Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, there are two Bills that we debate this week, both of which originated with the last Conservative Government—the other one being the Renters’ Rights Bill—so this should be a harmonious few days in your Lordships’ House.

I recognise the concerns that some of my noble friends on the libertarian wing of my party may have about this Bill. They may feel that it is an intrusion on the freedom of the individual and an excessive intervention by the state. I want to try to allay those concerns. Like others who have spoken, I was a Health Minister, nearly 50 years ago. I recall a conversation that I had in the context of the debate about seat belts with a consultant at St George’s Hospital, which was then at Hyde Park Corner. He was preparing a patient for an organ transplant; the patient had a rare blood type, and it had taken him some time to procure the supplies. Just before the patient was wheeled into the operating theatre, there was a traffic accident at Hyde Park Corner. The driver, not wearing a seat belt, had life-threatening injuries. He was wheeled into St George’s and had the same rare blood type as the transplant patient, so the patient’s operation was postponed. That shows that, in the interconnected world in which we live, a decision by one person to take a personal risk has consequences for other people.

I say to my friends that the Conservative Party actually has a proud record in the history of public health. In 1973 the compulsory wearing of crash-helmets was introduced by the Ted Heath Government. In 1983, under the Margaret Thatcher Government, seat belts were made compulsory for drivers, and in 1991 they were made compulsory for passengers. As my noble friend Lord Lansley has said, the coalition Government took further steps, and the last Government introduced the Health and Care Act, which unblocked progress in adding fluoride to the water supply to promote dental health. So this measure is perfectly consistent with my party’s approach to public health over 50 years.

The Bill that we are debating, unlike others to which I have referred, would not impact on the freedom of anyone today. The Bill, as published, enables adults who buy cigarettes and smoke legally today to continue to be able to do so. My criticism of the Bill is that it does not do enough to discourage existing smokers to stop or to discourage new smokers starting. The Minister referred to the Government’s three-pronged approach to health—switching from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention —but that latter switch requires resources, currently in short supply.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. Again, that is a principle introduced by previous Conservative Governments: the landfill levy was introduced in 1996; the soft drinks levy was introduced in 2018; and, after the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Conservative Government, to which my noble friend Lord Lansley referred, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his recommendations. His preferred option was a “polluter pays” industry levy. A tobacco “polluter pays” levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied to a percentage of profits. It would not impact on the CPI, nor on the cost to the consumer, but it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022. Responding to Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, the then shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, stated:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


The noble Baroness will not be surprised to learn that that commitment will be tested when we reach Report, to make this an even better Bill than it is now.