the last place, towards the end of the last Parliament, and speaking as someone who helped to take through some important anti-smoking legislation, important anti-smoking legislation, during my time, in the Department of Health, I begin by saying that the overall aims that the Minister has set out with this measure are one that I fully subscribe to.

Some little time has of course passed, since I occupied the Ministers departmental seat and in the intervening years we have seen the rise of the vaping, as an alternative form of nicotine consumption. Sometimes, as a
16:15
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
perfectly valid means of quitting smoking, but increasingly a habit smoking, but increasingly a habit adopted by non-smokers, leading adopted by non-smokers, leading directly to nicotine addiction. I am therefore the 1st to say that I share the Ministers acute concern around this trend, which is in part around this trend, which is in part caused by the numbers of young people taking up vaping, who has not previously been smokers. In the spirit of a similarly motivated initiation, going back over the last 85 years, it is surely our duty as legislators to look for ways to discourage smoking, to protect those who do not smoke, second-hand smoke and to prevent children from accessing tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products, as if they were toys, or fashion accessories.

And it is right, too, that while we are about it, to look at the wider dimensions of the issue, such as the sale of a non-nicotine vapes. As well as other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. The bill before as nicotine pouches. The bill before as nicotine pouches. The bill before At the same time, there to test that legislation of this kind needs to pass. It has been applied to all previous anti-smoking measures. They are the test of proportionality and practicality.

Much of what we shall need to debate in Committee and beyond will revolve around those two beyond will revolve around those two tests. 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. Between business burdens and free enterprise. And in this particular area, we are dealing with another balance. One that threads its way through all the others, and that is the balance of probabilities around human behaviour.

So, 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. And it won't, therefore, surprise the Minister to know that there are aspects to it which which we wish to explore and in some cases directly challenge. I mentioned first the most egregious. The bill before us today contains no fewer than 66 delegated powers, which is double the number present in the previous iteration of the bill.

This is something that should concern us whether one supports the main principle or not, it cannot be right to condone legislative model which leaves a large swathes of policy area with scant detail to be amplified later by ministerial decision. It is not simply the volume of issues to which the regulatory powers relate, it is the nature of those issues. On the bill was introduced, it transpired that the covenant had inserted a new part seven, 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 vaped and tobacco free.

I recall the debates we had in the house in 2006 on the health bill, which banned smoking in all indoor settings and on public transport. Are supported by and from the frontbench 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.

Were to designate as smoke-free zone. There is a very good reason for that. It struck a balance between the public health concerns associated with secondhand smoke exposure and the rights of people who do wish to smoke. It was deemed to be the correct and most proportionate test. The government have decided to do away with that and I must simply ask why. The bill passed by delegated powers extend to other areas. Part five 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 don't disagree that there are a number of novel products that should see greater regulation. Nicotine see greater regulation. Nicotine poachers -- pouches, for example, can currently be sold at extraordinary strength. Some are being sold online containing 50 or even 100 mg of nicotine her pouch. This certainly should be regulated. The problem here is that we don't know how these extensive powers will be exercised. What does the government have in mind? Why can't we see some specific proposals on the face of the bill? The Minister, when she was in opposition, would have been the first to jump on this kind of open-ended drafting.

I have a particular concern around packaging, which is one instance where issues of proportionality rear their heads. Close 89 grants the Secretary of State expanded powers to regulate retail packaging. The packaging of cigarettes and handrolling tobacco has been heavily regulated for some time and with good reason. Up until now, there have been exemptions for the packaging of cigars and pipe tobacco products. They were exempt from the standardised packaging of tobacco products regulations 2015, and the tobacco and regulations 2016.

There are also some exemptions for these are also some exemptions for these products in the tobacco, -- tobacco advertising products will. I'm not aware of any cogent argument to persuade me that it should now be abandoned. This is something we should certainly wish to question at later stages. The bill also includes the power to restrict the flavour of nicotine products, and the government has signalled that they are considering banning certain flavours of vaping liquids. On the face of it, this might seem reasonable proposal to curb youth vaping.

There is strong evidence that access to a variety of flavours is a key factor contributing to smokers making the switch to vaping and they are 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 that flavours are really important to adult users of the product, whether new users or those who are staying smoke-free with a very. She added that those who use vaping products report that it is the flavours that stop them from going back to cigarettes, which they found tasted terrible after a few weeks of vaping.

Evidence of that kind should, I believe, give us pause between we go hurtling into a ban in what some see as no more than a gimmick for trapping teenagers. Once again, a committee stage will allow us to dig deeper into these questions. This leads me to advertising. As noble Lords will now, tobacco advertising has been banned in this country for many years and although it is difficult to prove, there seems little doubt that the band 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's only natural to look closely at the idea of extending the advertising ban to vaping products. However, the difficulty with that idea once again is the risk of unintended consequences. I think there is a danger that part six of the bill, which would ban advertising on all vaping nicotine products in all scenarios, may turn out to work against very valid efforts of the NHS to encourage smokers to give up cigarettes.

It's quite telling that the government's own impact assessment on the bill admits that ban of 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 advertising of vaping products to children and indeed most of us, I'm sure, are deeply uncomfortable with the thought that there are vaping products on the market that have been designed specifically to appeal to young people.

This therefore is a situation that to my mind requires a new once 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 as to the products they purchase. I believe that there could and should be some role 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 a specialist vaping shops, in the same way that specialist tobacconists are exempted from the tobacco advertising bans.

We shall return to this issue in Committee. This is a further example of how certain aspects of this 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, expressly designed to bear down on the incidence of smoking, to unintentionally have the opposite effect. We must absolutely guard against that. Let me turn finally to the proposal set out in the bill to introduce a licensing regime for the sale of tobacco and nicotine products.

Whilst many have welcomed this as a practical method of dealing with enforcement, at the same time, a lot of column inches have been devoted to the practicability of an age verification scheme that is just about the need to distinguish a 17- year-old from an 18 year old, but which, as time passes, 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 don't propose to dwell on this issue now.

We can do so as necessary during later stages because there is a much more immediate problem to occupy us, which is that once again the licensing regime is to be established by regulations. This means we do not yet know the details, any details, of what the regime might look like or how it might be implemented. If you are a retailer, this really does matter. There is a certain amount of detail in schedule one, but the phrasing is rather vague. 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. They may enable the 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 don't know. The bill permits licensing authority to charge a fee for an application for a tobacco nicotine licence. How much might they charge? We don't know. What will be the upper limit that can be charged? Again, we don't know. Will retailers be allowed to apply for a tobacco lesson separately from a nicotine licence and an alcohol licence and be charged for all three? We don't know.

In their written evidence submission to the Public Bill Committee, the Association of Convenience Stores, said, I quote, if the licensing fees replicated the same rates as the alcohol licensing scheme, we estimate it would result in an additional cost of 11.4 an additional cost of £11.4 billion a year initial signup and 10.4 million for annual renewal fees for convenience retailers. These sums of money represent additional costs at a time when I think we would all recognise small retailers simply cannot afford them.

They went on to say the proposed new ID requirements are a major concern. We are already stretched thin trying to manage age verification currently with regulations. Adding another layer of complexity will simply make it harder for us to do our jobs and increase the likelihood of honest mistakes happening. These are real mistakes happening. These are real Retailers have. There that concerns are fed to us from the tobacco industry. There not concerns fed to us by the vaping industry.

They are related to Parliament by the very people that this bill will impact the most. In preparing for this bill, I re-read part of our proceedings on the tobacco advertising and promotion bill way back in 2001. I then said this. I ask the Minister to accept that there is no difference between us on the end that we have in view, which is 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 a duty
16:31
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to protect the health and well-being of everyone in our United Kingdom. However, we must never forget that However, we must never forget that it is possible for governments to it is possible for governments to champion those were the aims by imposing regulation that is disproportionate to the good they disproportionate to the good they will do. Or that inner desire to change the law for the better, we change the law for the better, we pay too little regard to the law of pay too little regard to the law of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to thank the noble Lady for sitting out this built so very clearly. Most of the provisions here were indeed introduced by Rishi Sunak, when Prime Minister. And in my view it is excellent that they are now being taken forward by the 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 reduce tobacco harms. And I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Earl Howe who has a long history, as a committed member of that group.

Though always aware of the variety of views, on his own benches. When I first came into this House macro in 2,000 and was health spokesperson and much later on, deputised for Earl Howe, in the coalition, there were a number of people who took the industry briefings. Sometimes unaware that these world war they were. Front groups, lobby groups, commercial groups, relate to me when this was not merited. Think-tanks, 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 a nanny state, anti-libertarian, about to destroy all sorts of institutions, proportionate, disproportionate and so on. Many later said that it actually felt wrong when they encountered smoking in public places in other countries. And so we move forward, step-by-step. Opponents of action dropped in number, almost to a single voice, though I think the opponents have grown in number now. The industry had of course, for so long denied that they knew what Professor Sir Richard Doll proved, through research of the cancer registries, smoking caused cancer.

That smoking killed. To me, the essential thing is to consider Children from developing an addiction that is likely to blight their lives and their health. As the noble Lady said, still births, cancer, heart disease, dementia. Passive smoking to causing significant harm. Most smokers wishing 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, then the industry frames, "It can't be taken away, as a freedom of choice.

" Many ingenious arguments are used to combat. I was a 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. But if in a few years at the age limit is that an ageing population were not passed that. My view is that we should focus on the main aim and seek ways to help deliver this.

And as we said the other day, by a former Conservative Minister, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Of course as there is pushback, there always is. And now I come to vaping. If the industry had simply provided vapes as a means to enable people to stop smoking, fine. But they did not. They made vapes attractive to young people, with flavours and bright colours. They 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. So we do have a difficult balance here, of allowing a vapes and a smoking cessation but doing our best to prevent the take-up of children. I welcome the government's proposals and the branding of vapes that might appeal to children should be banned. That free vapes should never be handed out to children. That vapes contents and flavours should be controlled and displays regulated.

We have to do our best to ensure that this bill is as watertight as possible, given the industry's inventiveness. And so I understand why the Government has sought flexibility, given the history of foot dragging, in every instance of tobacco control. I understand the frustration. I am glad that the Government wishes to extend smoke- free arrangements, in public places. Working across party we had secured the outside pubs and restaurants during the pandemic, that they should be smoke-free as they were inside.

But the industry was effective at pushing back on that, not through the Department of Health, through the local government department. I hope we can make further progress here. There is no doubt now 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support the second reading. I declare my interest as chair of
16:37
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK and therefore it Cancer Research UK and therefore it won't be surprised that I strongly support this bill. Fundamentally the support this bill. Fundamentally the bill has a structural problem. It killed 80,000 of its most loyal customers every year. Annually it has to restock to keep its coffers full. Those people who are now in their coffins. The point of this bill is fundamentally to do something about it and as of the nobility the Minister said, it was very gratifying to see wide support, across all parties, in the House of Commons and hopefully we will see that repeated here.

I suspect there will be some objections, during the course of the bill. Some are legitimate criticisms, but potentially some that there are a strange family resemblance to the arguments of the tobacco industry and its properties also at large. One of them is that this bill isn't actually needed, because smoking is on its way out anyway. I'm sure we can appreciate the irony, the argument that the very measures that they previously so vigorously opposed on the grounds that they would be ineffective are now so supremely effective that further regulation is not required.

As well as the irony, the facsimile is that 6 million people are still smoking. The rate of progress is nowhere near sufficient to get us to the last government, the current government's target, smoke-free by 2030. The poorest parts of the country, that is not going to be until 2015. Since the general election it is estimated that 100,000 new, young people, have taken up smoking. It is not true that further action is not needed. Nor is it true that we shouldn't take action, in the absence of, "A real-world evidence.

" Is a circular argument. You will get real-world evidence until you do it and you see the effects. The subtlety of this bill is that the annual rise, by one year, in the age of sales, will give us that evidence, as we see the successive, accumulative effect of these measures brought about. Another argument we have heard is why not extend just raise the age of legal sale to say 25? Well, if you just do the maths, for the next nine years, we are going to be on that journey anyway.

Between now and 2034, that will give us ample time to see whether the measures in this bill are working, as intended. Then there are the crocodile tears about this is going to be bad for the Treasury, because of all the tobacco duties that are forgone. Well, if that is your argument, then have the courage of your convictions and go in for government promoting smoking as a way of boosting the coffers of the Treasury. And of course in any event the wider egg economic arguments that have been mentioned.

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, we can actually see that the number of cigarettes has fallen by over 85%, since regulations of this nature, to climb down, we introduced a 25 years ago. The most recent data, from HMRC, you will see that the forgone duty, from black-market cigarettes, as a portion of theoretically available total has fallen from about 17% to 7% now.

The enforcement is a independent question from the question of regulation. We can do both. Finally we get to the, the vapes act. Here, as Earl Howe and the Minister has set out, there is a balance to be struck. It is absolutely correct that the consensus is that the moment that smokers are switching to vaping will reduce the threats to their health, but it is equally pseudoscientific consensus is 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 their respectability in this bill. As I respectability in this bill. As I , , next , next to , next to 1 , next to 1 of , next to 1 of these , next to 1 of these newsagents, , next to 1 of these newsagents, the Pokemon cards, with the cartoons. Here was the vaping, with a little cartoon character as well of a vampire, at kids eye height, being sold, right around this building. Or near to this building, not in this building.

Fundamentally, the idea that the industry has changed its response is untrue. There has been no conversion, it is the Damocles that is producing the change, this bill deserves our support.
16:42
Lord Bishop of Oxford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Bishops)
-
-
To it is a pleasure and I rise to support this important bill. And also to support the Bishop of London who sent apologies that she cannot be here today. I want to thank the Minister for her very clear introduction and other noble Lords, for their principled and nonpartisan support. This is an extremely important and effective public health measure and one that prioritises preventative health, at a time when demand is in acute services are so significant. Stark inequalities in health remain one of the most persistent and negative health outcomes, of modern times.

And smoking falls clearly along this line, of inequality. Action on smoking and health goes so far as to say smoking is the leading cause of say smoking is the leading cause of the gap in healthy life expectancy. The Government have already committed to being smoke-free, by 2030 and they are the most well of parts of the country being on track for that, cancer research report, as Lord Stevenson 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 Javid Kant, and Chris Whitty, to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. The tobacco industry continues to target the young and vulnerable and relies, as we have heard of 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 lost, in this exchange, every year. Though unintentional, the inhalation of second-hand smoke is also harmful.

The smokefree generation element of the bill that raises at the age of the sale by one year, every year, is controversial for some, because it is about choice. However it recognises that our choices are not made in a vacuum. But with consequences for others. We all submit to the law and exercise are limited rights, to 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 this task is on Integrated Care Boards. May I asked the Minister, therefore, what will be the impact of the announced 50% cuts, to operational costs, Leon stop smoking services and more widely on the reduction of health inequalities. In the midst of such pressure, on the health service and at such a time of transition for the NHS, change like this is required to reduce this enduring inequality, in health outcomes.

It also seems clear that the polluter pays a levy should be considered to support these and other stop smoking services. I'm glad to see the introduction of this bill and commend the Government and the previous government courageous the previous government courageous
16:46
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her very clear introduction to this bill. I also like to say thank you for the briefings we have been sent, particularly from ASH, as they have supported me on many occasions over the years. I have to admit to a certain dej vu. And did, my noble friend the Minister and others, including the noble Earl, may also be having feelings of dej vu because we start the first stage to allow our children and grandchildren to live in a tobacco and smoke free world.

I thought it might take longer to take to this point so I am delighted. And I also register the importance of taking powers to deal with vaping. I agree with many noble Lords that we need to recognise that nicotine is in the live poison and we don't know as much as we need to we don't know as much as we need to about vaping. I confess I was proud of the legislation in 2006 2007 when England went smoke-free.

I was the Health Minister when the Health Act 2009 and shops were prevented from displaying tobacco products from 2012. And 2015, small shops had to do likewise. I supported the noble Earl Howell as the new Health Minister and carrying through the necessary regulations. I've had a great privilege of working with many noble Lords across the house to deliver these crucial public health reforms and I'm 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.

The developed cross-party support which sees this historic legislation started life during the last government and signals to me is 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 can't. It takes an average of 30 attempts to stay smoke-free. Often, the choice to start is made at a young age and smokers I therefore locked in for a lifetime leading to early disability and death.

For many of us, this is not just a huge public health prevention initiative. It's also a rather personal matter as well. For me, my mother, Jean Thornton, spent the last 10 years or so of her life with COPD. It was only at the more serious states that she stopped smoking. All of her siblings ended their lives with smoking-related disease. That's right, it is a personal to me indeed. The smokefree generation is a long-term investment in the good health of our nation.

This government has an explicit aim at the heart of the health mission to have the gap in health expectancy between the richest and poorest. -- half the gap. According to government ring, this could present Rama prevent have a million cases of smoking-related illnesses by the end of the century. This is not only a public health victory but it 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 the other place did, to remove the rising age -- replace the static age.

We must resist this. By increasing the age every year, we prevent the tobacco industry from targeting the audiences and recruiting the next generation of smokers. I look forward to working across the house to make sure this bill gets onto the statute book.
16:51
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very glad to follow the Baroness Thornton and indeed to join in saying how important it is that this has been, that this is a further step in the process of strengthening our tobacco control regime and to do that on a cross- party basis, on which I agree with her. I think we should put this in the context of a range of measures over a substantial period of time. I know that I was part of the health team with my noble friend Earl Howell and Baroness Northover back in 2000 -- 2010 when the coalition government took measures to which Baroness Thornton just referred, and implemented those regulations.

We, of course, I think my noble friend Lord Howell was right in stressing the importance of understanding how such powers are to be used. And that will be something in the course of legislation that 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. But all the while, I hope, as my noble friend Al Howell is doing, were supporting the principles and trying to ensure that the principles are carried through with effective enforcement and a lack of unintended consequences.

-- Earl Howe well. What we did back then, having previously supported the ban in 2006 from the frontbench, but the Labour Party did a free vote on that measure, which helps to ensure that it was pursued without some of the complex exemptions which the government was considering. I think it led us to the conclusion that were some of his public health measures are concerned, as Horatio Nelson said, the boldest measures are the safest. And we were both at the time.

As the noble Lady Baroness Thornton said, that boldness was very rapidly proved successful. So I think we may once again be bold because what we set out to do after 2010 with the ban on vending machine sales, with the display ban, and indeed, I initiated the consultation indeed, I initiated the consultation on standardised packaging, and that was completed in 2015. All of this was very much focused upon trying to ensure that we did not have a constant recreation 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 an absolutely central part of this. And indeed, I think I can say happily, it's a less attractive habit of quoting myself -- oneself, but as Secretary of State, I did say " myself that my objective is to achieve smoke-free communities. Now, that is nearly 13 years ago. Over 13 years ago now. It was pretty controversial at the time. I think it is less controversial now. I think it is much more of a widely shared objective.

The question was always how to achieve it and I think I would reinforce the credit to Minister Rishi Sunak and the then Secretary of State, my good friend, and asking doctor can in his review in 2022 to propose that bold step of incremental rise in the age -- Dr Khan. I very much support that because it wasn't clear how we were going to achieve this thing and this now shows us the path to achieving it. So I do support the bill.

I do want to look at it constructively to ensure that it delivers, including such practical measures as ensuring that trading standards officers have the power is needed to secure compliance. Many noble Lords will talk about why we need to achieve this. I think, from my point of view, it's not just that so many smokers suffer so much from their addiction to cigarette smoking. It's that we look in society at how it contributes so dramatically to inequalities between parts of the country.

We have to reduce that. Just one point on vaping. I hope we will also look through vaping to take and evidence led approach to think about what the long-term consequences might be and give ourselves the powers to respond to that over time, rather than necessary to make it all the judgement that we need to make now. I hope we will look at how we can make the enforcement procedures there more effective as well. But with all of those thoughts yet to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come, I very much support the bill. I'm firmly in favour of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm firmly in favour of legislation which will reduce the harmful effects of smoking. Over 2000 people in Northern Ireland die 2000 people in Northern Ireland die every year from illnesses associated with smoking. 1000 die each year with smoking. 1000 die each year from lung cancer. This accounts of 20% -- this accounts for 23% of all 20% -- this accounts for 23% of all cancer figures. And eyesight -- I cite Northern Ireland as an example because we need legislation which will apply across all of kingdom.

I'm concerned it might 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 actually addressing the harm caused by smoking. The main
16:58
Lord Dodds of Duncairn Portrait Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
practical problem, as we know, is enforcement and the burden of enforcement and the burden of Retailers, particularly small shopkeepers. Many retailers, and we have listened to the evidence and have listened to the evidence and heard from the representation, work long hours of providing services to the communities. They are understaffed. Young people will have understaffed. Young people will have to differentiate between people in middle age. There is a real fear about the effects on security and safety and that it risks criminalising shopkeepers rather than those seeking to purchase tobacco illegally.

