Grand Committee

Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

Monday 27 October 2025

Arrangement of Business

Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

Committee (1st Day)

Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought

15:45

Clause 1: Sale of tobacco etc

Amendment 1

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.

16:00

There seems to be a suggestion or a thought that this ban, too, will be self-enforcing. However, it seems to me that all the evidence points the other way. The first line of enforcement that we have is, of course, the retailer. We know that, as my noble friend Lord Murray said, the retailer suffers considerably from aggression—and, indeed, from violence—in trying to enforce the existing ban on sales. That is only likely to become worse when they are asked to make finely judged distinctions between somebody who might be 38 and somebody who might be 39. How does one make that sort of judgment? That is what will be required. The thought, perhaps, is that the person who is 38 will willingly say, “I am no longer able to buy cigarettes, even though my friend here, who happens to be a year older, can do so”. I just do not believe that that is remotely credible. The first force of this will fall on the retailer.

Then there is the question of the trading standards officers. The function of trading standards in most local authorities is considerably less even than it was in my day, which was some years ago. There is very little trading standards activity in local authorities. So the idea that trading standards will be able to enforce this in practice is mildly delusional, yet an extensive regime of enforcement and supervision will be required if the generational ban is to be made effective.

Finally, my noble friend mentioned crime. I do not know that we take this sufficiently seriously. We are not talking simply about crime; we are talking about the utter degradation of many of our high streets. I have been shocked by the BBC’s coverage over the past few months of the investigations that it has undertaken into illegal cigarette sales in shops on high streets. I have not witnessed this myself where I live, to be perfectly frank, but, in many towns outside London, it is absolutely the case that high streets have been taken over by a series of illegal businesses purportedly selling vegetables and the occasional packet of cornflakes but actually engaged in the systematic sale of illegal cigarettes. As my noble friend said, this can, of course, easily connect to drug crime.

I do not want to sound overdramatic, but anyone who follows Politico—it is a sort of news agency—and gets its alerts might have seen this morning a report of a judge in Antwerp, Belgium, who has anonymously written a letter saying that Belgium is basically a narco state; that is how he referred to it. The importation of narcotics through Antwerp is now so extensive that it is accompanied by high levels of violence—60 drug-related shootings in Brussels in this year alone—and by corruption, with judges being offered bribes. Systematic, mafia-like business is being conducted there.

This is not some remote third-world state; this is a state that is just across the water from us and is very like us in many ways. People may say, “Of course, that could never happen here”, but it is already happening. We have already lost control of our southern border to a highly organised business—a mafia that is engaged in people trafficking—and that mafia is not just operating overseas but has a large operation in the United Kingdom, which is not disconnected to what is happening in our high streets with illegal cigarettes.

There is a real threat to us in what is happening at the moment, and we need to be realistic about it. Feeding the flames of that by an unenforceable generational ban is simple lunacy. Just as happened with prohibition in the United States, which gave the mafia life, we would encourage that by introducing this ban.

My noble friend and I propose a ban on sales to people below the age of 21. As he said, this would not only be enforceable on the existing model—it is merely an adjustment to the existing arrangement—but, as appears from the Government’s own facts and evidence, achieve a similar result to what they are aiming at. I beg the Minister to have some sense of the enormity of the consequences of what she would be embarking on if she pushes ahead with the Bill, and to give serious consideration to my noble friend’s arguments, which I, in my rather less organised way, support.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group to which I have added my name and all those in the names of my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Basically, these amendments offer a far more practical and balanced way for the Government to meet their goal of reducing youth smoking. Simply raising the legal age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21 would be more effective, easier to enforce and less damaging to small businesses than the proposed generational ban.

The idea of banning tobacco by birth year might sound bold but, in reality, it will be a bureaucratic and economic nightmare. Allowing one person to buy tobacco products for themselves but not for their friends born a few weeks later will complicate enforcement and lead to discrimination between people based solely on their date of birth. No other country has introduced such a complicated and confusing ban; as my noble friend Lord Murray said, this would not wash under European Union legislation.

Retailers would also be forced to check birth dates indefinitely, creating confusion and increasing the risk of violence and abuse against their staff. As noted, before, according to the British Retail Consortium, there are more than 2,000 incidents of violence or abuse against shopkeepers every single day, 70 of which involve a weapon. Retail crime costs businesses £4.2 billion a year, including £2.2 billion in theft, yet these same shopkeepers would be expected to enforce an ever-changing age threshold. This would inevitably lead to further violence and intimidation towards them and their staff.

It will also create unnecessary harm to small businesses. Independent retailers are already struggling with rising business rates, higher national insurance and the overall cost of living. Small manufacturers and importers have repeatedly warned that a generational ban would be devastating. For some, it would mean gradual decline and, for others, business closure. For a Government who pride themselves on being pro-growth, this is quite a strange way to go about it, extinguishing the future of many small, often family-run, businesses that have traded for generations.

By contrast, raising the age to 21 would achieve the same public health goals, by the Government’s own figures, without punishing retailers or driving trade into the hands of criminals, as so well explained earlier. The truth is that the generational ban, combined with already very high excise duties, would hand a huge advantage to organised crime.

We can reach the Government’s public health objective without punishing shopkeepers, small producers and law-abiding adults. Raising the legal age to 21 is proportionate, workable and enforceable. It is a policy rooted not in ideology but in common sense. So I, too, urge the Minister to review the generational ban and look at the amendment. It offers a practical path to the same goal—a smoke-free generation—without the confusion, complexity and unintended consequences on businesses.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I am very sorry that the Committee stage of this Bill has kicked off with an attempt to remove the intergenerational ban for tobacco products, because these amendments self-evidently attempt to severely weaken the Bill and run counter to its central objective of ensuring that those born after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco. I know that all noble Lords present know that, but I think we need to go back to basics here.

The objective is also to break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, which starts very young. This is made very clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill and I know that all noble Lords will have read them. I wonder whether the sponsors of these amendments in this group actually support the intention of creating a smoke-free generation. The Government’s own modelling says that the Bill would virtually eliminate smoking in under-30s by 2050. These amendments would make this desirable objective far less likely.

I shall not bore the Committee with the statistics that we are all very familiar with about the extent of the harms of tobacco. They are readily available and we all know them. But it is not in doubt that the Bill’s measures, if enacted in full, would result in fewer addictions and a reduction in harms and untimely deaths. The amendments in this group would dilute these desirable benefits.

I turn to the references that have been made to the possible replacement of legal sales by the black market. I am not sure that we have sufficient evidence to make the confident predictions that we heard at the beginning of this debate. Even if we had, I would suggest that the measures in the Bill, in full, do not preclude separate government actions to tackle illicit sales—if indeed such sales and such criminal activity are a consequence of the Bill. As I said, at the moment we do not have enough evidence to predict that with total confidence.

I will make two further small points. If the Bill ends up, as these amendments seek, specifying a lower age of sale than 21, tobacco companies would be very likely to target their marketing at the threshold age, resulting in more addiction, more ill health and a greater mortality risk.

Finally, the objective to create a smoke-free generation, which the Bill unamended would do, is publicly extremely popular. In the October 2023 UK-wide consultation, 63% of the public supported a sales ban on tobacco for those born after 2009. That public support has been fully endorsed by many other opinion polls since that government survey. I would hope that those supporting and proposing the amendments in this group will not persist.

16:15

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a company, one of the minority shareholders of which is a vape manufacturer.

We all start off on common ground. We all want to discourage young people from starting to smoke. What we are debating here is the best way of making this happen. I am speaking to amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to understand why the Government think that the complexities and unintended consequences of a generational ban are a better way of achieving this than the simplicities of an age limit, such as the challenge schemes that already exist and are well understood and working.

As a non-affiliated Member of your Lordships’ House, I find it surprising that the Government would not take the opportunity to improve on the previous Prime Minister’s pet project, which this was. As I know from personal experiences, he is almost professionally abstemious and does not really cater for the rest of us who are not. His generational ban stems from this outlook. For some reason—I hope it will be explained—in spite of all the evidence against it, which I will come to, the Government persist with his legacy scheme.

My first question is: why, when prohibition has never worked anywhere in the world throughout history without unintended consequences—all of them bad—do the Government think this de facto prohibition will work here now? Do the Government not understand that if you try to prevent someone buying something easily available legally, they will simply buy it illegally as they have always done and will always do? Why, when the DSHE’s own research and analysis modelling in preparation for the Bill showed that increasing the age to 21 would result in exactly the same outcome as the generational ban, do the Government ignore their own advice and everyone else’s common sense?

Why do the Government not accept endless research and the evidence of our own eyes that practically nobody starts smoking after 21 and therefore the age limit solves the problem? Equally important in this context, it polices itself. Why do the Government think it in any way sensible or reasonable to pass responsibility for enforcing their law on to retailers, many of them small family businesses, which will have to second-guess a customer’s age, which will change year by year? Surely the Government can see that on the ground in a shop, perhaps late at night with all that entails, this is completely unrealistic—especially when there is a practical age-limit solution to hand, such as the challenge scheme, which the shop will probably already be operating for other products.

Why do the Government ignore the blindingly obvious fact that, while it is quite possible to tell the difference between a 16 year-old and a 21 year-old, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a 56 year-old and a 61 year-old and so on, up and down the age range, as retail staff will now be asked to do? Why do the Government ignore the obvious consequences of proxy purchasing, whereby all adults will be able to buy alcohol but only some will be able to buy tobacco? We will have the irregularity of all adults being allowed to smoke, but only some adults being allowed to buy what is needed to smoke. Anyway, is formalising two-tier justice really a good idea?

Why do the Government ignore the British Retail Consortium? Its members have already reported an increase in violence towards their shop workers in recent years. Its view is that the generational ban will make this violence and abuse even worse.

Why do the Government not take note of the advice of the Association of Convenience Stores? The generational ban will have a disastrous effect on its members’ shops, not just financially but on their health and well-being as they are asked to enforce, on the Government’s behalf, the unenforceable.

Why do the Government ignore the experiences of Australia? A generational ban was tried there and it was found that organised crime moved into the vacuum created by good intentions. It has resulted in tobacco turf wars and an enormous increase in illicit sales.

Why do the Government think there is any point in giving an additional £10 million to trading standards and £100 million over five years to Border Force and HMRC to clamp down on illicit sales, when the ONS figures suggest that illicit sales lose the Government £6 billion a year in tax revenue? The Home Office-funded report by the National Business Crime Centre says that the proposed generational ban means that the demand for illicit tobacco will increase dramatically—I might add, obviously. Has the Treasury been consulted about losing all this revenue?

