Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Bethell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

Someone chastised us for not mentioning health, but I am interested in improving health. The best smoking cessation tools that we have discovered recently are vapes, and the Bill barely distinguishes between vapes and tobacco, or between nicotine and tobacco, in a completely irresponsible way. If we really want to help young smokers between the ages of 18 and 24—and, by the way, there has been a dramatic decline in their smoking, largely because of the uptake in vaping—we should be liberating and promoting vaping and stopping this nonsense generational smoking ban, which is discriminatory and unlikely to help anyone.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare that my wife is a non-executive director of Tesco. Secondly, I spent 10 years working at the Ministry of Sound in south London, where I came face to face with the illicit cigarette trade on a weekly basis. Christopher Upton was the name of the burly character who delivered cigarettes to the club each week; he controlled the London casual cigarette business very tightly indeed. He was a charming, if burly, individual who gave us presents at Christmas and is famous among the legal fraternity for his case, Fagomatic v HMRC, in which he argued that his shiny purple Lamborghini Countach should be deductible for VAT as a business expense, which sadly he lost in 2002. That is the face of illicit cigarette trading in the UK.

Since the days of Christopher Upton, the trade in illicit cigarettes has come down by 90%, from 15 billion sticks a year to 2 billion sticks a year. Those are the statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, rightly gave; they are different from those given by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, which come from the KPMG report for Philip Morris, the cigarette seller, which are not figures that I feel this Committee should lean on. I can source the number, if it is helpful to noble Lords.

May I just say a word about prohibition? I have two points to make about the prohibition of cigarettes for young people. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly and powerfully said, there is now a clear displacement route to vaping for anyone who wishes to take up this kind of activity. In other words, there is an alternative. Prohibitions come when there is no alternative. Secondly, I remind the Committee that, among young people, interest in smoking cigarettes has collapsed: it has gone from 23% of 18 year-olds in 2011 to 10% of 18 year-olds in 2025, and it is heading downwards. We can only encourage this move with this measure.

The amendments suggested in this group would be counterproductive and are, for that reason, extremely regrettable.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Murray and others, which concern substituting the age of 21. I do so not because I think 21 is the perfect age but because it becomes a workable solution in trying to prevent the young smoking.

I am—like many noble Lords in this Room, I suspect—a reformed smoker. It sounds like one of those AA meetings, does it not? I stopped smoking on the occurrence of my illness. I did not stop smoking because I had suddenly turned against them, morally; it is just that I now struggle to pick them up and light them. Of course, we would love to live in a world of nirvana where cigarettes and tobacco had not been invented, but I am afraid that idea is long gone; it went many hundreds of years ago.

I am sorry to say that the Bill gives this Parliament rather a bad name, because we are talking here about the complexity of age-related smoking. One needs only to look out on to today’s streets. It is pretty rare to see people smoking on the street and even rarer to see youngsters smoking on the street. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bethell just said, 10% of youngsters smoke and, in the normal population, the number of smokers is collapsing. That is a result of cessation products, of better education and of us all, I think, being a bit more aware—if we needed to be more aware—of the dangers of smoking this smoking product, which is, by its very nature, pretty daft.

Where the public have lost us here, I think, is that they see a lot of evils on the streets of this country. They would rather we were debating banning knives on the street or banning street fentanyl, but here we are talking about banning smoking. I think people would almost laugh at us for discussing such things at length in this Parliament.

Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent over the years on smoking cessation products via the NHS—whether patches, gums or other such things—yet the only product to have received no public subsidy, despite it being the biggest driver of reducing smoking in this country, is the vape. It has been far more successful than all those expensive products, although I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about vaping. Perversely, this is where the nanny state gets a weird outcome. We are now seeing more youngsters addicted to nicotine at a young age via a vape than I think we ever would have done had we done nothing except the usual education around how bad smoking is. We now have a generation of nicotine addicts where I do not think we would have done before.