I'm sure that these issues can be addressed in Committee. As has been mentioned, the significant level of illicit trade in cigarettes and tobacco, particularly in Northern Ireland, because of the involvement of criminal gangs and paramilitaries on both sides. So I ask the Minister what assurances can the government give that it will continue to drive down the illegal trade in tobacco at the same time as this legislation? But, 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 day-to-day life. One specific provision which applies in Northern Ireland is the EU 's second tobacco product deliver -- tobacco product deliver -- directive. It sets out standards for tobacco products to be sold in the EU. It requires the should be free movement in the EU of tobacco products which satisfies its requirements.

Government has described this as a four nation bill. It appears to me and to many commentators that this bill is incompatible with the Tobacco Directive, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, since the bill purports to introduce 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. And said, it introduce legislation to raise the minimum age for sale of tobacco products to the age of 21.

Denmark also considered reducing the generational smoking ban in 2022 and its Health Minister announced that the tobacco directive prevented the So, unless there is a provision that excludes the application, then it may well be the case that the generation smoking ban, which we want to see applied across the United Kingdom, cannot apply in part of the United Kingdom. The government has stated, no doubt the Minister will say in response the day, the obligations, one obligation is the protocol of Windsor Framework.

But it is that very framework which requires 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. Takes That has been decided in court case after court case in Northern Ireland. Whether it be legacy matters, such as the Northern Ireland Troubles 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 they gave in the other place on this particular issue.

Again, the courts ruled otherwise, as we predicted they would. So, I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, in response to this debate, can clarify the matter and give a guarantee that the bill will apply across all parts of the United Kingdom, indicates that it is prepared, if necessary, to ensure a full nation UK wide approach to override the application of the tobacco directive. As an important practical measure that affects the health of everyone across the United Kingdom, not only constitutional applications, but very practical health implications

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as well. There are two bills we debated And And excessive And excessive intervention And excessive intervention by And excessive intervention by the And excessive intervention by the state and what I want to do is try and relate those concerns. Like others who have spoken, I was also health minister. Nearly 50 years ago. I recall a conversation I had in the context of the debate, around seatbelt of the consultants at St.

George's Hospital, which was 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 reeled into the operating theatre, there was a traffic accident at Hyde Park Corner, the driver not wearing a seatbelt, had life-threatening injuries, wheeled into St. George's, has the same rare blood type as a transplant patient, and so, that patients operation was postponed. And my Lords, that shows that in this interconnected world in which we live, a decision by one person to take personal risk actually has consequences for other people.

And I said to my friends that the Conservative party has actually a prior record in the history of public health. In 1973, the compulsory wearing of crash helmets was introduced by the Ted Heath government for 1983, in the Thatcher government, seatbelts were made compulsory for drivers. In 1991, they were made compulsory for passengers. As my noble friend, Lord Lansley, said, the coalition government took further steps. At 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. And the bill that we debate today, unlike other ones that I have referred to, 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. But my criticism of the bill is that it does not do enough to discourage existing smokers to stop or to discourage new smokers from 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 matter requires resources, currently in short supply. My Lords, when products cause harm, the polluter should pay. And again, that is a principle introduced by previous Conservative governments. The landfill levy was in 96, the soft drinks a levy in 2018. And after the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the building safety act, for the construction industry to pay for remediation of high-rise blocks.

My Lords, 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, they look at three options to raise funds to implement his recommendations. His preferred option was a polluter pays industry levy. A tobacco producer 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. My Lords, we debated exactly that Lords, we debated exactly that proposition on March 16, 2022. Responding to the amendment 158 to
17:07
17:08
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am delighted to offer my support for this bill, and to join every other speaker so far in this debate, and there have been nine before me, who have expressed their complete support for what the government is doing. And 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 the general election. But this is consistent with the all-party approach which many of us across the chamber work done from the early years of this century, to reduce the scourge of tobacco and nicotine addiction.

The most important of these, which has been referred 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 indeed the Victorian's 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 from starting to smoke. Those required cigarettes and other tobacco products to be sold in standardised packaging, and make it an offence to smoke in cars, where children under 18 are present. The health minister accepted the arguments in the amendments tabled in the committee was none other than the noble Earl, Lord Howell, and I congratulate him on his speech today.

And 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 manifestoes, it is one that enjoys strong public support as well, with over two thirds of adults backing the proposal. And history tells us that tobacco control measures grow in popularity over time, particularly also once they are enacted. We were told that implementation was impossible. Yet, when no 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 small businesses would suffer. But research by independent agencies consistently shows the small retailers adapt well. Experience a few problems. And then support new regulations. Many of them are parents as well, they want to protect their children and communities. We were told this is an infringement on freedom. 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 also gives powers to strengthening existing smoke-free laws by extending restrictions to certain outdoor public places. This is the sensible step. But I am disappointed that the government has ruled out further protections and hospitality settings in England. Where workers remain exposed. Restrictions which were supported in a vote in this House in the last Parliament, but which was not carried through in legislation. And why is it that those working in pubs, bars, and cafe's, less pubs, bars, and cafe's, less entitled to a smoke-free environment for others.

There is one loophole this bill is particularly well placed to close, and that is the exemption for the 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 abuse. Venues including luxury hotels, host lounges that serve food, drink and allow full cigarsmoking indoors, that is far outside the spirit of the law. We wouldn't tolerate this and other workplaces and we shouldn't hear. Every worker has the right to a healthy environment.

The licensing powers and the bill will help us understand how many of these establishments exist. But I urge the government not to delay in dealing with it. But 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, which I have been a long- standing member, as are a number of other members of this House, published a roadmap to a smoke-free country last month. It sets out what is needed, to make smoking obsolete, within 20 years.

That strategy will also 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, has just said in his speech. And they continue, the manufacturers who continue to profit from a product of skills between half and two thirds of his users. -- Its users. This bill can help ensure future generations grow free from the harms of tobacco, ensuring not just a milestone but a steppingstone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a smoke-free future. My Lords, like everyone who has spoken so far in this debate, I give
17:14
Lord Jopling Portrait Lord Jopling (Conservative)
-
-
spoken so far in this debate, I give my general support to the bill. Indeed, I and prepared to support almost anything that reduces the curse of smoking. I do have a similar thought to the one that my noble friend, Lord Howell, spoke about in his opening speech. Particularly when the previous government made similar proposals, as to how it would work out in practice. Because I think attempts to impose an age limit on the right to require tobacco and smoking products is one thing, when the second team euros can but -- When at the 17-year-olds can but the 16- year-olds cannot, that could be looked at and treated as irrevocable, in years to come, when you are talking about 56 who can, and 55-year-olds who cannot.

But, my and 55-year-olds who cannot. But, my lords, I do find it difficult, I always have, when 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 that they will die of long cancer that is of course totally contrary to the wicked campaign by the tobacco companies over so many years. The evidence to me seems quite overwhelming, and indeed, the evidence 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, prohibited, and steps to educate, prohibited, and Perhaps he might like to give example of my own experience -- I might like to. At the and of my first year at the University of Newcastle in 1950, I became seriously ill and I spent many weeks in hospital, at the end of the academic year. And I was about to be discharged when the professor of thoracic medicine came to me and said he thought I was going to be all right, and he asked whether I smoked.

And I said, yes I did. He asked me how many, and I said, too many. He told me he thought it was a serious mistake. And that I should stop smoking. When I said I was OK to continue smoking, he said, one of my students has just written a thesis, this is a 1950, has just written a thesis when he claims to have found a connection between smoking and lung cancer. And he said, I very briefly skimmed over the thesis, but it seems to me to be very compelling.

He then went on to say to me, you have completed the first year of a science degree. You will understand most of the thesis. But I'm going to let you see it. The following day, this thesis, by Doctor Strang who became a very distinguished surgeon in the Lasix distinguished surgeon in the Lasix . It arrived on my bed. I read it and I was horrified to read this new and in those days almost unheard of connection showing the insanity of connection showing the insanity of smoking.

Connecting, as he did, with the general publicity, until five years later practically nothing was publicly said until the mid-'50s about this. And Milos, -- my Lords, 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, 94 years, and the hope of many more to come. If I had not taken the decision that day, I am sure I would not have been here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today to contribute to this debate. My Lords, I support this bill and I'm delighted that Lord Wrottesley I'm delighted that Lord Wrottesley is still alive to speak so eloquently on the topic of eloquently on the topic of prevention. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for noble friend the Minister for navigating us so clearly through a path to prevention. This bill prevents an intergenerational approach to prevention which is a approach to prevention which is a real step change towards smoking cessation in the future.

It's also been fascinating to listen to those veterans amongst you, as I'm a relative newcomer to the House, under this topic, who have lived this campaign for so many years, and have personal experience, I pay tribute to Baroness, my noble friend Thornton, and Baroness Northover, and many have been in the seeds of policy-making before. I also commend the arguments about it, and trying 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 and it's important to call time on that legacy effects of harm from tobacco and reinforce its regulatory rigour. As a young nurse, I witnessed first hand the consequences of smoking for patients in the vascular ward where I worked as a staff nurse.

I will spare you the gory details but having your legs amputated was no disincentive for patients giving up smoking. And reflecting its deadly holdover human behaviour. That was in 1970s. When there were few, if any, smoking cessation programs in place, and the prevailing wisdom was that smoking could calm nerves and
17:22
Baroness Rafferty Portrait Baroness Rafferty (Labour)
-
-
relieve stress, until evidence suggests that the relationship suggests 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, anxiety and stress, improved moved anxiety and stress, improved moved and quality-of-life compared with continuing to smoke. A more recent MythBusters in many psychiatric hospitals concerns increased hospitals concerns increased violence resulting from smoking cessation as one of the factors preventing the introduction of smoke-free policies.

Research led by Kings College London revealed almost 40% drop in physical assaults, both between patients and towards staff, following the introduction of a comprehensive smoke-free policy of a large health trust. Such interventions need to be multipronged and aligned with nice guidelines -- NICE guidelines. Smoke-free policies have included staff training and engagement alongside tobacco dependence treatment, including offering nicotine replacement therapy within 30 minutes of arrival and award and permitting the use of e-cigarettes. Now, we have reached an important inflection point in taking action to extend smoke-free spaces and.

Population health. Evidence suggests that smoking cessation needs support and encounters within healthcare settings provide the perfect opportunity to do so. That support includes funding. And our manifested commitment to ensure all hospitals integrate opt out smoking cessation interventions into routine care means supporting smokers must be a priority in the government shift from sickness to prevention. Nurses and midwives represent the largest healthcare workforce and have historically been at the forefront of delivering smoking cessation programs. Exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy, as we have heard, is the single biggest modifiable risk factor for poor birth outcomes, including stillbirth, miscarriage, preterm birth, low birthweight, heart defects and sudden infant death.

It is therefore ratifying to hear our Chief Nursing Officer, Duncan Burton, advocating that nurses and midwives get behind the new bill. School of Public Health nurses have also spoken out about children struggling at school, seeing vaping not only as cool as a coping mechanism often in response as unmet mental health needs. Again, we need to support regulatory measures with wraparound mental health service vision. The Royal College of Midwives has been strongly advocating for smoke-free pregnancy pathways and while many nurses and midwives are already leading this work, we need to ensure that new nurses have the competencies to deliver tobacco...

This bill is an important public and population health intervention with the capacity to reduce health inequalities. And as Earl Howe mentioned earlier, we need to use Elton's mantra and be bold, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commend this bill to your Lordship's House. Is a pleasure to follow the noble
17:25
Lord Vaizey of Didcot Portrait Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and to hear her expertise on this bill. I am a smoker, at on this bill. I am a smoker, at least I think I'm a smoker. I certainly smoked in the room, a mother smoked when she was pregnant with me. I smoked as a teenager, I smoked through my 20s, and my 30s, and my 40s, and like every smoker, i.e. End to give up. I went cold Turkiye, I went to getting patches, vaped, I tried everything -- I yearned to give up.

Five or six years ago I switched to heated tobacco and it works for me. I'm told by Philip Morris and make the product that I smoke that I'm not a smoker. Because I'm not ingesting tobacco smoke. And in fact I've taken such a great interest in this issue that I visited Morris in Sweetland to visit their labs and meet the people doing the research on heated tobacco, it's declared my register of interest. So I'm a user of the product. But the question I ask myself and I asked all noble Lords is an my smoker? Because it's made me think about the purpose of the bill -- am I a smoker.

It's an important question for me as a layman as it were to ask the experts what it is we are trying to ban. Everyone agrees that we should in a perfect world ban cigarette. Cigarettes are a vector for nicotine. But the are extraordinarily destructive act as will know. Burning tobacco is a very convenient way to get nicotine and a convenient way to kill yourself eventually. Nobody disputes that at all. But are we, I asked the Minister, and asked noble Lords, are we trying to ban cigarettes? Are we trying to ban smoking? What do we mean by smoking? Are we trying to ban all tobacco? Are we trying to ban nicotine? Because these are important questions because there is an argument that says, people should be able to access nicotine if it can be accessed in a safe way.

But maybe someone will tell me no. That's absolute rubbish. Nicotine is very dangerous and we should do everything we can to eradicate nicotine. Maybe you should be allowed to access nicotine via tobacco. Provided it can be accessed in a safe way. Maybe the experts will tell me no, that cannot be done. I fully accept that measures that appeared unpopular at the time have had a huge impact, and a good impact, on smoking. I remember I have a fond memory of voting against the Labour government's in 2006 when they were tightening up the legislation on banning outside smoking and the only reason the memory is so fun is that as I would through the elevate, John Reid, cabinet minister, walked past me and said, thank you for voting for the Labour manifesto.

Because that was the original proposals in the Labour manifesto, they 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 errorprone, in the tube, and so on and so forth. I fully support that. I have to ask the question, Sweden describes itself as smoke-free. 5.4% of the population smoke cigarettes, the lowest in Europe. But 22%, and granted the Swedish can be odd, uses a thing called...

Basically tobacco you put in your mouth. Snuff. Sweden has the lowest road of cancer in Europe but I don't know whether they have the highest road of mouth cancer. I would love to know that. Is Sweden a success story, from the perspective of this bill, or does it remain a complete basketcase and disaster? And I fully accept, I went to Philip Morris to find out more about this product and I met the people who are working on it. They included a former academic molecular budgets, a public health neuroscientist who has worked in public health for 25 years, a physio just who has spent his entire work fighting addictions and coming up with drugs to come back things like opioid addiction -- a physiologist.

The controversial thing I want to say is a lot of the tone of the debate -- looks back at the sins of big tobacco and doesn't perhaps acknowledge that big tobacco has perhaps itself moved forward in terms of what it talks about with heated tobacco. So that is the question I asked the House as we debate the second reading. What are we trying to get would have? Cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine, or Cigarettes, tobacco, nicotine, or
17:30
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin Portrait Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this second reading debate. I thought I would start by sharing we are pretty clear what we are doing today, this is a forward- looking bill, it is about creating opportunities for the future, to have the next generations coming through free from the dreadful impacts of tobacco on their lives. I feel this bill is about reducing the harms associated with tobacco and taking a broader view about that. So, you know, I can understand why a trip to William Morris, is it? Would actually...

Philip. Would prompt these questions. And what they are trying to do. I think this is a forward-looking bill that is focused and it is proportionate. And actually, I think it is very well- balanced. I wanted to just talk about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, did just now, very movingly actually, the impact that smoking has had on my family. And I don't 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 onto the free school meals list, queueing up with all those, in the way we used to in the past, in the special school milk you. And both my parents went on -- School milk you can add both my parents went on to die of smoking-related cancer. So it has been a terrible blight on my family, and on many thousands of families in this country.

So, I am hugely in favour of this bill and I have enjoyed listening to colleagues from all sides of the House, looking back at how the journey we have been on to get here, the different debate we had in 2006, whether it was looking at advertising and so on. We have come such a long way, and it has been in the face of enormous opposition, just to add my anecdote to the journey, when I first came into this House and thousand and four, smoking cigars and pipes in the guestroom was considered to be absolutely acceptable.

And 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 o'clock, you really couldn't go in there, without a gas mask. So, we have seen such an enormous amount of progress in tackling the plight of tobacco. People think that tobacco just affects the lungs, but I served for a few decades as the Chief Executive of a breast cancer charity 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, and Cancer research UK are now saying that it causes a roundabout 2,200 breast cancers a year, and 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 my Lords, the biggest step forward we can take to prevent cancers would be to reduce cancers caused by smoking. Now, we know that vaping, as we have heard, provides a really important assistance to those that wants to quit smoking. And absolutely, it's right that the bill takes that into account. And we know that a lot of the marketing and so on, as Lord Stevens so clearly demonstrated, is targeted at demonstrated, is targeted at children.

I want to close by saying those aspects of the bill I fully support. I would like to really congratulate the government on taking seriously the terrible issues taking seriously the terrible issues around single user vapes. Only two weeks ago, I was a children's playground looking after a great- nephew, and he said to me, dear know what? You can find a box, red box, that can make smoke come out of your mouth, sweet smoke and it is really great. He is six.

And he found a single user vapes in the bushes in the park and had a go on it. Now, we do not want to see that as the Norman -- As the norm in our society going forward. This is the kind of future we want to see from young future we want to see from young people, supported wholeheartedly.
17:35
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady for the wonderful work she spent as the wonderful work she spent as the Of the breast cancer campaign, for her wise words in the chamber of the Parliament today. My concern with this bill is 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 spoken, generally support the thrust of this bill, and as we know, the last Conservative government introduced a similar bill with these generational restrictions and many people think it is possibly unenforceable.

A new government has also reintroduced it with the generational powers which, again, maybe possibly unenforceable. My main concern about the bill are the unacceptable parts with the excessive amounts of parliamentary scrutiny being taken away and given to ministers, and others, in the delegated power. As has been said by others, the last bill in 33 delegated was, this will have 66. OK, some are repeats of the same powers, duplicated over Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Nevertheless, the extent of the delegated is a slap in the face for the report on the delegated for the report on the delegated reform committee, the report of them are Chrissie denied the need for balancing power in the parliament and executive, which was praised by the current government.

In a report, we warned about the four major abuses we see in legislation. But this bill has every scene we warned against. It has 17 Henry VIII powers, enabling ministers to change acts of parliament, avoiding proper parliamentary scrutiny. It has skeleton clauses, so that ministers can create offences on a range of topics, and setting a maximum penalty. That is not good enough, my Lords. Any and all criminal offences should be set out in detail in primary legislation. It has a delegation of powers.

It is bad enough ministers are being given excessive delegated, but some clauses permit sub- delegation of these powers to other organisations. Section or clause 104 simply says regulations under this part may confer discussions, there is identical wording in section 10 of schedule one, a local authority given carte blanche to invent their own licensing conditions when -- Without Parliament have a look at one word of them. My Lords, Lisa statutory incidents, there is a slim chance Parliament can debate them, but not when the power to make these laws delegated to some other body.

As the delegated committee also slammed the increasing trend for disguising legislation. That is where the Minister issues guidance, which everyone must have regard to. That is a way to get around making a statutory instant, -- Instrument, which may get around some parliamentary scrutiny. Technically, my Lords, illegally, the words " Must have regard to" Is not compulsory, I can only be disregarded if the target organisation or person can ship exceptionally good reasons not to follow it. That is a heavy burden, heavy privilege to cross, and of course, all government legislation as guidance issued, give the impression they must be followed on pain of death, and we have that here also in schedule one.

We have heard from every noble Lord today there is a justifiable case to improve, to add more restrictions, to the sale of tobacco and vapes. And if that is the case, then the myriad of offences in this bill should be set out in detail and not hidden, let us justify what the government is doing in the face of legislation. I leave it with a noble Lords to point out the difficulties of enforcement of the age and generations restrictions. And of course, not least, the thousands of extra that may be required, the possibility of retailers checking ages of people between the 30s, 40s and 50s.

I would say, two weeks ago, I was in the little Waitrose, Victoria Street, the lady in front of me. Not the tale, because they wanted to check her age for a bottle of champagne she was buying. She said, I am in my 40s! We need to check your age, said the assistant. The rather elegant lady in her 40s have some other choice language given to the Waitrose staff that wanted to check the age of a lady was obviously older than 21, and that is just in a Waitrose.

Professional Waitrose. I shutter -- I shudder to think what will happen in a small retailers around the country. By legitimate countries, say in Romania, and intended for the market and other Eastern European markets, where there may be no duty or taxes, then they are brought here illegally, that is massive, my Lords, and this bill will add to it. In 2023, one in four cigarettes consumed was listed, there is 6.7 billion cigarettes, costing HMRC £3 billion per annum. Every single expert and everyone in the tobacco companies says this bill will further boast the dodgy market.

My concerns about the potential loss of revenue to HMRC, but a 25% of cigarettes are being able to be sourced illegally in pubs around the country. So, my Lords, in conclusion, I would say we have a bill with excessive powers with a large part possibly unenforceable, which will other government money, and find ways for young people to get cigarettes in any case. I support the bill, but I hope we will explore these issues in committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords(Applause)To start by saying how delighted I would be to be asked by age in Waitrose, it
17:41
Baroness Mattinson Portrait Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
-
-
be asked by age in Waitrose, it hasn't happened for a very long time. I would like to start by going pretty much everyone else who spoken by joining my noble friend, the minister in this bill, which I support absolutely wholeheartedly. I want to raise two points, one is very specific, and the other is 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 absolutely no ideas of what the consequences might be long-term, and they might be very grave.

