Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Rennard Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I will concentrate on one narrow area—one of the practical aspects of this generational ban—which, as my noble friend Lord Clarke highlighted, is the inevitable difficulty of age verification in stores. I am sure the Minister will soon argue that age verification is a well-established practice and therefore should present no particular difficulty, but the implications of the Bill in a few years’ time are profound, as my noble friend noted.

Judging the difference between an 18 year-old and a 40 year-old by eye is not especially difficult—although at this point I note that there are a number of Peers on the Government Benches who regularly claim that even that is impossible in the case of asylum seekers. But how is a shopkeeper supposed to judge the precise age of someone who is apparently 40 years old in a few years’ time? Is he 40? Is he 39? Is he 40 in 364 days? I am sure that we will soon hear the argument that the point is actually somewhat moot, because that 40 year- old born after the 1 January 2009 will have never smoked or shown any desire to smoke because of the Bill. But that is simply not a credible argument. As my noble friend Lord Murray noted, the generational ban is a de facto prohibition, and one does not need to be a dedicated student of history to know that prohibition of any kind has never worked. Indeed, it serves to make whatever is being prohibited more desirable, more glamorous and more edgy. Plenty of people will still choose to smoke.

In effect, the state will therefore be asking shopkeepers to both comply with and police the law at the same time. To put some statistics around this, the Association of Convenience Stores represents 50,000 local shops, petrol forecourt sites and independent retailers across all locations. Last year, it reported that there were 57,000 incidents of violence against people working in convenience stores. Some 87% of store workers reported verbal abuse and 44% reported hate-motivated abuse. The top three triggers of this violence epidemic were encountering shop thieves, enforcing age restriction policies and refusing to serve intoxicated customers. Does the Minister think this will get any better when the shopkeeper has to ask two middle-aged men for their passports—or, indeed, an 85 year-old for his birth certificate?

Today, I read that the British Retail Consortium has reported that there were 1,600 incidents of violence and abuse per day in shops in the year 2024-25. That is down from the previous year, but it is still a staggering number. It is welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a retail worker an aggravated offence, but that is, I contend, highly unlikely to make any difference at all to the number of incidents around age verification, which are inevitable. I am sure the Minister will also refer to the increase in police numbers and neighbourhood policing officers due by 2029. That is also welcome, of course, but I note that the previous Government bequeathed more police officers than ever before in this country, and that did not have a noticeable impact. The simple fact is that this measure will inevitably cause more trouble, and the Government will be unable to do much about that. It is ludicrous to pass a law that will provoke the breaking of other laws.

My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments would achieve the Government’s aims without causing this needless aggravation. The Government’s own impact assessment states that a one-off increase in the age of sale to 21 would be just as effective in the short term at reducing smoking rates, compared with a generational smoking ban. The Government should change tack and accept my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments.

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 1 and the associated amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, because I believe wholeheartedly that a country free from the harms of tobacco would transform the public health of this nation and prevent huge amounts of human suffering. We heard from the noble Lord about the reversal of the planned policy in New Zealand, but we did not hear an explanation for that. The explanation is quite simple: there was a change of coalition parties following a general election. One of the new coalition parties feared the drop in revenue to the Government as a result of the policy being introduced and a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco smoking, which surely proves the point that that party accepted that such policies as this would be effective.

We have heard about the wonderful, kind-spirited nature of the tobacco industry in caring for young people, but not enough about the many decades of deceit, in which that industry knew full well the links between its products and lung cancer, and covered up what it knew and lied about them, as it lied about tobacco smoking of a second-hand nature. This is not an industry which we can trust for a remote second.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

May I ask what evidence the noble Lord has for that? I well remember, when I was on the board of BAT, that we acknowledged the health risks. We were accused of somehow denying it, but the people with this bizarre conspiracy theory were never able to produce any examples of our denying it, because we did not, and we did not oppose warnings and labels on packages. It is just part of the mythology of the more extreme fringe of well-intentioned anti-tobacco lobbyists.

