Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the issue of theatres. This is one of those peculiar issues where “Why on earth would you do this?” is a good question. What is the problem with the present circumstances? It reminds me of the previous group. This could compromise artistic freedom for no good reason. In the previous group, I suddenly envisaged advertising and product designers being rounded up and facing two years in prison at some point. It speaks to the dangers of the state being drunk on power. It is state overreach, where it gets carried away with itself, saying, “We are righteous, on a good cause, on a mission. We are very zealous”, and suddenly all sorts of important norms get thrown out of the window.

I know that the Minister personally is very reasonable, but sometimes legislation gets carried away with itself. I suggest that this legislation needs a fine-toothed comb run through it to get rid of these disproportionate, perhaps unintended, consequences. Once that happens, it encourages others to table amendments that make a virtue of such state overreach. I completely support the previous speech, and I am opposed to Amendment 180, which is a huge hammer to deal with a very small issue that is not even a problem but somehow gets lumped in with everything else.

I am also opposed to Amendment 186, which would introduce the notion that:

“Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited”.


I remind the Committee that hospitality is absolutely under the cosh. We spend a lot of time worrying about the fate of the high street. I am involved in lots of discussions at the moment about fragmenting communities: people not going out and about and socialising. We worked hard as a society—we had to—to get people back socialising with each other after the terrible lockdown period, and even now, hospitality is finding it hard to recover.

There are all sorts of economic reasons for that, so it seems ludicrous to say that pavement licences—for sitting out, enjoying yourself, meeting your friends and so on—will be granted by local authorities only if smoking is prohibited. Individual establishments might decide to prohibit smoking; that is up to them. They are entirely free to do so, and people who smoke will not go to them. Or, if there is seating outside, a pavement licence can be granted so that in some of the space you are allowed to smoke or vape. In other words, grown-ups negotiate their way round this. I, for one, enjoy that we have found café society in coming out on to pavements, and it is really misanthropic and mean-spirited to try to stamp on that in any way. I therefore completely oppose Amendment 186. It is in the spirit of the relentless, never-ending attempt at banning, regulating and stopping.

I also think that it is a terrible insult to local authorities’ autonomy to tell them what to do in this way. It seems both ridiculously petty-minded and authoritarian at the same time. The evidence is there, and there is a notion around the dangers of smoking outside; this point relates to the previous group. I remind the Committee that Cancer Research UK says, in relation to passive smoking and smoking outside, that

“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.

If you take an approach where the state decides that the public square is its own, and the state imagines that it can sanitise it of all kinds of things it does not want the public to do—that is not a free society, by the way—then, ironically, there can be unintended consequences. You push people into the anti-social home, in some ways, where, if you are a smoker, you will smoke. You might as well let them outside—but, of course, some people here do not want that either.

As I have said, unless you have the courage to make smoking a criminal offence, you have to have a certain sense of proportion and allow smoking outside in some instances. In my case, that is outside cafés if the establishment allows you to.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I obviously support my noble friend Lord Howe’s amendment. However, I would like to make some remarks in opposition to Amendment 180; the principal points have already been covered by my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Johnson, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

A proposer of this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey—outlined an experience of hers, based in a hotel. It suggested that she has perhaps confused an outdoor smoking area with a sampling room; as we have heard, there are only 25 sampling rooms. It behoves the Committee to look at the regulation this amendment seeks to revoke. It is carefully drafted and was signed in 2007 by the then Health Minister, who had brought in the Health Act 2006. The way in which the regulation works—it certainly repays careful attention—is that its first phrase reads:

“The shop of a specialist tobacconist that is being used by persons who are sampling cigars and pipe tobacco is not smoke-free for the duration of that sampling if”—


I will pause there to unpack the various conditions that have to be met in order to smoke in a sampling room. First, it has to be in a specialist tobacconist. Secondly, it has to be used by a person who is sampling cigars or pipe tobacco. Cigars, I might add, are specified in the regulation to have “the same meaning” as that in the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003, the same regulation which specifically defines specialist tobacconist.