Lastly, I make a quick point about the use of statistics in this debate. Referring to the illicit trade in tobacco, can we all admit that, by the very nature of illicit trade, none of us knows what the real figures are now or what they will be in the future, only that, by virtue of common sense, they are bound to increase with prohibition, as they always have? All I can contribute is that I know three people who smoke cigarettes and two of them tell me that they buy them by the carton illicitly at £50 a carton. By extrapolation, this does not mean that 66.6% of cigarettes smoked are illicit, but the way that some Members, and the Government, were bandying statistics around at Second Reading was quite surprising. For instance, in answer to some points that I raised, the Minister quoted a statistic and I think that, even as she was reading it, she must have thought to herself, “Hang on, this one’s a bit iffy”:

“There are around five times more people smoking non-cigarette tobacco … than a decade ago”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 741.]


In a subsequent Answer to a Written Question, she confirmed my findings that there are no statistics at all to back this up. The so-called research comes from an ASH-funded scare project—as we all know, researchers seldom bite the hand that feeds them. Without coming clean about it, they rather conveniently included shisha, some of which contains hardly any tobacco at all, and all of which is freely available on Amazon and elsewhere. The increase is accounted for by the enormous demographic change that we have seen over the past 10 years of people for whom smoking shisha is part of their cultural heritage—toes on which I would have thought the Government would be loath to tread, electorally.

Talking electorally, given that the previous Prime Minister was not always right about everything, I am sure we would all be interested to hear the Government’s response to all the questions that I have asked and about why they think that introducing all the constitutional complexities and practical inefficiencies of a generational ban is a better way to what we all want—preventing young people smoking—than the wonderfully simple, existing, workable, enforceable and Windsor Framework-friendly alternative solution staring us in the face. It would also be the Government’s own policy, not one copied from a regime that they were so quick to vilify in opposition.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Trading Standards Board. In that capacity, I make one or two points that I made in the Bill Committee and at Second Reading, as they may be helpful in the context of this debate on these early amendments and because trading standards professionals will of course be on the front line in enforcing this legislation. It is therefore important to know whether they are confident about it. By the way, I regret suggestions that trading standards is in some way being ineffective at the moment. It has certainly been starved of resources, but I cannot think of a profession that has found new ways of using its resources more effectively better than trading standards. I once again pay tribute to the work that it does—in no way is it ineffective.

What it currently feels about this Bill is quite interesting. In saying these few words, let me say that I have spoken to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and it is content with what I am about to say. The first point is that, in a recent survey of all trading standards staff, 80% of professionals supported this Bill and felt that it provides a good balance between the strategy that people have to get off smoking and protecting, in particular, younger people. They believe quite strongly that the provisions in this Bill can be enforced. They feel very positive about what I would call the “one date policy” because it will avoid retailers having to check several dates on ID every year; there will be just one date for them to focus on. It will also avoid—this has not been mentioned yet—people who are currently able to buy cigarettes having that right taken away from them. That is a flashpoint for retailers; I take very seriously the point that has been made about the threat that retailers are working under.

Trading standards also points to the fact that people often say that increased regulation and increased costs cause the illicit market to boom. There is no real evidence for that—certainly not in this country. I am not a smoker, but the cost of cigarettes has increased from £1 for 20 in 1987 to £16 or £17 for 20 in 2025; that has already been mentioned. Yet the market for illegal cigarettes reduced from 15 billion sticks sold to 2 billion sticks sold in the same period; actually, that was from 2000 to 2025. So the impact of regulation and price increases has not, at least in this country, been to increase the illicit market; that market is under control.

The other two points that the professionals make are, first, that they believe that the retail licensing in the Bill will actually improve standards in the retail landscape and, therefore, they support that as well. Where do they have doubts? They want resources, of course; everyone always does. Is the fixed penalty notice a sufficient sanction? Perhaps, but perhaps not; it depends on the circumstances, I think, and it will need to be kept under review.

I am trying to paint a picture here of a group of professionals who are under huge pressure, who have great commitment to their work and who actually support most of the provisions in this Bill.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, most of the amendments here may seem limited in scope but, as we have heard, they have in fact been set down to seek both to delay and to water down this Bill.

This weekend, my daughter and I visited my 24 year-old nephew where he is currently studying. As we walked along, he rolled cigarettes. I mentioned to him that I would be involved in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill today and that the aim was to create a smoke-free generation. He stopped in his tracks, turned to me and said, “Just get this passed now”. He then said, “I never want my son, if I ever have one, ever to take up smoking”. He told me that, several weeks earlier, he had given up vaping. He told me how difficult he found it. He hopes he can keep to it, despite repeatedly seeking to give up both vaping and smoking. He started among his peers in his teens, at the age of 14. He has not managed to kick the habit thus far. No one else in his family smokes. He fully knows the risks. No amount of warning on packets can deter the urge that he has. Try as he might, he just cannot kick the habit.

We know how addictive this is, which is why it is vital to stop the habit starting among the young. My nephew’s desire in his teens to do what all his friends were doing led him to smoking via highly attractive vapes, which is precisely what the industry knows. It is also precisely why this legislation, brought forward after the Khan review and then by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is so visionary. We must deliver this, yet many of these amendments seek to undermine it. The industry is very adept at working on opposition, as has been the case over so many years.

16:30

Some of us have worked on this for over 20 years and, as we sought to improve things, I heard numerous times that the last lot of things we did—for example, banning smoking in public places—was fine, but this was a step too far. Needless to say, when we tried to ban smoking in public places, that was unacceptable. As we have here, they would often offer “This, but not that”.

Over time, reflecting public opinion, opponents have shifted from saying that everyone should be free to smoke to what the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, just said—“We all want to curb smoking in young people”. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, said the same, and that is welcome. But then come all the reasons for “not these proposals”. With every step we have taken to curb the tobacco industry and protect our population, we get opposition to “these proposals”. Look back over previous debates if your Lordships do not know that. Always, always, always.

We always hear, for example, about illicit tobacco. The key thing here is clearly to reduce demand. We always hear that shopkeepers will go to the wall, but this has not happened. But they are wound up by the industry and so, not surprisingly, they make that case.

So we must resist these amendments, for my nephew and his cohort and now for younger children, who are not faced, as my nephew is, by the apparently insuperable challenge of breaking from addiction.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, which are regrettable, in my view. The previous Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is to be applauded for what he did, as are the previous Government and this Government. This measure should be nothing to do with party politics.

Interestingly, this is a measure on health, but the proponents of the amendments have not so far mentioned the word “health”. We have heard many arguments, some of which I understand—I will address them briefly in a minute—but, in essence, this is a health measure and we have our own Health Minister, quite rightly, responding to this set of amendments. It is her measure and the Government’s measure. This is a health measure and we should not shy away from the fact that it will save lives.

Those proposing the amendments said they were in favour of bringing in restrictions—there is an age limit now—but they did not say that to me when they were proposing this. It did not sound like that. When I was preparing for this debate, I looked at this set of amendments and, at the back of my mind, I was vaguely reminded of something. I remembered what it was—and they will not like this comparison, so forgive me. It was when Jeremy Corbyn was supposedly in favour of Remain and went around giving speeches on it. Similarly, this proposal seems very half-hearted.

At the core of the current legislation is an age limit. This alters only the way that the age limit applies. The suggestion, in its hyperbole, is that we are going to face a Wild West of people opposing this and so on. Perhaps we need more resources on enforcement, and we certainly need to put in resources to anticipate what small businesses will be doing, but do not forget that this will be a gradual ban; it will not happen overnight. We also need to spend money on cessation services. All of that comes up in a later group of amendments.

These amendments address something outstanding that the Government are doing, which the previous Government were committed to. We should not shy away from it. We can improve this legislation, but this set of amendments would drive a coach and horses through what is necessary.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in difficulty in this debate. As many noble Lords will know, my party will have a free vote on the generational ban if any amendments are pushed on it. At Second Reading, I made my view about it very clear. I reaffirm my commitment to the aim of the Bill to reduce smoking and have a healthier nation, which is a crucial public health objective, and I support greater regulation that helps people quit and prevents addiction. I say that as somebody who saw both parents die of smoking-related illness, so I understand the effect that it has.

My worry about the Bill, and the reason I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is the assumption that by banning something, demand will automatically go. It will not go; it will just be shifted to a different market: the black market. That is what will happen; evidence throughout history always shows that. The question is: will the Bill therefore be enforceable to the shift in demand to different markets?

At Second Reading, I raised the issue of proxy demand. Where people are legally able to buy, how on earth will trading standards and the police be able to police every single household in this country, where adults will share tobacco and cigarettes? That is what will happen. I ask the Minister directly whether it will be legal if someone in England who is not able to buy tobacco because they are deemed below the age threshold goes to Jersey, buys tobacco, brings it back and smokes it. Will they be deemed to be carrying out an illegal activity in the UK? Where we had booze runs in previous generations, will we have ciggie runs for this generation? It is a real question.

If somebody goes to France, buys cigarettes and then gives them to somebody back in the UK who is not deemed able to buy them in the UK, will the fact that they have bought them in France but given them to somebody in the UK be an illegal act? Smoking will not be illegal; it is the buying, so if somebody buys in a foreign country, will that be deemed illegal? These are really important questions. The whole enforcement of this relies on those kinds of questions being asked. I do not know the answers, so I ask these genuine questions.

I also worry about trading standards. I heard what the noble Lord said about trading standards, but I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. Trading standards officers and organisations I speak to are very happy with what is being proposed but raise great questions about how enforcement will be carried out. They welcome the extra £30 million over the next five years but make it very clear that, in their view, three times that amount will be required to effectively enforce this. They also worry about rolling age verification, particularly as this goes into the future—distinguishing between a 30 year-old and a 31 year-old, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said. There will be a rolling issue of enforcement.

Finally, I made clear my fundamental philosophical issue at Second Reading and I shall not dwell on it today. The illicit trade already accounts for one in four cigarette sales. That is according to figures in Civil Service World. They are not HMRC figures. The Civil Service World article stated that, historically and to date, HMRC still underestimates the illegal trade and suggested that it is more like one in four sales. My view is that, by moving demand, we will move more of this into the illicit trade and therefore the enforcement will be even more.

I come back to my central point. Legislation in itself is useless if it cannot be enforced and I have no idea how proxy buying will be enforced in individual homes. People may say that they are not buying for somebody but then pass it on. I therefore believe that the Bill will not create the smoke-free generation that some want by having a generational ban. A cut-off point of an age, followed through with better regulation and better smoking cessation policy, with money paid by the tobacco industry for those things—there are amendments further down that we will come to on that—will be more effective than this view that a generational ban will magically stop the demand and stop younger people smoking throughout their lives.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not want prohibition and I do not want smoking to be illegal, but I feel that I would be having a more honest discussion if that was what was being proposed. I feel that, in the end, this is a Bill about prohibition. One reason I am so uneasy about the generational smoking ban, which is only part of the Bill, is that it restricts individual autonomy by ultimately denying adults the right to make their own choices about a legal activity, whatever its harms. We are asked to focus our eyes on young people, but those born in 2009 will grow up to be adults who are then denied the choice. In the end, that restricts adult freedoms—and that is a problem.