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, with respect, I am not part of any extreme fringe, and the views I have enunciated are shared almost entirely by the medical profession in this country. For decades, the tobacco companies had evidence that tobacco was linked to lung cancer, yet they kept denying until it was proven by showing the number of people with lung cancer who smoked and the number of people with lung cancer who did not. The industry hid that as it fought tooth and nail against such things as plain packaging with many bogus arguments. This is the most deceitful industry in the world.

We have heard about the cliff edge problem, but it is one that we have now. At 17 years and 364 days, you may not buy tobacco, but you can on your 18th birthday. With these amendments, that would change to being able to buy tobacco on your 21st birthday, but not after 20 years and 364 days on this planet.

My experience of being orphaned at 16, and finding my mother, a heavy smoker, dead in her bed as a result of hypertensive heart disease, with smoking obviously a key factor in her death, has driven me, ever since then, to support people trying to quit—that is most smokers, in my experience—and to prevent the tobacco industry promoting addiction to its lethal products. The Bill proposes a world-leading policy of which we should be proud, and we should not make it less effective, as proposed by many amendments in this group.

Raising the age at which someone can legally be sold a cigarette works in terms of reducing tobacco consumption. It may not be 100% effective, but that is not a reason to try to make it less effective. We know that raising the age of sale in England from 16 to 18 in 2007 reduced smoking rates among 16 and 17 year-olds by 30%. In the US, when the age of sale was increased from 18 to 21, the chance of a person in that age group taking up smoking fell by 39%.

The tobacco industry employs the most deceitful and dangerous lobbyists in the world. Their role is to try to protect its enormous profits and persuade more people—in particular young people—to take up the deadly habit in order to replace the 50% of its consumers whose lives are shortened by smoking tobacco.

One argument we hear from opponents of tobacco control legislation is that it represents a so-called nanny state. This is a term that I feel is really used only in the media. The phrase does not resonate with the public, who are highly supportive of tobacco control legislation. I hear laughter, but polling shows that 68% of the public support the smoke-free generation. The Chief Medical Officer has been clear that there is no freedom in addiction. Many people start smoking as children and become addicted almost immediately. Two out of three people who try just one cigarette go on to become daily smokers, and three-quarters of smokers say that they would never have started if they had the choice again.

It is also important to be clear what this policy does and does not do. The rising age of sale does not remove any current adult’s ability to buy tobacco; it simply phases in a high minimum age of purchase for future generations. That is a proportionate approach. By contrast, accepting these amendments would mean that those aged 18 to 20 who already smoke would suddenly be unable to buy tobacco legally—a far more intrusive step.

Smoking remains one of the greatest preventable burdens on our public services and our economy. It is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments every year. It costs the country approximately £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost £2 billion annually and local authorities nearly £4 billion a year in social care costs. That is money we do not have, and which could and should be spent on improving health, not managing preventable harm. The number of people—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is Report stage of proceedings. His speech is a bit on the long side. Can he bring his remarks to a close, please?

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I hear some responses from the Benches next to me who disagree with this. I hope, however, that they will consider carefully the arguments that I am making, and those that come from the Minister shortly.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I rise to support my noble friends’ amendments in group 1, not to defend tobacco, but to defend common sense, public safety and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who would be most harmed by a policy that looks simple on paper but is deeply dangerous in practice.

First, the burden on retailers and communities is real. Small shopkeepers already face unprecedented levels of crime and intimidation. The Bill would force them to enforce a moving legal threshold every year, placing the full weight of policing on their shoulders.

We heard an awful lot from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on guidance. I am listening to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do, and I would love to see what the Government guidance will be for that shopkeeper. When they ask, “What is your age? When were you born? Prove it.”, how on earth will the shopkeeper be able to deal with people in their 20s, 30s and 40s when trying to stay on the right side of an ever- changing law?

The implementation of a generational ban on tobacco sales will have profound, unintended consequences for shopkeepers, law enforcement and retailers—to the benefit of organised criminals—across the UK for years to come. That is not hyperbole; it is a sober description of the risks we are being asked to accept with this.

Secondly, the policy will drastically expand the illicit cigarette market and hand control to organised criminals. Everybody knows the stark evidence—even though HMRC will never admit it—that illicit tobacco loses the Treasury £3.5 billion per annum. Some 25% of all cigarettes sold are illicit and cheap, and the price differential drives consumers to illegal sources in pubs, clubs and under-the-counter sales.

