Lord Murray of Blidworth:

Moved by Lord Murray of Blidworth

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009” and insert “under the age of 21”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment seeks to remove the generational ban for tobacco products in England and Wales by raising the age of sale to 21.

My Lords, I will speak to all my amendments in this group, which is all of them barring Amendment 203. I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby, who has signed all my amendments.

The amendments all do the same thing: they would remove from the necessary places in the Bill the generational smoking ban—that is, the prohibition on tobacco sales to all those born after 1 January 2009—and replace it with a fixed age of sale of 21. In my view, this policy was wrong when it was adopted by my party in government, and it is still wrong now.

In asking noble Lords to support this amendment, I will make six points. The first is in relation to prohibition. A generational ban may sound like a progressive step to protect public health, but it is de facto prohibition, and there remains no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long-standing legal product has ever worked. In time, this policy will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated, highly taxed industry, which will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated, untaxed criminal bonanza.

The idea that, because the Government ban a legal product, they will extinguish demand must be pure fantasy. The Government’s impact assessment, Modelling for the Smokefree Generation Policy, clearly presents that scenario 2, increasing the minimum legal age of purchase from 18 to 21, and scenario 4, implementing a generational smoking ban—my amendment and the Government’s policy—will result in the same outcome: that 0% of smoking prevalence will exist among 14 to 30 year-olds by 2050.

It is therefore apparently the Government’s own assessment that an increase in the minimum legal age of purchase for tobacco from 18 to 21 would have the same impact as the generational ban with respect to reducing youth uptake of smoking. If the outcome remains the same, it begs the question: why not adopt the proven and straightforward policy approach of implementing a ban at the age of 21? After all, increasing the minimum purchase age to 21 has been adopted, or is in the process of being adopted, in the United States, Singapore, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Honduras, Samoa, Uganda—the list goes on.

The Republic of Ireland will adopt the age of 21 threshold from February 2028. It is a very pertinent case study because, in 2024, the Irish Government specifically announced that they would not look to implement a generational smoking ban because of the legal advice they had received that such a ban would conflict with the EU single market rules and the tobacco products directive—a point to which I will return shortly.

New Zealand in 2023 adopted the same generational ban policy as that advanced by the Government today. It was reversed in 2024, before it came into effect. The new New Zealand Government argued that the existing regulatory regime was on track to deliver the same smoke-free results without the profound unintended consequences that would flow from implementing a generational ban. This was sound reasoning.

My second point is that the policy is unnecessary, as smoking rates are declining anyway. According to the ONS, smoking rates among all adults aged 18 and over across the UK have declined from 20% in 2011 to 10% in 2024. In 2019, the then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, announced the Government’s intention to reach smoke-free—which equates to 5% or less of the adult population—by 2030. Less than five years later, adult smoking rates had declined by a further 4%. Therefore, based on this progress, adult smoking rates will hit the smoke-free target by 2030, or very closely thereafter. This begs the further question: what is the rationale to break from a policy approach that is clearly working to one that is untried and untested and which will have significant unfavourable consequences?

My third point is the black market substitution effect. So long as there is a flourishing alternative market, offering a 20-pack of illicit cigarettes for anywhere between £3.50 and £7, compared with an average of £17 for a legal 20-pack, consumer demand will go in only one direction. People are already switching in huge numbers to buy cheaper, illicit products, which is also resulting in the loss of vital tax revenue to the tune of many billions of pounds a year. It is surely obvious that this trend will only be accelerated if those born after 1 January 2009 can never legally buy cigarettes.

When it comes to illicit tobacco products, Action on Smoking and Health, Trading Standards and the Government themselves maintain that illicit tobacco consumption is declining, repeatedly citing HMRC evidence that the illicit tobacco trade has shrunk by 90% since 2000 and that only 10% of the cigarettes consumed in 2023-24 were illicit, which amounts to some 2 billion illicit cigarettes. However, in giving evidence to the Business and Trade Select Committee in November, the deputy director of illicit finance at the National Crime Agency, Sal Melki, stated that the combined law enforcement agencies’ Operation Machinize had seized 4.5 billion illicit cigarettes in 2024 alone—thereby seizing 2.5 billion illicit cigarettes which, according to HMRC, should not exist. The stark reality is that no one knows the size and scale of the illicit tobacco market, but what has become glaringly apparent is that the Government refuse to waver from the narrative that it is in decline, even when the evidence clearly points in the opposite direction. We must learn the lessons from Australia, where organised criminals have taken control of the illicit tobacco and vapes market and violence and chaos have exploded on to Australia’s streets. The situation will, I fear, be worse here once the generational ban is in effect.