I appreciate that that is a matter of principle that some people do not think very important. By the way, one reason I am nervous about the specific amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, is that I am not convinced that moving the legal age from 18 to 21 helps my conscience matter at all, however well motivated the amendments are. I understand their intention but they muddy the waters around adult autonomy.

I was interested in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, about polling saying that the public are all behind this. In fact, in one poll in August 2025, 59% of respondents thought, because the question was posed differently, that if a person can vote—and that age, as we know, is getting ever younger—drive a car, join the Army, buy alcohol and possess a credit card, they should be allowed to purchase tobacco. In other words, they could see that when asked that, they thought that. By the way, only 29% thought it should not be permitted and 11% said that they did not know. Mind you, the same polling asked about the 10 most important Bills, this being one of them, and this Bill came ninth on the list of what should be seen as important, progressing through the House. The 10th, by the way, was the hereditary Peers Bill. I thought that might appeal to some people; I was playing to a certain crowd. No, but anyway, that is what the polling said.

One thing I want to ask the Minister, in all seriousness, because I still cannot understand it, is: how can the Government justify a ban that creates an unequal application of the law, whereby one group of adults, born before a cut-off date, can legally purchase tobacco while another group, born after, cannot? I just do not understand how that arbitrary cut-off point is not discriminatory by treating people solely based on their birth. I asked that at Second Reading and nobody answered me.

I also wanted to ask whether it is realistic to think that this will stop young people smoking. At the moment, young people are not allowed to smoke. However, according to ASH, in 2023 11% of 11 to 15 year-olds—400,000 people—had tried smoking, 3%, or 120,000 people, had carried on smoking, and 1% were smoking regularly. In other words, even though it was completely against the law for them to do it, they carried on smoking. The idea that the Bill will magically stop that seems a little ambitious.

16:45

There is also a danger that making it verboten for the young to be associated with smoking will result in rebelliousness. A range of articles have been written recently, including one by, I think, Olivia Petter, an award-winning journalist and podcaster, who talked about smoking becoming edgy, rebellious and cool again, and said that the way to be seen—ironic, at the moment—is as an outsider who does not give a damn about the rules. Does the Minister know that designers are producing perfume featuring accents of nicotine, and that one of the fastest selling earrings on one of the designer sites contains cigarette butts? For the TikTok generation, Instagram images of smoking are all over the place. Now, I do not want that—I do not want young people to smoke—but I am talking about unintended consequences.

On young people and smoking, it was an interesting exchange about the figures for the illicit black market. It seems to me that we do not know, and that is one of the problems. However, as someone cited their lived experience of talking to their nephew, or someone in their family, I can tell noble Lords that my lived experience of living in a particular part of Haringey in north London is that young people are very actively involved in the illicit black market of selling cigarettes. It is like a youth employment scheme. Everywhere you go, people are offering you illegal cigarettes. That has increased hugely. Young people like standing on corners, if you see what I mean, in the way that it happens in America. We have to be honest that we do not quite know what is going to happen here.

Finally, in relation to young people, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, mentioned the Government’s impact assessment in relation to the Bill, but it told us that we should not expect any quantifiable benefits until 2044. That is based on modelling young people and smoking in relation to the idea that they will smoke the whole time in exactly the same way as when they start. One thing about young people and smoking is that it is often experimental and, of late, all the evidence shows that people often migrate to safer products, such as vaping.

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.

17:00

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I had the privilege, before being an MP, of working as a director of one of the major advertising agencies. We had, as clients, one of the tobacco companies. I have seen the tobacco industry for 50 years and have watched what has been happening where it has been responsible and where it has not. On the whole, the industry has been responsible. I look at the NHS and the work that was done jointly with the industry on education, particularly with general practitioners, which has worked. We all know it has worked. That is why there has been a steady decline thanks to our GPs being the voice, helped by the industry itself.

On statistics, I have an upper second in economics from the University of Cambridge, but HMRC does not have a track record—whether it is a Conservative or Labour Government—of being terribly good at its forecasting. I read that, according to the brief, HMRC says that the loss from illegal importation et cetera is £2.2 billion. We have the figures from at least as good an organisation, if not better: the ONS. Its consumer spending data suggests that the figure is over £6 billion. Either way, it is a huge figure for the current Chancellor to look at very seriously. In my judgment, it is clearly nearer the £6 billion figure than the £2.2 billion.

Lastly—nobody has raised this—have His Majesty’s Government looked at what Sweden did in terms of educating young people? The success of the Government in Sweden on their particular challenges has been the in-depth education of young people in that country about the evils of smoking. If His Majesty’s Government have not done that yet, might I suggest that it is high time they did. I believe the amendments before us are worth supporting. They may not be perfect, but they are certainly a lot better than the case history we have from Australia, which is really worrying.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speeches from my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Bethell. This group of amendments is probably the most important one that confronts this Committee because it challenges a major plank underpinning the Government’s approach to this by challenging the generational ban. It is appropriate that this group contains not just the first of the marshalled amendments but the last.

A long time ago, I held the position of the Minister as a Health Minister. From 1979 to 1981, I was in charge of the negotiations with the tobacco industry—the Tobacco Advisory Council as it then was—and I adopted a fairly aggressive negotiation tactic. When I suggested that the health warnings should not be just on the packets but the cigarettes, they told me I could not do this as the ink was carcinogenic. In 1981, my tactics proved a little too much for the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who moved me to a less confrontational position on that issue.

I have listened with respect to the arguments made by my noble friends in favour of Amendment 1, which would basically substitute the generational ban with a ban for anyone under 21. As my noble friend Lord Howe said on Second Reading, these issues involve a balance between personal freedoms on one hand and health gain on the other, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Noble Lords may come down on different sides of the argument in free vote territory, but it seems to me the weakness of the amendment is simply its lack of ambition. It does not appear to bring to an end the harm done by the tobacco industry which is the whole point of the generational ban. As the former Prime Minister said last week, it was one of his proudest initiatives of those he introduced when he was Prime Minister.

It is worth just reminding your Lordships that the Bill passed the other place twice, once with a majority of 415 to 47. Last year, when my party was in government and had a free vote, I noted that the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the Bill, with just 67 voting against, and only two members of the Cabinet of about 30 voted against. So I hope that the broad policy introduced by the previous Government will continue to be carried through by this one and that a free vote will be allowed on my side for those who take a different view. I also recognise that the Bill is actually a little different from the one that was introduced last year.

This amendment would indeed reduce the harm done by smoking, but the Government’s own assessment concludes that a generational ban promises a far greater effect on smoking prevalence and broader support among young people. We should not want a smaller scale of ambition for a product that has killed a million people in this country over the last 50 years. The increase in the age of sale was a bit of policy conceived on evidence and based on long-term public health reform. It has strong public support, and it is backed by experts.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, this does not impact current smokers. The impact on personal freedom is less under the Government’s proposal than under the amendment. The rewards from this are substantial: fewer young people taking up smoking, fewer families suffering avoidable disease and loss, and a future in which our economy and NHS are no longer burdened by the toll from tobacco.

I will say a quick word about the black market. I can do no better than to quote what Victoria Atkins said when this point was raised when she introduced nearly the same Bill last year. On the point about

“the age of sale and the black market, tobacco industry representatives claim that there will be unintended consequences from raising the age of sale. They assert that the black market will boom. Before the smoking age was increased from 16 to 18, they sang from the same hymn sheet, but the facts showed otherwise. The number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25%, and smoking rates for 16 and 17-year-olds dropped by almost a third”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/24; col. 188.]

So I recognise the concerns of some of my noble friends on the libertarian wing of my party, but I remind them that crash helmets were made compulsory under the Heath Government in 1973; seatbelts became compulsory for drivers under the Thatcher Government in 1983 and for all passengers in 1981 under John Major. The previous Conservative Government introduced the Health and Care Act, which unblocked progress in adding fluoride to the water supply to promote dental health. So the generational ban is consistent with my party’s approach to public health over the last 50 years and I hope it will be sustained in this Parliament.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I just make a few points that have been raised in the debate. Noble Lords will soon find out that I do not take the same view as my noble friend Lord Scriven; I take the same view as my noble friend Lady Northover. Some of the aspects of this Bill are indeed a free vote for my party.

In this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, intends to remove the generational element. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Young, have just mentioned, this is not prohibition for those already addicted to tobacco. In fact, the reason why the generational ban and the way that it works through is a good idea is because it is considerate to people who are already addicted to tobacco. It allows them to have plenty of time to quit if they so wish—the fact is that most of them do, but many find it very difficult. Retailers have been mentioned. The same thing applies to retailers: this gives them an opportunity to gradually adjust their business plan as demand falls. This is a good way of doing it for them as well. Taxation has been mentioned. Of course, taxation on tobacco does not nearly cover the damage that it does, but we will come to “polluter pays” later.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been shouting fire about the illicit market but, on the illicit market, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and I have some helpful amendments that we will discuss in a later group, which may help. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, said, the central point of the powers that the Government are taking is to stop people starting in the first place and thereby reduce the market, both legal and illicit. Sadly, the Government have taken so long to bring this before us in Committee that 120,000 young people have started smoking since the Bill was first introduced. Something must be done. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, a public health crisis.

My noble friend Lord Scriven talked about the difficulty where you have two people who are very close in age but have different rights of choice. However, if you move the age limit to 21, you have the same problem with the 20 year-old and the 22 year-old. Really, it does not make any difference to that point. A very small choice restriction on one person’s freedom of choice is for the greater good and their own good.

17:11

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:21

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we were talking about the issue of one person almost the same age as another person having less freedom of choice. The point is that once you are addicted to nicotine, your freedom of choice is extremely limited, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Northover. She gave the example of her nephew, who found it extremely difficult to give up. My late mother-in-law was in the same position. She tried to give up smoking until she died—and she died of smoking, sadly.

It is very important that we have a robust system of enforcement. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling us about it, and what future measures the Government might take to reduce the number of illicit cigarettes—although I am told that it has declined by about 90% since 2000. One or two noble Lords mentioned the case in Australia. The fact is that it was a lack of robust enforcement that caused the problem in Australia. Despite that, the amount of people smoking has indeed gone down—but I agree with noble Lords who say that we need strong enforcement. When it comes to a smoker who, let us say, is my age, or who will be my age in many years’ time, who needs to provide some kind of ID, as long as it is not absolutely mandated, I am sure that some form of ID will be devised by clever people for those aged 82, and it will not be very difficult for them; they will just be able to do it, and that will sort that problem out altogether.