This is not a Second Reading argument about how bad the Bill is, but we need to think carefully about the practicality of banning things. I am concerned about small shops, not so much about the trade they might lose, even though that is a factor, but the reality out there. Too often, we in Parliament try to create a nirvana but do not look at the real world. I had a decorator a few years ago and, every day on the way to my place, he was buying illicit cigarettes. He said that, on his route through the Medway towns, he knew of four shops where there were illicit cigarettes under the counter. Where is HMRC? Where are trading standards? I knew where this was going on; I even used to tell trading standards where they ought to be looking, and there was the odd raid from time to time, but it still continues.

In the same breath in this legislation, we have some ridiculous statements about snus, a Scandinavian product that probably has its place in taking people out of smoking by an alternative supply of nicotine. We are seriously going to have potentially two years’ imprisonment for the selling of snus, yet while illicit cigarettes are banned, or just not legal to be sold, on every street in every town across this country we have illegal, illicit tobacco being sold. To then overlay further a load of new regulation, hoping that it will be enforced, is, frankly, for the birds.

I will take the whole moving-age argument a bit further. We discussed the ages of 31 and 30. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for saying what he said, which was absolutely right. I take that a bit further. A 70 year-old and a 71 year-old are living next door. The 71 year-old is going to have a very busy shopping list when he pops down to the Co-op in 2080 when he is buying cigarettes for the 70 year-old. To think that the trader is having to ask for some sort of ID, from someone who is obviously of a reasonable age, to buy cigarettes is, frankly, lunacy. That is why I support the age limit of 21 in preference to doing nothing at all.

I also have some sympathy for Amendment 16 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. If we are seriously considering youngsters being able to vote at 16 then why not have 16, or whatever that voting age is, as a sensible measure for doing lots of things? We do not think that 16 year-olds should be using a sunbed, but we suddenly think they should be voting.

I know that this measure was introduced, or thought about, by the outgoing Government and the previous Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak; we had discussions about this very Bill when he came to visit me in—in hospital. I nearly said “in prison”; it felt like that after six months. I gave my thoughts to him quite graphically: “Yes, it begins with a B, Prime Minister”.

There is an international dimension to this, which has been picked up on by a few speakers this afternoon. What will we do with Easyjet when you have the 18 year-old traveller coming back from Malaga or Majorca? I can only imagine, because they will be in international airspace, their complete ability to buy a carton of cigarettes on Easyjet or Ryanair or whatever other plane they are coming on, or at Malaga airport or at Dubai Airport. They will be able to bring them into the country and smoke them.

What will we do about the very real, seemingly invisible, border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that has been discussed by my noble friend Lord Murray? Will the 18 year-olds living just over the border in Northern Ireland hop over to the tobacconist, literally just over the border, to satisfy their wishes? This just becomes within the realms of lunacy.

We have to look at what has happened elsewhere in the world. In Australia, we have seen an explosion of turf wars and an increase in illicit tobacco. There are two “illicits”: there is completely made-up tobacco, which is potentially truly dangerous, or the merely untaxed tobacco that has been imported to the UK but is the genuine product. There is huge money involved, and wherever there is big money there are turf wars, violence and problems.

It is too late to stop this legislation. I think it is daft, and we really should be addressing more pressing issues in this nation. The age limit of 21 is at least enforceable and has clarity. I have every confidence that the years of smoking in this country, because of the measures of education, peer pressure and the way we are not allowed to smoke in pubs, are being reduced almost to single figures and a diminishing number. On that basis, my noble friend Lord Murray and those amendments have my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bethell]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Complete prohibition of tobacco products from 2040(1) In addition to the prohibition in section 1 regarding individuals born on or after 1 January 2009, the sale of tobacco products to any person is prohibited in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2040.(2) All licences to sell tobacco and tobacco retail registrations will be invalid as of 00:01am on 1 January 2040.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for—(a) implementing the complete prohibition under subsection (1),(b) supporting tobacco retailers and businesses in transitioning away from tobacco product sales,(c) strengthening enforcement mechanisms to prevent illicit trade of tobacco products, and(d) enhancing smoking cessation services to support individuals ahead of the 2040 prohibition. (4) The strategy under subsection (3) must include provision for a phased reduction in tobacco product availability beginning not later than 1 January 2030.(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 1 of this Act, which applies to individuals born on or after 1 January 2009 regardless of the prohibition in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment preserves the generational approach to phasing out tobacco while establishing a backstop date of 1 January 2040 for complete prohibition. The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment is grouped with Amendment 199, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 193, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I repeat my declaration of interest that my wife is a non-executive director of Tesco. I will speak to my own amendment and leave it to others to speak to theirs.