My fourth point is the very significant impact of the ban on retailers. Crimes against retailers are already at epidemic levels, and many independent shopkeepers are scared about the impact that a generational ban will have on their business and the safety of their staff. There is no getting away from the fact that the weight of responsibility for enforcement of the ban will fall entirely on their shoulders. They will have to navigate the new legal-age threshold, which will change every year and be different from the threshold for other age-limited goods—for example, alcohol. One clear potential effect of the proposed ban is that many small local shops will struggle to remain viable in the face of increased competition from the untaxed, unregulated black market. I fear that many neighbourhood shops will close as a result of this policy. I know my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom will make some further points on this issue.

My fifth point is in relation to the Windsor Framework. The Government continue to claim, based on their own legal evidence, that they will be able to implement the generational ban across the whole of the UK, even though they know full well that in Northern Ireland such measures are subject to the Windsor Framework. It is clear that the Bill is contrary to EU law. The ban is a Brexit benefit, although the Minister will not call it that. In spite of legal objections from seven EU member states—Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia—the implementation of a generational smoking ban would breach the Windsor Framework and the EU products directive. But still the Government intend to press on without ever explaining the basis for their legal confidence. In reality, there must be a strong likelihood that these provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill are likely to be disapplied by the High Court in Northern Ireland.

My final point is on liberty. There is a tendency in modern politics to clamour for a ban to achieve social benefits in preference to seeking other solutions, notwithstanding the impacts on personal liberty and freedom of choice. The generational smoking ban significantly erodes personal freedom and choice—so much for the Government that would tread more lightly on our lives. The ban imposed by this Bill is simply not justified. It will have absurd consequences. Why, a few years hence, should a 42 year-old be able to buy cigarettes but a 41 year-old cannot? If an 18 year-old can drive a car, buy alcohol, join the army and have already voted for two years if this Government get their way, surely by the age of 21 they can decide whether they wish to buy what will still be a legal product. The state should not remove for ever that freedom to choose simply because a person happens to have been born on or after 1 January 2009. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 203 in my name, which is also supported by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. She is sorry that she cannot be here today because of ill health. I know she is keeping a close eye on us, but I hope she takes it easy and will be back with us soon.

Amendment 203—to change the subject slightly—would require the Government to publish, shortly after Royal Assent, a communications plan to support the implementation of the smoke-free generation policy and to raise public awareness. We know that the ban on smoking in public places was effectively communicated so that those who needed to take action were well prepared to do so and the public knew what the plans were. We want to see the same actions here.

When this amendment was tabled in Committee, it was excellent to hear the Minister strongly agree that such communication was vital. Many of us involved in this debate over the years know from experience how effective public health communication can be. We have played our part in the major advances in tobacco control, from smoke-free public places to changes in the age of sale and plain packaging—and we have had all the same arguments coming back at us. None of those reforms succeeded by chance. They worked because they were carefully planned, cross-party in approach and underpinned by communication strategies that brought the public with them. The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation, far-sighted and potentially significant for our children and grandchildren.

We fully realise how the industry—represented here today, I can see—will, as ever, push back against this measure using every device in the book. We have seen that time after time in this Chamber over the years, with very familiar arguments.

I commend those who have helped to bring about this legislation, from Professor Khan to Professor Chris Whitty, from Rishi Sunak to the current Government. The Bill team have done a fantastic job in bringing together previously fragmented strands of tobacco regulation, seeking to close loopholes so that we create a framework that is robust enough to withstand future industry innovation, which, again, is extremely familiar. This might indeed be one of the last tobacco Bills needing to pass through this House—not that I hold my breath.

This legislation contains a world-leading and genuinely novel policy to help to deliver a smoke-free generation, which the Opposition are also theoretically committed to. It therefore creates a real opportunity not just to implement a new age of sale but to communicate the harms of smoking and promote smoking cessation, just as the ban on smoking in public places did. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments in Committee that clear guidance will be published and the Government will work to ensure successful implementation. But guidance alone is the minimum requirement, and I hope the Government’s ambition goes further than that.

