Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Young of Cookham

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The noble Baroness destroys her own argument by saying that nightclubs are premises where young people go for recreation and then saying that they might use the vaping machines and start vaping. The last thing we want is for young people, who do not want to smoke, to start vaping because they are in a recreational atmosphere where other people are vaping and there is an opportunity for them to join in. I repeat the point that I see vaping as a smoking-cessation tool, not a recreational exercise.

Finally, while I am normally on the same page as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this, I find his argument—that we need to fix a price that is so high that it is out of the reach of young people with pocket money, but so low that we do not penalise those in poor communities where smoking is prevalent—to be an impossible circle to square. He indicated some flexibility, but flexibility does not solve the problem, because the easier we make it for the smoking communities to start vaping, the easier it is for young people. I am not sure that price control is an area that is going to solve the problem, but I accept the environmental consequences that he spoke so fluently about.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to the amendments from my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Russell and I laid Amendment 21 to probe the issue of the affordability of vapes for young people. Currently, the evidence of the number of young people below the legal age of 18 accessing vapes indicates that they are currently affordable. Not all young people are getting them on the black market, because about half of them state in surveys that they get them from a shop. This certainly raises the question of why retailers are selling vapes to young people without proof of age.

It also raises the role of price. Minimum pricing is a mechanism that has been used for public health reasons to increase the price of alcohol and decrease the amount that people buy. Why do we not take the same approach for vapes? Besides, as I understand it, if the price of vapes is seen as a barrier to quitting, a patient can have them prescribed to them by a doctor. Is that true? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.

We want to use this Bill to protect the use of vapes as an effective tool for quitting smoking. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I do not think there is any contradiction between that and wanting to protect young people from taking up vaping, especially as it sometimes leads to smoking tobacco as well.

We are aware that a vape liquid excise duty will come in next October, which will increase the price of vapes. A smoker who wants to use vapes as a quitting tool will not be deterred from buying vapes if they continue to be cheaper than cigarettes because clearly they can afford cigarettes, so of course they can also afford vapes. Can the Minister reassure us that the concurrent increase in the tax on tobacco will maintain that gap and keep tobacco more expensive than vapes? Do the Government have any granular research on the effect of the price of these products as a deterrent?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Young of Cookham

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Children’s Services: Funding

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord has had a lifetime of distinguished career in social care. He may have been in the House yesterday, when my noble friend Lord Agnew referred to the troubled families programme, which indicated that the number of children defined as children in need declined by 14% after they had been involved in that programme. That, of course, reduced the demands that those children and families made on more expensive children’s care services. On top of that, last year the DfE invested nearly £5 million as part of an innovation programme to test the most effective ways to provide targeted support to reduce the need for most intensive forms of intervention—precisely the point the noble Lord has made—and thereby, it is hoped, reducing the pressure on children’s services departments.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the All-Party Group for Children is doing a report on children’s social services? It has become very clear to us that thresholds for intervention are rising, leading to the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, just mentioned. The Children’s Commissioner published a report yesterday that indicated that the general public’s expectations of intervention for children in need are much higher than what they actually receive. Is the Minister aware of that, and is he going to do anything about it?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To some extent, children’s services are better placed within the local authority framework than other services because there are statutory protections for children that are not available for other services provided by local government. Spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by around £1 billion since 2010, and that includes safeguarding looked-after children and other children at risk. Since 2013, over 500,000 two year-olds have benefited from 15 hours of free early education a week. However, I am interested in the report that the noble Baroness has referred to, and I would like to write her with some more responses.

Cannabis

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Young of Cookham

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will report back to the Home Office the strong views expressed by two noble Lords—I gather they are impatient and not anxious to wait for the outcome of the WHO review, which I think will be completed in 2019. Any decision will be evidence based. On the general use of cannabis, I note that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said in its last report that,

“cannabis is a significant public health issue. Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society”.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s acceptance that perhaps it should be a Health Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. Even so, is he aware that doctors in the UK are allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts in certain circumstances? How does he square that with the fact that they are not permitted to prescribe most effective cannabis medicines to patients in pain, even though these are available legally in many other countries? Is it not time that we stopped criminalising patients?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the specific issue the noble Baroness raises, the Home Office would consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicines, including cannabis, subject to appropriate ethical approvals. There is the possibility of a specific licence in the case that the noble Baroness raised and if necessary the normal 12 to 16-week timetable could be expedited.

General Election: Voting Rights

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Young of Cookham

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare an interest as the mother of an expat of more than 15 years.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, legislation scrapping the 15-year rule will not now be introduced in this Parliament. I understand the disappointment of those affected. However, it is my hope that this will be delivered in the next Parliament, so that those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years will be able to participate in future elections.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I do not think that hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised British expats will thank him. The Government have been in place for two years now. Why have they not fulfilled their promise in the 2015 manifesto to give votes for life to these people? Is it not because the Government are afraid of how they might vote, given that the Government have ruined the lives of many of them who live in other parts of the EU by choosing a hard Brexit?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, when Members of Parliament, including Liberal Democrat Members, voted overwhelmingly last week that this Parliament should come to a premature close, it was inevitable that certain measures would not be introduced in this Parliament. However, I hope that if this measure is introduced in the next Parliament, it will have the full support of the Liberal Democrats, in view of the interest that the noble Baroness has just shown.