As noble Lords might have gathered, I support the Government’s generational approach to reaching the point of a smoke-free Britain. It is a public health crisis, as is obesity, on which the Government also need to take action. Lots of amendments are coming up about various aspects that have been mentioned today, such as age-gating, which we will discuss in greater detail. This has been a very extensive and passionate debate. I must say that I find myself a little surprised that so many of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party are so against what the Government are trying to do achieve his ambition. However, I shall leave it at that.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for bringing forward the amendments in his name, because he has allowed us to begin this Committee by engaging with one of the central and, dare I say, most controversial pillars of this Bill: the generational smoking ban. It is fitting that we start with this big policy issue, because the clause goes to the very heart of what the Government are seeking to do in creating what they describe as a smoke-free generation.

Before I turn to the points made in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which we are discussing the Bill—and a number of noble Lords have underlined that context. Smoking remains the single biggest entirely preventable cause of illness, disability and death in our country. It kills some 80,000 people each year. It costs our NHS and social care systems more than £3 billion annually. Someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute. It shortens lives, it devastates families, and it deepens inequality. Yet, as we debate this issue, we can recognise that, happily, the direction of travel is positive. Smoking rates have been falling: in 1990, nearly one in three adults smoked, but, today, that figure stands at just above one in 10. The number of children who smoke is falling as well.

Those are not arguments for complacency or for not legislating, but nor are they arguments for legislating carelessly. My noble friend Lord Murray asked some pertinent questions for the Minister to answer, in particular on the Windsor Framework and the dangers of a burgeoning illicit market, but, more generally, he was surely right to challenge the Government to explain exactly how the generational ban will operate. I say that he is right, because the proposal will represent a profound shift in how the law treats adults. It will, for the first time, make a permanent legal distinction between two adults, based solely on their dates of birth. One person aged 35, say, will be permitted to buy a legal product, while another person aged 34 will put a tobacconist in criminal jeopardy for selling him precisely the same product.

I emphasise that I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless, serious practical questions arise from that distinction, quite apart from the questions around discrimination throughout this Bill, to which we need—I say this to the Minister—to face up. Some of those questions have already been foreshadowed by my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Moylan but, as a starter, let me pick up the question of enforcement, which came up in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. How exactly do the Government intend these measures to be policed? How much responsibility will fall on shopkeepers, how much on trading standards and how much on the police?

Then there is the impact on retailers. How will small and independent retailers be supported to implement the new age checks and avoid inadvertent breaches of the law? Are we just going to leave them to cope as best as they can? Importantly, there is also the question of public understanding. How will the Government communicate to the public, especially younger adults, that some people of more or less the same age may face entirely different legal restrictions?

Can the Minister confirm one point of detail, which we discussed in our meetings on the Bill ahead of Committee? Will a person born on or after 1 January 2009 be permitted to sell tobacco products to someone born before that date? In other words, will someone who is themselves legally prohibited from purchasing tobacco still be able to serve or sell such products to others who remain entitled to buy them? That may seem a minor question, but it is one of the many practical questions that shopkeepers and retailers are already asking. The answer will affect staffing and hiring practices. What age will an employee of a tobacconist have to be to handle tobacco sales? Those are not arguments against the generational ban, but I hope that the Minister can address these concerns in her reply.

17:30

I now turn to the other amendments in this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his amendments, which would create an interim period in which the minimum age for the purchase of tobacco products is raised to 21. I have just mentioned public understanding and these amendments invite an important and, I think, worthwhile discussion. They raise the question of whether a more incremental approach—raising the age of sale to 21 across the board before moving to the generational model—might be a more proportionate and workable step. I hope that the Minister will recognise the spirit in which my noble friend clearly brings these amendments forward, which is to ensure that public understanding, enforcement and retailer readiness are not outpaced by legislative ambition. I trust that she will engage fully with my noble friend’s point that a phased or transitional model could provide a more practical route to the same public health goal, while avoiding some of the enforcement pitfalls of the generational system.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 202 and 203, in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, which would ensure that Section 1 cannot come into force before 2027, and only once a proper economic impact assessment has been completed and debated by both Houses. The principle of those amendments is surely welcome, because it reflects the key principle that we must bring people with us when we legislate, and that means testing the practical effects of what we are doing.

All these amendments remind us that the route to a smoke-free generation has to be fair, proportionate and workable—the last of those, in particular. I hope that, as this Committee progresses, the Minister will be able to reassure us that those values and principles are reflected in how this policy will be delivered.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful for the amendments and also the contributions today. As we know, this group of amendments seeks to change or to place conditions on our smoke-free generation policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, both observed, this group is very much at the core of the Bill and I understand the amount of interest that we have had today.

Let me say at the outset that there are a number of areas raised by noble Lords that I will return to in much greater detail, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to: verification and retailers in group two; illicit sales and licensing in group 13; tobacco products that are in scope in group 16; and vaping, which is in groups five and six. I look forward to the detail of those debates when we get to them.

Perhaps I could say that I am grateful for the supportive comments on this Bill, which, as we have been reminded throughout, was introduced under the previous Government. Credit goes to them for doing so, in particular for the commitment that was shown by the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Rishi Sunak. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who helpfully reminded us all that this is a health Bill, and that is what we are here to consider. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, all of whom have been supportive of the smoke-free generation principle and have emphasised to the Committee today the amount of public support for that and its role in stopping the cycle of addiction.

I will start with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, which propose changing the age of sale and proxy purchasing offences. These amendments would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 21. They would also make it an offence to buy or attempt to buy these products on behalf of anyone under the age of 21.

I am also grateful for the points that were just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this group of amendments. I cannot fail to emphasise that smoking is indeed the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health. It is unique in its harm, because it claims the lives of around 80,000 people a year in the UK, it causes one in four of all cancer deaths in England and up to two-thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking. I am sure that, over the years, noble Lords have heard the Chief Medical Officer’s opinion of the contribution that smoking makes, and that there is no safe level of smoking.

To the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who spoke about restrictions on adults’ individual autonomy, three-quarters of people who smoke wish that they had never started smoking. The majority want to quit and we want to help them. In my view, smoking is not about freedom of choice; I believe that the tobacco industry takes that choice away through addiction, particularly at a young age. In my view and that of a number of noble Lords whom I have heard speak, there is no liberty if we are speaking of addiction.

Almost every minute, someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking and up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to smoking every single month. There is, as has been referred to, an economic cost. It is estimated to cost our society more than £21 billion a year in England alone, including £3 billion a year in costs to our health and care service. This is far from insignificant.

That is why this Government has made a commitment to create a smoke-free generation, so that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. I recall the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Mackinlay, making a particular reference to the potential contribution of people bringing tobacco back from abroad, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Strathcarron, talked about the Bill prohibiting smoking. Let me make it clear: the smoke-free generation policy is not about criminalising people who smoke. It will not be an offence to possess or consume tobacco, regardless of your age. I can tell the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Mackinlay, that we are not imposing new restrictions on bringing tobacco back into this country.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Carberry. It is my belief—it is not just a belief, in fact; it is based on experience—that, if we raise the age of sale to 21, to which this group of amendments refers, the tobacco industry will simply change its business model and target older adults; a number of noble Lords referred to this. It will not meet our ambition of a smoke-free UK.

Similarly, the Bill makes proxy purchasing an offence such that anyone over the age of 18 cannot legally purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone born on or after 1 January 2009. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked important questions about the handling of proxy purchasing. I have explained clearly what the offence is and who would be responsible for it. This is about protecting children from the harms of smoking. I reiterate that tobacco is uniquely harmful. As I have said, there is no safe level of smoking; I emphasise that, to my knowledge, no other consumer product is killing two-thirds of its users.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I just want to pursue the issue of proxy purchasing abroad. My question was not about whether people will be able to buy tobacco abroad or whether duty-free limits will cease. My question was: if somebody buys cigarettes in a jurisdiction outside the UK and, when they come back, gives one of them to someone who is not legally entitled to buy them here, will that be an illegal act for the UK citizen who has bought that product abroad?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The purchasing referred to is within our jurisdiction.

That gives me an opportunity to make a general but important point. This is about changing culture and practice. It is not about everything staying the same. This is not just a message but a practice in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. All noble Lords have seen changes over the years, as I did when I was the Public Health Minister in the previous Labour Government, which have meant that we can speak about this Bill, as we are doing today, in a way that I do not think would have been possible just a few years ago. Tobacco is a deadly addiction, and preventing children starting to smoke is undoubtedly the easiest way to reduce smoking rates. We have to be bold and brave on this, which is why we are committed to creating a smoke-free generation.

My noble friend Lady Carberry mentioned the impact assessment. Modelling shows that creating a smoke-free generation is expected to help reduce smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds to near zero by 2050. That is a prize worth having, in my view. Over the next 50 years, it will save tens of thousands of lives, as well as many years lived in ill health with misery, discomfort and pain; it will also avoid up to 130,000 cases of lung cancer, stroke and heart disease. As I say, all of these are, I believe, prizes worth having.

On the impact assessment, a number of noble Lords said that an “age 21” policy would have just the same impact as a smoke-free generation policy. That is not true. We are aware that the tobacco industry has been telling parliamentarians this. I must say, again, that it is incorrect. The published modelling considered different scenarios for the impact of the smoke-free generation policy; it did not model the impact of raising the age of sale to 21. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine; to break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage; and to allow people the chance to live healthier lives.

17:45

There has been quite a bit of discussion in Committee today—particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Scriven—about prohibition not working. There was a suggestion that it would lead to an increase in black-market tobacco. I go back to the point that I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: a smoke-free generation prevents people ever becoming addicted to smoking in the first place. Therefore, in my view, as the total market for cigarettes shrinks, the demand for illicit-market cigarettes and tobacco will, by definition, also shrink.

For example, we can look back to when the age of sale was increased from 16 to 18. It created 1.3 million more people who were no longer able to be sold cigarettes. In theory, if we followed the line put forward in the debate today, they would therefore have been in the market for illegal cigarettes, but, in fact, the number of illicit cigarettes because of that move actually reduced by 25%. Current smokers will always legally be able to be sold cigarettes, so there is no reason why the smoke-free generation policy should automatically lead to a growth in demand in the illicit market. The Bill provides powers to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in order to clamp down on rogue retailers; I look forward, as I am sure noble Lords do, to returning to that matter in our debate on group 13.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to the proliferation of the drugs trade, I believe, with it somehow being supported by people buying black-market tobacco. I assure him—I am sure that he is aware of this—that this Government take the threat posed by drugs very seriously. We are committed to preventing drug use and abuse, but there is no evidence to suggest that changing the age of sale for tobacco will lead to an increase in drug use. Again, I refer back to when the age of sale for tobacco was raised from 16 to 18: we actually saw a decrease in drug usage. It is the case that those in the smoke-free generation will never be sold tobacco legally; we do not expect that to have an impact on drug usage by that group, nor have we previously seen evidence that it will.