Banning ads, shifting sales, are all really essential steps forward, but to absolutely deal with the issue, we need to really understand the motivation that is driving those children to start vaping. We know very well why they continue, once they have started, it is incredibly addictive. But we don't know what start in the first place, I have got a hunch, I have just the same as Baroness Rafferty's hunch, it is the same as Baroness Northover's, and based on my own experience as a teenage smoker, I think they probably do it because, like me, at that age, they think it is cool.

And like me, they will spend the rest of their lives regretting that decision. But hunch isn't enough. We need detailed research that gives real insight into why children start vaping. And very well targeted campaign to D cool, if that is what it takes, vaping in the places those children will see, social media, TikTok, and so on. It is to be a campaign developed by people who really understand that motivation in the first place, and only that can truly first place, and only that can truly counter this growing habit and the terrible, terrible consequences of that.

My second point is more general. But I think it's also quite important. Because, I am a newcomer here, but it seems to me this bill is really quite a rare beast. It has cross-party support, pretty much. And despite the public's occasional scepticism, it has strong and absolutely unequivocal support from the public. Against the backdrop of failing trust in government, this represents a rare opportunity to show government intervention can actually do, what it can really achieve, in terms of outcomes, whether not that ending illness and suffering, whether it is cutting waiting lists, with water saving lives are lots of people have spoken movingly about that today, and I would urge my noble friend, the minister, to ensure the impact of these measures is really carefully monitored, so that there is a positive story to tell and that story, when it's ready to be told, is told very loudly and clearly as I know it can be.

And I look forward to supporting this bill as it goes forward. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have been involved in the tobacco industry, ever since 1963, when I joined a major
17:45
17:45
17:45
Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Conservative)
-
-
Also in this place. One of the biggest problems I think is the differential between the price of a packet of cigarettes, the ordinary consumer, at the price of cigarettes on the black market. Roughly on the black market. Roughly speaking, £17 for the tobacconist or speaking, £17 for the tobacconist or wherever. £3.50 illegally. And the quantum that amounts to, is a market quantum that amounts to, is a market of £6 billion and that is a frightening figure, except the Majesty's government has said they're going to provide in a 10 million to try and put some control, but that is very small against a rampant way in which a legal tobaccos and cigarettes is happening.

And the government have got a report from the Home Office, the ones that the National business crime Centre commission. When it says quite clearly, the UK has one of the highest tobacco tax regimes in the world, yes, 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 tobacco products is set to grow I guess we all use e.g. Ends, or tobacconists, those people are suffering and the extent to which the crime and the way they are being beaten up or enforced to make payments, is growing, exponentially.

And that is really worrying. We have to recognise that. Then there's the case history of Australia. We, I think, know as politicians, we should look at cases, and any, I'm sure the Minister knows that the written evidence that was given by the Australians, to the other place, in the committee stage there. They make it quite clear, the Australians, that the way it's been implemented there, not very far different to what we are proposing at the moment, has been a disaster.

We should at least look at that and weigh it up. And for me, I think it's a very strong case history to look at. Lord Dobbs is not in his place but for me, someone who was PPS in Northern Ireland, short while ago, the bill as it is now is totally incompatible with the Windsor Framework rule and TPD two. I don't see how my government is going to get round that because Northern Ireland is going to want to, do exactly what southern island will do and Southern Ireland is going to age 21 for their control.

Somebody has mentioned Sweden. That's a nice piece of case history in terms of education of young people and again we could look at that and learn something. The whole success of Sweden as far as I can see, and I have looked at carefully, rested on the fact of how they really got hold of young people, so they could understand the risks they were running. And that is now as it has already been said the biggest success in Europe.

For me, I don't think a generational bill is necessary. I'm quite sure there has to be control. I think the generational dimension makes it all needlessly complicated, quite frankly. For me, I think we look at the experience of other people and take the decision, 21 is alcohol, cigarettes should be 21, and all tobacco as well, and then we know where we are. Then we can really make sure that our young people do make sure that our young people do not take up tobacco etc.
17:49
Lord Scriven Portrait Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Naseby. He talks about his long history in the industry since 19 63. I was born three years after Lord Naseby started, probably nine months in my mother's womb as a smoker because she was a smoker. And the bill before us today is driven by a noble intentions. It seeks to protect rightly future generations from the serious harm to smoking and the trend in vaping in young people. These are very good public health objectives.

And once I support seeing both my parents lives cut short due to smoking related diseases. I support many provisions within this bill but I do have serious reservations about the centrepiece, the so-called smokefree generation. This mechanism raises profound practical, legal and philosophical problems for myself. But we start with the principle underpinning my objections which is about individual beauty which I consider to be the foundation of a free society. In the UK the age of legal adulthood is 18 and at 18, citizens can make any bad choices that carry risks with them.

These include drinking, alcohol, gambling and yes 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 plays no part for those adults. Consider if you will two young adults, perhaps twins, one minute apart, one just before the on 31 December, 2008, the other just after, on 1 January, 2009. At 18, when they become 18 under this bill, one will be able legally to buy tobacco for the rest of their lives and the other may never do so.

This 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, the date of the birth. Government does have an interest in protecting public health. But that interest must always be balanced against personal liberty and equity before the law. This bill does not do that. It creates an unjustifiable inequity in the law. Even if one were to decide the philosophical concerns I have, there is a more immediate issue we must grapple with, and that is enforcement.

My Lords, laws that cannot be enforced are worse than being ineffective, they breed contempt by the very institutions that create them and this law. Early into that category. Retailers should be expected to verify not just that a consumer is over 18, but that will continue for years to come. Imagine the confusion at the tills, the inevitable mistakes, disputes, frustrations. In time, a 35-year-old legally permitted to buy tobacco, while 34-year-old will not be an will be checking their ID? And how will they make sure that distinction is absolutely clear? But also as not forget the social dynamics, siblings, friends, parents, still legally allowed to purchase tobacco will inevitably be asked to and even pressured into buying tobacco for adults who cannot.

Can you imagine a smoking wife able to purchase tobacco, refusing to supply her younger husband who cannot buy it? Enforcement agencies already under immense pressure. We truly expecting a persistent monitor our beer gardens, in search of cigarette sharing between consenting adults? Such a law invites ridicule because it is unenforceable. And history gives a clear warning that any form of prohibition really eliminates demand. Instead it often pushes it underground, when criminals and networks thrive. We sued 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, especially in communities where there are fewer people retailers. Convenience store
17:55
Lord Brady of Altrincham Portrait Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
I I welcome I welcome the I welcome the tone I welcome the tone of I welcome the tone of the I welcome the tone of the opening I welcome the tone of the opening speeches and it reflects the fact there is a broad support for the aims of this legislation. And those aims principally being to protect children from being drawn into the dangers of vaping, we would all want to see that tackled.

And the support and assistance for smoking cessation, encouraging people, helping people to give up smoking, and I certainly share those goals. To strongly endorse the initial comments made by my noble friend Al Howell, in talking about the danger of unintended. The possibility that by regulating some things in certain ways, you might drive more people to the legal market. The possibility that by regulating the current products available in certain ways might Ashley make it less likely people who are currently smokers would use certain types of -- PEEPS -- certain types of FATE.

I would be shocked to liver at was going to make two points that nobody has made but Lord Scriven has spelt that. The first point I was going to make which I have never heard anybody raise, and I would really like to hear something from the Minister later on in this regard, is that as we all congratulate ourselves on the great success of smoking cessation and the number of people who have given up smoking and how the number of young people smoking has fallen, I think we all know that from our own experience, anywhere you go in London or anywhere you walk in the country, that there has been a massive increase in smoking of cannabis.

An illegal low-speed -- class B drug which is often smoked with tobacco and the evidence suggests is going to cause more damage in mental and physical health than smoking tobacco would. But nobody ever talks about the percentages of young people who are now smoking illegal cannabis. And the harms that might arise from that. I would really like to hear the government fourth assessment on that and it would be again deeply unfortunate I think if measures being taken now to regulate smoking cigarettes, smoking is my noble friend raises, about the heated tobacco products, might Ashley drive people to someone's products instead.

The other point I wanted to raise, and this is where Lord Scriven raised some of the concerns as well, this is the reason why I voted against this bill in its earlier iteration when I was a member of the House of Commons is that I think this sets a very, very dangerous and worrying precedent. Because generational ban, and I'm not talking about smoking, I'm talking about the principle which the ban assaults. The principal of adult citizenship. An idea which we have accepted, and worked upon, the premise in this country that when you are achieving, attaining and age majority, you will be in an equal position to other citizens to exercise the choices as to whether you use certain legal products or not, the choices you make in life and it seems, I can't think of another example where legislation is so blatantly seeking to discriminate against different adults according to the exact date of birth.

And that, I find, deeply worrying. I think it's wrong in principle and I think it's something we really need to think about far more. I find it slightly remarkable, at least until we got to the 18th speaker in this debate, nobody had even raised the concern about that.
17:59
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
Is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I don't propose to make any attempt at analysis of this bill of 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 anchor and congratulate her and I agree that in particular the noble Lord Earl Howe's commentary speech, I think covered the other issues I may have tried to get involved with.

But nothing like the experience is in this House in this journey, of trying 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 only to focus on a couple of very specific The first of them is this philosophical divide between those who support the bill and also feel it represents an unacceptable curtailing of individual liberty, and I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Scriven's parliamentary colleagues to deal with his speech rather than get involved in that.

This bill obviously is 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, have made clear, it tallies the mainstream of their position. Affecting the form, gradually, protects young people from an addictive drug, suppose the NHS can and will save taxpayers and society an enormous cost of money and more importantly lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I think is persuaded your logic better than I could, and maybe military and greenness against this bill, there are truth -- There are a few truly conservative ones.

Giving this bill a second reading in the other place, we know it will progress, what is important for arguments as well as votes, the genesis of this bill took place under the last Conservative administration and in that context, I trust the viewpoint of those who are friends, even if critical friends, of this bill, on the other side of your Lordships house will be given in due weight. My other point, my Lords, is a very specific one, relating to the devolved administrations, which is an complement already by the...

Sorry, at this point, my Lords, has been dealt with partly already, by a contribution from Northern Ireland. But in this context, it's worth saying that the implementation of the provisions of this bill will proportionately affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, slightly more than England, given the instance of smoking in these parts of the UK. My Lords, I have met wholly unrepentant smokers in my life, I have met countless more that say they wish they never started, but I have never ever met any non- smoker who ruefully confessed that they wish 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 my Lords that fewer than 1% of smokers start after the age of 26, 75% have their first cigarettes before they are even legally allowed so to do. What follows, 2000 adult smokers in Scotland, which they had never taken up the habit in the first place. What does that suggest? It suggests this habit take holds at an in -- At an age when impulses are at their most, and the demerits of smoking are pleasantly clear, smokers then become unpleasantly clear, smokers are men in the group of important addiction.

-- Are then It is worth mentioning the increase of e-cigarette use among 16-24- year-olds in Scotland, with 22% using e-cigarettes in 2023, this has not been met with correspondingly larger drop-off in smoking rates in larger drop-off in smoking rates in that age group, over that period, almost all of part two of this bill requires a legislative consent motion. Happily, there is already one, launched with the Scottish parliament, and if this bill was put through relatively untroubled, I would hope 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.
18:04
Lord Howard of Rising Portrait Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, nobody can fault the good intentions of this bill. Which are to be applauded. But it does have the potential to profoundly impact personal choice and responsibility in our society. While I acknowledge that pressing health concerns surrounding smoking, I stand before you to placate -- 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 that 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 vapes and products. Ostensibly, in the name of health, but with significant implications for personal freedom, reckoning 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, retailers and family run enterprises, who 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 this bill. Second, 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 and violate nations.

In a time of constrained public finances, we must ask is this the best use of taxpayers money? Because these resources not more effectively be deployed toward improving our schools, strengthening palliative care or tackling crime. Third, there are the unintended consequences. Restrictions on advertising and sponsorship may hinder the ability of companies to provide essential information about safe alternatives to smoking. Many adults are already making the transition to vaping and tobacco products. That when properly regulated may pose fewer health risks than combustible cigarettes.

But 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 is 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 in a net demand. As a number -- Does not eliminate demand. As many of your Lordships have pointed out this afternoon, it merely drives it underground.

Excessive restrictions on tobacco and vapes and products will pave the way for a mass of unregulated black-market, where safety and quality are sacrificed. This is not me. -- This is not mere speculation, it is a lesson that is 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 relation 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, to trust its citizens to act responsibly. In conclusion, while the intentions behind this bill are to be applauded iota house to to be applauded iota house to reconsider our approach. -- I urge the House. Instead, reiterating our commitment to personal freedoms, informed choice, and responsible government.

Let us be a government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of facilitators, not enforcers. While I well understand the well-meaning intentions of this well-meaning intentions of this bill, the government wants to be seen to be doing something about public health, rather than just talk, and of course, the last
18:10
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
talk, and of course, the last government introduced a bill very similar to this but I am afraid this bill has gone just so much further that it makes it a very Draconian bill. And it gives the secondary -- Secretary of State huge power to change things as they feel in the future, using delegated legislation, I think that is something your Lordships will want to examine. Of course, we all want fewer people to become addicted to smoking. I have never smoked, I had well-intentioned parents, I think, that taught me early on smoking would not be good for my health, and actually most of all hated the smell on my clothes, someone else has mentioned, after you had been in the company of a smoker.

But my Lords, no matter how good the intentions are of this bill, there are consequences which do need addressing, and I hope they will be addressed in committee for had a meeting, as others did, with the Federation of Independent retailers, and I was generally shocked to hear just how difficult their job is already in stopping those under the age of 18 buying tobacco. They have a genuine concern about the difficulties they will face trying to assess the age of older people.

There has been an increase in tax in workers in small shops more recently and they face regular abuse and physical threat, and ID checks already cause a lot of verbal abuse. The idea that our shopworkers will bear the brunt of this new legislation seems very unfair. And of course, that is not even counting the extra costs with the proposed new licensing arrangements that without a doubt will threaten the viability of some of our local family run shops. Despite what the noble Lord Stevens of Birmingham said, I have yet to see any evidence that this bill will not simply because a growth in illicit trade.

As 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 under ground places. And if this bill goes through an amended, it will be the organised crime gangs and no doubt already are gearing up to benefit. They certainly couldn't care less about the age of anyone buying from them, and I wonder, has the government put any thought through any strategy to deal with this? What I want to turn to part three of the bill, closed 68-67, dealing with the changes to applying the bill in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already spoken on this issue, and it has been mentioned by Lord Naseby as well for staff the fact the European Union tobacco directive does apply to Northern Ireland, and under section 7A of the 2018 act and the directive forbids the type of proposition in this bill.

And I, and many others, include many learned To see how the bill can apply in Northern Ireland while the tobacco directive applies. In other places, the Minister sought to dismiss this, but the government dismissed similar points on the legacy bill, only to have the Northern Ireland High Court ruling against and now we are awaiting a hearing in the Supreme Court, and the very welcome recent Supreme Court ruling last week on sex and gender has also raised concerns about whether that judgement can apply to Northern Ireland as we are under Europe law.

Some other 200 other EU laws, under section 78 of the act, applying superior to this law, and the UK law in Northern Ireland. And that we here in the UK Parliament cannot this apply. As has been mentioned, both Denmark and the Republic of Ireland attempted to put through similar generational smoking bans, they could not. There is no doubt that if this bill goes through, the tobacco industry will review whether it can apply to Northern Ireland and will end up in the Supreme Court.

I will be interested if the Minister's response to see if this 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 removed. And I'm very pleased the noble Lord raises something I hope wanted the race for top can I ask the Minister by the government seems to be turning a blind eye to those police forces who are going soft on cannabis use, both in public and in private. Cannabis is an illegal drug and the stronger versions of it, according to research from the Institute of psychiatry, King's College, like Scott, are known to increase the risk of psychosis by increase the risk of psychosis by three times, compared to non-use.

There is an increased burden on our mental health services and I see this is just as important a risk to health as tobacco. Does the Minister agree with me? And what has intention has the government to deal with this? And finally, I am just concerned about the whole generational risk, the way it has been put by other noble Lords about differentiating in age, in adults. And one of our fundamental principles of a free society must be personal and family responsibility. The more the government bans, the more the government regulates, the less families and people feel they have to make their own decisions, the state getting involved too much the state getting involved too much causes, I believe, for the influence of families and individuals possibility to be taken away.

So, I possibility to be taken away. So, I hope this bill, when going through the committee, we can deal with a number of these issues and get a better bill at the end, because we better bill at the end, because we all agree with the actual aim. all agree with the actual aim.
18:16
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
I support this bill and I will start by saying how much I strongly start by saying how much I strongly My father smoked just because people did. But they both stopped later in life as the detriment to health was more widely realised. I'm delighted my noble friend Lord Stevens raised cancer research because 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 it is OK and not as harmful as making. The UK vaping industry Association brief stated Bates continue to drive smoking to historic Lausanne and they said that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking. And the NHS but health guidelines affirms that while vaping is not as big a risk it is substantially less harmful than smoking. It might be better, slightly, but it's hardly good for you, as early smoking ads would suggest. As an athlete, I never directly smoked, I spent most of my time avoiding anywhere that anybody smoked.

But one of the reasons that I really dislike vaping is that I don't seem to be able to walk around anywhere without being faked on or over. Because vaping allows for nicotine to be more prevalent in the air, allowing for inhalation for third parties. And I can trend be as healthy as I possibly can, I can eat well, exercise, but ultimately, I'm inhaling FATE smoke. I'm pleased that a couple of noble peers have raised the issue of cannabis because I seem to spend a lot of my life swerving along the street as well, trying to avoid that.

I'm no longer an athlete. It's on the ban list for athletes and the fact it is so available around I think is something that should be cause for concern. I also realise I'm getting to sound really old and grumpy. There is nothing... While there are lots of things that irritate me but one of the things is people who pretend they are not vaping when they are. People vape in places where they would never normally smoke. On buses. I'm certain I have smelt vape smoke in this very building, being British all I do is tap loudly.

-- Tut. I'm worried smoking is seen as an alternative to smoking. -- Vaping. I accept it was supposed to provide a healthy alternative but it has led to the gradual increase of vaping amongst miners and children. 72% of 11 to 17-year-olds say there are exposed to some kind of vaping promotion. In March April 20 through the proportion of children experimenting with vaping has grown 50% year-on- year, from 113 to 19. Young people used an e-cigarette before seven times more likely to become a smoker one year later.

And the reasons young people give our anxiety, stress, depression. Nicotine addiction just links these symptoms, and we end up being in a Catch-22 situation. Beyond my personal dislike, I think we also have to look at environment issues around smoking and vaping. Cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, synthetic plastic. We ban straws, e-cigarette but contains two stores of plastic. 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year globally with 4.5 trillion butts being filtered. Even in the UK around 3.9 cigarette butts are littered.

The Wildlife and Countryside Link reported over a million disposable vapes going into landfill every week. When I go to sporting events, I see disposable vapes and litter everywhere I go. The only thing that horrifies me more is the number of Nitrous oxide cultures icy. I am supportive of this bill. Committee stage can be very interesting. I know we will get onto some contentious issues around smoking, around hospitals, I would donate from all entrances but then I realise that's possibly not possible.

I wonder, the noble Lady Baroness Thornton talked about the impact on families. It has problem impact on families. It has problem impacted everything a person in this building. I support any bill that building. I support any bill that supports smoke and vape free future. supports smoke and vape free future.
18:21
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Is always a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness Lady Grey- Thompson. I perhaps liberals will not be surprised to hear, don't entirely welcome this bill for a number of reasons. The first is, it has been described as bold, on the basis of the advice given by the later Viscount Nelson. But there is a fine line, even he would have acknowledged between being bold and being reckless and I regardless as a reckless bill as it invites us to set out on a wholly untested course of a generational ban.

With all the difficulties of enforcement. When the government to's own impact assessment or its modelling shows that a very similar effect on the trajectory to a smoke-free future would be achieved by praising the age of which cigarettes can be sailed, tobacco can be sold, from 18 to 21. That would be an incremental approach and one that would be much more easily understood by the public and much more easily enforceable by shopkeepers, but know, we choose the reckless course because there is something exciting and brilliant and brand-new about it but we don't ask whether it's going to work.

Given the large expertise in local government in your Lordship's House, I'm surprised that I'm the first speaker who is saying that I have actually had experience of political responsibility for trading standards in local authority. I know how very difficult it is to manage test purchases, especially with younger people. It need to be protected, briefed and cancelled. Before they are put in situations which could turn violent. That is one of the reasons there are so few enforcement activities, according to the Explanatory Notes, there were in 23/24 trading standards conducted over 650 tobacco test purchases in England and Wales.