I remind noble Lords that the ambition of the Bill is nothing less than the wholesale eradication of smoking. I laid out the costs of smoking to our society in my Second Reading speech: the immense economic impact on our national finances, the relentless pressure on our health system, the toll on our human capital and the deep corporate injustice that sees tobacco companies profit while society, particularly the poorest, pays the price. I also laid out the benefits of getting rid of smoking, so I will not detain noble Lords by restating that.

The purpose of my amendment, and the opportunity presented by the growth of vaping, is a natural extension of the Bill’s intent: a logical, fair and legally robust endpoint, in 2040, to the regulatory ratchet that is already contained within the Bill. It would give clarity and confidence to consumers and industry alike, deal with the long tail of divided rights between generations and be fair to retailers, offering certainty, managed transition and guidance towards new business models.

We know that a hard stop with a long run-up can work because we have done it plenty of times before. Under John Prescott, the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 completed a phased ban that took nearly two decades and provided industries with time-limited exemptions and sunset clauses. Today, I am pleased to say that workplace asbestos exposure has fallen by 80%. Another example of a full-stop measure was the phase out of leaded petrol, initiated in 1987 and completed in 2000, which gave manufacturers and motorists 15 years to adapt. I am pleased to say that lead levels in urban air have fallen by 94%. Thirdly, the elimination of CFCs under the Montreal protocol, signed in 1987 and implemented through UK regulations in the 1990s, relied on structured deadlines and support for innovation. I am pleased to say that global CFC consumption has dropped by 98%.

Each of those measures that tackled toxins that poisoned our society followed the same formula: clear deadlines, fair transitions and decisive action. Each was thoroughly opposed by the industry. There were warnings of economic collapse on each occasion, but none of that came to pass. Instead, we emerged with a healthier, safer and more innovative society.

Let me explain how this amendment—the “extinction 2040” amendment—might operate in practice. Proposed new subsection (1) would provide for the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products to any person in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2040, thereby establishing a complete stop date for smoking. Proposed new subsection (2) specifies that all licences to sell tobacco and tobacco retail registrations would be invalid as of midnight on 1 January 2040. In other words, the licences currently administered by local authorities under powers anticipated in Clause 58, which establishes a national tobacco licensing regime, would be ended. Local councils in Scotland already operate such schemes under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and similar powers will be extended to England and Wales on Royal Assent.

Proposed new subsection (3) would impose a mandatory duty on the Secretary of State. It states that, within 12 months of the Act passing, the Secretary of State would

“lay before Parliament a strategy for … implementing the complete prohibition”.

This strategy must address four elements. Proposed new subsection (4) would require

“provision for a phased reduction in tobacco product availability beginning not later than 1 January 2030”.

This would be delivered through progressive amendments to licensing regulations issued under Clause 58, reducing the number of retail authorisations by geographic area, imposing proximity restrictions near schools and health facilities and ultimately restricting sales to larger retailers with compliance infrastructure. This task would fall jointly to the Department of Health and Social Care, His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training.

In practice, phased reduction means progressive tightening of retailer licensing, initially capping licensing numbers per local authority, then applying proximity restrictions and ultimately withdrawing licences from smaller retailers, while allowing supermarkets to transition shelf space to vaping devices and alternatives—products that the Government already support as harm-reduction tools. This plan aligns with changing consumer behaviour. Smoking prevalence is falling and retailers are diversifying, as we have discussed.

On enforcement, proposed new subsection (3)(c) would require

“strengthening enforcement mechanisms to prevent illicit trade”.

This responsibility falls to HMRC under the existing powers of the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) Regulations 2019 and Schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2020, which authorises civil penalties and empowers HMRC to deactivate economic operator identification numbers. Trading standards officers provide complementary enforcement. Critically, this system already exists and is cost neutral, as penalties, duty recovery fund operations and phased withdrawal of the legal market actually reduce illicit activity by cutting demand.