This ill-conceived generational ban—admittedly, a stupid idea from the last Government—will create a permanent cohort of consumers who cannot legally buy tobacco, and where demand exists, supply will follow. That supply will be by criminal networks. Let us look briefly at Australia as a sign of what will unfold in the UK. Organised crime gangs dominate the illicit tobacco market in Australia, which has led to arson, violence and the takeover of local markets by criminal gangs.

Thirdly, enforcement capacity is already stretched to breaking point. Trading Standards and other front-line agencies have lost staff and lack the resources to police a complex, ever-changing age rule. Enforcement bodies are underfunded and under-resourced; adding a perpetual generational rule will only widen the enforcement gap and shift the burden to retailers and local communities, who will be unable to cope. When enforcement fails, the law becomes a paper shield for criminals and a real threat to honest businesses.

What is the sensible alternative? It must be setting the age at 21, as set out in my noble friend’s amendment. This is not a retreat from public health; it is a pragmatic, enforceable measure that achieves the same long-term outcome for young people while avoiding the catastrophic side-effects of a generational ban. My noble friend set out in detail from the Government’s own impact assessment how raising the age to 21 would achieve the same long-term aim.

A minimum age of 21 is clear, static and much more easily enforceable. It allows retailers to train staff once and apply a consistent rule, and it reduces the incentive for criminal markets to exploit a permanently excluded generation. It also aligns with international practice and with the Republic of Ireland’s own policy direction, reducing cross-border legal friction.

Finally, we must pair any age change with stronger enforcement and support. If we raise the age to 21, we should simultaneously strengthen fixed-penalty regimes, resource trading standards and Border Force properly and invest in targeted education and cessation services. Enforcement must be credible—it is not at the moment. Everybody knows that you can get illegal cigarettes in any pub or club in the country. We need stepped penalties for repeat offenders, licensing powers that bite and better funding for the agencies that will be asked to do the work.

All of us in this House and Parliament share the aim of reducing smoking, but good ends do not justify bad, unworkable means. A generational ban risks destroying small businesses, empowering organised crime, overwhelming enforcement and creating legal chaos. A minimum legal purchasing age of 21 is a proportionate, enforceable and effective alternative that would protect public health without the catastrophic unintended consequences. If we come to a vote, I urge the House to reject the generational ban and support a measured, evidence-based approach that combines an age limit of 21 with robust enforcement and support for cessation. I support my noble friend’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the Government’s amendments in this space—I think I counted 24 in the Bill—and I am very grateful for those. I am looking for some further words of reassurance from the Minister that beyond enabling powers, which we welcome, there is a clear intention from the Minister to take action. The Government taking action is where we all want to get to and, in our view, that is the best outcome on this issue.

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendments 129 and 133 would place a duty on the Government to consult on whether health warnings should appear not just on cigarette packets or the inserts within them but on every single cigarette, by printing the warnings on the paper enclosing the dangerous tobacco. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whose great work on this Bill is much to be admired, said that this was something the Government could look at in future but not something they were looking at now, and that secondary legislation could provide for this in future. I ask: why not consider it now, and why not meet my request for a consultation to begin?

This idea is not new or untested. It was first endorsed by the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health in 2021, and then in the Khan review commissioned by the previous Government in 2022. Canada has already implemented this approach on cigarette papers, with demonstrable impact. Australia followed suit last April, albeit with warnings only on the filters. The evidence gathered for Health Canada examined how smokers and non-smokers responded to cigarettes carrying health warnings directly on them. The findings were striking: cigarettes displaying warnings were consistently regarded as less attractive, while those without warnings were more likely to be seen as less dangerous. In other words, the absence of a warning sends its own message—and it is the wrong one.

I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to introduce pack inserts that direct smokers towards quitting support. I argued strongly for this when we debated the Health and Care Bill. It is a positive and sensible step, but it does not address the problem that the first cigarette smoked is often offered from someone else’s packet. Warnings on individual cigarettes would get to these people in ways that pack-based measures simply do not.

