Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, where we seek to restrict individual freedom, we should always approach that with a certain level of caution. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the horrendous, and often fatal, consequences of smoking go well beyond the individual. They are deeply detrimental to families, as we have heard today with so many personal testimonies from around the Chamber. They are deeply damaging to the health service and to our economy. In opening the debate, the Minister estimated the annual cost to the UK at about £21 billion. The British Heart Foundation suggests that the figure is around £43 billion. While there can be a debate around statistics, it is undoubtedly the case that the scale of the cost, both in economic and more importantly in human terms, is enormous. Therefore, the prize of seeking a smoke-free generation is one that we should support, and I strongly support the principles and aims of the Bill.

As the Minister indicated in her opening remarks, it goes beyond legislation itself. If, in this House, we could ensure virtuous behaviour within society simply by legislating, we would be living in a much easier world—but it requires a lot more than that. As we move forward, we need to have legislation that is the most practical and effective. Therefore, while we should embrace the principles of the Bill, the Government and this House, particularly in Committee, need to address the real and genuine concerns that have been raised, particularly through this debate. I will list just four of them in the short time I have available.

First, while many retailers will strongly support the Bill’s aims, there are genuine concerns raised by small retailers over issues around enforcement, age identification and the threats of potential violence to themselves and shop workers, putting them on the front line. We cannot be blasé about those claims and simply say that it is a relatively small problem that will be overcome, and it will all work out. We need to hear from the Government how they intend to address those genuine concerns and meet the concerns raised by retailers.

Secondly, it is right that the principal focus of the Bill is to try to deter young people from smoking. Mention has been made about the best routes to give up smoking. The most effective way to give up smoking is never to start it in the first place. We know that, on average, about 350 young people take up smoking each day, so it is also incumbent on the Government, if we are looking at the most practical measures, to explain in detail why what has been suggested as a different practical approach—instead of a rolling age target, having a higher fixed age of either 21 or 25—is not the way forward. The Government need to go into a greater level of detail on why that would not work, because we are all concerned about the effectiveness of this.

Thirdly, as has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, it is welcome that we have a Bill that operates throughout the United Kingdom. The Minister was right to say that that is critical to the Bill’s effectiveness and to the equality of its impact. However, a strong concern has been raised because of Northern Ireland being linked in with the European Union tobacco directive and its implications through the Windsor Framework. We have seen the tobacco directive have a major impact on what has happened in Europe. The Republic of Ireland—which, to its credit, was the brand leader in taking action against smoking; I think it was the first jurisdiction in western democracy to ban smoking indoors—has been prevented from taking measures of this nature because of that directive.

It is undoubtedly the case that those associated with the tobacco industry will seek to challenge this legally through judicial action. We need to see more substance than simply the Government saying that they are confident that that will not succeed. There is no point in passing legislation only to find, six months or a year down the line, that this loophole is opened up again in Northern Ireland because of a court decision, and we all just shrug our shoulders. The Government need to address this seriously, through amendments.

Finally, we need to acknowledge that there is a real risk of both smuggling and additional criminality. That has been the experience of prohibition in any set of circumstances. It is not the case that we should say that we must abandon prohibition—otherwise, we would simply legalise everything—but it is incumbent on the Government to say what additional measures will be taken to ensure that organised crime is combated. It cannot be more of the same. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to detailed scrutiny in Committee and on Report.