In 2007, as those of us here then will remember, when smoke-free legislation was introduced, the message was simple, consistent and widespread. The Government did not leave it to businesses and others to explain on their behalf. Stakeholders were identified early, supported properly, not undermined with all sorts of reasons to feel anxious, and given time to prepare. Guidance, signage and materials were ready well in advance. National TV adverts raised awareness. The result was immediate: we saw 98% compliance on day one, accompanied by growing public support.

That approach achieved more than compliance; it changed attitudes. It sparked conversations about the harms of smoking, not the liberties—as if an addiction is a liberty—and encouraged many people to try to quit. That kind of cultural shift is exactly what this legislation should aim to replicate. Although the rising age of sale applies to a specific cohort, a wider objective is to engage the whole population and frame smoking cessation as a shared national endeavour.

There have been recent missed opportunities in this area. The guidance around the disposable vapes ban failed to reach key audiences and left significant gaps, including in healthcare settings where those products are used for smoking cessation. That experience underlines the case for this amendment. As soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Government should be engaging proactively with retailers, particularly those who may face additional challenges in understanding and implementing the new age of sale. That includes thinking seriously about accessibility—for example, how many languages the guidance and signage will be available in.

I would therefore welcome reassurance from the Minister that officials are working closely with retailer representatives to ensure that guidance, signage and communications are aligned and as straightforward as possible. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about what is planned. With the right communications strategy in place, this Bill should accelerate our progress towards a smoke-free country which, theoretically, we are all committed to. This amendment is designed to help ensure that it does.

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.

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.

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.

Those of us old enough to remember it know that this was faintly ridiculous. I well recall that quite a lot of stations had a flower seller who sat in front of the station, and everybody knew that he actually made most of his money by taking bets on horses from people coming in. My recollection is that the Blair Government went in for a dramatic reform, repealing this ridiculous legislation and legalising what had become betting shops. Overnight, the whole thing was transformed.

I think we should put some constraints on the advertising of betting now—I do not go the whole way—but with hindsight we can see that the illegality of off-course betting was a well-intentioned, absurd and utterly ineffective misuse of the criminal law. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, should persuade us all that the Bill as it stands is a repeat of that rather ridiculous experiment.

My Lords, for the first time in my life, I will publicly disagree with my noble friend Lord Clarke. I will speak briefly but very strongly against this group of amendments, which would simply defeat the object of the Bill: to introduce a generational ban and achieve over time a smoke-free country.

Less than two years ago, a generational ban was the policy of a Conservative Government, and the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, described it as one of his proudest initiatives. In that Parliament, on a free vote, the vast Majority of Conservative Members of Parliament supported the Bill, as did 28 out of the 30 members of the Cabinet. All the arguments that we have heard this afternoon were put forward at that time, listened to and discounted. In this Parliament, the measure passed with a majority of 415 to 47, so it is fair to say that the Bill has broad cross-party support, and it is popular outside. It has a clear objective of reducing the burdens of smoking on the economy and the NHS.

I will leave it to others to deal with the argument about illicit tobacco and the Windsor Framework; I just want to tackle the libertarian argument, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I listened to all the libertarian arguments when a Conservative Government made it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear crash helmets. We heard the arguments about well-informed adults being aware of the risks. Nobody would now reverse that piece of legislation. We heard the same arguments on compulsory seat belts. Both those measures were introduced by a Conservative Government. We heard the same arguments about smoking on public transport, on trains and in pubs. Yes, there is a libertarian argument, but in my view there is a much broader benefit in moving to a smoke-free country.

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I will concentrate on one narrow area—one of the practical aspects of this generational ban—which, as my noble friend Lord Clarke highlighted, is the inevitable difficulty of age verification in stores. I am sure the Minister will soon argue that age verification is a well-established practice and therefore should present no particular difficulty, but the implications of the Bill in a few years’ time are profound, as my noble friend noted.

Judging the difference between an 18 year-old and a 40 year-old by eye is not especially difficult—although at this point I note that there are a number of Peers on the Government Benches who regularly claim that even that is impossible in the case of asylum seekers. But how is a shopkeeper supposed to judge the precise age of someone who is apparently 40 years old in a few years’ time? Is he 40? Is he 39? Is he 40 in 364 days? I am sure that we will soon hear the argument that the point is actually somewhat moot, because that 40 year- old born after the 1 January 2009 will have never smoked or shown any desire to smoke because of the Bill. But that is simply not a credible argument. As my noble friend Lord Murray noted, the generational ban is a de facto prohibition, and one does not need to be a dedicated student of history to know that prohibition of any kind has never worked. Indeed, it serves to make whatever is being prohibited more desirable, more glamorous and more edgy. Plenty of people will still choose to smoke.

