Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I say many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for such an interesting speech. It has been quite refreshing today to hear members of the Liberal Democrats talking about liberalism—something of a shock to the system, but I am delighted. It is also a bit dispiriting that a Government who promised change keep introducing cut-and-paste Bills from the previous Tory Administration, only worse. The ministerial power grab in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill means that democratic accountability could be going up in smoke.

Ministers from both parties have boasted that this law, which bans all future generations from purchasing tobacco, is world-leading, but what if the world has not gone that way for good reasons? There is certainly no evidence that this is a workable policy. The Bill’s own impact assessment admits that there are no international case studies to follow. This is all a gamble, based on academic modelling. Has the Minister read the document from Trading Standards Wales that challenges the efficacy of such an “aggressive prohibitionist approach”, noting that the New Zealand Government abandoned its version as unenforceable? Meanwhile, in Malaysia the Attorney-General rejected a similar ban as unconstitutional on the grounds that it denies citizens equal treatment under the law. How would it be different in the UK if a future 40 year-old will be legally able to buy cigarettes whereas his 39 year-old sister will be criminalised if she does the same? How is that not discriminatory?

We also have to be honest about just how illiberal this legislation is, and I am delighted the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, reminded us of why that matters. We should drop the F-word a lot more in this Chamber, even if it offends some, but querying the state’s criminalising of adults’ freedom—that F-word—to buy legal products is not some sign of a dangerous, mad, libertarian ideologue or because we are in hock to big tobacco, as has been suggested by some, which, to be frank, is a cheap and insulting avoidance of debate. It is because, in a democratic, free society, we should be careful not to be careless with civil liberties.

Regardless, let us take the Bill’s motives at face value: to stop people smoking for the sake of their health. Luckily, some innovative geniuses have invented vapes, with unambiguous evidence that they actually work and have enabled millions to quit. Even the NHS Better Health web page includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use nicotine vapes compared with other nicotine replacement products. But instead of celebrating this success and seeing vaping as an opportunity, this Bill irrationally treats it as a threat.

I know the Government say that the Bill is targeting youth vaping, but hugely disproportionate regulation, such as the proposal to make it illegal to publish any marketing materials for vapes or nicotine products, can only create an information void and ensure that adults will be confused by scaremongering misinformation about the dangers of vaping. Alarmingly, over half of adults who smoke mistakenly believe that vapes are equally or more harmful compared to smoking.

Similarly, why, oh why, are the Government so fixated on demonising flavoured vapes? Does the Minister really believe that only children like sweet things? Has she not noticed the exponential rise in the flavoured gin market for adults? Research shows that 65% of adult vapers find fruit and sweet liquids preferable—ironically, often because of the perceived difference to the tobacco they are quitting.

Let me tell you a story. Once the proud winner of the smoker of the year award, I quit smoking 18 months ago after 40 years of chain-smoking. It was tough, but, advised by no less than two doctors, I tried disposable vapes. Banana and strawberry worked a treat, and now I am smoke-free. But rather than patting me on the back, along comes Defra, which, with scant regard for public health, has prioritised the environment. I now live in dread of 1 June and an outright ban and I am stocking up. Now we have this Bill’s counterproductive attack on flavours, despite the evidence that four in 10 vapers say that if there are no flavoured vapes, they will return to smoking. Indeed, in America, in 375 localities that adopted permanent restriction on vape flavours, the results were increased sales in cigarettes.

On the theme of counterproductive outcomes, over Easter the Government issued flashy filmed adverts promising a new law against assaulting shop workers. I am not sure that law is necessary—it is not legal to attack retail staff now, surely—but did the Government consider that this Bill is guaranteed to make matters worse? The latest British Retail Consortium crime survey reveals 130,000 instances of shop workers being verbally and physically assaulted every day in 2024—a 340% increase since 2020—and a significant number of these attacks followed requests for age verification. There is unanimous agreement among retailers that a law which will force staff of convenience stores at the heart of our local communities to increase proof-of-age ID checks on tobacco buyers of any age will trigger a huge escalation of violence and abuse.

The cost-benefit analysis of this Bill means there are massive costs for many people. Just saying we want to stamp out smoking is not good enough. In Committee, we should ensure that we follow and track those costs and do not allow unaccountability to happen, at least here before it gets passed.