650 in England and Wales, that is approximately one or one and a bit part local authority. In an entire year. Now, anyone who thinks that there is going to be effective enforcement of a generational smoking ban is 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 going to be effective. Now, part of the explanation for that low number is that it is clear that trading standards have switched their focus standards have switched their focus to vaping, and I will come to that in a moment because there were 3,400 test purchases of vapes, but even that number is a very small number indeed.

There is also the effect on crime. I was really struck by the wonderfully optimistic figures quoted by the noble Lord Lord Stevens of Birmingham on the basis of Treasury figures. What world does the Treasury live in about the fact that smuggled cigarettes were falling. They properly if asked would say the amount of marijuana thing smoked on the streets is falling because they haven't properly measured it. But only two weeks ago the BBC News was filled with some very interesting reporting which was 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.

So who cannot imagine that this is going to expand? I want to come also to vapes. There is clearly in the government a state of confusion about vapes. On the one hand vaping is a core part of the government and the National Health Service's smoking cessation approach. On the other hand it's obvious the government doesn't really approve of it and isn't terribly favour of it. What we can all agree on is that vapes should not sold to or marketed to children and one of the best ways of doing that would be to stop large number of illicit vapes imported into this country which are deliberately designed to be marketed to children.

I suspect the one waived around by the noble Lord Lord Stevens from his description of it, rather naughtily waived around early in the day, in that category. But I will say finally that 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.

It isn't flavours the government should be aiming at but descriptors and I think that is something which will see an amendment on at the Court of committee.
18:26
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the library, to ash, Professor Teresa Marceau of Cambridge University and the allergy research foundation for whom I'm an above the deck. It's been a privilege to listen to noble Lords reflections across the House, those who have helped the country, steer the country along over recent years on this important legislative journey to help save lives and improve the nations health and I would like to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for taking up the batten, or the cudgels, which everything.

My professional interest in helping people smoke stop smoking gun over 20 years ago when I became chair of lamprey chair trust across the river. Sweden was the main cause of federal ill-health and health and federal ill-health and health and qualities, resulting in the poor quality-of-life and premature mortality -- smoking. Then Labour government requires local primary health services to provide support and advice to smokers wanting to quit. As well as prevention activities to stop youngsters from taking up smoking, to tackle underage and counterfeit sales and to promote smoke-free environments, to minimise the effects of second- hand smoke, as so eloquently described by the noble Lady a few minutes ago.

Over three years smoking in Lambeth fell from 35% to 28%, with over 9,000 smokers quitting and a decline in cancer and secretary disease. But my personal interest in stopping smoking, like many others in the chamber, dates much longer ago than that. As I sat as a child 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 cigarette and sometimes pipesmoking.

I loathed it. As did my younger sister. Neither of us have ever smoked and we longed for our father to give up. He tried and tried, and 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 started smoking when he was 12, picking up the ends of his older brothers 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 the result of both personal and professional experience, I cheer every development which prevents or reduces people's use of tobacco and dependence on tobacco. This bill provides the opportunity for a huge step forward, a big next step, seeking to prevent today's children from ever becoming smokers by making it illegal to sell tobacco for the whole of their lives. Tobacco manufacturers and their supporters argue that this is a matter of Civil Liberties, why shouldn't today's children be free to choose to smoke when they turn 18, they ask.

To which the plain answer is, that smoking is an addiction, the only free choices that first cigarette, as I myself at first hand. Two out of three people who try one cigarette become daily smokers, on average it takes 30 attempts to quit. Which is why implement in this bill has the potential to prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of serious illness and tens of thousands of premature deaths. Even this isn't enough for the tobacco lobby who likes to claim the tax take from smoking is greater than the cost to the NHS.

But they conveniently ignore the huge cost of time off work which far exceeds the income generated. Moving to vaping, I'm delighted to see the provisions for this bill to put the necessary relations in place. Because while they may be helpful smokers wanting to quit, they are harmful to non- smokers, and physically to children, introducing them to world of nicotine and addiction. Some studies suggest 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 the chance on children's health? As well as the well-established concerned about vaping there is a risk that some can pose for people's allergies.

Many people aren't even aware vapes can cause allergic reaction but in 2019 a 16-year-old boy from Nottingham suffered potentially life- threatening lung failure after a The case which doctors say highlights the dangers of young people using e-cigarettes. The evidence is still emerging but we do know that 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 people have a clear understanding of the risks, and that law keeps up when highlighting allergens, and I would be grateful if the Minister could meet with me and the allergen research foundation in the future, to discuss these concerns in greater depth.

So for all of these reasons, and delighted to be supporting the passage of today's bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness
18:32
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Curran -- Baroness Ramsay, but I have some problems with this bill, particularly between individual and state, I believe the individual should make choices for themselves, that of course includes bad choices, nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of those to assure that individuals around with as much information as possible to encourage them to make good choices, so I accept this bill has its heart good aims and intentions which I broadly support. You can realistically argue against losing homes for young people and there is no argument that -- Some vaping products target young people, which in itself is immoral, but while acknowledging this, like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I don't believe that writing a law when those born at 11:59 on December 31, 2008 have more freedoms than those born two years later makes any sense at all.

She will be far better to introduce a much higher age limit before individuals can make that choice, while increasing education and incentives to help them make a good choice and I do accept that would negatively impact a small group of people who are currently smoking legally. I also acknowledge the apparent illogicality of making this argument, is of course the government intends to legislate to allow someone born on 1 January, 2009, devoting the public elections, if they can make that informed decision and maybe for the sake of consistency, we should argue for lower legal age limits across the board.

I also have some practical concerns as to how this bill will be enforced, as 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 declined to provide age verification to the only staff member working. If the shopkeeper has over the tobacco, they will come out on offence, if they do not, what might they face? Perhaps, rather more than my noble friend's language. The Labour Party has a proud position of standing against harassment and violence against They would like it to be an aggregated offence.

So, it doesn't make sense to create conditions which seem highly likely to increase precisely that behaviour. I thought was described very elegantly by my noble friend, Lord Moylan. Some will argue that this will encourage smaller shops to cease selling tobacco and vapes products, and that is obviously a good thing but history and current events teaches is what happens when there is an absence of a product for which there is considerable demand. Or when that product comes prohibitively expensive, and what happens is of course organised crime spots and opportunity.

Prohibition is the most obvious example of the format, and that didn't work. Although, it did help the Mafia establish solid routes in the United States. The more common example is provided by the enormous wealth of the drug cartels. On the subject of the course, we need only to look at Australia, already mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Naseby, where a packet of cigarettes costs more than $50. I wear a vicious gang war has broken out to control what is described as a moving black market.

This is not, to use the noble words of Lord Stevens of Birmingham's argument, a zombie argument. It is actually a factual one. One in five cigarettes sold in Australia is provided by a criminal syndicate. This gang war is so vicious it has led to a spate of fire bombings at small shops, in excess of. As others have pointed out, my noble friend has pointed out, Lord Lancaster, Baroness Hoey, criminal activity is a problem here, I look at it from the problem -- From the bottom up.

BBC News indicates that for example Trading Standards and police raids on only 50 stores in Devon and Cornwall yielded £806,000 worth of illegal product in March. In Northamptonshire, 30 shops in the north of the county yielded £394,000 worth. And in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, 90,000 cigarettes, 20 kg of rolling tobacco, and 4,800 I commend the agencies for their efforts, but that is sure to be the tape of only a much, much larger iceberg. Because again, this only 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 factors demand will always be satisfied. So, surely it is much more effectively tackle demand side of the equation. By that, we should educate, incentivise and encourage. Don't place unnecessary burdens on small businesses and a particular small shopkeepers who are having a hard time of it at the moment for all sorts of other reasons. Do 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.

My Lords, smoke-free future 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 unfree future. These are noble aspirations, but in actuality, they are going to happen, and I believe this bill will cause more problems than it solves. So, my Lords, as this is St. George's day, we should channel the spirit, and slay the right dragon, which in this case is demand.
18:37
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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. And he became as aware of the huge dangers of smoking as Lord Jopling data roughly at the same time, in the late 1950s, and early 1960s. And the terrible effects smoking can have on individual health and communities and families. And I followed that very much and I have always supported absolutely the legislation so far on restricting the consumption on tobacco, and I feel one of the very positive things about this bill is that we should bring the vaping legislation pretty well up to where tobacco legislation is now.

But I do have severe concerns that this part of the bill a beginning, which is around the rolling age band, -- Rolling age band, is not going to work. It is not just not going to work, it is a problem that could have certain other ills more broadly on society as well. Unintended consequences. And I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, mentioned cannabis. Because when it comes to Lord Stevens evidence, and absolutely on evidence, I think we should look at the cannabis market, because the one difference this bill makes is that it proposes effectively that tobacco, for the first time, becomes an illegal substance.

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? Well, we have heard some of that, but let's go through the statistics, they are difficult, because it is a dark market obviously. But it is thought that the annual turnover for illegal cannabis, excluding medical cannabis obviously, is about £3 billion per annum. 2.5-three. There are some 3 million users regularly of this particular drug.

And that 3 billion is of a proportion of 10 billion illicit drugs market in this country. Very substantial. The issue about tobacco and this particular piece of legislation is, as other memos have said, cannabis legislation is hardly enforced at all. And where it is, it is very patchy. I believe, almost quite rightly because where I live down in the West Country, rural crime is an issue, cannabis is not a social problem, but it is something used.

I think many of us would prefer the police spend their time more on those other issues that they do want some of the drug side. The forces that have made that decision, and different forces make different decisions, throughout the country. It varies greatly. But we all know that cannabis is hugely and easily available. It just is. But when it comes to tobacco, we are in a position where that will be even easier for the newly banned generations actually to obtain it because they can just take it from their family or those people who were born before 2009.

So, what we have a problem where in society, we encourage people to break the law regularly, and I seriously believe that is an ill that is a difficult one, and that we should not encourage. It is easy to circumvent, certainly, enforcement is incredibly difficult because of that transfer between friends, families, communities. When part of it is not illegal. And also, the whole area of age identity, I find very difficult in terms of how that will be solved practically.

In terms of cost of society, and I believe that broad area of people breaking the law and not feeling it is a problem, because that's what they do, is really something that eats away at respect for the law, a and a legislation. I strongly believe as a legislator and here in the European Parliament, that we should legislate unless we are able to enforce, otherwise it makes a mockery of us, the law, the rule of law, an important part of our democracy.

But I also absolutely agree that this will be a market opportunity for the organised crime. It's just obvious what happens. And we know that in this industry, in we know that in this industry, in the past, we have heard examples here already of illegal or under the counter sales. There is a whole history of the tobacco industry exporting cigarettes to Third World countries, but they come back into the country here. Those channels already exist, they will continue to exist.

And I think the other area, a problem of drugs that are prohibited, I am not saying they should be prohibitive, with one of the issues we have seen in cannabis again, is quality control. And what we really risk when we ban tobacco to certain sectors of society totally is that that quality control and administration of those substances disappears completely, that is a risk to individuals, societies and those communities as well. So, I fully back bringing vaping legislation back up to where tobacco is at the moment but am highly sceptical that you can actually make a rolling age band actually make a rolling age band work in this country, given the resources we have, given the history we have, given the evidence we have.
18:44
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, many thanks to the noble Lord, sorry, I cannot say your name. Lord Tennyson. For such an interesting speech. And actually, it has been quite refreshing today to hear the members of the Liberal Democrats talking about liberalism, something of a shock to the system. But I'm delighted. It is also a bit dispiriting today that a government that promised change keeps introducing cut and paste bills from the previous Tory administration, only worse. The ministerial power grab in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill really does mean that democratic accountability could be going up in smoke.

Both parties have boasted that this law, which bans all future generations from purchasing tobacco, is world leading. But what if the world hasn't gone that way for good reasons. There are certainly no evidence this is a workable policy. The bill's own impact assessment admits there is no international case studies to follow, this is all a gamble based on academic Have the written document from Wales, challenge the efficacy of such a, what I say " Aggressive prohibitionist approach" Noting the New Zealand government abandoned its version as unenforceable.

Meanwhile, in Malaysia, the Attorney-General rejected a similar ban is unconstitutional on the grounds that denied citizens equal treatment under the law. How is it different in the UK, for future 40-year-old will be legally able to buy cigarettes but is -- His 39-year-old -- Is this an annual system will be a criminal if she buys the same. So we have to be honest about how liberal this legislation is and I am delighted the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, reminded us of why that matters.

We really should drop the F word a lot more in this chamber, even if he defends some conduct to note, querying the states play rising adult freedom, that F word, to buy legal, yes legal, product is not some sort of dangerous magic libertarian ideologues. Or because we are in hock to big tobacco, as has been suggested by some, and 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's take the bill's motives at face value, to stop people smoking for their health. Luckily, some innovative genius invented vapes with the number gives evidence they actually work and have enabled millions to quit. Even the NHS better health webpage includes the message you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use of nicotine vapes compared with other Instead of celebrating the success, this bill irrationally treats it as a threat. I know the government said the bill is targeting youth vaping but hugely disappointed that regulations such as the proposal to make it illegal to publish any marketing materials or vapes or negative in products and only create an information void and ensure 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 than smoking. Similarly why why is the government so fixated on demonising flavoured vapes? Does the Minister really believe only children like sweet things? Has she not noticed the X-Men shall rise in the flavoured gene market for adults? Research shows 65% of adult smokers four and food and sweet liquids preferable. Often because of perceived difference to the tobacco they are quitting.

Let me tell you a story. I was the proud winner of smoker of the year award, quit smoking 18 months ago after 40 years of chain-smoking. It. For but advised by no less than two doctors, I tried disposable vapes. Banana and strawberry work to treat and now I'm smoke-free, but rather than patting me on the back, along comes DEFRA, who with scant regard for public health have prioritised the environment. I'm now in dread of during the first and I'm stocking up.

Now we have this bill's counter-productive attack on flavours, despite the evidence that four in 10 smokers maxi that if there are no flavoured vapes they will return to smoking. In America, in several localities that adopted restriction on flavours, the results were increased sales in cigarettes. On the theme of counter-productive outcomes the government issued a she filled adverts over Easter promising a new law against assaulting shopworkers. I'm not sure that law is necessary, it is illegal to attack retail staff now, but did the government consider that this bill is guaranteed to make matters worse? The latest Riches retail Consortium crimes, 130,000 instances of shopworkers being verbally and physically assaulted every day in 2024, 340% increase of 2020, and a significant number of these attacks follow requests for age verification.

So there is unanimous agreement amongst retailers that a law which will force staff and convenience stores are part of our local communities to increase, proof of a Jodie checks on tobacco buyers, of any age, will trigger huge escalation of violence and abuse. The cost benefit analysis of this bill means there are massive, massive costs for many, many people, and just saying, we want to stamp out smoking, is not good enough and so committee should ensure we follow and track those costs and not allow unaccountability to happen at least before gets passed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I should declare two somewhat different interests. One is president of the chartered training president of the chartered training standards Institute, and I welcome additional £10 million for enforcement at the Minister enforcement at the Minister
18:51
Earl of Lindsay Portrait The Earl of Lindsay (Conservative)
-
-
enforcement at the Minister mentioned. I am disappointed about the inclusion in this bill of cigars and pipe tobacco, which the government itself does not consider to be a significant public-health concern. These products differ markedly from cigarettes and tobacco in the consumer base, the usage patterns, and their risk profiles. Representing less than 2% of UK tobacco market, the consumption of handmade cigars is statistically insignificant, leading to the onus to cease to take action in 2016 and to cease to take action in 2016 and the -- for it to be ignored.

More personally cigar usage is not prevalent amongst the 18 to 24 age group. Primarily due to its higher cost. The evidence indicates that cigars and tobacco are predominately used by an older demographic with 70% of sirdar smokers being 35 or older and the average age of sirdar smokers being 52. -- Cigarsmoking. Cigar consumption is occasional, driven by appreciation rather than nicotine addiction, and limited by price and availability. But the most compelling fact is that there is no evidence suggesting cigars act as a gateway product to cigarette smoking.

The lack of data linking is aghast at youth uptake of tobacco, addiction or significant public- health harms experienced by 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 therefore is at odds with the principles of evidence- based proportionate regulations. This was expressed by Lord Dalhousie about mortality and the balance between personal freedom and health gain. The regulatory policy committee amongst others raised concerns about the impact assessment which relies almost entirely on cigarette -related studies with cigars hardly mentioned and their distinctly different consumer profiles and levels of risk ignored.

The IA also fails to adequately assess the bills impact on businesses specialising in cigars and pipe tobacco was to 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 specialists, and with handmade cigars constituting up to 70% of the turnover, these businesses will be facing closure if their primary refugee from cigars begins to dry up.

A considerable urgency for them with this bill however is the power that is proposed to extend standardised packaging to handmade cigars. Handmade cigars and their packaging are artisan products, produced by small manufacturer's, mostly in developing countries, with low-volume runs of diverse product lines which are packaged manually. Unlike the highly automated cigarette industry, the high-volume production of limited product variations, handmade cigar sector has over 2,000 distinct products, with unique packaging for each one. This makes it impossible for, for one small pocket such as UK.

Extending standardised packaging to handmade cigars would require importers to develop packaging in the UK and repack each cigar manually. This is financially unviable. Under disproportionate requirement compared to other mass produced tobacco. As importers will not be able to meet package requirements choice as applied 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 2 to 3 years.

This sounds alarmist, but it is based on evidence, in Republic of Ireland, similar measures in 2017 resulted in specialist seeing their sales of boxes of handmade cigars dropped from around 70% to 0. This is this one-size-fits-all approach is at odds with the government's own rhetoric and principles when it comes to cigars and pipe tobacco. There is no clear evidence that they contribute to use a great uptake or to public health issues. It will endanger jobs and businesses without achieving corresponding health benefits.

The 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. And other options that could be considered alongside the exemptions could be raising the minimum purchase age of cigars and pipe tobacco 25 or introducing a five year post and mentation review to assess the consequences of such exemptions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill is a massively significant public-health significant public-health intervention that will save. I have heard the arguments this afternoon
18:57
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
heard the arguments this afternoon about personal freedoms. And I would say this. Anyone in my age group grew up in a cloud of toxic second- hand smoke. In our homes, on public transport, in our workplaces. And many of us saw our parents dying prematurely from smoking related diseases. Later generations have been spared these harms by regulation and strong public-health messaging. This 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 noble Lord Lord Jopling that 11.9% of adults in the UK still smoke today, and it's worth repeating that that is too many and we know that most of them want to stop. They are risking their health, they risk and timely death. Noble Lord Lord Stevens earlier 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 second, every seven minutes.

This bill's phased in smoking ban is of 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 18's for 10 years. But a survey from action on smoking and health last year showed that 18% of 11 to 17-year-olds have tried vaping, that is nearly a million children, and most children who vape use nicotine vapes, so the harm is obvious.

Yet as many others have said this afternoon, 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, and that's why the powers in this 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, and I think that this bill does strike the right balance.

These restrictions on vapes should protect young people while not preventing adults who want to use vapes, whether or not they use them as a way of helping them to smoke, to smoke smoking cigarettes -- to stop smoking cigarettes. Several speakers in the debate this afternoon have expressed concern that the bill contains many new and amended dedicated powers. I accept the government fourth argument that this is necessary to enable flexibility and future adjustments as new evidence, products and as new evidence, products and On all of the detailed, the new amended delegated powers means there is space for further consultation in licensing and registration schemes.

It has been suggested in this debate that this bill will encourage a Black Market. There is no evidence that shows us that previous restrictions on tobacco have increased the Black Market in tobacco products as a 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 these products. Who knows what is in them? They are a health hazard.

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 continued existing levels of resourcing for enforcement bodies. I would end with invitation to the Minister in her response to pick up the points others have made about the consequences for retail workers already in the frontline of enforcing age restricted sales and I welcome assurances that the protection from retail workers in the current Crime and Policing Bill will be robust and flexible enough to deal with the additional pressures shopworkers could face when the provisions of this very important and welcome Bill come into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

force. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to take part in second reading on the Tobacco and Vapes reading on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. This is required to reduce the increasing risk of youth vaping and increasing risk of youth vaping and target the illicit market which we are all aware has a future are all aware has a future consequences for very young users and continues to have implications and continues to have implications on school premises up and down the country when no area seems immune.

It is the UK's most successful smoking cessation tool and I emphasise that it does not go far enough to protect under 18's. Whatever restrictions placed on packaging and advertising will not prevent underage access to
19:04
Baroness Redfern Portrait Baroness Redfern (Conservative)
-
-
disposable vapes. We know when they disposable vapes. We know when they leave the shop or any occasion they can be passed to children and it is can be passed to children and it is the areas of children I am particularly concerned with. I look forward to the bill being brought forward to the bill being brought forward. In tackling underage vaping involves age verification at point of use, not only practical but supported by the majority of age groups.

Banning disposable vapes and restricting them and the bright colourful packaging is not -- a novelty factor and they are clearly aimed at children. All that said, it is set against the many backdrops who have no idea about chemical composition. The possible future of health implications are there. Teachers believe there is a growing problem on school grounds causing issues with safety, behaviour, and in instances of school property damage. I would like to see schools engage with the third-party sectors and looking at the impact of vaping and future tobacco smoking running in parallel with health advertising.