In effect, the state will therefore be asking shopkeepers to both comply with and police the law at the same time. To put some statistics around this, the Association of Convenience Stores represents 50,000 local shops, petrol forecourt sites and independent retailers across all locations. Last year, it reported that there were 57,000 incidents of violence against people working in convenience stores. Some 87% of store workers reported verbal abuse and 44% reported hate-motivated abuse. The top three triggers of this violence epidemic were encountering shop thieves, enforcing age restriction policies and refusing to serve intoxicated customers. Does the Minister think this will get any better when the shopkeeper has to ask two middle-aged men for their passports—or, indeed, an 85 year-old for his birth certificate?

Today, I read that the British Retail Consortium has reported that there were 1,600 incidents of violence and abuse per day in shops in the year 2024-25. That is down from the previous year, but it is still a staggering number. It is welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a retail worker an aggravated offence, but that is, I contend, highly unlikely to make any difference at all to the number of incidents around age verification, which are inevitable. I am sure the Minister will also refer to the increase in police numbers and neighbourhood policing officers due by 2029. That is also welcome, of course, but I note that the previous Government bequeathed more police officers than ever before in this country, and that did not have a noticeable impact. The simple fact is that this measure will inevitably cause more trouble, and the Government will be unable to do much about that. It is ludicrous to pass a law that will provoke the breaking of other Laws.

My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments would achieve the Government’s aims without causing this needless aggravation. The Government’s own impact assessment states that a one-off increase in the age of sale to 21 would be just as effective in the short term at reducing smoking rates, compared with a generational smoking ban. The Government should change tack and accept my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments.

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 1 and the associated amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, because I believe wholeheartedly that a country free from the harms of tobacco would transform the public health of this nation and prevent huge amounts of human suffering. We heard from the noble Lord about the reversal of the planned policy in New Zealand, but we did not hear an explanation for that. The explanation is quite simple: there was a change of coalition parties following a General Election. One of the new coalition parties feared the drop in revenue to the Government as a result of the policy being introduced and a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco smoking, which surely proves the point that that party accepted that such policies as this would be effective.

We have heard about the wonderful, kind-spirited nature of the tobacco industry in caring for young people, but not enough about the many decades of deceit, in which that industry knew full well the links between its products and lung cancer, and covered up what it knew and lied about them, as it lied about tobacco smoking of a second-hand nature. This is not an industry which we can trust for a remote second.

May I ask what evidence the noble Lord has for that? I well remember, when I was on the board of BAT, that we acknowledged the health risks. We were accused of somehow denying it, but the people with this bizarre conspiracy theory were never able to produce any examples of our denying it, because we did not, and we did not oppose warnings and labels on packages. It is just part of the mythology of the more extreme fringe of well-intentioned anti-tobacco lobbyists.

My Lords, with respect, I am not part of any extreme fringe, and the views I have enunciated are shared almost entirely by the medical profession in this country. For decades, the tobacco companies had evidence that tobacco was linked to lung cancer, yet they kept denying until it was proven by showing the number of people with lung cancer who smoked and the number of people with lung cancer who did not. The industry hid that as it fought tooth and nail against such things as plain packaging with many bogus arguments. This is the most deceitful industry in the world.

We have heard about the cliff edge problem, but it is one that we have now. At 17 years and 364 days, you may not buy tobacco, but you can on your 18th birthday. With these amendments, that would change to being able to buy tobacco on your 21st birthday, but not after 20 years and 364 days on this planet.

My experience of being orphaned at 16, and finding my mother, a heavy smoker, dead in her bed as a result of hypertensive heart disease, with smoking obviously a key factor in her death, has driven me, ever since then, to support people trying to quit—that is most smokers, in my experience—and to prevent the tobacco industry promoting addiction to its lethal products. The Bill proposes a world-leading policy of which we should be proud, and we should not make it less effective, as proposed by many amendments in this group.