This effect of warnings on individual cigarette papers has been shown to be especially pronounced among younger people. They are more likely to be offered a single cigarette in social settings, as opposed to purchasing a whole packet that already has warnings on it or may have an insert in future. Printing warnings directly on the cigarette would ensure that the health warning is present at the point of use, not just at the point of purchase. Evidence from focus groups in Scotland found that warnings on individual cigarettes were perceived by young people as embarrassing, with the consensus being that it would be very off-putting for young people.

It is sometimes disingenuously claimed that there is no need for health warnings about tobacco as the dangers of smoking are already universally understood. Action on Smoking and Health found in an analysis of its survey data that younger smokers, the very people who would benefit most from this measure, were less likely to be aware of the full risks of smoking. But awareness alone does not change behaviour. The average smoker makes 30 attempts to give up before succeeding. My amendment would help them give up every time they handle a cigarette.

More importantly, it would help prevent people smoking their very first cigarette. The evidence shows that, the greater the range of interventions we deploy, the greater our chances of preventing uptake and encouraging cessation. Different messages resonate with different people, and tobacco remains a uniquely lethal consumer product. We should be prepared to use every effective tool available to reduce the harm it causes to smokers, their families and everybody else.

Finally, I know the Minister has raised concerns about how visible the messages might be and that, in some countries where this has been implemented, they appear only on the filter. The UK could do things differently if we choose, as in Canada. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I could display to this Chamber a picture of the effective health warnings on Canadian cigarette papers, it would be easy to see how effective they are. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment today, I hope she will say not just that this measure might be considered in future but that it will be considered now, beginning with the consultation requested.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group. Before coming to those, I will say a word about Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I was initially attracted to. Like many other noble Lords, I went to a presentation by ASH, where we listened to health experts explain that filters do not prevent anything noxious reaching the lungs. On the contrary, they have ingredients in them that might be damaging. Far worse, because of the filter, smokers inhale more than they would have done had there not been one, as they think it is safe. It may be that the 25 government amendments achieve in a rather roundabout way what the noble Baroness seeks to do in Amendment 77. We will listen with interest to the Minister when she speaks to her amendments.

Amendment 133 was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As I have said before, when I was a Health Minister in 1979, I tried to get the tobacco industry to adopt putting a warning on cigarettes and it declined on the grounds that ink was carcinogenic. This was not an argument I found very persuasive. Here we are, nearly 50 years later, still discussing something that at the time was world-beating, although I understand that I have now been overtaken by Canada.

Amendment 204, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sits rather uneasily in this group, which is otherwise about filters, in that it is about the tobacco levy. I want to make a number of points. First, previously the Government ruled this out on the grounds that they consulted on a levy model in 2014. Indeed they did, but this is a very different model from that which they consulted on. Crucially, in the one they consulted on, the levy would have been passed on to the consumer, with all the impact on RPI or CPI. This model has been constructed to avoid that; it would control the price that tobacco can be sold for, leading to very different outcomes from the model consulted on by the Treasury, and would not allow tobacco companies to pass the costs on to consumers as they do at the moment. It would raise revenue. One estimate has been £5 billion. Even if it is a fraction of that, it is money well worth having.

The scheme would not be complex to administer. As the noble Earl said, there are only four manufacturers. The department already operates the PPRS, controlling medicine prices, with far more manufacturers than are involved in tobacco. Crucially, the Khan review, already referred to, which was initiated by Sajid Javid when he was Health Secretary, pointed out that the Government were not going to hit their then target of a smoke-free England by 2030. It recommended the levy—this was an independent review commissioned by the last Conservative Government—and reinvesting the money in media campaigns targeted at those elements of the population who were still smoking.

Finally, I know that the Minister will not mind me reminding her of what she said when a similar amendment was debated in 2022 and passed in your Lordships’ House by 213 to 154. She knows what I am going to say; she supported and voted for that amendment, saying that it would

“provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]

Well, that is what we are asking for today. She did not persuade me in Committee when she gave the reasons why she had changed her mind. Perhaps she can have another go this evening and explain why she will now urge the House to reject what she thought was a good idea four years ago.