There is a need for additional funding for enforcement with a licensing scheme and the need to address it in shops as they display the variety of flavoured vapes. It is an area for distributors and importers which need to be revisited. We must not lose sight restoring vaping as it's in original intention which is less harmful to the other alternatives transferring from tobacco smoking. It is a way to stop smoking, but the elephant in the room is young people using it when they never smoked before.

I have mentioned smoking and second- hand smoke causing thousands to be diagnosed with cancer, ill-health and as a huge cost to society and individuals must not be forgotten. It is still the leading cause of premature death. Finally, I do welcome the creation of the first three smoke-free generation. three smoke-free generation.
19:07
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I am looking at the number of speakers demonstrating strength of feeling about the issue and mostly looking to do more to take on big tobacco from all sides of the House and I will try not to repeat what has been said other than the issues that I picked up in Committee, but I would like to answer Lord Vaizey of Didcot not currently in his place about what this bill is for. Or rather, what the Green Party things it should be for.

This bill should be aiming to sound the deathknell of big tobacco, the merchants of Geoff who have preyed on vulnerable people, particularly children who are hooked for life if shortened by their products life as Lord Stevens of Birmingham pointed out. At great financial and personal cost to those individuals and spectacular profits to those companies. Regulation has looked at restricting the indefensible trade, but they have lobbied wrestled and dodged and shape shifted into new and harmful forms. One is nicotine pouches as Earl Howe highlighted.

It was brought home to me on ninth September 2024 which I documented on social media at Manchester Piccadilly station, a giant yellow boob blocking the entrance surrounded by a smiling group of young people welcoming them seeking to hand out these pouches to random passers-by. The company name was Velo and it showed to be owned by British American Tobacco. Shame on you British American Tobacco for peddling at random to young people a dangerous and addictive poison.

You are just merging the good name of our country by your actions. Of course, those actions are around the world. Our focus today has been on the UK but I want to ask the Minister and I understand if she will write to me later the steps the government is taking to stop reduce based companies continuing their immoral peddling around the world. The UK was known in the opium Wars as a narco state and we surely do not want to be one today.

I will look to see if it is possible to redress at Committee. The context for those figures comes from the WHO which estimates 1.25 billion adult tobacco users around the world. It is an improvement. One in five users compared to one in three into thousand, but not on track for the global goal of a 30% reduction from the 2010 baseline. Why is it not on track? Let's take a clue from the delegation of no Tobacco Day, 31st of May, the slogan for the day is protecting children from tobacco industry interference.

My final point picks up an issue raised by Baroness Northover about the deceitful behaviour of the industry, regularly indulging in health washing, green washing, Astroturf in, all techniques of well funded dodgy public relations, and on the subject I'm about to raise, they took a shot at me. The email came from comet@parliamentnews.co.uk and it came through Parliament. This was from Marianna and it asked me to back an amendment to ring a ban on plastic filters on cigarettes.

I am drawing my reference to this from Action on Smoking and Health and they have done great work in this area to highlight that cigarette filters offer no health benefit. They were introduced by the tobacco industry not to protect health, but create the illusion of a safer cigarette. They have been called the deadliest fraud in human history. They are made from single-use plastics and are an environmental disaster. They account for two thirds of all letter items and cost £40 million a year to clean up.

Biodegradable filters are still toxic, still only breakdown under certain specific conditions and provide a full sense of eco- responsibility so you don't have to worry about the problem. They give tobacco companies the chance to continue green washing and health washing. The real solution is simple to ban all cigarette filters. I hope the government considers bringing in such a ban. such a ban.
19:12
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Portrait Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)
-
-
I still remember well the berating I got from my local pub landlords the Sunday after I voted to ban smoking in public places in 2006. It was going to be the end. 20 years on, whilst no longer with us, the Swan in Buckinghamshire continues to thrive. I support the bill as a progressive step in moving forward in reducing smoking in the United Kingdom, but the bill is far from perfect. On the face of it, smoking and specifically smoking tobacco has done untold damage.

The help of the general public suffered as a result. The well documented effect of regular smoking, a driver of social and economic inequality. Smokers earn 7% less than non- smokers. It should not surprise noble Lords. If you take more time off work for the ill-health effects with more disposable income on tobacco if you develop a dependency on a drug like nicotine that will impact over time. The problem is that across a range of metrics, there was a higher prevalence of smoking among the less well off.

I can see why they have connected with the previous government ambition to phase out smoking. If there was no adverse reaction, the average smoker keeping the average amount on tobacco and the millions claimed from smoking-related productivity loss as well as from the cost of care from those who contracted smoking-related illnesses. Not everything is black-and-white as the government suggests and this is not a silver bullet. There is a thriving black market for tobacco in the UK and prohibition will only increase the problem.

Perhaps the Minister can explain what the government would do across the bill to prevent the explosion of a black market. As is well-documented, smoking rates are falling across the UK with policy intervention, education, smoking support, awareness campaigns on tobacco alternatives interventions prove successful. As the Minister weighed up there merits of the bill, today I want to flag up three areas I believe the strength of the bill could make a significant difference with appropriate amendment. I personally would like to see the banning of single use vapes.

Ahead of the bill, Geoffrey released new guidance on what can be considered in a reusable product, but the attempt does not want to appear to be on a statutory footing and is going to be an effective application. It could be bent and superficial recharging and refilling. While some batteries may be recharged through a USB port, they still use mesh chords like traditional vapes and once the cord is burned-out, the device must be disposed of in the same manner as a single use babe.

It ensures the single use vapes are not in practice easy to circumvent. Interestingly of all the people that follow, I follow Baroness Bennett where we agree in principle but not in conclusion. The banning of the use of plastic filters in cigarettes. banning plastic filters will do nothing, but it does make a difference in the environment. Whilst our figures might differ slightly, it is estimated 27 billion cigarette butts are dropped across the country throughout the year and creates 120 tons of cigarette waste discarded on With many of them being flush into our waterways, our rivers and our seas.

Cigarette butts account for 66% of all litter items in the UK. One cigarette but left to soak for 96 hours will release and of toxins to poison water fish. They have been found to be either toxic or very toxic to marine life and take up to 12 years to decay. There is even a chance that the slow aggregation 's contribution to microplastics found in the human body. They have demonstrated it's easy to make the switch to paper. That would be required to accommodate this change in the law.

It has been six years since McDonald's made the change to paper straws. Biodegradable filters will make no difference to the user experience. It is supported by 86% of UK adults. It really is to me a no-brainer, with masses support, proposed by the other place, someone proposed by the other place, someone 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 and I hope the Government will reflect on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this early decision and support the move. I would like to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. Good the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. Good to hear that, was at this one and only, is still thriving, despite the only, is still thriving, despite the tobacco ban. It is a very good to
19:18
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
tobacco ban. It is a very good to see this bill and see it is supported, so strongly in the Commons, by all sides. This debate strikes me, how public opinion has changed. An example that the noble Lord just gave is a very good example of that. Some of that change has happened in response to some of the actions, so for example we have seen a change coming from the banning of cigarette and smoking in public places. But it seems to have been continuing since.

I think we have had a number of strong indications from the Baroness about how public opinion will support radical action, much more radical action than perhaps we would expect. With this in mind, I want to just mention two areas in which I would be particularly interested in seeing are taken forward. The first one is the levy that the polluter pays levy that was first mentioned in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham and later by a Lord Maude, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and others as well.

I think this is a really important way of making some progress here. It is worth remembering the tobacco companies make their profits at the expense of others. Duty raises about £7 billion, a year, on UK sales. But the costs of the public sector are estimated, for dealing with the consequences of that are estimated to be about 16.5 billion a year. And in addition to that, lots of loss of productivity adding a further 20 billion or so. Those figures are suspiciously around, but nevertheless I think they do show that the balance is that actually, even more than the tax that comes in there is a very large cost to clearing up the mess left behind by tobacco.

The total trail, if you like, of pain and misery that is caused by the tobacco industry. It is an expensive habit for society, as well as an expensive habit for individuals. So I would certainly want to see that in them and being moved in that area and would wish to support. It is very important that those of us in favour do not dismiss the very practical arguments that have been made from peers of a number of different areas of this House.

There are some real practical solutions here that need to be dealt with, whether it is about the age, how you check age and so on, or about the black market. We have got committee time when we can actually debate those. I do hope that we will also debate other options, including actually what would happen, by 2040, which I think is the WHO date for the prohibition of tobacco products. And we should be looking at the consequences, the implications of that as well.

The second area I just want to raise is about the whole issue around vaping. It does seem to me that while we can see that to some extent the management of smoking tobacco is being controlled, moving forward. The whole area of vaping seems to be out of control. Not just vaping adding nicotine to sweets and other ways of attracting children. Those things are just too far out of control. I'm not sure that the bill goes far enough and finesse how that needs to be handled.

I would like that to come back and am interested in discussing. I do recognise the point that has been made from the noble Minister and others that vapes can help get people to give up smoking. Most public health specialists set them as significantly safer than smoking. However has the Chief Medical Officer has said, that is a very low bar. That they are safer than smoking. His advice, which I think one has to follow, in the words of the CMO, if you smoke, well then do swap to vaping, but if you do not smoke, do not vape.

It is unacceptable to market vape to children. If I finish on a slightly lighter note, it is interesting in this debate as well to hear how cunning that tobacco companies. They have shown themselves to be extremely agile, a better word, getting around provisions to get customers of all ages addicted. What would it be like this are great wealth of enterprise and determination were put to the development of something that enhanced, rather than damage society. Such a waste of all of that talent and energy, using it to damage people's lives.
19:23
Earl of Leicester Portrait The Earl of Leicester (Conservative)
-
-
I am a non-smoker, I'm also not a supporter of this bill. I tried supporter of this bill. I tried unsuccessfully to stop my children taking the habit up, though I am pleased to report to Baroness pleased to report to Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, my three eldest children, aged 20, 26 and 24 and 21 have all given up this year. And were therefore not hooked for And were therefore not hooked for life. This bill has profound life. This bill has profound repercussions that will be felt by retailers and law enforcement across the UK.

It will, I'm afraid, not wholly contribute to the improved health outcomes in a majority of noble Lords x8 and expect. It will not stop smokers from smoking. It will reduce the number but not the levels expected. The government is committed it should focus on stronger enforcement action against those criminals are trading in a legal tobacco. As well as clamping down on rogue traders, who have been selling tobacco to minors. The £10 million at the noble Baroness and the Minister referred to and allocated to trading standards, next year and a further 30 million in subsequent years to enforcement agencies will simply not touch the sides.

I'm amazed at reading the 33 page library briefing here that there were only two lines referring to the possibility of black market in cigarettes and missed tax revenue. That is utter naivety. Evidence, from Australia's experience of prohibition highlights the significant unintended consequences, including a thriving illicit tobacco market, organised crime and increased enforcement charges. There are important lessons we must learn from Australia's failed tobacco policy. This evidence, written evidence from an Australian Border Force detective, Mr Pike who set up the Australian strike team said that in order to justify their smoking prohibition policy, the relevant federal agencies like Border Force, the taxation office, the health Department deliberately underestimated the size and danger of the illicit tobacco market.

We have had a bit of that today. This has come back to bite them, as the reality of the situation has become more apparent. Causing an the Government much embarrassment, while the various agencies are struggling to mount a response. Three things undermine the government previous, the Australian government's previous response on this market. The first was unwittingly undertaken by the government's own agency, the Australian criminal intelligence commission, nine years ago they began a sampling of wastewater in numerous locations, around the country.

That analysis, while primarily directed at uncovering illicit drug consumption, also tracked the consumption of nicotine. The results show that nicotine consumption had remained a level, throughout. There by nullifying the government's claims that there tobacco policies would reduce consumption. The second factor that showed government rhetoric lacked credibility has been the outbreak of widespread violence. We had that for noble Lords Shah, between criminal gangs, as they fight tobacco turf wars. In the state of Victoria alone, a state that I might add, more than any other state, enthusiastically adopted the government's policies had suffered 135 tobacco outlets.

These problems have directly affected both the state and federal government's credibility, as with regard to law and order, in the community. 1/3 consequence of Australia's unbalanced tobacco policy has been the effect of the exponential tobacco exercise duty rises that they have had on government revenue. Whereas in 2021, the government, the Australian government receives 16 billion in tobacco tax receipts, per year. They have a forecast similar future returns. The last three years we have seen a year-on-year reduction towards the expected $9 million, this year.

This revenue declined, would be understandable, even desirable, if it came with a corresponding drop off in tobacco consumption. But it hasn't. Consumers are merely accessing at the illicit market and ever expanding numbers. The rate is so extreme it is the primary driver of the criminal market. The Australian exercise rates at the highest in the world since it was introduced. Just imagine the good, if even half of that 7 billion, if it had been earned, in a lost revenue had been spent on targeted education campaigns, youth access prevention, smoking support services and campaigns to educate smokers on a less harmful alternative nicotine products.

Wholly worthy aims, many people supporting this bill have been advocating. You need the income tax on them. HMRC is just one of the bodies that points out the risk of bodies that points out the risk of the illegal trade opposing into giving children access to tobacco. Clearly criminals will be selling tobacco to children who would otherwise be unable to purchase tobacco products from smokers. Throughout history, prohibition has never extinguished consumer demand. In fact, too often it has the opposite effect, it affects and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

creates new demand. We have heard over the years, from those opposing measures to reduce the prevalence of smoking, reduce the prevalence of smoking, that those who smoke are only harming themselves. It has been
19:28
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
harming themselves. It has been frequently heard today, they are not. When I was 16 and preparing to go to school I couldn't wake my mother. She had died suddenly and unexpectedly from hype hypertensive heart disease. Smoking was an aggravating 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. Smoking is responsible today for up to 75,000 GP appointments, a year. It costs the country approximately 27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. Almost 2 billion a year, to the NHS. And almost 4 billion a year, in a social care costs, to local authorities. So the claims, about the cost of enforcing measures in this bill do not stand up. When the costs of smoking are considered and the savings are made by reducing smoking levies.

It is in everyone's interest to reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking. So let's 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 I moved amendments seeking to provide health warnings within cigarette packs and I'm glad the government is moving forward on this.

Such inserts can highlight routes to smoking cessation services that are effectively targeted and those that 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 in Canada and soon-to-be the case in Australia. This will help to deter young people being offered their first cigarette from the beginning of the addiction. Raising taxes has been successful in reducing 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 concerns about illicit sales. The tobacco industry itself is directly responsible for tobacco smuggling. The claims of lobbyists about illicit sales have been refuted by national Trading Standards and HMRC. It should therefore be mindful of the fairness of increasing taxes of many smokers, some of them made or by the habit without further increasing tariffs on the rich tobacco companies that profited from their ill-health.

We should make the tobacco industry paid for their vast profits towards the cost of helping victims quit, making us a healthier nation with fewer costs of smoking passed on to the taxpayer and help us provide a boost to economic growth as more people are healthy enough to work. Integrated care boards have been told to cut running costs by 50% and this financial year is the first in the budget for smoking cessation services in the NHS in the baseline budget of the ICB.

Smoking cessation services are being funded on a slow drip feed only with future funding uncertain. Big tobacco companies reap £900 million a year in profit annually and pays shockingly little Corporation Tax Act. It shouldn't be assumed with these big profits that an appropriate levy would not raise much money. A tobacco levy could go a little way in filling the black hole the government splits frequently and it could go further as more smoking rates reduce further.
19:34
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
As Baroness Bennett observed the joy of being sofar down the speakers list is we can abbreviate your remarks. I am pleased to follow Lord Rennard but it is my miss torching to take a slightly different view on the bill. I have some can -- some significant concerns on the bill. The first was the impact on shops and staff and the second of black market consequences of the measures. These are linked. The price of a packet of 20 cigarettes is £16.60 and it is estimated a packet of 20 will cost you between three and six pounds.

It is obvious the black market is a lucrative business to engage in. In the impact assessment and utterance from ministers in the other place it is clear there is a great deal of complacency of the threat posed by the black market. I need only refer to the eloquent remarks of the Earl of Leicester and Lord Sharpe of Epsom in that regard. Not only does a flourishing black market mean there is a risk of counterfeit cigarettes or substandard cigarettes being sold to individuals, there is also the significant risk that purchasing on the black market will expose potentially the young purchaser to a range of other more illegal substances, cannabis and other drugs which would be a much more damaging health path for them to go down.

There is also the risk of purchasing on the black market to be done on an unregulated atmosphere with no age limits on the black market. And there will be a very significant loss for the taxman. The £10 million this year and £30 million this year promised to Trading Standards will not even touch the sides. Returning to the second point, the idea that to the second point, the idea that in a few years hence a staff member in a Cornershop will routinely deny tobacco to a 37 year old but allow tobacco to a 38-year-old is a circumstance which is ordering on the incredible.

The suggestion you will demand sight of an identity card to allow you to buy tobacco if you are in the potential range of looking in your mid-to-late 30s rather than your late 30s is hard to credit. And 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 and it must be seen in the context of an environment where a lot of these shops work late at night, are single staff, and these are staff routinely, sadly assaulted and crimes committed in their shops already.

This bill will make matters already. This bill will make matters worse as it stands stop furthermore, tobacco and vapes make up 20% of the revenue of these small shops. The likelihood is that without these sales and the sales being conducted on shady streak corners on -- street corners on the black market they will go bust and all that means for community cohesion and all it means for the convenience of the people for the convenience of the people that live near those shops and those people that own and work in those shops.

But the gangs will thrive. We shops. But the gangs will thrive. We have much to consider in Committee.
19:38
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
It has been a fascinating debate and I reflected on a number of them and some as old as me if not older who have planted the story surviving homes for of cigar or cigarette smoke and Lord Faulkner once talked about the unpleasant relation and atmosphere in many pubs. Noble Lords will remember the underground where there was one coach in a train of seven which was non-smoking. The others you had to survive the smoke in a very unpleasant atmosphere.

We must remember smoking kills inevitably and it costs a lot of money as Baroness Carbery told us. It is welcome and not before time and I want to say a word about enforcement that Lord Murray mentioned and many other noble Lords mentioned because Cornershop's, yes, the important parts of the community, and in the last 10 years Cornershop's have changed their trade and method of trading quite significantly largely due to Covid. 10 years ago, how many went in and got a paper for five pounds or whatever it costs these days with a credit card.

We didn't. We paid cash. Many shops will not accept cash but only cards. There is no reason why the banks who issue these cards should not also be able to incorporate some kind of age verification in there. There must be a way of doing it that will not cost a lot of money. It is easier to say that it can't be done and to be fair the tobacco industry worked very hard and many noble Lords say this bill is unnecessary and will make you fat as Lord Crisp said.

I have got a couple of issues I would like to raise for the ministers benefit. It might seem quite small but I think they are significant. The think they are significant. The first one relates to the clause 46 which affects... It makes the crown immune from prosecution. There are many clauses in legislation which are the same wording as this because the Crown is supposed to be kept clear of everything like this, but clear of everything like this, but when it says nothing in this regulation makes the crown criminally liable.

Why should the Crown get away with it? Not that they are likely to be selling underage cannabis or tobacco or anything else, but you can see situation where members of the Crown letting people look around their palaces and have a cafe at the end of it and are selling things, if they cannot sell tobacco, so be it. Maybe Prince Andrew has a party and starts to sell cannabis or something like that. I don't see why the Crown should be exempt from this and I sure if my noble friend is not able to answer the question I'm sure she can write to me and we can have a bit of a discussion about it.

bit of a discussion about it. Finally, shipping. Clause 157 says the bill applies under the Merchant Shipping act which is even thicker than this bill. It does not say where you can buy yourselves this on a ship, where the ship is going, does it need a UK flag or can it be registered in Guatemala or somewhere and where is it travelling from? Can the law be enforced in a British port? If it is Dover-Calais, can you smoke a halfway across the channel and not the other way across the channel? I'm sure there is an answer and if we study the act for the next week we probably will find out, but I'm sure she will come back to me at some stage.

I think this is a good bill with things to talk about in the next stages, but congratulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the government for doing it. There is a real problem about being number 39 to speak in this debate because everybody said debate because everybody said everything I'm going to say. There is an even bigger problem that Lord is an even bigger problem that Lord Scriven spoke my speech and I don't know how many other issues would be on the same side. On this one, on the same side. On this one, absolutely 100%. Of course we should support smokers to quit and of
19:45
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
course we should, we must discourage course we should, we must discourage young people from ever starting. I do not believe that this government do not believe that this government ban is the answer. Imagine as many people said, someone of 40 years old going to the shops and buying cigarettes and his friend next to cigarettes and his friend next to him who is a day younger is actually him who is a day younger is actually doing something criminal. It doesn't work.

It is silly. It is actually unfair. It undermines equality before the law. It is actually discriminatory. The policies are impractical. It forces retailers to check dates indefinitely and creates confusion and increases the risk of fraud. Retailers are already under financial stress. The British Retail Consortium reports 2000 incidents of abuse per day. This banner will make it worse. Many retailers say they will have to close, leaving communities without vital services. Meanwhile, the black market is thriving as we heard.