Raising the age at which someone can legally be sold a cigarette works in terms of reducing tobacco consumption. It may not be 100% effective, but that is not a reason to try to make it less effective. We know that raising the age of sale in England from 16 to 18 in 2007 reduced smoking rates among 16 and 17 year-olds by 30%. In the US, when the age of sale was increased from 18 to 21, the chance of a person in that age group taking up smoking fell by 39%.

The tobacco industry employs the most deceitful and dangerous lobbyists in the world. Their role is to try to protect its enormous profits and persuade more people—in particular young people—to take up the deadly habit in order to replace the 50% of its consumers whose lives are shortened by smoking tobacco.

One argument we hear from opponents of tobacco control legislation is that it represents a so-called nanny state. This is a term that I feel is really used only in the media. The phrase does not resonate with the public, who are highly supportive of tobacco control legislation. I hear laughter, but polling shows that 68% of the public support the smoke-free generation. The Chief Medical Officer has been clear that there is no freedom in addiction. Many people start smoking as children and become addicted almost immediately. Two out of three people who try just one cigarette go on to become daily smokers, and three-quarters of smokers say that they would never have started if they had the choice again.

It is also important to be clear what this policy does and does not do. The rising age of sale does not remove any current adult’s ability to buy tobacco; it simply phases in a high minimum age of purchase for future generations. That is a proportionate approach. By contrast, accepting these amendments would mean that those aged 18 to 20 who already smoke would suddenly be unable to buy tobacco legally—a far more intrusive step.

Smoking remains one of the greatest preventable burdens on our public services and our economy. It is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments every year. It costs the country approximately £27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost £2 billion annually and local authorities nearly £4 billion a year in social care costs. That is money we do not have, and which could and should be spent on improving health, not managing preventable harm. The number of people—

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is Report stage of proceedings. His speech is a bit on the long side. Can he bring his remarks to a close, please?

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.

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.

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?

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK. Given that smoking continues to be the single biggest cause of cancer, it will not be a surprise that I oppose the amendments in this group, which would substantially weaken this landmark legislation. In explaining why, I will respond to each of the six points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.

First, the noble Lord argued that we do not need more tobacco control legislation anyway because smoking rates are already coming down. That is not correct; Javed Khan has pointed out that, among the most deprived parts of the country, on current trends we will not be smoke-free until 2044. In any event, some in the tobacco industry have come to the same conclusion. I quote from an advert that Philip Morris took out in the New Statesman, no doubt designed to influence people such as us: “Here in the UK, smoking rates are not declining fast enough. None of the home nations are on course to hit their smoke-free dates, and the most deprived communities are lagging significantly behind”. The suggestion that we can just assume that the status quo will produce a benign outcome is incorrect.

The noble Lord’s second argument was that, rather than having a generational tobacco sales restriction, we should instead just move towards delaying the age at which smoking can be initiated to 21. The tobacco industry would doubtless switch its efforts to targeting twenty-somethings instead of teenagers. On the surprising claims we have heard in respect of the behaviour down the decades of Gallaher or British American Tobacco, I simply say to noble Lords: google their internal documents. They have all been disclosed as a result of international treaties and court cases, and noble Lords will see the systematic duplicity, bribery and corruption that has continued across the world in advancing big tobacco’s agenda. Those documents, the internal files, are there: noble Lords can check them out for themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to the Republic of Ireland as an example we should perhaps be following, when it proposed to adopt the age of 21. However, the director of the tobacco industry-funded front organisation FOREST said of the effect of adopting the age of 21 as a tobacco sales restriction:

“If you’re not careful, you’re actually going to make smoking … fashionable again. You’re going to actually encourage young people to smoke”,

on the back of this proposed sales restriction to over 21 year-olds.

The third argument we heard was about the black market. For reasons that are a non sequitur, we have several times heard cited the example of Australia. The amendments in this group relate to changes to the age of sale. There has been no change in the age of sale in Australia. As far as I am aware, it is still 18 and has been for 30 years. So, whatever else is going on in Australia, it has got nothing to do with the amendments in this group in respect of age of sale. In fact, the Australian example tells us that you need rigorous enforcement. Until very recently, there was no retail licensing available for New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland, covering about 70% of the Australian population, and it has only been patchily introduced subsequently.

There is agreement that we need strong enforcement to deal with the illicit trade, but the argument that we should essentially do whatever it takes to maximise revenue for the Exchequer is a flawed one. If that were the case, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we would be legalising and licensing handguns, assault weapons, fentanyl or crack cocaine. The fact is that, when it comes to tobacco control policy, it is not the Laffer curve that we should focus on, it is the life expectancy curve.