It is not an option for any old tobacconist—or, indeed, any old public house—to set up a sampling room. That cannot be done in accordance with the regulations. The effect of the exemption is to disapply the smoke-free ban in the 2006 Act from those premises for the duration of the sampling. For the rest of the time, the ban still applies; it is not a general smoking room as existed in, perhaps, working men’s clubs prior to the ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

I wish to correct a potential misapprehension in the description of my view of Amendment 180. The “cigar-tasting tasting experience” at this particular hotel is described as:

“Explore the finest traditions of handmade cigars and sample an exceptional collection”.


Availability is “all year round” and the pictures, as I saw for myself, are entirely indoors.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will agree, the sales-people who run these sampling rooms are entitled to market their goods. What she just read out is clearly marketing puff—to coin a phrase. I do not think it suggests any abuse of the regulation and it certainly does not amount to evidence justifying the amendment that she seeks to advance.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 186 in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her support. This amendment would ensure that all pavement licences granted by local authorities are required to be smoke-free. Some noble Lords will remember that this House voted in support of this issue previously, but I will briefly cover the background for those who are less familiar with it.

Pavement licences were introduced during the pandemic when mixing inside was prohibited. They allowed hospitality venues to expand their seating outside at a time of great difficulty. We worked across parties to ensure that these outside spaces, as an extension of inside, should, like the interior areas, be smoke-free to protect the public, including children, and staff. We secured that, despite the familiar refrain that hospitality would go to the wall and so on. Then the industry indeed got to the Minister and the DCLG and, without consulting the Department of Health, this was ended. It is such a familiar story.

Meanwhile, outside areas proved very popular and became permanent fixtures in 2021. At that time, the House voted in favour of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, regretting that smoke-free pavement licences had not been adopted by the Government. This amendment honours that vote.

When pavement licences were first introduced, there was a requirement that some seating in the designated area was smoke-free. However, unless outside spaces are vast—we do not expect that on a pavement—having smoking and non-smoking tables next to each other means that everyone experiences second-hand smoke exposure due to drift.

The LGA backed our campaign to make all these areas smoke-free. Some councils decided that they would make the spaces being smoke-free a requirement of pavement licences, which was perfectly acceptable within the regulations, such that there was no requirement to have a smoking section. So far, 11 councils have introduced 100% smoke-free conditions in pavement seating. This includes cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. Evidence from these local authorities shows that the scheme is popular with customers and businesses alike, protecting public health without having adverse economic impacts.

There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is an irritant for people struggling with asthma or other lung conditions, and associated health effects from second-hand smoke include stroke, lung cancer and heart disease. I hope that hospitality settings are included in the consultation for smoke-free extensions for the Bill. Polling shows that 40% of people said that they would be more likely to visit pubs and restaurants if smoking was banned in outdoor seating areas.

Hospitality is an important sector of our economy, but the notion that it is somehow economically dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco and allowing smoking in outside spaces requires further examination of the evidence. These arguments were made when public places were made smoke-free in the first place. Now, few people could contemplate pubs and restaurants once more being full of cigarette smoke. All the same arguments were made about banning smoking in public places and that places would go under—not so. In fact, the debate helped encourage people to give up, as opposed to smoking more at home. Making pavement licences smoke-free, which has proved such a success in many areas, feels like a step in the right direction.

I will comment on other amendments in this group. Amendment 180, regarding cigar lounges, points to an interesting case. Where we make exceptions and create loopholes, they have the potential to be exploited. Following the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, it seems that there has been a very liberal interpretation of the notion of “sampling” that goes beyond what Parliament intended in the 2000s. She pointed to the real health consequences of cigar smoking and the potential risk to staff. I point noble Lords to what the NIH—the National Institutes of Health—and the National Cancer Institute say on this:

“Yes. Cigar smoke … contains toxic and cancer-causing chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and nonsmokers. Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke … there is more … tar in cigars than in cigarettes”.