UK consumers spend two point... 21... 21 million on tobacco. -- 21 billion on tobacco. With cigarettes at £16.60 a pack, illicit ones and three pounds This isn't about saving a few pennies as a Minister so before it is about saving pounds. We know where this leads. Operation exposing High Street shops, many barbers, fronting for organised crime. Including illegal tobacco. This ban will only strengthen the criminal networks.

History also shows that bands do not work. Remember prohibition, in the United States, in the 1920s, it didn't end up in stopping drinking, it empowers gangs and created the Mafia. In 2021, South America, Cobh and tobacco ban, so criminals filled the gap. 93% of smokers switching to illegal sources. In Australia, a similar crackdown led to turf wars and gang violence. Yet, warning from their law enforcement's were ignored, by the Public Bill Committee.

The lesson is clear, bands and 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 only managed to quit with their help of Nicorette in Hill 80s, which I'm sure many of you see me in her lighting. A ban would have not stopped me, it is the alternative that did. Smoking rates, amongst young people have fallen, to safer alternatives.

An 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 a Minister's sweeping powers, many have spoken about that, including a 17 Henry VIII clauses, some allowing a new criminals offences, without parliamentary scrutiny. That is Executive overreach. No proper impact assessment has been made, small businesses, retailers and hospitality's were excluded from the committee.

Even the government's own Constitution promised targeted restriction, as opposed to bands. -- Bans. Does the noble Baroness and the Minister not agree that raising the legal age to 21, a policy retailers support, would be a fairer, more enforceable and a simpler way to deter children from smoking. I do not have any more time and I just wanted to say that as a smoker, I think people have to realise that it is a personality trait, you are a smoker, or you are not a smoker and I do not think a ban will actually solve it.
19:50
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
In the lead up to today's second reading, I was contacted by several people for advice, the community where I grew up, who expressed just how important this bill is to them. One voice in particular stands out, Sylvia Evans, Sylvia went under a operation after developing cancer of the voicebox, through smoking is that at the time her diagnosis was rare, but today she tells me three others in her local area have received the same operation. If current trends persist, around 350 new cancer cases caused by smoking new cancer cases caused by smoking are expected over the next five years.

And across Wales that that figure could exceed 15,000 people, Smoking remains the leading cause of cancer in the UK and 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 presentable. This bill offers a historic opportunity to protect future generations from the harms of smoking and it sends a clear message, we can and must act now, to break this cycle. A race for life volunteer, Trevor Hughes Morris recently reached out to me regarding this bill to.

He often asks the thousands of participants at his events, to raise their hands if they or someone they know has been affected by cancer. He tells me that every hand goes up and that is the scale of the challenge and the urgency. But smoking rates do not fall on their own. They fall when the government leads. This bill represents the most significant opportunity in over a decade to prevent cancer, before it starts and is secured across a party support, in the other place.

Of course there are concerns, including from trendy standards Wales about how realistic it is to believe that people born before January 2009 will be challenged about their age in future, when they are decades older. -- Trading standards Wales was not the lack of strategy for dealing with the legislation's impact on the illegal tobacco in vapes market. This legislation must draw a clear distinction between legal and illegal vapes. Which are already When used responsibly, as we have heard, legal vapes can be a powerful tool to help people quit smoking.

And according to action on smoking and health, over half of those who quit smoking, in the last five years that you used a fake 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 these long term effects of a vaping to better inform regulation as the industry evolves. In the meantime, 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, one in three disposable vapes sold are already illegal. This matters because of the bright colours and a flashy branding of disposable vapes are attracting children and young. In Wales, 24% of pupils, in a year 7 to 11 have taped. Of those who vape regularly, 92% use products containing nicotine. Really half report being unable to get through a school day without vaping. Impacting on their focus and their education. Better regulation of the vape industry is not optional, it is essential.

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

To conclude, I thought 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 working through some concerns that committee, I urge members, across your Lordships' House to support this bill.
19:55
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Portrait Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Conservative)
-
-
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Smith and I totally agree with the points you made about vaping and the need for research as to the long-term effects of vaping, I think that is absolutely right. As part of the speakers list, it looks like a Welsh odyssey, with the flag high from a North Wales, Aberystwyth, followed by Lord Griffiths in south Wales. A by Lord Griffiths in south Wales. A tiny corner of the House of Lords debating chamber that is forever Wales on St George's Day.

Could I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness the Minister, very much indeed for setting out the rationale of this legislation. Very effectively a long while ago, it is a long while. I declare my interest, as set out in the register. I believe this is the most significant piece of public health legislation, for a generation. I think there is a danger that some of my colleagues may be losing sight of this. The mainstay of this legislation is to protect the health of generations to Like legislation that was introduced, by my government, the last government under Rishi Sunak.

I'm very proud of that legislation and I think the current government deserves some credit for bringing forward a very similar credit, one Baroness did bringing forward Tory legislation. This is remarkably similar to the legislation we saw there. It is fairly clear that this legislation is not perfect. Of course its second reading, there will be an immense and there will be discussions on funding the trading standards, and how we combat tobacco sales. It would be good to have some reliable figures on that.

We've heard people bandying about what the figures are, do not think that anybody knows. If we can get some reliable figures. Age verification is something we need to look at as well for some people talked about that. I looked in my wallet, I was confident that this was the next driving licence, date of birth, just gotta show that, straightforward. I'm not suggesting there are not issues with this legislation. We shouldn't lose sight that smoking is the largest cause of death in the UK.

Some 74,020 19, since the last election, over 100,000 people have taken up smoking. That is not something that we should pretend that this is some libertarian nirvana and they are rushing to exercise our freedom to smoke. I do not believe that is what is happening, for a moment. Smoking, substantially increases the risk of health conditions. Heart disease, dementia, asthma, diabetes, the list can go on. The cost of the NHS is £3 billion a year, and social care costs to be added onto that.

Time lost, from smoking, £18 billion a year. Easily outweighs the revenue lost. Let's just now that one. The picture is a depressing national picture it is made up of many millions of individual heartrending stories of loved ones. We've heard everybody today would have been touched by somebody in the family, somebody they know, many people they know. Who have lost years of their life, or of had bad health at the end brought about by smoking. And ranged against that we have some people arguing for a libertarian nirvana.

Of allowing teenagers to smoke, to exercise their fundamental freedom. I look forward to seeing a petition, from those suffering from illnesses and to hold this legislation. From the families, friends, I don't suppose we will be seeing that, to add to the objections of the tobacco industry. Can I just say a quick word, by laws about vaping. Like many others, I agree that vaping appears to be a less evil than smoking. It will be good have further evidence on that.

Seen correctly as an aid to quit smoking, I think would be encouraged, within that narrow band. There is nothing desirable about vaping, it is not great. It is just better than smoking. I do support technology to ensure that those people who are using vaping to ensure that those who can legitimately smoke, to that extent I think it is to be welcomed. I think this legislation is powerful legislation, I think it is desirable and I hope we will support it as it goes forward, on the basis that it is good legislation and can be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improved. From my compatriots and rejoice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From my compatriots and rejoice in the fact that we can add some Celtic flavouring, either not abate Celtic flavouring, either not abate at all, on St George's Day. I had naively thought that since the legislation, as the noble Lord has said came originally from the other said came originally from the other side of the government, that this would be a nice easy debate with everybody agreeing and the noble
20:01
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Portrait Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)
-
-
everybody agreeing and the noble Baroness, my friend, already has laboured under the mental health act, put it to bed just earlier this afternoon. Would have a clear run, for the next one. The battle lines have been drawn. I have to say that I'm very pleased about that. Two of highlighted the negatives, the thing is to be feared and the things really that we think have been exaggerated thus far. They need to be heard as part of the debate, if I was sympathetic of the view expressed by one noble Lord that if legislation relating to vapes was brought to the same level as was already in existing for tobacco that that would seem like a legitimate and logical aim and realisable one.

I also looked at the claims in this bill, but that will come at Committee stage and beyond. Just to say there is going to be clearly a bill where certain points of Fort hard for. I've been amazed at the number of families brought to our attention who have given the people sitting on these benches smoked filled beginnings to their lives and and I feel under obligation to add another one. We lived in one room filled with smoke.

The facts are simple. I've been meditating on this just about all my life. First of all, the fact that my mother industrial industry and lung cancer and died at 62. My brother at 57, riddled with cancer and heavy smoker 25 years ago and the entire life was dedicated to radiotherapy and oncology treated with lung cancer and all of the things that they might've thought would have impacted on her children without having to say so.

The fact that day by day they were trying through skills and as part of the team to alleviate such suffering might have made its own point. The Earl of Leicester not now in his place has three children who smoked for a while. He was glad that they no longer do. I could never understand it. I am married to this woman and I have these children. The boys gave it up but I would daughter moved from smoking to vaping and her daughter also vapes.

I cannot understand the nuances. It leads me to think that passing a law would do nothing to affect any other circumstances I lived through. Prohibition does not work. It does not really work. People will find ways of achieving their pleasure if we like it or not. I'm left with mixed feelings. I stand proudly and I have nothing but affection for the Minister, but I'm going to be awkward in the course of these debates. It is complicated, we need a good bill and it seems to me we must unpack the mystery, at least the mystery for me, as to why these forces, subtle, nuanced, P pressure, commercial advantage give us the outcomes they have live with and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not a simple matter. I thank the Minister for bringing
20:05
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for bringing this bill to this House so this bill to this House so thoughtfully and clearly and I would like to declare my interest as a consultant of Aviva, BCT treatment company and my wife's role as a non-executive director at Tesco and de agio. It is great to be so far down the list because it has been a rich debate with touching and powerful testimony. As Lord Griffiths put it, we have heard some personal stories from Lord Renard and Baroness Morgan and people brought up with smoking and were either orphaned or had their lives devastated by smoking.

This should move us and is powerful to be brought to the House in this way. We heard a lot of depressing talk of violence, gangs, diminishing of Civil Rights, the breakdown of societal values and a complete collapse of market mechanisms because of the unintended consequences of the bill. I would like to talk about some of the other unintended consequences which have a huge benefit to the bill and what it might bring to the economy and society and our national security.

We are blessed to live in a time where modern medicine is delivering miracles that can keep us alive into our 70s, 80s and 90s. What holds us back as the bad habits and pollutions and the chronic disease in this country is exploding. 40 million people with a chronic disease according to the Health Foundation. It is the junk food, the inactivity, the bad air, the filth on the internet that gives us mental-health issues and it is the smoking.

That kind of pollutant is causing immense harm, in our families, communities and economy. I welcome the In-Fa tick intervention of the bill and not 1/2 measure projecting big Tobacco's grip on our lives. No more fatalism, no free- market complacency. I like the bill because it will get rid of smoking forever and I would like to celebrate a decisive step towards a more prosperous Britain. The unintended consequences will be a more prosperous life. My only regret is that it does not go further and faster and I hear clearly the reservations people have and I do not want to give the impression I don't understand practical restrictions on the government, but there are those that could make a difference and one more on vaping.

There is an opportunity to integrate the review more emphatically by increasing funding to cessation programs even further to tighten market control and to move towards a complete smoking extinction, making smoking completely eradicated in the UK. Upgrading the bill from being a transition measure towards gradual reduction took absolute and total eradication saving lives, reducing inequality and presenting a global precedent. We would give clarity to the industry that I hope many would welcome and I think it would recognise and answer many concerns about the extended generational nature of this bill that creates potentially ludicrous scenarios for a long time in the future.

Lord Moylan, Lord Sharpe and Lord Lester, and they will think about bringing this measure to the House in order to answer their concerns on that point. I strongly back the introduction of a profit-based levy as Lord Young of Cookham referred as Lord Young of Cookham referred and this measure and shows the industry contributing fully to cessation programs and overstretched public health. On vaping, I welcome the debate we have had already. The question is for me at least what kind of vaping industry do we wonder.

A tightly controlled market selling vapes to smokers and turning over around £1 billion or something bigger, and my instincts are that exploring a £10 billion industry without children paying for the potential health consequences is something we must try to avoid. This is a huge opportunity and let's not allow exaggerated concerns from the tobacco industry to hold us back. Let us lean in.
20:11
Lord Mott Portrait Lord Mott (Conservative)
-
-
I welcome the second reading of the important bill and it is right to scrutinise it carefully. I am pleased to follow-up with Lord Bethell. A landmark piece of legislation introduced by the Conservative government with the ambition of a Smokefree 2030. As a father of two daughters, I care about the future we are building and protecting children from smoking and vaping is vital but to achieve that we must ensure it is practical, enforceable and fair to those that act responsibly.

My concern is that in its current form, it risks harming responsible retailers and manufacturers while driving trade into the hands of illicit markets. Many of these retailers are under pressure for inflation and increased cost, highlighted clearly by Lord Sharpe earlier on. On the retail licensing scheme, I support the introduction. Reputable retailers have been calling for a scheme like that for years and licensing helps distinguish responsible for businesses from those that serve illegally. We know that nearly half underage vapers byproducts from retailers and the chartered training standards Institute says around one third of vaping products in the UK are non-compliant.

A proper licensing scheme would protect children, but there is no implementation data in the bill. Without enforcement, this will not succeed and Trading Standards Wales raised concerns about the risk of expanding illicit markets and I will support the amendment of the acceleration of delivery of the retail licensing scheme and they must be supported and those that break the rules must be held to break the rules must be held to account. An urgent issue is the rise of the mega path or carousel vape devices being marketed as reusable, but they are often thrown away after the coil is burned-out as mentioned by other noble Lords this evening.

These devices are cheaper per path, contain more liquid and plastic and material focus estimates 3 million material focus estimates 3 million of these devices are sold every week and half are sold to 16 to 34-year- olds. If we do not act now, the loophole undermines the vape band coming in forcing Jean and we must be empowered to remove the products and prevent future redesign that bends the rules. I find myself in that unique place as mentioned by Lord Lancaster in agreeing not only with him but also Baroness Bennett with him but also Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.

It reduces health harms, but we must also recognise the significant environmental damage caused by cigarette litter. Cigarette butts are made of a synthetic plastic, and each one contains around two straws worth of plastic, globally around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year and 4.5 trillion are littered. Even in the UK, an estimated 3.9 million cigarette butts are discarded every day. These are not just unsightly but pose a real threat to wildlife, pollute Wilson ways and are expensive local authority to clear up.

-- Pollutes our waterways. They breakdown into microplastics and it pollutes every corner of our planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest part of the ocean. Microplastics are found in food, water and the air we breathe. The scale of the problem is growing according to the Marine Conservation Society, the amount found on UK Society, the amount found on UK teachers rose by nine point by 9.5 % compared to the previous year. As we look to shape a smoke-free generation, we must address the long-term environmental consequences of tobacco use and I urge the government to consider measures to reduce filter pollution as part of the legislation.

I focused on two areas at a critical success of the bill and we must support enforcement and close dangerous loopholes so the legislation achieves what it is supposed to. We must protect our children and reduce smoking-related harm. I look forward to work with colleagues and ensure that this delivers a truly smoke-free
20:16
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
When we seek to restrict personal freedom we should with approach that with the amount of pause. It goes well beyond the individual. They are well beyond the individual. They are With so many personal testimonies around the chamber, they are deeply damaging to the health service and to our economy. The Minister and opening this debate estimated the cost, annually to the UK at about 21 billion. The British Heart Foundation suggest that figure is around 43 billion.

While I think there can be a debate around statistics, what is undoubtedly the case is that the scale of the cost, both economic and more importantly in human terms is enormous. Therefore, the prize of seeking a smokefree generation is one that I think we should support. I therefore strongly support the principles and aims of the bill. As the Minister I think indicated in her opening remarks, goes beyond legislation itself. If, in this House, we could simply ensure virtues behaviour, within society, simply by legislating, then we would be living in a much easier world.

It requires a lot more than that. It is also the case, as we move through this legislation that we need to have legislation which is the most practical and the most effective. And therefore, well I think we should embrace the principles of And indeed this whole House, particularly at committee stage do need to address a number of other real, very genuine concerns have been raised and particularly through this debate. I will list, probably just four of them in the short time we have available.

First of all, while I think many retailers will be strongly in support of the aims of this bill. There are genuine concerns that have been raised by small retailers, over issues around enforcement, around age identification and indeed the threats to both themselves and shopworkers, of the potential violence, putting themselves on the front line. I think we cannot be blase about those claims and simply say well actually it is a relatively small problem. It will all just work out. I think we do need to hear from the government how it intends to address that those very genuine concerns and meet the concerns that have been raised by retailers.

Secondly, I think it is right that the principal focus of this bill is to try to tear young people from smoking. Mention has been made about the best route to give up smoking. The most effective way to give up smoking is another to started in the first place. We know that in terms of young people, the figures are on average about 350 young people take up smoking each day. I think 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 is a different practical approach of instead of a rolling target, in terms of age that a higher fixed age, by the 21 or 25, is not the way forward.

I think the Government doesn't need to go into a great level of details. I think we're all concerned about the effectiveness of this. Thirdly as has been highlighted by Lord Dodds and Baroness Hoey, it is well, that we have a bill, which operates, throughout the UK and the Minister was right, when he said this is critical to the effectiveness of this bill and its impact. There is a strong concern which has been raised, because of the linking in with Northern Ireland, with the European Union, tobacco directive.

And its implications to the Windsor Framework. We have seen that tobacco have a major impact on what has happened. The Republic of Ireland, which are their credit was actually the brand leader in terms of taking action. I think it was the first jurisdiction in Western democracy to ban smoking inside. Has been prevented from actually taking measures of this nature because of that directive. It is undoubtedly the case that there will be those particularly associated with the tobacco industry he will seek to challenge this illegally he will seek judicial action against that.

seek judicial action against that. We need to see more substance and and not the government say this will work. Opening up in Northern Ireland, we all just shrug our shoulders. I believe the government needs to address that this seriously, I believe it is something through amendments. Finally I think we do need to acknowledge that there is a real risk of both smuggling and indeed additional criminality. That has been the experience of prohibition, and any sort of circumstance.

That is not the case that we say that we abandon prohibition, otherwise we would simply legalise everything. I think it is incumbent on the government to say what additional measures are going to be taken to ensure that organised crime is combated and again, it cannot be just more of the same. I look forward to the Minister's response today and I look forward to that detailed scrutiny at committee and report stage. committee and report stage.
20:22
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
It is recognised that nicotine dependence is greatly harmful to the health of the individual and very costly to the state. The explanatory notes of the company at the bill on smoking and vaping and make this abundantly clear. The issue has been addressed over many years, by parliamentary legislation, there are hopeful signs that the addiction has been declining, throughout this period. But, one in eight But, one in 812.5% of people, in the UK are smokers and that number has been declining since 1974, when systematic and detailed records were first compiled.

Even at the present, much diminished levels of smoking, the harm done by nicotine is immense. The campaign group Ash which calls for action on smoking health estimates that the smoking currently cost England £21.8 billion, per annum, which far exceeds the £8.8 billion, in taxes that were paid, in the year 2023/24, on the sales of tobacco. There are stark differences in the incidence of the different groups, within the population. Those most affected are the poorest members of society and those suffering mental health and ill-health are amongst the most vulnerable.

The psychological, physiological detrimental 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 tenancy they may have to defend their right to smoke. The addiction to nicotine is also well understood and an effect of nicotine is to stimulate the release of endorphins, which the body is a national narcotics and to stimulate the dopamine from hypothalamus of the brain. Dopamine is known as the feelgood hormone.

A recent release of dopamine is an accompaniment of a healthy dose of exercise and this 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 on sales to children in public places was that the taxes on tobacco were raised in information on tar and nicotine content was mandated. The sales began to fall. Circumstances have been altered radically by the emergence of a new form of nicotine inflation, described as vaping, which is deemed to be a less injurious than smoking.

The NHS website recommends a transition from smoking to vaping as a means of gradually overcoming a dependence on nicotine. Nevertheless, the full detriment of the vaping, has yet to be determined. Vaping also threatens to become the predominant means by which young people are introduced into nicotine dependence. Now the aspiration of the government is for a smoke-free Britain. The present bill imposes a significant additional restrictions on nicotine products. It's the 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. I do appreciate a Lord Berkeley suggestion that credit cards should convey information to enable easy age verification. A ban on the sale and supply of single use vapes, in England is to come into force, on 1 June 2025. This has been proposed, as an environmental measure, to overcome their 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 basted penalties, for infringements. Education in schools concerning the detriment of nicotine must also be pursued. A final thought concerns and potential pushback on the part in the manufacture of apes, of which there are a handful, in this country. 90% of these items are manufactured in China, in the Schengen region. It is interesting to observe that China has banned the use of fruity vapes, in his own country albeit these are still exported to the UK.