There was what I felt was helpful reference to, and concern about, the safety of retail staff, as well as the potential for increasing levels of violence and abuse; that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Moylan and Lord Strathcarron, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I assure the Committee that we will continue, as we have always done, to work closely with retailers and organisations such as the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores in order to ensure that we support retailers through this transition. Violence and abuse against staff are never acceptable. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their job, which is why the Crime and Policing Bill introduces the new offence of assaulting a retail worker.

The noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Bichard and Lord Scriven, made points about trading standards. I, too, associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in paying tribute to the work that they do, often in very difficult circumstances.

We recognise that it is absolutely critical to ensure sufficient funding for enforcement and implementation in order that the Bill can succeed. We have announced £10 million of funding for trading standards in 2025-26 in order both to boost the workforce and to tackle illicit and underage sales of tobacco and vapes. Again, I am sure that we will come back to this issue in more detail in our debate on a later group.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned an article in Civil Service World that referred to a particular percentage of cigarettes being illicit. I understand that that article was written by Philip Morris Ltd; I will, therefore, leave noble Lords to make their own decisions on it.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister must be clear that the report was done by KPMG; it was commissioned by Philip Morris Ltd, but it was not written by that organisation.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am happy to accept that clarification, but the point that I am driving is still being driven.

I now move on to Amendments 5 and 205 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which seek to introduce an interim age of sale of 21 at Royal Assent, before the smoke-free generation provisions come into force. Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s ambition in seeking to raise the age of sale for relevant products, which we are discussing, it is my view that these amendments are not necessary; indeed, they would distract from our ambitions. Let me explain why.

Under this Bill, the smoke-free generation will come into force in 2027 when people born on or after 1 January 2009 turn 18. Subject to timetabling, these amendments would mean that any interim age of sale proposed by the noble Lord would be in place for only a year or less. Retailers and enforcement agencies—they are, as many noble Lords have acknowledged, absolutely key to the success of this measure—would not be provided with any time to prepare for the increase to 21. I do not feel, therefore, that a measure such as this one would be helpful; indeed, it would divert resources.

The important matter of communication to the public came up in the debate. The noble Lord’s amendments would confuse all such communications if a different regime were to apply for such a short time.

The noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Mackinlay—as well as other noble Lords—referred to the situation in Australia. Let me say this in response: we are not aware of any evidence for the illicit market in Australia being the result of a change in the age of sale. In fact, I am advised that Australia has not changed its age of sale since 1998. I say this to noble Lords: the UK is highly regarded for its robust, comprehensive approach to tackling illicit tobacco. Despite what the tobacco industry may say, implementing tobacco controls does not lead to an increase in the illicit market.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, we have another Division, so the Committee is again suspended for 10 minutes.

17:53

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:03

[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.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 3 and 17. The bulk of the amendments in this group are to do with age verification, but mine are not, and I do not intend to speak about age verification. However, the process of numerical determinism that governs our actions and procedures means that I have the privilege of speaking first in this group.

My amendments are to do with the question of whether certain regulations should be approved and made by the affirmative or negative process, which I hope is a relatively uncontroversial topic. Indeed, I hope that it will find support across the Committee, because I wish to move from the current arrangement whereby these regulations are made under the negative process to the affirmative process, which generally finds favour among your Lordships.

Both amendments require certain specific regulations—not all regulations—to be approved by the affirmative process. Amendment 3 relates to tobacco sales and Amendment 17 relates to vape sales. The activities subject to these regulations are what constitute a defence by the retailer if charged with an offence under the Bill. In other words, these regulations state how a retailer must operate if they are to have a defence under the Bill from the charge of making illicit sales. To be effective, these must be highly technical and challenging regulations which will require the broadest consultation with representative bodies, including those representing not only retailers but trading standards and enforcement officers, which I think would benefit greatly from parliamentary scrutiny.

This would involve issues such as—we will come on to this—what sort of age verification would be acceptable and other matters of that sort. As I say, they are likely to be very technical and they will have to work. If they are going to work, the greater the scrutiny they are given, the better. In that sense, the argument makes itself.

I hope that the Government see that there is nothing mischievous about these amendments; the Bill and the operation of it would benefit by accepting them, and there should be little difficulty in doing so. I am not proposing to speak on the broader question of age verification that will come up in the course of this debate, but I wish to move Amendment 3.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, tabled in my name, would create an offence of selling tobacco products online. This is a probing amendment.

If the generational ban policy is to be effective, or the alternative policy of an age limit of 21, there would be a clear loophole if tobacco could be bought online, as roughly 9% of sales are at the moment, without any form of age verification. Such a policy would be unusual for the UK, as there is not currently a product that is available for sale in a bricks and mortar shop that you cannot legally purchase online. However, we would by no means be the first country in the world to introduce this measure: Brazil, Mexico, Finland, France and Greece, to name a few, have all banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet, so there are some clear international precedents.

Banning the online sale of tobacco was recommended by the Khan review in 2022 and the World Health Organization, which argued that internet sales constitute

“display at points of sale”

and

“inherently involve advertising and promotion”.

Today you can look up tobacco products on any of the major supermarket websites or shopping apps and see reviews, such as:

“Quite nice for relaxing on a summers day, beside a bubbling brook perhaps or at a test match”,


as one purchaser of Pall Mall Flow Red Superkings commented. Last time I went to a test match, smoking was prohibited.

Separately from the point about the delivery of smoking products, are these the messages that we want smokers to see about such a lethal product, given that such advertising was banned on television some 60 years ago? When retailers sell tobacco products, they are not permitted to display them, yet there are pictures of products online. This seems inconsistent. Products such as heated tobacco and cigarillos have colourful packaging, as they are not captured by plain-pack laws, which seems to be a regulatory oversight. I appreciate that the Government may be doing something about this, so perhaps the Minister can give us some details—but it feels like the online world is somewhere where rules are often bent with little repercussion, and the amendment would address that.

At the moment, online sales are not heavily exploited by underage individuals attempting to circumvent the law. However, we should be mindful of that possibility in the future. If the Government are minded to resist the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain how age verification will be secured at the point of delivery. Someone born after 2009 can order their groceries online and include tobacco, but they could not buy it in the shop. How might this be enforced without the amendment? Does the Minister plan to go down the route that we have taken for the delivery of knives? Since 2022, a retailer has to verify the age of the purchaser before he or she sells a knife and, if that knife is delivered after an online order, it has to be checked at the point of delivery. Does the Minister have that in mind for tobacco sales? Who will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the policy if tobacco products are available online? I look forward to her reply in due course.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for introducing this group of amendments, and I agree with his proposals relating to the mechanism by which the House looks at statutory instruments. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the desirability of further constraining online sales. However, I do not want to talk at length about those; I want to talk simply about age-verification technology and the potential that it offers.

18:15

I have tabled four amendments in this group: Amendments 19, 20, 122 and 132, which relate respectively to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These amendments were tabled in the other place by Mary Glindon MP, the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Responsible Vaping, and by Euan Stainbank MP. I am grateful for their initiative in presenting these amendments, for which they made a strong case in the other place.

Before I elaborate, I just make a prospective apology to the Committee. I have to move the lead amendment in three groups from now on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill so, depending how long it takes to discuss this group, I may have to move to the Chamber to move my amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—but I hope that that will not be necessary.

Age verification is a central requirement of this Bill. Eight separate clauses deal expressly with age verification, and the focus of the Bill in respect of age verification is on the point of sale. That is important and necessary, but we know that there are limitations at point of sale, which are also important to recognise. Youth vaping is widespread. We know that one in four 11 to 15 year-olds has tried vaping; 85% of teachers say that it causes problems in schools; half of schools catch students vaping daily or weekly; and 160,000 young people aged 11 to 17 say that they vape daily. Illicit vapes of course fuel the problem. Cheap, illegal or dangerous vapes are too easily available online or in local shops.

Access to vapes by underage users is the major concern. When underage people are asked how they access vapes, 71% say that they were buying them from retailers without age checks and 76% said that they were buying them online with minimal or no age verification. Support for stronger measures is apparent from research into public opinion: 78% of all respondents said that they would support point-of-use age verification for vapes if they knew that it would effectively block underage use. There is also support for action to prevent youth vaping, with 73% of people saying that they want smarter tech solutions, such as point-of-use verification to tackle underage use. The Bill, as it stands, will not keep up with the potential that the technology offers us. The Bill tackles packaging, flavours and retail display but does not give the Government the powers that they should have to regulate the technology that is incorporated into the devices themselves or their packaging. That is the loophole that underage users or rogue sellers would be able to exploit.

My four amendments for the four countries are based on a tested technology: IKE Tech in America, whose information is the basis of these amendments, offers a solution that locks a vape until the user verifies their age. Initial verification set-up takes 90 seconds and, subsequently, unlocking on the occasions when someone is using the vape more frequently takes just six seconds. In testing for the US Food and Drug Administration—which I should say is in the process of looking actively at the introduction of this technology—100% of adults could verify their age, but no underage user could activate a device. The technology also allows geofencing; namely, making vape-free areas a possibility. The technology for geofencing can automatically disable devices near schools and youth centres, making vape-free areas effective.

This technology can also prevent the circulation of illicit products by being embedded, through low-cost NFC—near-field communications—tags into product packaging, so that every legal vape can be instantly verified. The technology is, of course, a data exchange between the tag and a compatible smartphone, which link it to a blockchain technology, so that one would be able to track legal vapes, thereby seriously inhibiting fake or illicit vape transmission at the border or on shop shelves.

We can protect adult vapers: we can provide point-of-use verification, which would not affect how adults use vapes to quit smoking. If one wishes to quit smoking, the repeat verification process is very simple and easy to do. For vulnerable groups, or those who have limitations on their use of certain technologies, it would certainly be possible to make arrangements with retailers for access to vapes without this technology incorporated.

Some 85% of vapers who have been asked support stronger age-verification measures because they want to reduce youth access. In a later group, we will come on to talk about the evidence relating to the impact and potential harm of vapes over time, but I am starting from a general proposition that we do not wish to support the initiation of vape use by those who are under the age for purchase of vapes, and we want to minimise, wherever possible, overall vape use—other than for quitting smoking—as well as smoking.

As I said, these four amendments are about giving us the power to use what increasingly, potentially, looks to be international best practice in point-of-use technology to inhibit the use of vapes by underage users. The question then is: are these amendments necessary? Can the Bill deliver these changes with the powers that are already available or will be available in the Bill?