They say that there is no safe use. There are higher rates of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and lung disease than among those who do not smoke, and similar levels of oral cancer and cancer of the oesophagus as for cigarette smokers. Anybody can look this up for themselves; I suggest that, in terms of there being “no risk”, noble Lords should do so. We should do nothing to create loopholes in this Bill, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have challenged the proposition that Clause 136 stand part of the Bill. I listened with great interest to the discussion on why they wanted to probe smoking for artistic purposes. Of course, it used to be the case that smoking was a mainstay in films—I think of Humphrey Bogart smoking a cigarette in “Casablanca”, looking very cool with Ingrid Bergman melting before him. I would welcome hearing from the Minister what the Government plan to do in relation to this, because it came across as something that was very cool. We also do not want non-smoking actors to be led into a smoking habit. We hear about instances of that, where actors were not addicted but became addicted as a result of their roles. I know that the National Theatre has a smoke-free policy and that there are alternatives to smoking tobacco that can be used to portray it.

We know also that the depictions of smoking and vaping in the media increase the chance that young people will take up the habit, regardless of whether it is a positive or negative depiction. I realise that noble Lords are simply probing to elucidate what the Government are planning, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, but I also hope that the Minister is sympathetic to my Amendment 186. I also look forward to what she says in relation to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 138A, 200 and 201A. Before I go into them, I want to remind people that if this Bill goes through in its entirety as it is now, starting in February 2028, adults under the age of 21 in the Republic of Ireland will be barred from buying tobacco at home but will still be able to nip across the border to stock up in Northern Ireland. If the generational ban comes in, the cross-border relay will reverse, with 22 year-olds banned from buying tobacco in Belfast still free to nip over the border to Dublin. As the years go by, the legal uncertainty will get worse: 43 year-olds will not be able to buy a packet of cigarettes in Enniskillen legally, but a 44 year-old will; while just down the road in Donegal, both will be able to do so freely. It may sound amusing, but smugglers and so on will be absolutely delighted at being able to make such a lot of profit.

These amendments deal with issues that I sometimes think can be summed up as those that “dare not speak their name”, or, at least, those the Government seem to be putting their head in sand over. They all deal with the question of whether, because of the EU tobacco directive, the Bill can or cannot apply to Northern Ireland. According to that directive, states cannot limit the placing on the market of tobacco products. It was that which caused the Governments in Denmark and the Irish Republic to withdraw proposals to do more or less what this Bill is doing, because they would breach the European Union tobacco directive.

Before noble Lords say that Parliament is supreme and if it says that Northern Ireland is included, of course it will be, I remind them that under the Windsor Framework/protocol, Parliament no longer reigns supreme over one part of the UK: Northern Ireland,

“because Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 overcomes every other provision in any other statute, whenever enacted, that stands or would stand in its way.”

Those are not my words but those of John Larkin, KC, the former Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, who has provided a legal opinion on this Bill and Part 3’s compatibility with the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement made between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I should declare an interest. John Larkin acted for myself, the honourable Member for North Antrim, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others in the case which brought about the Supreme Court judgment stating that the Acts of Union had been suspended because of the protocol. Noble Lords will know that the legacy Act has also been affected by this ruling, as was the Rwanda Act. The Government gave brave assurances in respect of those Bills that they were content that this would apply to Northern Ireland, only for the courts to rule otherwise, as many of us predicted they would.

At Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, the honourable Member for North Antrim raised this question, as did I and other noble Lords at Second Reading in your Lordships House. When I referred earlier to the Government hiding their head in the sand, I was referring to the varying answers we get from Ministers on the Bill’s compatibility with the Windsor Framework/protocol. The word “intention” is used too often, and there is clearly confusion, if not downright silence.

The Minister said at Second Reading, at the very end of the long debate:

“I assure noble Lords that we are content that the measures intended to apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations in the Windsor framework”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 744.]


What I find very concerning is the way in which the UK’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, reacted. I wrote to him on 16 October enclosing the legal opinion of John Larkin and summarising the key conclusions of all the legal advice. I said that he and others had said that Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the Windsor Framework agreement in Northern Ireland. I mentioned the idea of the generational ban in both those other EU states where the common obstacle was the 2014 directive, and said that

“the 2014 Directive, taking effect through the WF and section 7A of the 2018 Act, is an insuperable obstacle to the effective enactment of Part 3 of the Bill”.

