Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I support the 27 amendments in this group, which were so ably spoken to by my noble friend.

Members of the House may not know—there is no reason why they should—that when I came back from working in India and Sri Lanka, both of which are very extensive users of tobacco, I joined an advertising agency on the marketing side. In particular, I was asked to help on the marketing of Gallaher products such as Park Drive and Senior Service. That experience meant getting to know those companies in depth, and I began to understand how the industry operated. Of course, at that point I had no idea that I would become a Member of Parliament some 10 years later, but I realised that this is not a flippant industry. This was an industry employing thousands of people, particularly in skilled areas, and an industry that, as far as I could see as a marketing man, listened to the problems of health.

I am married to a full-time GP, and I have a son who was a GP. I have admired various political parties that ran the National Health Service through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and onwards. You only had to go into your own surgery to see the effort put in on the ground to encourage people not to smoke. It was not as if the industry ignored it. Pressure was understandably put on, whereby advertising, in which I had a role to play, should be targeted in terms of age and timing. The media at that time was very different. But, on the recommendation that I and my team went through, the industry recognised that it should avoid advertising to young people and took positive steps to that effect.

I hasten to say that I have no financial involvement; I do not have any stocks and shares in tobacco companies. I am only speaking from experience. When I got to the other place as the honourable Member for Northampton South, I continued to take an interest in the industry. I am impressed with the efforts that were made jointly by the industry and various Governments. But I do express huge disappointment to the present Government that, as far as I understand it, they have resisted attempts to talk to the industry in depth, particularly to retailers and the other representatives. They certainly feel that they have been ignored, and that is not a good position to be in.

Leaving that aside, we come back to the central issue of what the Government are proposing and what I and others are proposing. Twenty-one is a sensible age. I did my national service as an RAF pilot from 18 to 20, and then I went to Cambridge. By that time, you can decide for yourself what you are going to do. This idea of a phased introduction is confusing to all those involved.

There is a problem on the ground. I live in Bedfordshire, next door to Northamptonshire. We have a lot of small towns. For one newsagent, roughly 19% of his income comes from tobacco. It is falling, but that is understandable. It is falling because the percentage of the population who smoke has dramatically fallen between the period when I first got involved, in 1964, and today. I do not argue that it would not be better if it had fallen a bit further, but it has fallen dramatically. This is an issue for the retail trade.

Another issue that His Majesty’s Government appear not to be terribly up to date on is the illicit tobacco trade, which is a huge problem today. As I understand it, His Majesty’s Government recognise that only 10% of cigarettes consumed in 2023-24 were illicit. That, in itself, equals 12 billion illicit cigarettes. However, when you dig a bit deeper, the National Crime Agency’s Deputy Director for Illicit Finance, Sal Melki, has stated that the combined law enforcement agencies’ Operation Machinize seized 4.5 billion illicit cigarettes in 2024. Surely that is the area we should be focused on. We do not need new and complicated laws—that is a real target. I do not understand why His Majesty’s Government are not making that a real priority. As it is, the illicit trade is totally undermining our situation.

I had the privilege of working as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland. I am not blaming anybody, but it was my own party that failed to deal properly with the situation in Northern Ireland. I am really upset that we did not do it better, but we did not. It ought not to have happened. But, quite frankly, even if the Government’s wish was to go through, it is not going to happen in Northern Ireland. That is not good. We are part of the United Kingdom; we do not want to have another category where poor Northern Ireland is left out in the cold.

I am not going to repeat the points my noble friend has already made. This amendment that he and I have put down is a simple proposition to replace the generational ban with a minimum legal purchasing age of 21. I plead for the House to think long and hard. I shall certainly be supporting this amendment if my noble friend tests the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Naseby. However, what they cannot avoid is that their amendment, by maintaining the legal sale of tobacco products to persons over the age of 21, will continue the enormous damage to public health and the enormous cost to the National Health Service that is caused by the consumption of this product.

I am not persuaded by the freedom arguments. We ban heroin. We require that people wear seat belts, even if they are over the age of 21 and they may take a different view. If Sir Walter Raleigh were to bring tobacco into this country today for the first time, there is surely no doubt whatever that it would be banned because of its noxious, dangerous character. The Bill contains such detailed provisions relating to legality precisely because this has been a lawful product for so long. I think the Government are quite right in the way they seek to deal with it.

The only other argument of substance presented was from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, relating to illicit tobacco products. But that is an unfortunate consequence of banning any product. We ban cannabis. There is an illicit trade in cannabis, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is a supporter of legalising the sale of cannabis. The enactment of the Bill will do an enormous amount to educate the public of the dangers that this product causes and of the need to ensure that we move forward now to promote public health.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to my interest. About 30 years ago, I was a director of British American Tobacco. I started smoking when I was at school, and I have now been smoking for about 70 years. At the moment, the thought has not crossed my mind that I am going to abandon my enjoyable smoking of small cigars.

Leaving that aside, I recall that when I was at BAT, just as my noble friend’s experience of Gallaher has confirmed, we were desperately anxious to keep our reputation as a company and make sure the dangers of our product were brought to people’s attention and we could protect our reputation. I will not reminisce for too long, but I recall that we lobbied the then Government to make it illegal to sell our products to under-18s. They rejected that idea because of counterlobbying from retailers. We certainly offered no resistance whatever to the widespread publication of the health risks of smoking, which are considerable.

We were often accused of doing dreadful things. People who campaigned against our product decided they had to campaign against the evil organisation that was involved in it. But this was a complete misunderstanding of our attempt to maintain a good reputation. It was, in fact, an extremely well-run company. My opinion is that smoking should not be banned and made illegal if the sale is to adults who are fully informed that they are adding to the risk to their health that motoring and other things already pose to them and decide that the pleasure of smoking involves them taking it on.

I will not repeat all the excellent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who put the case perfectly clearly and well—I agree with every word he said. I find the proposition, which was first put forward by my own party towards the end of our last period of office, a quite extraordinary one. It is going to be found that shopkeepers are making an illegal sale if their customer is a day older than the legal limit imposed by Parliament. I assume that in 60 years, somebody like me will be required to go into a shop taking my birth certificate, saying that I am 85 so can legally buy a cigarette, whereas if I was 84 years of age it would be an illegal act to engage in this transaction. I cannot see how shopkeepers are going to comply with the law except by demanding some proof of date of birth and continuing to demand that proof as the legally entitled purchasers steadily grow older and older. I am sure it is well intentioned. It is another attempt to reinforce the already very successful efforts we have made in this country to reduce the incidence of smoking. But it is faintly ridiculous and slightly preposterous, and, given the history of the decline of smoking in this country, it is quite unnecessary.

The most important point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, makes to those who might be faintly neutral in this debate is that it will stimulate organised illegality. It most undoubtedly will. He made the arguments for that, but I remind the House of the best example in my lifetime. Until about 30 years ago, betting on racehorses was legal only on the course, and there was a firm law saying that you could not place a bet on a horse—it was strictly illegal—unless you were actually at the course.