Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, for the wonderful work she has done as chief executive of the Breast Cancer Campaign, fighting cancer there, and for her wise words in this Chamber of Parliament here today. My concern with the Bill is that we might not hear those wise words—or anyone else’s wise words —in Parliament again, since the Government in this Bill are taking so many powers away and delegating them to Ministers.

Like every other Member who has spoken, I generally support the thrust of the Bill. As we know, the last Conservative Government introduced a similar Bill with these generational restrictions, and which many people thought were possibly unenforceable. The new Government have also reintroduced it with the generational powers, which again may be possibly unenforceable.

My main concern about the Bill are the unacceptable parts with excessive amounts of parliamentary scrutiny being taken away and given to Ministers and others in the delegated powers. As has been said by others, the previous Bill had 33 delegated powers and this one has 66. Some are repeats of the same powers, duplicated for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England but, nevertheless, the extent of the delegated powers is a slap in the face for the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, which was praised by the current Government.

In that report, we warned about the four major abuses we increasingly see in legislation—but this Bill has every sin we warned against. It has 17 Henry VIII powers, enabling Ministers to change Acts of Parliament, avoiding proper parliamentary scrutiny. It has skeleton clauses saying that Ministers can create offences on a range of topics and set a maximum penalty. That is not good enough. Any and all criminal offences should be set out in detail in primary legislation.

It has subdelegation of powers. It is bad enough that Ministers have been given excessive delegated powers, but some clauses permit subdelegation of these powers to other organisations. Clause 104 simply says:

“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions”.


There is identical wording in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and local authorities are given carte blanche to invent their own licensing conditions without Parliament ever looking at one word of them. At least with statutory instruments there is a slim chance that Parliament can debate them, but not when the power to make these laws is delegated to some other body.

The Delegated Powers Committee also slammed the increasing trend for disguised legislation, where the Minister issues guidance which everyone must have regard to. This is a way to get round making a statutory instrument, which of course might get some Parliamentary scrutiny. Technically and legally, the words “must have regard to” are not compulsory, but they can only be disregarded if the target organisation or persons can show exceptionally good reasons not to follow them, which is a heavy bridge to cross. Of course, all government information when the guidance is issued gives the impression that it must be followed on pain of death—we have that here also in Schedule 1.

We have heard from every noble Lord today that there is a justifiable case to add more restrictions to the sale of tobacco and vapes. If that is the case, the myriad offences in the Bill should be set out in detail and not hidden. Let us justify what the Government are doing in legislation.

I leave it to other noble Lords to point out the difficulties of enforcement of the age and generations restrictions, not least the thousands of extra inspectors who may be required and the impossibility of retailers checking the ages of people between their twenties and thirties, thirties and forties, and forties and fifties. Two weeks ago, I was in the Little Waitrose down Victoria Street, and a lady in front of me was stopped at the till because they wanted to check her age for a bottle of Nyetimber champagne that she was buying. She said, “I’m in my forties”, but the assistant said they needed to check her age. The rather elegant lady in her forties had some choice language to give to the Waitrose staff who wanted to check the age of a lady who was obviously older than 21. That is just in a professional Waitrose store; I shudder to think of what will happen in the thousands of little retailers around the country.

I conclude with a word about the illicit market. Illicit is not counterfeit, but real cigarettes made by legitimate companies in Romania, say, and intended for the Romanian market or other eastern European markets—where there may be no duty or taxes—are being brought here illegally. It is massive, and this Bill will add to it. In 2023, one in four cigarettes consumed was illicit—that is 6.7 billion cigarettes—losing HMRC £3 billion per annum. Every single expert, and everyone in the tobacco companies, says that this Bill will further boost this dodgy market. My concern is not around the potential loss of revenue to HMRC but that 25% of cigarettes are able to be sourced illegally in pubs around the country.

We have a Bill with excessive powers and with large parts that are possibly unenforceable; it will lose the Government money and give young people a way to get cigarettes illegally in any case. Although I support the Bill, I hope that we will explore these issues in Committee.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I hear some responses from the Benches next to me who disagree with this. I hope, however, that they will consider carefully the arguments that I am making, and those that come from the Minister shortly.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I rise to support my noble friends’ amendments in group 1, not to defend tobacco, but to defend common sense, public safety and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who would be most harmed by a policy that looks simple on paper but is deeply dangerous in practice.

First, the burden on retailers and communities is real. Small shopkeepers already face unprecedented levels of crime and intimidation. The Bill would force them to enforce a moving legal threshold every year, placing the full weight of policing on their shoulders.