That was on 16 October. On 2 November, I got an email back, signed not by the Attorney-General but by “Vicky”, who I think is the diary secretary to the law officers. It said: “Dear Baroness Hoey, apologies for the delay in getting back to you and thank you for the email and letter below. The Attorney is grateful for your letter; however, please can we politely suggest that you contact the Bill Ministers, the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, and Baroness Merron. They will be better placed to discuss the topics raised in your letter”. I find that quite astonishing and my admiration for the Minister has risen so much, because she is clearly now going to be able to speak on behalf of the Attorney-General and his legal team. I am absolutely surprised at that answer.

My Amendments 114B, 138A and 201A seek to ensure that these parts of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State commissions and publishes the findings of an independent legal opinion showing that these parts are fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the EU’s tobacco products directive. Amendment 200 provides a route to allow the Bill to apply in Northern Ireland, and this would be to exempt the tobacco directive from passing through the conduit that delivers EU law to Northern Ireland: namely, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only then can we be confident that our Parliament decides the law for the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Great Britain. It is quite outrageous that our sovereign Parliament, despite the majority of the country voting to leave the European Union, cannot produce a Bill these days applying to the whole of the UK that we can be certain will do so. We will see legal action after legal action, and we see on other Bills that this is already happening.

This Bill, which is fundamentally about health in our country, may have some flaws, but surely it is not too much to expect that citizens in my part of the United Kingdom should be treated as equal citizens when it comes to such an important issue as health. John Larkin ended by saying:

“The Bill serves almost as a textbook example of how a measure advanced by a Government commanding a large majority in the House of Commons can run aground, as respects its Northern Ireland component, on provisions contained in the WF. Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the WF in Northern Ireland”.


That is an absolute disgrace, and I hope that more and more noble Lords are beginning to realise the actual, perhaps unforeseen consequences—although warned about at the time—of signing up under EU diktat to what is going to happen in part of our United Kingdom.

I hope that clarifies matters, and I greatly look forward to the response from the person standing in for the Attorney-General—I was going to say the “mini” Attorney-General, but that is the wrong word—on these legally very important issues that really affect the Bill. We could all be sitting here wasting our time, because this could end up, as so many other Bills will, in the Supreme Court. I beg to move.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my Amendment 216, which proposes a new clause that would provide accountability and oversight. In my submission, it would balance flexibility with constraint and ensure the approval of the next Parliament for this policy. It would also provide a check on ministerial power, encourage inclusivity in the process and provide transparency as to how the policy evolves. In doing so, it aligns with the better regulation principles so fluently outlined by my noble friend Lord Johnson in his speech to the Committee in our previous debate. The better regulation principles emphasise the regular review of laws, avoid unnecessary burdens in respect of outdated legislation and help to maintain proportional public policy.

Amendment 216 would ensure that the significant regulatory powers in the Bill do not continue indefinitely without political scrutiny. It would create a five-year period for a formal review and allow the consideration, after that period, of any new evidence about public health outcomes, compliance levels, market behaviour or unintended consequences. I refer to my remarks to the Committee in our first debate, when we discussed the impact of the Bill on the growth of the black market for tobacco products, particularly cigarettes.

The provision would also encourage policy flexibility and development, ensuring that it remains fit for purpose. As the Committee can see, it requires an impact assessment before a potential renewal of the policy, to ensure that it remains data driven. The impact assessment would require a full consultation, with two months to respond, on the draft regulations that would result from the consultation process. That would ensure that a decision to proceed or not takes into account the views of all stakeholders, including manufacturers and retailers.

The provision is flexible in that it gives the Secretary of State power to extend the life of the provisions by regulation to six years, or to shorten it to four years if necessary. That is a measure of proportional consideration that has been included in my amendment. Requiring the renewal of the regulations related to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure would allow Parliament to debate and approve the provisions and to determine whether they should remain in place. This measure requiring parliamentary approval to proceed would mean that this policy would then have political legitimacy in the next Parliament.