Finally, proposed new subsection (3)(d) would mandate

“enhancing smoking cessation services to support individuals ahead of the 2040 prohibition”.

The Government have already committed £70 million annually to local stop smoking services, distributed to upper-tier local authorities based on smoking prevalence. This funds the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training and NHS community pharmacy services, which offer nicotine replacement therapy and behavioural counselling. Scaling this architecture over 15 years would ensure that, by 2040, the vast majority of current smokers would have been supported to quit, minimising enforcement costs and public backlash.

This amendment would work with the grain of existing systems, emerging technologies and declining smoking rates. It would assign clear responsibilities to established agencies: local authorities for licensing; HMRC and trading standards for enforcement; the DHSC and OHID for cessation. It would grant a 15-year transition period, ensuring fairness to industry and retailers. A complete prohibition by 2040, with phased reductions and cessation support, would generate measurable productivity gains for our economy, savings for the NHS and reduced economic inactivity, likely reducing the costs of our national debt within a decade. Crucially, this amendment could be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

We stand at a crossroads. This Bill could be remembered in two ways: as a high point for incrementalism, a policy that is cautious and takes a century to work, that is not registered economically and is complex; or it could be the beginning of a more emphatic approach to regulation where Britain stops tinkering and starts deciding. I believe that we should choose the second path—the evidence supports it and so do the public. It is not my intention to push this amendment, but I urge the Minister to consider it seriously. If she cannot find a place for it in today’s Bill, could she comment on how the department might study such a measure for a future Bill?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 193 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, covers much of the same territory as Amendment 199. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smoke-free country every five years. It lacks the ambition of my noble friend Lord Bethell, who provides not just a road map but a destination and a date. If we were to agree with my noble friend, that would be worthwhile progress.

This group of amendments is important because, although the Bill is a step forward in promoting public health and reducing the numbers who start to smoke, as it stands it does very little to help the 6 million smokers who are already endangering their health. The amendment reflects the latest APPG on Smoking and Health report, which calls on the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country. The Labour Party promised to publish such a strategy in its health mission document, Build an NHS Fit for the Future, saying it was important that no one should be left behind. It said:

“We will build on the success of the last Labour government with a roadmap to a smoke-free Britain”.


I hope this amendment will find favour with the Minister. Can the Government confirm that they have the same target as the last one, to achieve a virtually smoke-free England by 2030?

As I said, the rising age of sale will not affect current smokers but, as the legislation is progressed with, we should not forget them. Smoking is not evenly distributed across our society. There are higher rates of smoking in nearly all groups experiencing disadvantage and high rates among people with mental health conditions, those on low incomes and those living in social housing—the people most at risk of being left behind, whom the Government have rightly said they will look after. In turn, these differences fuel the gaps in healthy life expectancy between different groups in our society and undermine progress on addressing inequality.

To end this inequality, the Government need a clear plan or road map on how we can achieve a smoke-free future for all parts of society. That road map should include clear targets. For example, the APPG on Smoking and Health has called for a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament. Is that something that the Minister could sign up to? If such a reduction were achieved, the country would be on track to have less than 5% smoking two years later and could continue progress to make smoking obsolete within 20 years, within shooting range of my noble friend Lord Bethell’s target.

There should also be specific targets for vulnerable groups with high rates of smoking. Under the last Conservative Government, the target to reduce smoking among 15 year-olds was achieved. The previous Government also set a target to reduce the prevalence of smoking in pregnancy to 6% or less by the end of 2022. That target was not met, but it helped mobilise significant support for pregnant women, which has led to a reduction—it fell at the fastest ever rate last year.

The last Government also committed to other targets—for example, using the pioneering Swap to Stop scheme. It is welcome that the Government have maintained their commitment to some of these initiatives, but they should be part of an overall strategy so that we have a clear vision of where we want to go and how the various components help us reach that target. There is also a risk that, once this legislation has passed, the Government, both locally and nationally, are lulled into believing the job has been done, so we need a clear plan now and every five years until we have created a smoke-free country.

I understand the pressure on the NHS, but the astonishing decline in smoking among pregnant women was achieved by embedding support in hospitals alongside financial incentives. However, these services are now threatened with cost pressures in the NHS, seeing some ICBs reduce or decommission those vital services. Within a road map to a smoke-free country, the role of ICBs could be clearly laid out and the importance of these services in helping to reduce the incidence of smoking could be clarified.