I have looked carefully at Clause 90, which relates to the features of products. I have looked at it with a view to whether equivalent powers to those that I am proposing will be available using that clause, and I am not persuaded that that is the case. Age-gating technology and the linkage of biometric information to the technology are not, in my view, “the markings on” the product. They are not “information provided” on a vape or, in my view, covered by the appearance, size or shape of the product, which are other features in Clause 90. The only features that remain are

“any features … which could be used to distinguish between … brands”,

and I am afraid that I do not think they are covered by that.

I hope that the Minister will give us a positive view of the potential use of this age-gating technology, which is increasingly likely to be used and available internationally, and say that it is something that the Government are positively looking to use. I hope that, if they do not accept these amendments at this stage, the Government will give a commitment to enter discussions before Report, either to take the explicit powers that are required or to bring forward their own amendments on Report to amend Clause 90 to incorporate such features and make it absolutely clear that this technology can be incorporated into point-of-use age verification in due course.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to address one of the practical issues that has been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about restrictions at the point of use and I wish to talk about restrictions at the point of sale.

The purpose of my Amendment 23 is to propose that, in the sale of vapes and tobacco products, verification of age should be achieved primarily by a date-of-birth tag carried by banker’s cards. The proposal is contained in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause in the amendment. The rest of the text is an embellishment by a parliamentary draftsman, which serves perhaps to conceal the simple purpose of the amendment.

I observe that the majority of purchases by consumers are nowadays made with banker’s cards. I witnessed this in our local supermarket. The automatic tills used to dispense cash when payments that had been made with notes and coins exceeded the cost of the goods that were being purchased; such machines are being removed because they have become redundant.

The efficiency of the card-reading tills is impaired only by their inability to mediate the sale of alcohol. They halt the transactions and flash a signal whenever an attempt is made to purchase alcohol. A shop assistant hovers near the machines in order to assess whether the customer is old enough to purchase alcohol. My invariable comment when buying a bottle of wine is to ask why the machine is not smart enough to tell my age, which can be assessed at a glance by the assistant. Sometimes it invokes the fatuous response that I do not look a day older than 21.

Be that as it may, the difficulty and inconvenience could be overcome if banker’s cards were to incorporate an age tag. Such a tag would also serve for age verification, which, according to the Bill, should accompany the sale of tobacco products. It may be appropriate for me to give more details of what I am proposing. Tobacconists and sellers of vapes would be required by the terms of their licence to be equipped with a card reader that would send a signal if the card holder was underage.

Another, less convenient means of identification should be acceptable, such as passports and driving licences, and even the freedom passes that are issued by London councils to pensioners to allow them to travel freely on the public transport system. A doctor’s certificate might also be acceptable, in the case of a smoker attempting to quit the habit. However, the inconvenience of these alternatives should encourage a reliance on age verification via banker’s cards.

The system as described so far would not be proof against all evasions, but it could be elaborated to incorporate a system of inventory control, which would record both the items being added to the retailer’s stock and those sold to consumers. The sales of tobacco products could be recorded item by item via a till specially equipped for the purpose. That would be straightforward since, apart from legally imported items, all legitimate tobacco products carry a machine-readable barcode. The till would also create a record of cash sales, and the purchase of tobacco products by the retailer would be recorded, so you would have a complete inventory system there. A major disparity in the records between the retailer’s stock and their recorded sales could be investigated, and it might lead to a prosecution.

It has been claimed by those opposed to age verification accompanying the sale of tobacco that it would lead to conflicts between the retailer and their customers. I tend to discount that possibility. To any person attempting to purchase tobacco products using cash and providing no age verification, the retailer could say, “I cannot do this. It would lead to a prosecution”. Surely that ought to be enough. I imagine that similar circumstances arise in medical pharmacies when someone attempts to purchase a regulated medicine in the absence of a doctor’s prescription.

So far, I have been describing purchases of tobacco products that occur in shops, but I understand that an increasing proportion of purchases nowadays are made online by the internet. These are also mediated almost exclusively by banker’s cards, and it would be a simple matter for banks to identify the age of the customer when they attempt to pay for the goods. The bank should be mandated to block all purchases attempted by underage persons.

I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about sales on the internet. I can agree with it, I think, but what I am proposing almost covers the issue in its entirety. I believe that the system I have outlined, whether or not it would become watertight through a rigorous inventory control, is the only viable system that would not greatly inconvenience the consumers of tobacco products—although it might be the intention to inconvenience such consumers. Be that as it may, I honestly believe that what I have outlined is the obvious way of achieving the Bill’s objectives. I would be most surprised if others have not proposed similar or identical systems; indeed, it surprises me that I am, to my mind, the only person who has made this obvious point.

18:30

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 24 and 25 in this group. They were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who is unfortunately unwell today; I am speaking at his request.

These amendments would apply mandatory age-verification procedures for the sale of tobacco, vapes and non-medicinal nicotine products across England and Wales. Such provisions are in line with the provisions set out for Scotland in the Bill. Also in this group are the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about which we have just heard. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are, in his view, different.

First, they would apply to all tobacco products and not just vaping devices, as the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would. Secondly, they would require decisive action on the policy to be applied for age verification, rather than an evidence review. The amendments do not prescribe specific methods for age verification; they simply state that age verification would be required.

Since these amendments were tabled and debated in the other place, the Government have announced plans for digital ID cards. This Bill defines “identification” in a broad way to make space for the option of digital ID—it is understood that that option will be used for alcohol sales soon—but it is separate from any kind of mandate on such forms of ID.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to point out that the successful implementation of the policy in this Bill will require a consistent, practical and enforceable approach to age verification. In his view, this should be in the Bill. He points out that, in Scotland, there is already legal underpinning to the Challenge 25 policy; the Bill adapts this for the rising age of sale. However, there is no such legal basis in England and Wales. These amendments would remove this inconsistency by extending such an underpinning to England and Wales; he feels that it should also be extended to Northern Ireland, although that is not covered in the amendments currently tabled.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is, therefore, seeking to provide across Great Britain consistency, clarity for both retailers and consumers, and protection for retailers who, as other noble Lords mentioned earlier, might be on the front line in implementing the policy and finding the challenges in that. He points out that, if age verification is a legal requirement, retailers can say, “It’s not me. It’s the law”, rather than shouldering the burden of difficult conversations with customers.

The Bill already creates an offence for retailers who sell tobacco to those born in or after 2009. The defence in law is that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the law was being followed. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, points out that this does not mean that retailers will be required to ask every customer for ID from 2027 onwards if, as in Scotland, the age of sale is obviously such that they do not need to proceed with an ID. He says that these amendments have the backing of retailers themselves. Polling shows that 83% of retailers in England support mandatory verification for under-25s, rising to 91% in Scotland where it is already law, and it provides them with clarity, protection and reassurance. The noble Lord also says that public support is equally strong, with 72% of adults in Great Britain favouring this approach.

This is not just about future generations; it is also about tackling a current problem. Despite the ban on sales to under-18s, data shows that around half of the young people who vape are buying them in shops. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that the figure is actually higher than that. The amendment would make it clear to retailers that ID is required for not just tobacco but vapes and non-medicinal nicotine products. The Bill already allows flexibility; regulations can specify a wide range of acceptable forms of identification, including digital ID, as is already being introduced for alcohol sales.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is acutely aware that the enforceability of this part of the Bill has been raised. He hopes that his amendments provide a practical solution that is a proportionate measure. Given that he could not be here, it seemed important to me that his amendments were spoken to so that the Minister can address these issues. I look forward to her response and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be very interested as well.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan on having the affirmative resolution procedure for statutory instruments. That seems wholly sensible.

On age verification, I strongly support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Dealing with online sales is a real issue. We have the overseas experience of countries such as France, Mexico, Brazil and so on to look at, but this seems a neat solution to what could otherwise become a very real problem.

On the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, considerable work has been done on age gating in relation to vaping sales and, as he said, those who are vaping strongly support having some kind of process. We have the system being developed by IKE Tech in the USA, currently awaiting FDA approval, which provides a very neat and quick method of age verification via a smartphone app. It will enable adults to remain protected—it will take them only 90 seconds for the initial process and six seconds for every subsequent vape, so it will not take long. That seems a very sensible way of proceeding and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

In relation to what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, would have said, there is certainly an issue to be looked at. I strongly support looking at what has been working in Scotland. It seems sensible to look at what they have been doing, learn from their experience and follow it where appropriate. Again, I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that issue.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think it is fair to ask a courier driver to verify the age of a person, so the noble Lord, Lord Young, has a very good point, and age verification online is very poor. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about age gating. I can see why it is popular with retailers, because it would take some of the burden away from them.

It has been claimed that the Bill may not currently keep up with technology. Can the Minister say whether the wide powers in the Bill would allow powers to be taken in future to mandate age-gating technology if the evidence indicates that it is needed? Clearly, there is a problem even now with underage children buying vapes. A briefing that I—and I think quite a few other noble Lords—received from something called IKE Tech said that 71% of underage children buying vapes get them from retailers. That indicates that we need a really vigorous enforcement regime. It also said that 76% said they are buying them online, which indicates support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young.

On the whole, when people buy from a retailer, I think that I am in favour of a wide range of means of age verification being acceptable. Both these amendments aim to reduce opportunities to start vaping underage, which is a very good thing, because young people who start vaping may not be killed by tobacco but they will be made addicted and very poor by the addiction to nicotine that they will get hooked on. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that. I would not want to prevent an adult who could not obtain digital age verification buying an effective quitting tool, so we have to be a bit careful about unexpected consequences.

One thing that I saw in the briefing was interesting. The claim is that similar tech can also prevent circulation of illicit products by embedding low-cost NFC tags into product packaging so that every legal vape can be instantly verified; this stops fakes at the border and on shop shelves. That is something that we should all be concerned about, because drugs could well be inserted into vapes—and I understand that this is happening already—so people are getting things that they do not expect to get. Of course, something like that would not be legal and, if there was a tag on them to identify anything that is legal, you would only want to buy those. I know that teachers have reported problems with children being drugged by things that have been inserted into vapes, so that is something that we should consider.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate in different ways to age verification and the role of retailers and how these new rules will be implemented, monitored, enforced and supported in practice. I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and—through the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for their thoughtful and varied contributions. Noble Lords have raised from different angles the same essential question: how can we make sure that the Bill works, not just in principle but in practice, and that those on the front line of enforcement are properly supported in the roles that they perform?

I start with Amendments 3 and 17 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, which would ensure that any regulations specifying methods of age verification were made under the affirmative resolution procedure and would implement a greater age threshold during the interim period. I fully support my noble friend. These regulations should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. The powers that we are talking about are far from minor; they will determine how retailers verify a customer’s age, what technologies can be used and what systems are deemed compliant. The verification methods will be central to the success and fairness of the new regime, and it is therefore right that they should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny before coming into force, not least because the technology in this space is evolving rapidly and the decisions that the Government make on this front will have real implications for retailers and enforcement bodies as well as consumers. I suggest that it is becoming even more important, given the Government’s announcement around a national digital ID.