As noble Lords can see, proposed new subclause (2) in the amendment concerns the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill relating to sales in Northern Ireland. I draw the Committee’s attention to the answer given by the Minister to a question I raised on the first day in Committee. I asked her the following:

“The Minister has not yet touched on the issue of Northern Ireland. Is it right that the Windsor Framework precludes the generational smoking ban coming into effect in Northern Ireland?”


She replied:

“The Bill is UK-wide, as the noble Lord will be aware. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the intention is that the measures in the Bill will apply across the UK. I assure him that, in preparing the Bill, the Government considered all their domestic and international obligations and the Bill does comply”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 166.]


Given what we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on the careful and considered opinion of John Larkin, KC, the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, it appears that the Minister’s position was misplaced. Given what we have just heard about the correspondence that the noble Baroness has had with the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, it seems that he is keen to wash his hands of the issue and refer to the experience of the Minister.

That is perhaps slightly unusual, given that there is a position called the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland—it was provided for in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and created upon devolution—but that senior Northern Irish legal post is held by one noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. Can the Minister give us a clear answer on whether the intention really is to apply these provisions to Northern Ireland? If it is not, is not the whole generational ban in some difficulty?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I should clarify that I was picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I was saying that, when cigars were not included, this is what happened, as an example. I also refer noble Lords back to the point that I made some minutes ago about looking at the core of the Bill and loopholes; that was one such example.

I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn: I will come on to the matter of impact assessments, and I should have mentioned that earlier.

The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has also tabled Amendments 102, 104, 105 and 201, all of which seek to require an impact assessment be published before any provisions in the Bill relating to cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco come into force. The impact assessment would look specifically at the impact on small businesses and specialist retailers, which a number of noble Lords mentioned. An impact assessment for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill was published on 5 November 2024, and it included assessment of small and micro-businesses. The Regulatory Policy Committee published an opinion on the impact assessment and provided a rating of “fit for purpose”; this included a green rating for amendments relating to small and micro-businesses.

Going back to the point about the tobacco industry, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked whether the Government would engage with the industry to avoid such loopholes. In line with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Government will not accept, support or endorse partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements. There will not be any voluntary arrangement with the tobacco industry, nor with any entity or person working to further its interests. To summarise, then, the answer is no, but I am grateful that the noble Lord raised this issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and other noble Lords raised the fact that the impact assessment notes that the Government are aware of a limited number of small and micro tobacco product manufacturers, based in the UK, which mainly produce tobacconist products and which may be affected by the policy, including through lost profits. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, observed in her comments, any impact on retailers will be gradual over time as the number of people captured by the smoke-free generation policy increases.

I accept exactly what the impact assessment says. I know that noble Lords do not welcome that, but we have been honest and transparent.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. One point that was made was that the immediacy of the impact on retailers of cigars would come not from the generational nature of the ban but from the risk that there may be regulations requiring the packaging of handmade cigars to be altered, which would be impossible to achieve. That would have the effect of terminating their business immediately.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009” and insert “under the age of 21”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the generational ban for tobacco products in England and Wales by raising the age of sale to 21.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to open Committee on this significant Bill. I have Amendments 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 126, which relates to Northern Ireland, 127, 128, 130, 131 and 217. These amendments seek to remove, from every place in the Bill, the generational element of the smoking prohibition to be brought in.

Let us not mess around. A generational ban is de facto prohibition, and there is no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long-standing legal product has ever worked. In time, it will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated and heavily taxed industry. It will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated and untaxed criminal market. The idea that because the Government ban a product, they extinguish demand for it, is pure fantasy.

The Government’s policy approach of exceptionally high taxation on tobacco is already failing. A generational ban will only cement their failure. The representation of that failure can be found in the flourishing black market. So long as there is a flourishing alternative market, consumer demand will always be met with cheaper, illicit tobacco. Taxes on tobacco have become so expensive that people are switching in huge numbers to buy cheaper, illicit products. Not only does this result in a decline in vital tax revenue to the tune of about £1 billion a year, but it is doing nothing to bring down smoking rates, which have stalled since 2020, according to Action on Smoking and Health. The Government desperately need to rethink their policy towards tax and banning tobacco, as it is not working and is the single biggest driver of the expansion of the illicit tobacco market controlled by organised criminal groups.