We heard an awful lot from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on guidance. I am listening to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do, and I would love to see what the Government guidance will be for that shopkeeper. When they ask, “What is your age? When were you born? Prove it.”, how on earth will the shopkeeper be able to deal with people in their 20s, 30s and 40s when trying to stay on the right side of an ever- changing law?

The implementation of a generational ban on tobacco sales will have profound, unintended consequences for shopkeepers, law enforcement and retailers—to the benefit of organised criminals—across the UK for years to come. That is not hyperbole; it is a sober description of the risks we are being asked to accept with this.

Secondly, the policy will drastically expand the illicit cigarette market and hand control to organised criminals. Everybody knows the stark evidence—even though HMRC will never admit it—that illicit tobacco loses the Treasury £3.5 billion per annum. Some 25% of all cigarettes sold are illicit and cheap, and the price differential drives consumers to illegal sources in pubs, clubs and under-the-counter sales.

This ill-conceived generational ban—admittedly, a stupid idea from the last Government—will create a permanent cohort of consumers who cannot legally buy tobacco, and where demand exists, supply will follow. That supply will be by criminal networks. Let us look briefly at Australia as a sign of what will unfold in the UK. Organised crime gangs dominate the illicit tobacco market in Australia, which has led to arson, violence and the takeover of local markets by criminal gangs.

Thirdly, enforcement capacity is already stretched to breaking point. Trading Standards and other front-line agencies have lost staff and lack the resources to police a complex, ever-changing age rule. Enforcement bodies are underfunded and under-resourced; adding a perpetual generational rule will only widen the enforcement gap and shift the burden to retailers and local communities, who will be unable to cope. When enforcement fails, the law becomes a paper shield for criminals and a real threat to honest businesses.

What is the sensible alternative? It must be setting the age at 21, as set out in my noble friend’s amendment. This is not a retreat from public health; it is a pragmatic, enforceable measure that achieves the same long-term outcome for young people while avoiding the catastrophic side-effects of a generational ban. My noble friend set out in detail from the Government’s own impact assessment how raising the age to 21 would achieve the same long-term aim.

A minimum age of 21 is clear, static and much more easily enforceable. It allows retailers to train staff once and apply a consistent rule, and it reduces the incentive for criminal markets to exploit a permanently excluded generation. It also aligns with international practice and with the Republic of Ireland’s own policy direction, reducing cross-border legal friction.

Finally, we must pair any age change with stronger enforcement and support. If we raise the age to 21, we should simultaneously strengthen fixed-penalty regimes, resource trading standards and Border Force properly and invest in targeted education and cessation services. Enforcement must be credible—it is not at the moment. Everybody knows that you can get illegal cigarettes in any pub or club in the country. We need stepped penalties for repeat offenders, licensing powers that bite and better funding for the agencies that will be asked to do the work.

All of us in this House and Parliament share the aim of reducing smoking, but good ends do not justify bad, unworkable means. A generational ban risks destroying small businesses, empowering organised crime, overwhelming enforcement and creating legal chaos. A minimum legal purchasing age of 21 is a proportionate, enforceable and effective alternative that would protect public health without the catastrophic unintended consequences. If we come to a vote, I urge the House to reject the generational ban and support a measured, evidence-based approach that combines an age limit of 21 with robust enforcement and support for cessation. I support my noble friend’s amendments.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and he persuaded me that, at the end of the day, we are dealing with a question of health, not choice. I will give an example. Colin Bennetts, Bishop of Coventry from 1998 to 2008, died in July 2013 after a period of illness due to cancer. His lungs were filled with deposits of smoke. He said to everybody, “I have never smoked in my life”, but as a youngster he had worked in an office where cigarettes were lit at every moment. Colin, who had not smoked, died of lung cancer. You do not have to smoke to die from it —others sitting near may get it.

I respect the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but you cannot compare gambling on horses with smoking. Gambling on horses affects only those gambling, but secondary smoking is detrimental to anybody in a place where people are smoking. I do not think these amendments would be helpful. We should stick with the Bill as drafted, because we are trying to protect people’s lives and make them healthier.

I suffered what is called in medical terms a lung infarction, where bits of your lungs do not quite operate. I still have that illness, so every time I go into a place where there is a lot of smoking, I can barely breathe—I have to get out into the fresh air and get it in my lungs. Friends, this is about health. If we do not do this now, then when?