Fruity vapes have been envisaged as a way of inducing children into the vaping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

habits and it must be banned. I rise to give my support for
20:27
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this bill. This is a once in a multi- generational opportunity to take concerted action to prolong human life. The key to making this legislation successful is making it effectively much harder for young people to start smoking, or vaping and working to provide the resources required to enforce this legislation effectively. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the use and regulation of vapes. This is an area that in my opinion needs further work to make the measures are 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 generation of nicotine addicts to guarantee future products.

I do shameful that we have allowed so many of our young people to become addicted to nicotine, three vaping products, that have been deliberately targeted at them, by big Tobacco and assaulted them, mostly illegally. The scale of the numbers of young people vaping are truly shocking. Nicotine is a more psychologically addictive than heroin. What vaping is less harmful than smoking, we have litter indicators on the effects on people very young. I call on the government to fund further research in these areas.

I welcome the fact two years ago now, legislation was passed to ban it single-use vapes, this legislation comes into force on 1 June. Low-cost vaping products supporting packaging and flavours, marketed deliberately at children, combined with the lack of enforcement mean they are both desirable and readily available to our young people. Disposable vapes as well as causing addiction are also an environmental disaster as many peers have said. It is estimated that 8.2 million vapes are now throwing away, and 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 have ever allowed these harmful products to be targeted at our children and damage our environment. This bill to work, the previous ban on single-use vapes must work and I am not certain in practice that it will. The previous legislation outlawed any vaping product that was single-use, defined product that was single-use, defined as being not both rechargeable and refillable with a replacement coil.

If the aim of this bill is to stop young people starting debate, then setting the starting point, price point for vapes is a key deterrent factor. If vapes remain effectively disposable and very cheap, then more young people will continue to take up vaping. Manufacturers are already working hard to circumvent the disposable vapes restrictions. Adding a charging point, for a few pence and replacing a pod, with a contained coil, for a few more p and hey presto you have a product that is compliant with the new regulations.

In everyday use, the cost is the same purchase as disposable vapes and for the end user it is still mostly used and discarded ones. 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 to ensure they are genuinely not single-use. A genuine reusable vapes should cost around £13. If not, if not soon, if not so, they can continue costing less than £10. There must be a deposit return scheme to make sure the manufacturer is responsible for recycling and reprocessing of their Plastic parts should also be banned.

I welcome the closure of the three product loophole and support plain packaging ensuring that these are not on public display in convenience stores. Full the guidance on flavours is more nuanced as they have been deliberately targeted at the children but adults like flavoured vapes. It is important to look at it carefully because it could have an impact on smoking cessation measures. We must address illegal vapes. I welcome the enforcement squad and the 30 million that they have provided this year but it is not enough to deal with the problem.

Our teenagers are the victims. Being illegal makes them cheap and age verification free. Young people are the victims. Many products contain high levels of dangerous chemicals like cadmium and lead, dangerous and causing harm. I call on the government to seek funding from the industry and big tobacco for further enforcement measures and further research at regular random sampling to establish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the scale of the problem. It is a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Earl Russell. I would
20:32
Baroness Bray of Coln Portrait Baroness Bray of Coln (Conservative)
-
-
noble Lord Earl Russell. I would start by saying I was a smoker for about 50 years ago and gave up seven years ago. To be honest it wasn't that hard, but I will not find it possible to support this bill as it stands and one of the conservative libertarians that Lord Young referred to earlier today. This is designed to achieve the long-term aim of ending smoking by the introduction of a growing year by year ban on centuries-old freedom to buy tobacco products.

Through those centuries we have learned about the health hazards attached to smoking, but we will also learn how to handle them with rules of containment and treatment, but not before now a total ban. Let me be clear, I recognise smoking leads to serious life-threatening health conditions and I support limits on where smoking can take place. A ban on smoking indoors makes sense and outside schools, but certainly not outside pubs in the garden. Smokers should be mindful of people around them when they light up, but there is space that considerate smokers and that is a reasonable balance.

Smoking can be a very expensive burden on the NHS, but so can other choices we make such as sports with high injury rates? The growing obesity problem? Should there be greater control over what people can eat. There is also alcohol which causes additional pressure on the NHS, health problems and damage from drunken behaviour. I wouldn't want a ban on having a pint or two. Smoking numbers have fallen significantly over the years. In the 1960s, 51% of the population smoked down to around 11% by 2023.

The figures go up and down, but the overall direction is down, but the overall direction is clear. If this fall is due to successful health campaigns and a growing interest in healthy living, not a total ban. We face an not a total ban. We face an extraordinary proposal. Anyone born in 2009 onwards will not be allowed to buy cigarettes at any age but those born a day before can. Surely that is generational discrimination which will continue until the last person born before 2009 has passed on.

In 2027, two adults of similar age will have different rights based entirely on their birthdate, arbitrary lawmaking and very divisive. Further regulation of vapes are planned despite being considered less harmful than cigarettes because young teenagers are retracted. Disposable vapes are to be banned and they do pile up as horrible litter. The advertising designed to promote vapes because they appeal to a young audience and many popular flavours are to be banned. I think it is right to protect young people from getting hooked, but it would affect many adults who are finding various flavours they like and it helps them give up cigarettes.

There does need to be a balanced approach to this and it is already illegal to sell cigarettes and vapes to underage teens. The bill proposes demands on retail including clearer evidence of purchases and birthdate details. It needs careful thought. Some retailers may plan to close including the introduction and management of the age verification system with more training for staff and compliance regulation. It suggests closures are possible and as we have been hearing, those shops are where they buy tobacco products and they start to close and the black market is there to fill the gap and that way there is little control over who and what is bought.

It is a very dangerous presence. As I have said, this promotes that those born in 2009 onwards will buy tobacco products, but there is no tobacco products, but there is no ban on possession or consumption. They will be able to smoke at 18 but not buying the product. It will be illegal for those who could buy tobacco to buy for someone who can't. How on earth is that going to be policed? Will sharing it be illegal? How will it be policed? New Zealand has dropped its plans and we should drop them.

We should allow the number of smokers to continue to the number of smokers to continue to dwindle as they are and considerate dwindle as they are and considerate increasingly uncle. -- uncool. increasingly uncle. -- uncool.
20:37
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
I welcome the legislation and I am grateful to my honourable friend the Minister for the noble lady the Minister for outlining the rationale for the bill. I support the principle and believe we should embrace the principle and I know we've had an interesting debate this evening ebbing and flowing between those that embrace principle and the libertarians through reservation. I libertarians through reservation. I think those should see some form of dealing with smoking and dealing with the side-effects of smoking and vaping.

I am grateful to Asthma UK for their briefings and I come with personal testimony. Both my late mum and cousin had lung cancer and neither of them smoked, but they were exposed to passive smoking because in all public arenas, some 15, 20, 30, even 40 years ago, there was a lot of public smoking. As this legislation extends to the whole UK, I want to give a Northern Ireland specific viewpoint. With this legislation given consent by the Northern Ireland Assembly on February 10th and to ensure the legislation is meaningful and given its best chance, I would urge 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 and it is vital as it can look for a cancer and other lung related disease in a person long before they have developed all of the various symptoms. There is growing evidence supporting the benefits of early detection through screening and research projects and are fully funded but yet to be established. I would urge the Minister 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 the issue implemented as they believe that if it is implemented they can deal with the disease before it has reached such an advanced stage when they have restricted means of dealing with it. I would urge the Minister to deal with that and the statistics are there as evidence. People die in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking-related conditions and 35,000 smoking-related hospital admissions in Northern Ireland annually.

Also, with my noble friends from Northern Ireland, Lord Weir, Lord Dodds, I would join in asking to ensure the enforcement measures in the bill are made effective and are capable of implementation because I look at the bill and in clause 81 it is up to district councils. There are 11 district councils and I would like to think they are all on the same page and did not operate a variety of implementation enforcement schemes and it is important legislation is sufficiently mandated enough to ensure it happens because we want to eradicate disease and ensure that everybody is on the same page and the impact of smoking and using vapes, tobacco and vapes, is using vapes, tobacco and vapes, is mitigated.

Giant funding cuts must be reversed. I would suggest enforcement not only enforcement, but other areas to do what money- laundering must be ensure that they do not happen because there must be work between all of law-enforcement agencies and the Department of Health and Social Care and department of for Northern Ireland to ensure that that does not happen because people can purchase vapes and tobacco under the counter or by some other means and it might help with dealing with the disease eradication in various cancer and emphysema which is present in Northern Ireland.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should declare an interest as chair of the national Trading Standards board responsible for the
20:43
Lord Bichard Portrait Lord Bichard (Crossbench)
-
-
Standards board responsible for the Ross occasions that works with government on a number of key priorities including preventing the priorities including preventing the sale of illicit tobacco and vapes. Since Trading Standards receives so little attention, I hope the House would excuse me if I pay tribute to officers across the country who doing outstanding job of protecting consumers with a legitimate business. The Trading Standards community it must be said strongly supports the bill for four main reasons.

The first is we believe overall it strikes the right balance between the need to protect consumers, especially young people, and the need to ensure the public health benefit of vaping as an alternative to those who already smoke. That has been achieved and those points made that need to be given attention but we think the balance is right. We welcome the Secretary of State will relate vapour advertising, packaging, descriptors, and retail displays so products can no longer be deliberately, some might say cynically, designed to attack children.

We would hope that those relevant regulations could be introduced. We believe the introduction of the licensing scheme from those selling these products is long overdue and we think it will clarify and strengthen enforcement and it will support legitimate business and it will deter rogue retailers. Finally as mentioned this evening, we support the introduction of fixed penalty notices to enable action to be taken more swiftly and take the pressure from our court There is a great deal of support and the trading standards community.

It needs to be said that they believe they are confident that they can enforce this legislation. They are already well used to policing regulations that cover advertising products, which cover product content and the age of sales. Although quite clearly there is more work and thinking to be done around that particular issue. We are also increasingly effective at dealing with illicit tobacco and's. Indeed last year, alone, one million vapes were seized, 19 million cigarettes were seized and 5,000 kg of illicit tobacco.

The important point here perhaps is that the trading standards Institute feel quite strongly and have evidence to support this, that better regulation, better enforcement and tax incentives and does not lead to a thriving black market. Indeed, 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 million. So, trading standards support the bill, they But for caveats, of course that there are always bots. The first, success from enforcement depends on resources.

But over the last decade, spending on trading standards has been cut by 50%, staffing numbers have reduced by between 30 and 50%. There was a borough that did not enjoy a standards officer. The money has been welcome but should be seen as a down payment. To support more funding, it should seriously look at the idea of a polluter pays a levy as the Khan review suggested, as the APPG has suggested and as Lord Young, Lord Crisp and Lord Ethel Young, Lord Crisp and Lord Ethel have suggested.

Regulations, when introduced 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 those sorts of regulations. Thirdly the government needs swiftly to regulate nicotine pouches, because of their rapid growth and their great danger. And 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 committed and working hard to avoid illegal products being imported, but frankly I left feeling they didn't have the resources to do the job have the resources to do the job well.

We need to stem the flow of illegal products, in our ports. Legislation, without resources achieves very little.
20:49
Lord Strathcarron Portrait Lord Strathcarron (Conservative)
-
-
I declare an interest, a minority investor of one of my companies was a manufacturer of vapes, although my concerns for this bill have nothing to do with vapes. It's a 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 locked together with cigarettes and handrolled tobacco, which they don't 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 they were recording that while cigar smoked per 22 adults, in a year. Looking around your Lordships' House, just now, about 25 enables attending, this means that between us all here, right now, we smoke one cigar a year. The noble Lord smoking one would imagine a Will know that it is made from pure tobacco leaves, without any of the added chemicals found in cigarettes, or filters.

That the cigarsmoking 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 that there is no evidence at all that they are a gateway to other forms of smoking. In fact, quite the opposite. As a smokers migrate from harmful cigarettes at a harmless cigars and pipes, as part of the quitting process. Cigars are such a problem that they only referenced three times in the entire 100 and 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 a more fundamental. There is a generational ban is unworkable and unenforceable and surely we shouldn't be passing legislation we know is doomed to fail. It is almost as if the whole idea was thought up by someone who has never smoked, never drunk, never gambled and never smiled.

Versions of a generational ban have been put forward twice before. Firstly in New Zealand, from where the idea first came. They were abandoned as soon as it became clear that it would not work. Secondly in Australia, where they now have contraband wars. Tobacco are being the regulated market taken over by smuggling gang activities. Is it anyone even puzzlingly familiar with Trump's policy, prohibitions will know it is one thing to ban something, but quite another to prevent people from obeying the band.

And 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 and every other way. As drafted, the bill will require shopkeepers to be its enforcers. But really, my lords, how realistic is it to ask the shopkeeper to tell 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 also 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 if someone is an adult or not. To reinforce this commonsense 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 of 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, and the way it is currently drafted. is currently drafted.
20:54
Lord Rook Portrait Lord Rook (Labour)
-
-
I greatly appreciate the comments of noble friends and noble Lords across the House and am particular 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 arise and to support them and in these moments, wish to focus my remarks on the measures that protect children from the physical and 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 seem 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 a 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 this bill that reduced vaping. This is just one more thing that our young people simply couldn't do without, right now.

In 2023, Sarah Griffin it was a normal and fun loving 12-year-old girl. Her bedroom and looked no different to thousands of her contemporaries, her dressing table littered with perfume, make-up and hair products, at first sight 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 long. The four days Sarah's mother fought hard but unsuccessfully to free her daughter from the addiction, she thought she had lost her own child.

At the time she entered hospital, Sarah had been finishing off a 4,000 parfait, every few days. -- Path vape. Multiple dangers to society, and real dangers dangers to society, and real dangers of policy. Grateful along with the previous government and other members of the Lordship's House the collective determination to do with this dilemma and protection people, through this much needed through this much needed There are some who wish to raise a different animal altogether. For some the bill represents a dilemma which is less about the tobacco in vaping industry and are more concerned with the choice between protecting human freedom and protecting vulnerable groups.

With respect, I think that dilemma is As a long-time champion of freedom of speech, freedom of religion or belief, I welcome any discussion in Lordship's House, on the importance of freedom for a healthy society. I too prize at the long of four freedoms and hard-won liberties that we enjoy today. But the simple fact that is this. Those societies that promote freedom, most often are those that provide the greatest preventions, protections for the vulnerable. And the inverse is also the case. In societies where freedom is diminished, the vulnerable are often in danger and exploited.

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

While the NHS 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. While the jury may be out on the negative impact of vaping on child health, 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 forming into addiction and lack resources to help them. The young people find themselves trapped in addiction and go to dangerous lengths to fund and support the habit.

Where the health of our young people is concerned, far from helping teenagers to quit smoking, vapes actually providing a gateway more harmful and addictive behaviours. Recent research indicates that one in six disposable vapes- contain elements of the drug spice. An honourable friend in for me, only yesterday that a vape shop had been closed down in her constituents upon an a analysis they found the products were consistently including horse tranquilizer, ketamine in the vapes. As I mentioned before, some believe that this bill leaves us on a dilemma between freedom and protection.

I believe this bill is about freedom. In the words of the previous Conservative health Minister, only a few months ago, this bill is about freedom. About freedom from addiction. After four days in a medically induced coma, doctors saved Sarah Griffin's life. I believe we should support this bill today, in doing so we will give the life of freedom to the next generation and protect our own Nobody in this House would ever dispute the virtues of creating a smokefree generation and protecting public health, 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 very short period of time I have got I'm going to touch on one area. That is the burden, it is an undue burden which is now going to be placed on local councils. We are going to create laws that are ultimately unenforceable, inadvertently, will
21:00
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
inadvertently encourage illegal trading and limit our personal freedoms. In the matter of freedoms. In the matter of enforcement, we know that trading enforcement, we know that trading standards, the police and licensing teams, right across the UK are already under resourced and already under resourced and overstretched. The notion that we can somehow police every corner shop in Britain, that is all 50,000 of them, I understand, and regulate every e-commerce website and every every e-commerce website and every cross-border shipment is just Even if we accept the premise of this bill would I do not, government have yet to really explain how they plan to adequately in Fawcett.

I might add that the previous bill put forward by the Conservative Party was little better on that point. We know that when government seeks to over regulate or outright ban products, that if people want them, and the use to getting them, and the demand will simply not eliminated by passing an act. Instead, overregulation pushes the trade underground resulting in illicit trades, dangerous counterfeit products entering the market, and pose even greater risks to public health and the blueberry vape that somebody wants to buy over-the- counter at a convenience store.

My Lords, who is going to fund the additional staff and resourcing that trading standards team is will require to enforce the clauses of this proposed legislation? The pressure this would place the local authorities had concerns me because the government has failed to understand our councils are already overstretched, they are thin on the ground, and they are already struggling with limited resources. This bill requires councils to become the frontline, the coalface of enforcers of the sprawling new licensing regime, of tobacco and vaping products.

Would anybody with any experience of local authority and licensing will tell you that the councils are already struggling to cope with existing alcohol licensing, and due to funding and recruit from tissues, not to mention severe backlogs in magistrate courts, are already unable to achieve this. Does the government realise legislation will require councils to monitor shops, issue licences, carry out inspections, support businesses with training, resolve disputes and take legal action against defenders? If the answer to that is yes, then please would the Minister explain to the House where this army of enforcement and licensing officers are going to come from and whether funding is? For years, as we have already had from the previous speaker, the trading standards sectors have 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, I would like to see the government commit to investing in the qualified training standard offices through new and dedicated British ship fund. We must not set our councils up to fail, as we are doing, in the interest of protecting local authorities and strengthening our trading standards team I will seek to amend this bill as it progresses through your Lordship's House. I further fear that this bill is a grave attack on personal freedom and liberty, representing the step and the creep of the nanny state.

As it stands the bill erodes personal freedoms, makes life harder for small business owners and bases and you burdens on local councils. All without addressing the root cause of vaping and tobacco use. If the government is serious about creating a smokefree generation, they should note that education and support work carried out by public-health, not probation, is the way forward. And finally, is it really the intention of the government to ignore the ancient principle of equality under the law, for if left unamended, this bill will result in individuals born just a day apart having permanently different rights.

I believe that the duty of Parliament and indeed this House, is to preserve equality under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the law and therefore I can't support this. I'm grateful to be allowed to speak in the gap, laws send social messages. My maiden speech was in
21:05
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
messages. My maiden speech was in the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones tobacco bill, having looked after so many people dying young, leaving children bereaved through lung cancer, mouth cancers, and amputees so addicted to cigarettes that they are set in wheelchairs in the snow, at the hospital entrance, to smoke. Addiction is not a choice, it dominates people's lives. We at that time never imagined that the tobacco industry's gratuity. Developing nicotine vapes with high levels of highly addictive nicotine salts in one disposable vape, being equal to 2 packs of cigarettes.

The companies have seen a transfer of two thirds of their customers from cigarettes to vapes long-term. Their profits to vapes long-term. Their profits remain. Never regular smoking smokers, I never smoked, using the highest strength e-liquids of over 20 monograms per mil, increased dramatically to almost 45% 2023/24. Over 81% of these had been vaping over six months and over 67% for more than a year. These high levels deliberately promote addiction. Alter biological function and are showing damaged lung function in young favours.

In sessions with Lord have asked every class. To to vote and vaping and whether vaped should be banned, the overwhelmingly want to ban. In 2023 one in five children used to vape, often in 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 boost shops. The polluter pays principle is so well outlined already could mean that they pay much higher rates mean that they pay much higher rates than food and other shops.

This bill is important. It can in short levels of toxins including addictive nicotine and vapes are limited, and we need to be alert to the creativity of the tobacco industry.
21:07
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This is a very important public health bill and for my own part, I support it. Who amongst us would not, having heard the speech of the noble Lord Lord Jopling this evening? 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 on the bill where colleagues have different views which I respect don't share.

And on those we will have free vote were never necessary. I'm in the side of Lord Scriven's fortunate twin who was born and minute after midnight, because he could very much live 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, including one now mixed with cannabis. So the legislation must cover all tobacco. A noble friend Baroness Northover, Lord Stevens and many others 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 and as Baroness Thornton told us, it takes an average of 30 attempts to do so. But they need help. Vaping has proved to be the most successful aid to quitting smoking, which is y-axis 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 lost years of working life is much greater.

We have heard some figures from a noble friend Lord Rennard, 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 Earl Russel? Smoking is an inequalities bill, as the noble Lady Baroness Thornton and Lord Lansley emphasised. People on low incomes or living in areas of deprivation or who have mental health issues are more likely to smoke. And 21% of pregnant women in the most deprived areas of smoke compared to only 5.6% in the least deprived areas.

In Baroness Rafferty told us that this is contributing to the large differential in rates of stillbirths. We must take action on this with more help for pregnant smokers to quit. Smoking is not being banned or criminalised by this 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 won't help with poverty except in the savings in smokers pockets if they quit but it will reduce the number of suffering ill-health or early death through tobacco use.

The purpose of this bill is to avoid young people taking up smoking because of course we know that nine in 10 smokers began before the age of 21. Adults who already smoke can continue to buy tobacco legally. However, I welcome the announced increase funding for smoking cessation services but would like to know if funding will only go to services that offer help to quit nicotine as well as tobacco, as recommended by NICE. I therefore congratulate the government on reintroducing this bill and to the former Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, for setting the ball rolling.