That takes me to the second consequence of driving cigarettes underground: the susceptible purchaser of cigarettes will then be offered the other, illegal products available on the black market. Action on Smoking and Health and the Government maintain that illicit tobacco consumption is in decline, but all the evidence from law enforcement and retailers tells a different story. The Government need to pay attention to what is happening in Australia, where organised criminals have taken over control of the illicit tobacco and vapes market and violence and chaos have exploded across the streets. Retailers are facing the full force of the impact of this violence, with more than 290 arson attacks taking place in the last two years. Even Ministers in the Australian Government are calling out the tobacco black market as the biggest threat to public health in Australia, with organised crime taking a stranglehold over the illicit market.

If the Government are serious about reducing smoking rates, they need to execute a twin-track strategy of pursuing stronger zero-tolerance enforcement action against those criminals trading illicit tobacco along with prioritising more investment in targeted education programmes, youth access prevention, smoking support services and campaigns to educate smokers on less harmful alternative nicotine products.

Implementing a generational ban will be unenforceable. It will only drive more consumers into the hands of the criminally controlled illicit market. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Further, it will deprive the Treasury of much-needed revenue, which will be redirected instead into the pockets of organised criminals. Smoking rates will not decline any further, given the exceptionally low price point for a packet of illicit cigarettes—apparently between £3 and £6 for a 20-cigarette pack—and for hand-rolling tobacco, which is between £5 and £8 for 50 grams. In contrast, a packet of 20 cigarettes in a shop apparently costs about £17. One can see immediately the incentive for purchasing black-market cigarettes.

My final point by way of introduction is that this Government purport to be a keen proponent of adherence to the provisions of international law, but, as reported in the Sunday papers, it is now clear that a generational ban would not be permissible in the European Union. The ability to impose this ban is therefore a Brexit benefit—something that noble Lords will perhaps not hear from the Minister. More importantly, it would be unlawful to introduce it in Northern Ireland.

There is now clear and careful legal opinion, from the former Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin King’s Counsel, that a generational ban would be contrary to the provisions of the Windsor Framework. I ask the Minister, in respect of the applicability of this measure across the United Kingdom, whether the Government accept that that is the case, and if not, why not? Are they content to proceed in the face of contrary legal evidence and take their chances before the courts of Northern Ireland? In the event that the law is found incompatible by the courts of Northern Ireland, do they intend to disapply these measures in Northern Ireland, thus creating an imbalance whereby 21 year-olds in Northern Ireland are able to buy cigarettes but their compatriots in Wales, Scotland and England are not?

By way of further background to these amendments, noble Lords will note that the method by which my amendments would take effect is by raising the age of purchase from 18 to 21. This would be much more practicable and manageable and a more straightforward way for retailers to enforce a stricter regime on the purchase of tobacco than a generational ban, which would be complicated, impractical, unworkable and unenforceable. Furthermore, the Government’s own modelling in preparation for the last tobacco and vapes Bill showed that raising the age to 21 would have an identical effect on UK smoking rates as the introduction of a generational ban. Moreover, the Government’s own modelling in preparation for the last tobacco and vapes Bill showed that increasing the age of purchase from 18 to 21 would result in exactly the same outcome as a generational ban, achieving 0% smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds by 2050.

One further aspect that I wish to touch on is the impact of the proposed generational ban on retailers. For retailers, especially small independent ones, the introduction of the generational ban presents a number of very profound challenges. Crimes against retailers are already at epidemic levels. Many independent shopkeepers are scared of the impact that a generational ban will have on their businesses and the safety of their staff. There is no getting away from the fact that the weight of responsibility for enforcing the ban falls entirely on the shoulders of retailers, who will have to navigate a new legal age threshold that will change every year and with every customer. Already, the British Retail Consortium records that violent acts of abuse and intimidation towards Britain’s retailers have leapt to an unprecedented 2,000 incidents a day, up from 1,300 incidents a day in 2024. This is a staggering increase. Retailers have consistently tried to engage with the Government throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government have ignored that audience and their concerns at every stage.