So the Bill is ambitious. It is world leading when it comes to stopping the start, but we need the Government to have a similar ambition for supporting the current 6 million smokers in the UK to quit for good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. As they have acknowledged, the Government are taking bold action to create the first smoke-free generation. Our published modelling shows that smoking rates in England among 14 to 30 year-olds could be close to 0% as early as 2050. I make that point particularly in respect of Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.

I sympathise with the intention of his amendment and with the other amendments we have debated in this group. Let me assure noble Lords that, as is consistent with best practice, we will evaluate this legislation as is appropriate and helpful, such as by monitoring smoking rates over time. We need to ensure that no one is left behind in this smoke-free UK that we seek to create.

However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that we do not believe that an outright ban would be the most effective or proportionate way of encouraging current smokers to quit. As he knows, we are taking an evidence-based approach to supporting current smokers to quit and have invested an additional £70 million both last year and this year to support local authority-led stop-smoking services in England. We are continuing our national smoke-free pregnancy incentive scheme to support pregnant smokers to quit, which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to.

I turn to Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I aspire to be as mindful as I know he is of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of legislation. As I mentioned, we will assess the implementation of the Act, which is consistent. For measures implemented by secondary legislation, we will publish post-implementation reviews as appropriate. I can also commit to publishing a report on the Bill before Parliament, in line with our requirements, so we do not feel that it is necessary to outline this in the Bill. There are no plans to develop a report on specific targets or to publish a road map at this time, because we are focusing our attention and total ambition on making sure that we can deliver the Bill and work on the regulations that will follow.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about a retained target to have a smoke-free England by 2030. We are going even further than the Smokefree 2030 target. As I have mentioned throughout, our ambition is for a smoke-free UK and creating the first smoke-free generation.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 199, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The Government are committed to ensuring the successful implementation of all measures in the Bill, as I am sure she appreciates. We will ensure that the public, retailers, enforcement bodies and other relevant groups are aware of all measures and their associated commencement date. We will publish clear guidance in advance to aid a smooth transition. The noble Baroness’s amendment also seeks to include measures to raise public awareness. That is absolutely key, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also said.

I say to noble Lords that we run successful public health campaigns to support smokers to quit and to inform the public on the harms of tobacco. Indeed, this month is our annual Stoptober campaign. I therefore reassure the noble Baroness that my officials are working to ensure that everyone will be informed about the smoke-free generation policy and the benefits of quitting and continuing that route.

To the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about social media campaigns, earlier this year we launched the first ever campaign to inform young people about the health risks of vaping. The campaign featured on social media and paid media used by young people, and the noble Baroness will be delighted to know that that included working with trusted influencers to speak directly to—how might I put it?—a younger audience.

On the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the matter of which tobacco products are in scope will be covered in detail in group 16, and I look forward to discussing that.

On the basis of those responses, I hope the noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her concluding remarks, which were thoughtful, detailed and thorough. I congratulate the Government on pursuing these measures with the energy and determination that Rishi Sunak brought to it when he was Prime Minister. They still enjoy widespread support in all corners of the House—not unanimous support, but widespread.

I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to the £70 million cessation budget and to the smoke-free pregnancy programme that my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned. I am grateful for her commitment to evaluation and assessment and to a post-implementation review. These are standard. I hope very much that she has taken on board the comments about the need for a clear road map and for accountability, and I am grateful for everything that she said on that.

I also emphasise the importance of a public health campaign—whether it should use influencers and Kardashians, I am not quite sure—and I pay tribute to the DHSC and the NHS for their public health campaigns, which have proved to be effective: they are good curators of the nation’s health when it comes to campaigning. I emphasise to the Minister the critical importance of getting both the guidance and the communication right. We do not legislate in order to communicate, but the communication of good legislation is very important.

I also stand by the Minister’s comments on cigars and other tobacco products. I thought my noble friend Lord Harlech made extremely clear and persuasive points. I totally take on board everything he said on my 2040 extinction proposal and would very much like to talk to him about that in future, and how it might be shaped.

With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.