18:43

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:53

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I turn next to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, which would introduce requirements and provide enabling powers for age-verification technology to be built into vaping devices themselves. This proposal opens up all sorts of interesting avenues of thought. The idea of age-gating devices, using technology to prevent use by those who are underage, is innovative by any standards. As we heard from my noble friend, there is already at least one technology that would facilitate this; like him, I am led by the manufacturers to understand that it has been successfully trialled in the United States.

There could be distinct advantages to such a system: it would close a loophole that rogue sellers currently exploit; it would be more effective as a way of reducing the incidence of underage vaping; it could avoid unpleasant confrontations in retail stores, about which we know retailers are very worried; and, as my noble friend said, it would not affect the way in which adults use vapes as a way of quitting smoking. From the Government’s point of view, an amendment along the lines of my noble friend’s would act as a form of future-proofing the Bill, because it would enable them to regulate the technology in devices or packaging— a power that this Bill does not currently give them. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered systems of this kind and whether officials are aware of developments in this field?

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, which calls for a review of age-verification methods. The Committee will be grateful to him for raising this idea; it links into my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, but it also speaks to the crucial principle that we must remain properly informed about how these measures will work in practice. This Bill introduces a major new regulatory framework, so it has to be monitored and tested against real-world evidence. Age verification will, as I have said, be central to the Bill’s success, so we need credible and accurate systems to facilitate it. The noble Viscount is therefore right to emphasise the need to engage directly with those on the front line: the retailers who will have to implement these rules every day. Their experience will be one of the best indicators of whether the system is working as intended.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seek to place a statutory requirement on businesses to operate age-verification policies in England and Wales. These are well-intentioned amendments, and we share entirely the objective of preventing underage sales. However, as I read it, the Bill as drafted already makes it an offence to sell tobacco or vaping products to anyone below the legal age and provides for a due diligence defence for retailers who have taken all reasonable precautions. In practice, that means having and enforcing an age-verification policy, which is the very outcome that these amendments seek to achieve. The familiar Challenge 25 model is already a well-established part of a range of retailer compliance. So, although we understand and respect the motivation behind these amendments, we do not believe that it is necessary to restate these duties in the Bill.

I welcome the amendment from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which would prohibit the online sale of tobacco products. This raises serious and timely questions around enforcement, fairness and the protection of legitimate retailers. My noble friend put his case very well. Online sales prevent a potential route for illicit or underage trade; as purchasing habits continue to shift online, that risk will surely only increase. We therefore see every benefit in exploring whether a prohibition or stricter control of online sales is appropriate.

If I were to voice a caveat, which I am sure my noble friend would not object to, it would be that we must always ensure that law-abiding retailers—those who comply with the law and operate responsibly—are not disadvantaged. Any new regulation has to be clear, enforceable and fair. The central question here is: has the Minister given any thought to this issue? If so, what capacity do the Government have to enforce a measure such as the one suggested by my noble friend? What mechanisms exist to distinguish legitimate traders from those operating illicitly? Can we control online sales in the way we would like to do? I am sure that the Minister will be the first to recognise that, if unregulated online trade becomes a loophole—indeed, it already is—it will seriously undermine the objectives of the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important topics of age verification and online sales. I am grateful to all noble Lords for not just their contributions but the intent behind these amendments—an intent that I have heard as being presented to assist the Bill. I am grateful for noble Lords’ considerations; I have certainly heard the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to a number of these amendments.

I turn to Amendments 24 and 25 tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is not able to be in his place. We wish him well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for presenting these amendments, which would introduce a requirement for a person carrying on a business selling tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products, in England or Wales, to operate an age-verification policy. I certainly welcome the intention to prevent underage sales and to express a view—as I have heard not just from the noble Baroness but from other noble Lords—about supporting retailers to do the job that we are asking of them. I associate myself with that, but we believe that the Bill’s current provisions are sufficient in this regard.

19:00

It will be an offence to sell these products to anyone underage. I express my thanks that the majority of retailers sell tobacco and vapes responsibly. They follow recommended practice and regularly ask for customers’ ID. We should acknowledge that. Similarly, trading standards will continue to take an intelligence-led, proportionate approach to enforce the law through test purchases. The new £200 fixed penalty notices introduced by the Bill will further strengthen enforcement against rogue retailers. The Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age that are sufficient as a defence to the age of sale offence. These regulations will therefore provide further clarity for retailers on appropriate steps to avoid selling to customers under the age of sale.

Amendment 23, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hanworth, would require, within 12 months of Royal Assent, the publication of a review of age-verification methods for individuals purchasing tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. The amendment says that the review must consider the effectiveness of age-verification methods, including the suggestion made by my noble friend to utilise electronic age-verification technology in credit and debit cards. I thank my noble friend for the thought that he has given this, but we believe that this amendment is not necessary. We will provide clarity to retailers on using physical ID and digital methods of age verification through regulations, which will set out steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age as a defence to the age of sale offence. We will carefully consider the types of ID acceptable in the context of satisfying the defence and keep these under review.

The Office for Digital Identities and Attributes, which sits within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—DSIT—has already created a framework of standards and governance to support the widespread use of trusted digital verification services. Such services provide an efficient and secure way to verify age for both in-person and online sales, which also addresses the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young. We will continue to work closely with DSIT to understand how its work can enable the best use of digital identities to support retailers that are selling tobacco, vapes and nicotine products, and to ensure that this is reflected in the regulations.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendments 3 and 17, which seek to specify that the age-verification regulations to which I have referred should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I have heard the support on this matter in Committee, including from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are closely considering the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which looked at the Bill in its 22nd report of the 2024-25 Session. We feel that the scrutiny of these powers in the Bill has been very helpful and I hope to provide further information on the Government’s response on Report.

Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to ban the online sale of tobacco products. He said that this is a probing amendment, and it is certainly useful in that regard. I share his desire to ensure that online sales are not used to circumvent the new age of sale restrictions; I understand the concern about that. However, we feel confident that the Bill as drafted includes sufficient provisions to prevent this and we do not believe it would be proportionate to ban all online sales.

I can assure noble Lords that the age of sale offences apply regardless of whether products are being sold from physical premises or online. Through our regulations, we will provide the necessary clarity that the noble Lord referred to for online retailers on methods of age verification. The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the checking of ID for online purchases. I would expect legitimate retailers to take a range of steps to ensure that they do not sell to underage people, including age-verification checks at the point of delivery, in-store collection, online age-verification checks and follow-up checks online. I understand the points made and the need to focus on that.

We also intend to further strengthen the enforcement of online sales through the introduction of the new licensing scheme. The scheme will act as a deterrent to rogue retailers and provide enforcement agencies with further opportunities to bring penalties against them. We will consult before introducing the scheme, but our intention is that both physical and online retailers will be required to have a licence to sell relevant products. The call for evidence that we launched recently includes questions on how the scheme should be administered for online retailers. I hope that is some reassurance of our seriousness and the progress that we seek to make in this regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the question of pictures of tobacco products being banned online. I am happy to commit to writing to him on this technical and important issue; I will gladly do so.

Finally, Amendments 19, 20, 122 and 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would provide powers to make it an offence across the UK to sell vapes without age-verification technology. I share the intention to tackle youth vaping effectively. However, we already have a comprehensive range of measures to do this, alongside strengthened enforcement against rogue retailers who sell vapes to under-18s. Our approach across all products in the Bill is for age to be verified at the point of sale, not the point of use. It will be illegal to sell nicotine and non-nicotine vapes to under-18s, and retailers should continue to perform age-verification checks at the point of sale to ensure that they do not sell these products to anyone underage. Mandating any age-gating technology that first requires users to verify their age to activate a vaping product would create—inadvertently, I am sure—harsher restrictions for vaping than for smoking and risks making vapes less accessible to adult smokers wishing to quit, which I know is not the intention of noble Lords.

I was particularly asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whether the wide powers taken in the Bill allow for mandating age-gating technology in the future, if needed. That was an important aspect of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised. To be clear, the powers in the Bill have not been designed with the intention of doing this.

In answer to the other question about engagement from officials and the department, I can confirm that officials have engaged directly with the company which was being spoken about. The issue is not just about powers but about competitive advantage. To re-emphasise, the Bill is focused on the sale of products, not the use of them.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of the retailers—some 3,000 of them—which have written to Ministers to make the point, which emerged in a number of noble Lords’ speeches, about how concerned retailers are about the emphasis upon them denying access to vapes? The use of age-gating technology would substantially relieve those pressures on retailers.

We need to look at what the evidence may be about whether adult smokers who wish to quit by using vapes would be at all deterred by the age-gating technology. To that extent, what worries me is that we may conclude, either through international experience or pilot schemes in this country, that they are not deterred at all. Then suddenly we do not have access to a technology that would deal with illicit sales and proxy purchasing, which the point-of-sale restrictions will not bite upon. I worry that we should have the powers available.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord makes. I believe I said that it potentially risks making vapes less accessible. I know that that is not a view that he shares. I also agree that, where there is evidence, we need to be focused on it in the measures we are taking. But the position I have outlined is the case. I will reflect on the comments that he and other noble Lords have made, which I have heard very well. I understand the concerns of retailers and I am very aware of them; that is why we continue to work so closely with their trade associations to overcome difficulties. We do not want retailers to be put in a position where they cannot do the job that they want to do. We will continue in our work in that way.

With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel about to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her concluding remarks and for the sensitive and attentive way that she commented on the debate; she has clearly listened to what noble Lords said and sought to respond within the limits of government policy. As far as my own amendments are concerned, I heard what she said with just a hint of encouragement; there was not a slamming of the door at least, so I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with on Report.

Concerning the other amendments in this group, I refer to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, used the words unintended consequences. The Bill potentially has quite a lot of unintended consequences. Some of them relate to age verification and the role of retailers in the architecture created by the Bill. There are potential lacunae in the Bill.

I simply say that the sooner the Government come forward with draft regulations and a clear idea of what is being required, the happier noble Lords will be and, more importantly, the happier the retailers—including online retailers—will be with the Bill as it goes forward. I hope that the Minister recognises that and feels that the Government can act on it. Perhaps we might even see some draft regulations before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, with that hopeful and optimistic wish on my lips, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

19:15

Amendment 4

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.

19:30

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 199 in my name, which complements Amendment 193, which was so effectively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and which I have also signed.

