Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, nobody can fault the good intentions of the Bill, which are to be applauded, but it has the potential to profoundly impact personal choice and responsibility in our society. While I acknowledge the pressing health concerns surrounding smoking, I stand before your Lordships to advocate for the preservation of individual freedoms and the minimisation of state interference in our personal lives.

At the heart of the discussion lies a fundamental question: should government dictate what individuals can consume? In a truly free society, the right to make personal choices, even those which may be deemed to be unwise, should be respected. The role of government should not be to shield people from every risk but to empower them with information, education and support, so that they may choose for themselves. The Bill before us proposes sweeping regulations on tobacco and vaping products, ostensibly in the name of health, but with significant implications for personal freedom, economic viability and the effective use of public resources.

First, let us consider the economic consequences. The weight of compliance will fall heaviest on small businesses—corner shops, independent retailers and family-run enterprises—which often lack the resources to keep up with ever expanding regulatory demands. These businesses form the backbone of our local communities, but they will struggle to meet the stringent requirements outlined in the Bill.

Secondly, the cost of enforcing legislation will be significant. Trading standards will require a colossal increase in funding to successfully monitor compliance, conduct inspections and prosecute violations. In a time of constrained public finances, we must ask: is this the best use of taxpayers’ money? Could these resources not be more effectively deployed towards improving our schools, strengthening palliative care or tackling crime?

Thirdly, there are the unintended consequences. Restrictions on advertising and sponsorship may hinder the ability of companies to provide essential information about safer alternatives to smoking. Many adults are already making the transition to vaping and heated tobacco products that, when properly regulated, may pose fewer health risks than combustible cigarettes. If we silence responsible communication in this space, we risk keeping smokers in the dark, prolonging harm rather than reducing it. A well-informed public are better equipped to make choices to look after their health, and it is our responsibility to ensure that accurate information is accessible to all adults who smoke.

Finally, history teaches us that prohibition does not eliminate demand. As a number of your Lordships have pointed out this afternoon, it merely drives it underground. Excessive restrictions on tobacco and vaping products will pave the way for a mass unregulated black market where safety and quality are sacrificed. This is not mere speculation, it is a lesson that has been learned time and again. If nicotine products are pushed underground, we risk turning law-abiding citizens into criminals and jeopardising the health and safety of consumers. The potential for unregulated products to proliferate in the shadows poses a far greater risk than responsible regulation in a legal market. What we need is not coercion, but education; not prohibition, but harm reduction. By providing accurate, evidence-based information, we can empower individuals to make decisions that benefit their health. This is the path of a mature, democratic society, one that trusts its citizens to act responsibly.

In conclusion, while the intentions behind the Bill are to be applauded, I urge the House to reconsider our approach. Let us instead reaffirm our commitment to personal freedoms, informed choice and responsible government. Let this be a Government of facilitators, not enforcers.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the analysis of the effects of Covid-19 produced yesterday is, to say the least, disappointing. It does not add much to our knowledge and it gives the impression of a document written to justify a decision already taken, rather than an objective appraisal on which to make a considered judgment.

Given that the report was issued only yesterday, it begs the question as to whether the Government used this report to base their decision on what action to take post-lockdown 2. Certainly, it would have been helpful to have had earlier sight of the report and slightly longer to consider it. The review of the tiers in the middle of December is very welcome. Can the Minister reassure the House that further and better particulars of the information on which the review will be decided will be laid in the House in good time? That would enable noble Lords to properly consider the facts and if necessary to raise the matter in this House and hold the Government to account.

One aspect that the report highlights is the comparison of death rates by age. It shows that under the age of 44 there is virtually no risk of death, and under the age of 64 the risk is minimal—probably no worse than it would be in any event. Can the Minister explain why the Government do not allow life to go on as normal for younger people, and business and commerce to continue, as my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned earlier?

The Government can advise the elderly to take precautions, and even go as far as offering them assistance if they cannot lead their lives properly if such assistance is required. It is worth noting that even someone of my age is five to one on to survive should I get the disease. That is what the table says; there are more optimistic figures.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered the questions put by me and other noble Lords. On occasions he has been noticeably reticent about giving answers. I remind the noble Lord, in a gentle way, that the purpose of debate in this House is for Her Majesty’s Government to provide answers to questions. It is what democratic government is about: sharing the reasons for taking decisions so that proper debate and scrutiny can take place.

Covid-19: Transparency and Accuracy of Statistics

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Lord is entirely right. The concerns we have for disadvantaged groups and those of an ethnic background are deep and sincere. That is why we have a large programme of work, sponsored by the NIHR, looking into a variety of different research projects to understand the behaviour of the virus and why it hits certain groups particularly hard.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Could the Minister clarify whether or not Professor Neil Ferguson, who has given such misleading forecasts, was involved in the preparation of the charts and graphs used on 31 October? Not only were they out of date, they were so inaccurate that the question arises whether those involved in the preparation of the material paused to consider if what they had produced might be badly misleading.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the precise roles of individual academics in the preparation of those charts. I am happy to go back to the department to see if I can find out, and will reply to the noble Lord.

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Great Barrington declaration, signed by more than 40,000 doctors and scientists, called for care of the elderly rather than lockdown. Such a large number of medical professionals taking this view makes one wonder why this country is being pushed into a devastatingly damaging lockdown. It is questionable whether lockdowns work or whether they merely push the problem forward. The information on which the present lockdown has been decided is out of date—which makes the idea of a lockdown even more suspect.

Charts presented by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s advisers last Saturday had labels at the bottom saying, “These are scenarios, not predictions or forecasts”. How have we reached a state of affairs where scientists can push the Government into decisions which have disastrous side-effects by using scenarios that are effectively guesses? Aside from the devastating—and, some would say, improper—attack on personal liberty, people’s lives are being ruined on a large scale. A huge number of businesses have had to close, many of which will never reopen.

The impact on health is nothing short of a disaster, from diseases such as cancer not being treated to others arising from the stress caused by lockdown. We have absolutely no idea what the destruction of the sense of well-being in the bulk of the population will lead to—all on the back of dubious scenarios by scientists with a track record of making lurid forecasts which have not come to pass. The present scenarios have been ridiculed by many well-respected members of both the medical and academic professions; even Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Whitty are now rowing back from what they have been saying. After 2 December, it will be time to ignore scaremongering scientists and get back to normal, with special care for the vulnerable, and let the remainder of the population return to living their lives.