However time is of the evidence because 35,080 to 25-year-olds have started smoking since the King's Speech so we need to get on with it. I believe raising the legal age of sail, incrementally, is the best way to move towards a smokefree generation, for two reasons. First, it will enable retailers to adjust gradually to the new regulations by compensating for profits lost in tobacco by introducing other products to their stock. Removing A1 year cohort at a time from the potential market will minimise the impact of this adjustment.

I suppose that's why so many retailers support these measures. It is increasing to note that the retail margin on tobacco products is 8.5% compared to around about 21% on other products. The tobacco manufacturers make 50%. I agree with the introduction of licensing to sell both tobacco and vapes but would like to know what sort of burden the application process will put on small retailers. Also, ask the Minister 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, wouldn't they? A single year cohort of potential smokers does not introduce a first new market for illicit traders to prey upon. The numbers are small. Ministers may know how small. Previous legislative measures did not increase illicit sales because of effective enforcement. And those enforcement measures have recently had some very considerable successes. However, adequate funding for border forces and local trading standards continues to be vital, as 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 illegal products and the way it is done would allow 137 year old to buy tobacco while another whose birthday was a month later would not.

I leave the Minister to explain why a particular birthdate 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. Which is why it's so important that the student ticket up in the first place. Most people who smoke great having started and many of them try very hard to give up. To quote Professor Chris Whitty, "I have seen many people in hospital desperate to stop but they cannot.

The choice has been removed ". Nicotine takes away their freedom. That's white so important to stop people taking it up in the first place and the disincentive I 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 quite used to having to show ID when buying a beer or cigarettes already. And small retailers often ask for it.

I myself have been asked for ID this last 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 we could achieve the same objective through education, public information and smoking cessation services but we have found the government action works better. Since the indoor smoking ban, and advertising restrictions, young people now smoke half the rate of their parents generation.

However the we must not let up in education about the dangers of smoking and indeed II. Especially since there is evidence that refillable vapes are being that refillable vapes are being that refillable vapes are being As evidenced by numerous barons and others, some smokers believe that filter cigarettes give some protections from the harms of tobacco, but of course they have no health benefit at all and they give a false sense that they do. However filters do have an environmental impact and many are made of plastic which does not decompose and even the biodegradable ones take a long time to rot down and can pollute 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 power to regulate them 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 very fact that it's illegal to sell vapes to children is because there is some evidence of a negative effect of inhaling vaping products on the developing lungs and brain. However although vapes may be less harmful than smoking, the purpose of this bill is to discourage non- smokers from taking it up.

The nicotine in vapes is just as addictive as that in cigarettes and Lord Rook told us that some schools are reporting concerning effects on children who are managing to get hold of them. So as Fester Chris witty says, if you don't smoke, don't vape. Once you start they've got you. Like any other addiction, that's why the tobacco companies have turned to vapes to protect their profits. And the powers for ministers to regulate aspects of vapes such as flavours, colours, advertising and packaging I would say this, the industry has cynically targeted children as Lord Stevens showed us very graphically, with brightly coloured packaging and child attractive flavours.

The powers to stop this are welcome, but the government must engage with young people and existing smokers to make the regulations successful. As Baroness Mattinson, we need to make vapes really boring and unattractive. On the powers to extend the smoking and vaping ban into new outdoor areas I would 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 smokers, there must be, 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 taxes to pay for the NHS to treat more generations who tobacco dependency has made ale? That is what the tobacco and vapes manufacturers would like us to do.

I encourage the government to stand up to them.
21:19
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
Let me begin by declaring my interest is set out in the register, I'm an unpaid member of the advisory Council due to become public affairs and I've written for think tank both of which published on health issues, the former also examine some of the evidence published by the government and others in the bill. As a professor politics at the Marys University Twickenham I'm helping them setting up a new medical school I'm also visiting Centre and University of Buckingham which also has a medical school.

Also unpaid member of the advisory Council for a start-up coalition, which are health-related start-ups and perhaps some related to smoking cessation. I just want to be clear and get the fallout. This has been a long but excellent debate with many speakers. I think so long in fact I suspect that noble Lords who are members of the informal terraced smoking club will be longing to reach their cigarettes or vapes, but in detaining them a little longer can I thank all noble Lords you to part in today's Second Reading.

I'm also grateful to the Minister for introducing the bill in the clear way she usually does and to her officials for meeting with us earlier. We've had 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 as many places as possible. At the other end there are those that 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 lowered he quoted Kingsley Amis to me he said no pleasures worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home.

Let me say 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 of all, smoking is not good the. That might sound like a British understatement maybe I should go stronger and say, 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 truths I appreciate the government is trying to achieve a difficult balance or as the Minister earlier said a nuance between these two positions.

The first is that vaping is useful pathway away from smoking. The second is how do you stop young people from taking up vaping and encourage current vapours to quit? I thought a speech from Lord Rook was very eloquently put the case about how we need to tackle youth vaping. In achieving this difficult balance from this side these benches we want to see the government making laws based on evidence but also in a way that is effective, accountable and pragmatic. My noble friend Earl Howe earlier raised the issue of the government additions to the previous version of this bill.

Especially the huge number of delegated powers. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra former chair of delegated powers reform committee for highlighting his concerns over criminal offences being made by secondary that even just by delegated powers. That's something we will probe from the side. Among those is the new powers in part seven to expand smoke-free places and to impose further restrictions on where people can vape. I think we want to probe whether that would be more appropriate to put this in the face of the bill making healthcare settings children's playground educational institutions smoke-free rather than relying on some intention of a future government.

I also think we should consider the evidence for expanding vape three areas given the comment lack of evidence for harms of second-hand vaping hello stop is that evidence evolves we should find ways of reacting I can understand that is reacting I can understand that is now argument would alligator powers, but I think we have to get that balance right and not use it as an excuse. We will also want to probe on possible unintended consequences of being seen to treat vaping and nicotine products in the same way we treat tobacco products.

As Lady Fox mentioned, research has shown that approximately 50% of all UK adults believe that vaping is as harmful or even more harmful than smoking we know current evidence does suggest that. This is despite the fact that NHS website says that 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. Also 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 on where -- whether placing restrictions on similar restrictions on vaping and nicotine products to cigarettes will unintentionally deter current smokers from switching to less harmful vaping products. A number of noble Lords including Lord Dodds have raised the impact of this bill on small businesses. Many of my noble friend is also done it including Lord Sharpe. Small independent retailers and convenience stores have faced increased costs, the rising national increase of national insurance contributions or national would wage, those will be passed on to small businesses.

Some worry about the cost of the Employment Bill, now the additional licence fee for incrementing the generational sales ban, the advertising ban on nicotine products and probably further regulations and restrictions on a number of secondary powers of the spell. If I can quote, in a submission to the public Bill Committee in the other place he said, I'm not a lobbyist I'm not a politician, I'm just a shopkeeper trying to make a living. I'm writing to you today because proposed Tobacco and Vapes Bill has me seriously worried about the future of my business.

You can consider this retailers plea for common sense will stop I'm tired of being a Lord, retailers are on the front lines of the issue and we have valuable insights to offer. Let's ditch bureaucratic nonsense and work together to make policy that actually makes sense. Let me be clear we are not asking to ditch this bill but we will probe to create a bill that is workable and And Baroness Fox have rightly raised concerns about personal liberty and problems with prohibition, and the practicality of the measures especially age differentiation, we had both sides of that debate.

Noble Lords including Lord Brady and Lord Teverson have pointed out that smoking cannabis is illegal but it's pervasive in many parts of London. The point there is this is not a pelican smoking is a Benny Gantz the sale of tobacco products and vape products and I think that's a thing we have to be clear about. Having said that the British Retail Consortium told the Public Bill Committee on 7 March in 30 years time if you have someone who is 45 vs 44, from the date of January 2009 it may lead to sale of a given product.

Points of sale can be a flashpoint for violence and abuse against retail and shop owners, it's a real concern for retailers. We will probe the impact of this bill on also on the illicit training -- trading tobacco and vapes in products was HMRC estimated that in 22/23 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. 2024 import -- report by the Home Office showed that the provisions in this bill mean quote, the demand for illegal tobacco products is set to grow dramatically.

We have to be careful about these unintended consequences. Like my noble friend Lord Naseby and the Earl of Leicester and Baroness Hoey we want to probe on whether restrictions on vaping products could lead to an increase in illegal trade leaving to a risk of more dangerous and unregulated products being used and finding their way into circulation. I think we are all united want to tackle both illicit and illegal products. I also, noble Lords have also expressed concern including Lord Murray that the government appears complacent about the illicit tobacco trade.

While it relies on figures that show a drop in illicit tobacco sales, a Europewide report from KPMG based on looking at discarded tobacco packages and not making an assumptions and mathematical formulae, it 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 tobacco company, I understand that reasoning. I would be interested in understanding whether the government will commission similar research looking at discarded tobacco packets as a method of understanding the tobacco trade.

If not, can it explain why not? Not immediately now of course but in writing about why it has doubts about the methodology and White prefers 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 actually will take to tackle this rise in illicit sales, we notice something that all noble Lords will agree on, tackling illicit sales of illegal products. Finally I'm a huge believer in the role of community in state initiatives to improve people's health, I've worked with organisations that help to tackle obesity and local financial other problems.

We will probe the government on what is land and can learn from local community initiatives that have reduced smoking. We have not heard enough today about local community initiatives, people who understand the local communities and the projects in those communities that could reduce smoking. Most has been about top-down measures to try and reduce smoking. With the noble Lord smoke or not I hope we are united in smoke or not I hope we are united in a desire to reduce the incidence of smoking-related deaths.

Also shed concerns over the rise in youth vaping. I'm also sure that many of us will want to help the government to achieve an appropriate balance based on evidence, pragmatism and proportionality. I thank all noble Lords who spoke and look forward to many days debate ahead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me start by expressing my gratitude to all members of your Lordships house you have contributed Lordships house you have contributed to what I regard as a very thoughtful and wide-ranging debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thoughtful and wide-ranging debate The debate has been well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The debate has been well supported and I hope noble Lords will understand that in my summary I will not be able to cover every will not be able to cover every issue raised but I will endeavour to respond to as many teams and questions as possible, and I will be questions as possible, and I will be happy to have further discussions with noble Lords, and I know we will have the opportunity for many more discussions ahead of and during future stages of the bill, and I look forward to committee stage.

My noble friend Baroness Thornton, it seems many hours ago, spoke of the measures in this bill being a further step along the way. And I want to share that view, which has also been expressed by a number of noble Lords, particularly those in need, I'll call it politely a cohort, I don't know what the collective term for health ministers is, but I'm sure we'll work on that. I'm in that cohort and I come to, work towards the initial smoking ban in 2007 and is a former public health minister, introduced the display regulations that we are now so used to.

And I have always noticed how, when in 2007 we introduced the original band, no one could have dreamt of the challenges we had today, including vaping. This was not something we considered. It's important to go with the public. And that's why I was keen to outline the support from the public in my opening remarks. So I'm grateful for the challenge, I've heard many concerns today. I have heard outright opposition to the bill. And I've also heard much support for the measures of the bill, although questions rightly around the bill.

A number, many noble Lords have been supportive including the noble Lord Lord Lansley, the noble Lord Lord Stevens, who did me the assistance, gave me the assistance of anticipating some of the arguments that will be deployed. The noble Lady Baroness Redfoo and the noble Lady Baroness Smith, and many others Lady Baroness Smith, and many others To my colleagues on both frontbenchers for taking a similar line to the one I'm about to in respect of the chief medical officer's use. Which are, include, if you smoke, so vaping is safer, if you don't smoke, don't vape.

I'm very grateful to noble Lords who are good enough to join me yesterday, meeting with the chief medical officer, and officials at a briefing which certainly I found helpful and which certainly I found helpful and I know others did, too. I do understand that there are different perspectives on a number of things so I'm now going to turn to some of the points raised today. First one is about smokefree generation policy and I heard concerns 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 fact is the reality is that smoking leads to significant harm, with a clear majority of smokers regretting ever starting. Let's thank my noble Lord brown for speaking about it and on a personal level noble Lord Lord Vaizey spoke about it in respect of his own experience. Many of those people struggled to give up due to the addictive and addictive nature of nicotine. I am grateful to a number of noble Lords for sharing their personal experience which has brought colour and the team in touch to what we are speaking about today, including the noble Lords Lord Jopling, Lord Rennard, and my noble friends Baroness Rafferty, Baroness Morgan, Lord Griffiths, and Baroness Ramsay.

However, let's remember the harms of smoking do extend beyond the individual because the impact on non-smokers through second-hand smoke, especially children and pregnant women. So this policy and this bill will be the most significant public health measure in a generation. It will build on the previous steps as I spoke of, like the 2007 indoor smoking ban, with the goal of safeguarding the health of future generations from preventable and serious harm. That is why we are presenting the bill today. And the noble Lady Baroness Fox decried the bill on a number of levels but including that it was, I think, forgive me if I get it wrong, to legislation.

I actually think this is a bill on which we are agreed across the House overall and across parties -- Toru Kubota. Of course there are questions but why is government and why is opposition benches acknowledging good when they see it and I believe that is where we are today. My Lords, on the age of sail, I do understand that there have been a number of noble Lords suggesting raising the age of sail to one particular age, for example to 21 or 25, or whatever is a potential way to stop smoking.

The issue of that, and it was the noble Lord Lord Paul who put the sober, that doesn't stop young people starting to smoke. The whole point is once you have started to smoke, the challenge of giving up his tremendous because it is an addiction. So yes, it could have an impact, positive impact, but it will not fully achieve the ambition of a smoke-free UK. Our goal is to break the cycle of addiction and that is why we want to drive smoking rates down to 0%.

And so that is why we have suggested a smokefree generation, and to the practicalities, of course increment Asian is absolutely key and untidy checks, the majority of retailers sell tobacco and they sell... Responsibly and I want to acknowledge that. And they followed acknowledge that. And they followed the recommended practice and ask for ID from customers. The bill does provide powers to specific regulations and steps that may be taken to verify a customer age to provide parity and to support retailers.

The noble Lady Baroness Walmsley spoke to this point. Because we are also exploring how we can enhance age verification with the job revocation services providing an opportunity to securely verify age both in-person and online. With regard to products in scope, this bill captures all tobacco products as tobacco is uniquely around five times people smoke cigarette tobacco, such as cigars, and that's happening now, more than a decade ago and the greatest increase is among young adults.

The noble Lords Lord Vaizey and Lord Howell I would say that this is why the bill importantly As all tobacco and must not be watered down to certain products. And to that noble Lords The Earl of Lindsay, Lord Strathcarron, Lord Scriven and Lord Brady, who referred to other products outside of this range, let me say, again, let me call upon the words of the chief medical officer, there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. And 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. And that is the key. And therefore, cigars, she should and heated tobacco are all in should and heated tobacco are all in scope. -- She share. -- shisha. There is evidence of toxicity of heated tobacco. And the are less harmful tobacco free products to support people to quit rather than, for example, heated tobacco raised about the growth and illicit sales, and I hear those concerns which were expressed by the noble Lords Lord Dodds and Lord Blencathra, Lord Naseby, Lord Scriven, the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, noble Lord Lord Howard, and the noble Lord Lord Murray and the of Leicester.

Who were concerned that the ambitions of the bill could be undermined in this respect. Let me say, as are the noble Lords have done, history shows that when we have introduced targeted tobacco control measures, the size of the illicit market has not increased and indeed is that not increased and indeed is that noble Lord will -- Lord Bichard spoke to the House about it has continued to full. When the age of sail increased from 16 to 18, the number of illicit cigarettes number of illicit cigarettes consumed felt by 25%.

So the government is also cracking down on the demand for illicit trade as well as the supply to the point raised by the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley. With the joint strategy with HMRC and the Border Force backed up by a hundred million pounds of new funding over five years. Let me say how grateful I am to the noble Lord Lord Bichard for articulating the support of those who work in trading standards as well as acknowledging that worth and I would share his views on that.

It might be helpful, as these were points raised by the noble Lords Lord Moylan and the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister that to reiterate we have announced an million pounds of new funding in 25/26 for trading standards to boost the workforce and to tackle illicit and underage sale of tobacco and FATE. -- And vapes. There are questions raised about whether questions raised about whether driving down testing tobacco could lead to an increase of smoking cannabis. As Lord Kamall accurately said, this will is not banning the smoking of anything.

It is banning, it is only in reference to tobacco and vapes. And I also ought to say we are not aware of any link between the rates of smoking cannabis and the rates of smoking tobacco and of course, I know noble Lords are aware, but of course cannabis is illegal. To the matter of abuse against retail staff raised by Baroness Carberry, we are working closely with retailers and will utilise the long lead-in time to best support them and prepare -- in preparing and implementing for these changes and that includes rolling out information campaigns for both public and workers.

We will not stand for violence and abuse against shopworkers and everyone has a right to feel safe. This will introduce a to feel safe. This will introduce a new offence of assaulting a shop worker to protect staff working in stores. On the issue of smoke-free stores. 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 two noble friend Lord Faulkner to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces like beaches.

The course and this might be healthy to the noble Lady Baroness Bray, as an assurance, we do judge that this adequately balances a range of priorities by projecting the most vulnerable and ensuring businesses are not impacted. There was a lot of discussion about rational for broad powers including within this bill. And Lords are right to point to the high number of regulation making powers that the bill takes. And I have no doubt that noble Lords have or will enjoy scrutinising the 96 page delegated memorandum which does set out in full detail of the rationale for each and everyone of the powers are recommended as good reading.

But concerns were physically raised by the noble Lord Al Howell, Lord Blencathra, the noble Lady Baroness Hoey and the noble Lady Baroness Meyer. I can assure noble Lords each of these powers have been carefully considered and doing to ensure the bill establishes a clear regulatory regime for tobacco vaping and nicotine acts. And that we have worked very closely with the Attorney General's Office to get it in the right place. As the noble Lady Baroness 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 much more appropriate for secretary legislation some noble Lords referred to the bill is UK wide so certain powers are being repeated for each part of the UK and equally the bill restates or amend the number of existing powers from across tobacco control legislation to bring it together in one place, and that will help to make legislation more useful and I can also assure noble Lords that the bill provides a statutory requirement to consult on regulations, and we are working constructively with the retail associations and also the Local Government Association to help shape the early design of the scheme.

Lord Mott was quite right to say that we should support the responsible retailers who are the majority, and who want to do the right thing and do not want to be undermined by those who are not being responsible, I put that to the noble Lord Lord Lister who was concerned about impact. On balance in respect of vapes, I can confirm, there was a very useful debate both in the chamber and also in a previous meeting that I held the opposition front bench about the matter of flavours.

I do want to say to your Lordships house that to avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, the scope of restrictions will be carefully considered and consulted on. Earl Howe raised the issue of exemptions from the advertising ban for public health -- purposes. We are quite clear that Health care providers can continue to provide advice about vaping as a smoking cessation tool for example pharmacists could display public health campaign messaging, or could provide advice to customers about vaping as a smoking cessation tool.

I would also smoking cessation tool. I would also wish to say to my noble friend Lady Mattinson and Viscount Hanworth as well as Earl 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 and the health of 100,000 young people which health of 100,000 young people which I hope will be helpful. To the matter of filters and the environment, I do understand and am sympathetic with concerns raised with noble Lords today including Baroness Grey-Thompson and Baroness Bennett.

The environmental harm of items with tobacco butts is evidence in that it is the most littered item UK. Let me say that ultimately the best way to tackle this littering is a course through reducing smoking rates. But we are where we are and local authorities already have powers to tackle littering, including 3D ability to issue fixed penalty notices up to £500 and they can also save your Lordships house that 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 particularly with regards to the concerns about treating adults Universal Credit increases, any NHS screening programs access to vaccines, and on the matter of the polluter pays levy raised by Lord Crisp, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Faulkner and Baroness Walmsley, at present the government's 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 quit and finances that can be put back into public services.

I most grateful to Lord Bethell for his support for Bill and appreciate the intentions behind his suggestion to be smoke- free by 2040. To the Windsor framework points I have heard the concerns about the application of smoke-free generation policy in Northern Ireland from Lord Dodds, Lord Weir and Baroness Hoey and Baroness Ritchie. I can say I have met with the Northern Ireland health minister and we continue to work well with his office and I can assure noble lords we are content that the measures that are 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 today who have contributed to this debate. This is a landmark bill, it would be the most significant public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health intervention in the generation so I beg to move. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Contents" have it. I beg to move the other motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the other motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion is agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. now adjourn.
21:52
21:57
21:57
21:57
21:57
21:58
21:58
21:59
22:00
22:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Measuring the emissions associated with artificial intelligence in relation to the UK’s net zero target
-

22:00
22:00
22:02
22:02
22:03
22:03
22:03
22:04
22:04
22:06
22:06
22:07
22:08
22:08
22:09
22:10
22:10
22:10
22:10
22:11
22:13
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page