Amendment 199 would require the Government to publish and fund a comprehensive communications plan for the smoke-free generation policy. We have referred to the wealth of experience among us when it comes to implementing tobacco control measures: a number of those who are taking part in today’s discussion were involved in the 2007 smoke-free legislation, the subsequent rise in the age of sale and the introduction of plain packaging in 2016. We worked across parties. There are valuable lessons to be learned from how those policies were implemented.

The 2007 campaign for smoke-free indoor public places was, in many ways, the gold standard for large-scale public health communication. Its clear and consistent message—needed, wanted and workable—underpinned every aspect of that campaign. Early identification of those at risk of non-compliance ensured smooth implementation and effective enforcement. Government-led TV adverts made it absolutely clear that it was the Government, not the hospitality sector, who were informing the public of the changes. Venues and public spaces were equipped with the resources, signage and materials that they needed well in advance of implementation. The result was 98% compliance from day one. Public support was strong and the legislation was practically self-enforcing. Even the noble Lords who put what I see as the weakening amendments at the beginning of this debate said how well that had gone.

Crucially, the debate surrounding that policy also raised awareness of the harms of smoking and led to an increase in people’s attempts to seek to quit smoking. That is precisely the outcome we should be aiming for with this legislation. Although the rising age of sale will apply only to those born in or after 2009, this policy presents a significant opportunity to raise the profile of smoking-cessation services and to invite everyone to be part of this smoke-free generation.

I have tabled this amendment to ensure that the Government publish a clear and ambitious communications plan to achieve that. At its heart must be strong public health messaging, which is inclusive, evidence based and backed by a dedicated budget. Next year’s October campaign, which seeks to encourage smokers to stop, should be led by the Department of Health, sending a clear message that every smoker can join a smoke-free future. Now, this annual campaign is led by stakeholders, with little input from the department. This should change.

The communications around the disposable vapes ban were clearly ineffective. That was a Defra policy, but it published guidance only for businesses; there was nothing at all for the healthcare settings that use these products in smoking cessation. The Government will need to do better. I am sure that the Chief Medical Officer is aware of that, not least through his experience of Covid. There are in this Committee various people, not all on the same side, who have a lot of public affairs experience. I would love them to put their minds and experience to this; that would be really worth while.

A well-structured plan would also ensure that retailers are engaged early on, provided with concise materials, signage and briefing materials and supported to play their crucial role in this policy’s success. Engagement should be broad, involving local authorities, trading standards, the NHS and higher and further education. Such proactive collaboration would, as in 2007, reduce the need for enforcement by fostering widespread understanding and voluntary compliance. Obviously, such a communications plan needs robust monitoring, evaluation and engagement. Some noble Lords have already expressed concern about the novel nature of this policy; I hope this proposal demonstrates how the Government can provide reassurance through clarity, transparency and careful planning. The UK has a vibrant creative sector. Let us harness that in an ambitious and effective public information campaign, as happened with the 2007 ban on smoking in public places.

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

My Lords, we are running out of time. If we want to finish the group, we will have to finish by 8 pm—otherwise, we will have to break midway through. It is up to noble Lords whether they want to keep their comments to a minimum so that we can finish this group.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 193, to which my name is added. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for explaining its aim so well. I also support Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and declare an interest as president of the LGA and chair of Sport Wales.

With my background in sport, I know that there has been a lot of nudge behaviour in stopping smoking. Some really good work has been done in Wales on smoke-free sport, and the Football Association of Wales has done work on banning smoking around youth games. However, this does not go far enough. I must apologise, as I am working on this and the Infrastructure and Planning Bill, and I have just come out of a debate on how to ensure that we have good physical activity and improve the health of the nation. The adverse impact of smoking on the health of the nation is partly why I am speaking on this Bill.

I am slightly surprised by some of the briefings that I have received, which seem to be more content with vaping than I expected. I am constantly told that it is much better than smoking, but it is hardly healthy. I have never smoked or vaped, so I probably do not come at it with the fervour of a reformed smoker, but I believe that a great deal of harm has been done by smoking and vaping. I shall discuss some of that in later groups. While smoking cessation services have gone some way, they do not go far enough. This amendment is part of a concerted effort to move forward. The way to do it is through a new clause that very clearly lays out the road map so that we can move towards a smoke-free United Kingdom.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the ambition of the amendments in this group, particularly my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendment on tobacco extinction 2040, which is the level of ambition that we should be looking for. The Government are to be applauded for this measure, but we need not just a direction of travel but a destination, which this provides. I also very much agree that the end-point legislation that we have seen on asbestos and leaded petrol are examples of two very successful approaches that we could replicate here.

I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, from whom we have just heard. It is very important that we seek to tackle those areas that have the highest deprivation and suffer most from smoking. These amendments seek to do just that. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the need for a clear communications strategy. That is central and should be led by the department, as she so rightly said.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to offer a slightly different perspective.

I understand the intent behind the Bill and my noble friend Lord Bethell’s Amendment 4 in this group. However, I believe that this amendment and the Bill as a whole lack some nuance in separating cigarettes from cigars and other tobacco products, which I will hereafter refer to as OTPs. If this were the cigarettes and vapes Bill, I would not have much issue with it, but there is a vast difference in mortality impact between cigar smokers and cigarette smokers. Cigars are not inhaled and are made from natural tobacco, while cigarettes are inhaled, are habitual, are used with high frequency and are often made with additives and chemicals.

I implore noble Lords and the Government to recognise this difference. The reason why is that we risk destroying a 500 year-old business with products that are made by artisans and are often, or almost exclusively, sold by independent family retailers who do not stock or sell cigarettes because cigars and OTPs are the only products that they sell. I draw attention to subsection (3)(b) of the new clause proposed by my noble friend’s Amendment 4, which refers to

“supporting tobacco retailers and businesses in transitioning away from tobacco product sales”.

If that said, “cigarette sales”, I would have no issue with it. If you are a large retailer such as Tesco, you can easily put something else in that shelf space; if you are a family business that sells only cigars, however, the impact of this measure is that you will go out of business.

By including cigars and OTPs in this amendment, we risk putting these family-owned, responsible traders out of business for a very negligible health gain; we also risk losing tourism and tax revenue at the same time. So can my noble friend and the Minister look again at separating cigarettes from cigars and OTPs, both in the Bill in general and in this amendment specifically?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to say much about Amendment 4. I think that, if this Bill is effective, there will not be many people still left smoking by 2040—I certainly hope not—but I do worry a bit about the poor old chap of 95 who has somehow managed to avoid the bullet of lung cancer and all the other health problems but started smoking when he was in the Army and simply cannot give up.

Leaving all that aside, as your Lordships know, I welcome the Government’s plan for us to become a smoke-free country. I believe that that is achievable, but we must go further and faster than we have ever gone before; that is what we are doing. Such a plan will require a comprehensive, integrated, monitored and enforced strategy—hence the need for a road map, as proposed in Amendment 193 by the noble Lord, Lord Young, my noble friend Lady Northover and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

It is true that smoking rates have declined by two-thirds over the last half century while smoking inequalities have grown, but, at the current rate of decline, we will miss the Government’s target and the poorest in society will suffer most. We will achieve a smoke-free Britain only by motivating more smokers to quit using the most effective quitting aids, while reducing the number of children and young adults who start smoking each year.

The evidence on which policy levers work is quite clear, but what is needed is for the Government both to pull them together to their fullest extent and to report on them. This will require targets, monitoring, enforcement and investment, but the investment required for education and smoking cessation services can be counted in millions of pounds as compared with the billions of pounds that it costs us to treat smoking-related diseases and in lost productivity caused by smoking-related disability. The benefits will far outweigh the costs.

As I say, there are big inequality issues in this smoking situation. Smoking drives more than 1 million people, including many children, into poverty by leeching money out of their pockets and out of the local economy. Indeed, only a tiny proportion of the spending on tobacco stays in local communities; most of it goes up in smoke, in taxes or in tobacco manufacturers’ profits. We will probably come on to that next time.

19:45

There are not many jobs in this country in tobacco—only about 5,000, I am told—because such products are mostly made and packed abroad. Making smoking obsolete will of course significantly increase disposable income among poorer smokers and in poorer communities, thus increasing welfare and, I hope, bringing new jobs.

A road map with steps and targets is not unknown. The advice on the path to net zero from the independent Climate Change Committee is helpful in shining a light on progress and in holding the Government’s feet to the fire, so I hope that this amendment will be seriously considered.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Northover’s amendment on communications strategy. One of the ways in which the Government need to invest is in an effective communications strategy. Over the years, tobacco manufacturers have spent millions on advertising their products—much of it misleading, such as the earlier claims on the so-called health benefits of filters; although that has stopped now, some people still believe it. So it is time to turn the tables and invest in making people aware of the dangers, for both health and personal wealth, of smoking. For young people, perhaps the most effective communication will be if some celebrities and influencers whom they admire and with whom they identify could be persuaded to make it uncool to smoke; that is what I would like to see contained in a communications strategy.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group engage with some of the central questions in the Bill: how can we reach a smoke-free future? Also, how is that process to be monitored, communicated and, in some cases, accelerated?

I begin with the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, which would require the Government to publish regular reports setting out a road map to a smoke-free United Kingdom, together with a communications plan, to support the implementation of a smoke-free generation policy. We on these Benches welcome the principle that underpins these amendments; they are thoughtful, constructive and rooted in the simple but vital idea that Parliament’s responsibility does not end when a Bill becomes law. Once legislation is enacted, our duty of oversight begins. A five-yearly report outlining the Government’s road map—including interim targets and data disaggregated by region, age and demographic group—would help provide a picture of how well the Act was working and enable Parliament to see whether progress was genuinely being made, particularly among communities where smoking rates remain stubbornly high.

Equally, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which would require a communications plan, is extremely sensible. The success of the Government’s policy will depend as much on public understanding as on the legal framework itself. People must know what is changing, why it is changing and what the benefits are. I made this point earlier but, if the policy is to succeed to the maximum extent, it must carry consent—and that consent depends on clarity and effective communication from the Government. If we are to measure the success of the policy honestly, we also need to assess not just how far smoking rates have fallen but whether the problem has simply been pushed underground, and we need to do so at regular intervals.

I shall cover briefly the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, which would establish a universal prohibition on the sale of tobacco products from 2040. My noble friend made a closely argued case. I recognise his sincere commitment to public health and his aim is admirable; notwithstanding that, I am afraid that I cannot support his amendment. The Government’s generational approach, for all its complexity, is precisely that: generational. It is designed to allow the harmful habit of smoking to decline naturally as fewer people take it up. The goal of a smoke-free future is the same but it is achieved through prevention and behavioural change, not a single act of prohibition.

[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.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Clause 2: Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others

Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Clause 5: Age of sale notice at point of sale: England

Amendment 10 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Age of sale notice at point of sale: Wales

Amendment 11 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.59 pm.