Shopkeepers could not be clearer: the end result of the implementation of a generational ban is that they will close their businesses, with all the loss of jobs and convenience that that will entail. Tobacco and vape sales make up 20% of the annual revenues of many of these shops. With the inevitable escalation of further violence and intimidation towards themselves and their staff, it does not make economic sense in the long term to carry on. We also know that organised criminal gangs are keen to dominate the illicit tobacco market, as they have been in Australia, and, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, have sought revenge on those who are not participating in their illegal schemes.

This Government tell us that they wish to introduce ID cards. If that is right, would it not be better—if they insist on persisting with a generational ban—to await the introduction of those measures prior to introducing a measure such as this, to avoid the absurd situation when you have potentially an 18 year-old shopkeeper having to ask a 46 year-old to prove that they are in fact 46 and not 45, with no obvious basis on which to ask for that and with all the attendant risks of aggression and difficulty that that would give rise to?

For all those reasons, I beg to move Amendment 1 and commend all my amendments in the group.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 5 and 205 in this group, which, although there has been no prior discussion between myself and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, point in a very similar direction. I propose in Amendment 5 that the permitted age of sale be raised in the interim to 21—Amendment 205 is purely consequential, so I do not intend to say anything about that separately; I will focus on Amendment 5—so that there would be an immediate introduction on the passing of the Bill of a ban on sales to persons under the age of 21, with a view to replacing the generational ban.

The arguments against the generational ban that have been made by my noble friend are compelling and comprehensive, so there is not a great deal that I can add. But I can bring some experience, which perhaps my noble friend does not have, of having had political responsibility in the past for the enforcement of underage tobacco sales in a local authority through a trading standards department and having myself been out in disguise in a fairly clandestine way, because that is how they operate on such excursions—I will not call them “raids”, because that makes them sound very dramatic; I shall just say “excursions”—in order to test sales at various premises to see whether they are complying with the law. So I have some experience of that.

I think that, in the minds of those promoting the generational ban, there is an expectation that it is going to be self-enforcing. After all, the ban on smoking in offices and in shops, which was introduced some years ago, is self-enforcing. I have never seen anybody attempt to enforce it, because there has not been any necessity. When was the last time one saw somebody smoking in a shop so that enforcement might be required, or wandering around their office with a cigarette or a pipe? It is self-enforcing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope my responses have been a reassurance to the Committee and that the proposers of these amendments will feel able not to press them.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

May I ask one question? The Minister has not yet touched on the issue of Northern Ireland. Is it right that the Windsor Framework precludes the generational smoking ban coming into effect in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The Bill is UK-wide, as the noble Lord will be aware. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the intention is that the measures in the Bill will apply across the UK. I assure him that, in preparing the Bill, the Government considered all their domestic and international obligations and the Bill does comply.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answer and her remarks, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this fascinating group. While the amendments themselves are not fascinating—because I proposed them—the speeches of noble Lords have been. They have shown a consistent and deep interest in the topic and a variance of views.

A number of issues remain unanswered, as highlighted by the somewhat roundabout answer on the compatibility of the generational ban with the Windsor Framework. Noble Lords will no doubt still have a number of other questions, in particular in relation to the fact that there is no proposal in the Bill for possession of tobacco to be an offence, nor the smoking of it. Instead, we are told that there is to be an offence of supplying cigarettes and buying them for another. That sort of offence is unworkable and unenforceable, and is effectively window-dressing for a scheme that is highly unlikely to succeed. That perhaps stands as a totem for a problem with the generational ban more generally—it is unworkable and unenforceable and will lead to greater criminality.

We saw from the speeches by Members across the Committee that there is a range of views. Accordingly, I suspect that there is a real risk that, if this Bill were to pass with the generational ban in it, it would be revisited in the same way as occurred in New Zealand when realisation of successful implementation was seen to be too far off and the approach changed. With that, although I reserve the right to reconsider the issue on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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