The fourth argument has been around the impact on retailers. I accept that there are legitimate concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has rightly drawn attention to the epidemic of violence and also noted the provisions that will be in the Crime and Policing Bill as one step to attempt to tackle this. But the fact is that the progressive age of sale restrictions in the Bill are an evolutionary measure that will be phased over many years, giving retailers much opportunity to adjust. There are substitutes that they can sell, including vapes, as alternatives to smoked tobacco. Surely, nobody is suggesting that the trump argument should be that we need to sustain the margins of retailers at the expense of 80,000 people who die prematurely from smoking every year.

The fifth argument we heard was around the Windsor Framework. It is fair to say that alternative legal opinions are available. Member states are free to determine the age limit that they see as appropriate on their territory. This does not constitute a trade restriction within the meaning of the EU treaties. In any event, even if a court found that it did, it could be justified on public health grounds. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Bill has the support of Northern Irish Health Ministers and that legislative consent has been received from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lastly, we come back to the liberty argument: the freedom of unborn smokers to become addicted in decades to come. Well, those of us who take the opposite view judge that this is a proportionate response to a great harm. It is a novel piece of legislation; we will need to see how it plays out in practice. One of the government amendments that will be before us on Report will be precisely a report on its real-world effects in the coming years. In the meantime, to weaken what has the potential to be one of the most fundamental health-improving pieces of legislation this Parliament has ever enacted would in my judgment be a grave error.

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who gave a pretty good summary of many of the arguments against this group of amendments. I join him in all that he said. My fundamental motive is twofold. First, I would like to see the eradication of smoking in this country. That is a vision that we should embrace and be proud of. Just kicking the can and putting up the age limit, as this group of amendments seeks to do, would simply extend a very large and unfair addiction that kills two-thirds of its users and that we could all do without.

Secondly, I am very proud that my party was leading on this issue and brought about the generational ban. I remind noble Lords to have a moment of self-awareness. This is a measure that is massively supported by voters, taxpayers, smokers, Conservatives, retailers and even by the tobacco companies which, at least in this country, have a notional commitment to the eradication of smoking. You can judge whether to take that at face value, but that is at least their rhetorical position. So it seems out of date for my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Naseby to be stalwarts for the permanent establishment of smoking in the face of such Opposition.

A lot has been said on retail enforcement, which I strongly support. For those noble Lords who have not been to a shop recently while looking younger than their years, I mention that, if you are anywhere near 18, 19 or 20 and attempt to buy tobacco, a lottery product, a knife, a firework or alcohol, you will be asked for proof of age, even if you are in your 20s, 30s or 40s. Noble Lords may not believe me, but I sometimes get carded as well.

Noble Lords:

We do not.

Noble Lords have, perfectly reasonably, rebutted me on that. But my point is that the modern retail experience does not rely on retailers squinting to try to judge the difference between 21 and 22 year-olds. It is mandatory for almost everyone to produce ID when they are purchasing any restricted product. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rightly said, it is right that the Government support this regime. I am pleased to see statutory guidance, updated training standards and enforcement tools as part of the Bill.

Regarding stories about the black market, I must express grave reservations about some of the points that have been made in this debate. They remind me more of stories of Arthur Daley and “Minder” than of modern Britain and I am not sure how relevant stories of Australian biker gangs shooting each other are. Just to correct my noble friend Lord Napier, he said that 4 billion—

Noble Lords:

Naseby!

I have only been here for 50 years.

My noble friend is looking very well on it. He mentioned that 4 billion cigarettes had been taken by the police in 2024. According to HMRC, the number is 24 million. I draw attention to that because there is a lot of loose use of numbers in the description of illicit trade.

The figure that my noble friend quotes is correct from the source that he quoted, but, after further investigation, it was found that the figure I quoted was the correct figure.

If my noble friend is correct, I will absolutely and humbly correct myself. Maybe we could have a drink afterwards and compare notes on that.

On the question of freedom, I too am a passionate believer and fighter for freedom. However, the freedoms I care about are not only the freedom of choice but the freedom not to be impoverished by taxes and not to see my nation, my country, ruined by the health, welfare and productivity costs of carcinogenic, nasty toxins such as cigarettes. The financial cost on ourselves, and particularly on our children, of this industry is absolutely enormous and is still growing, even if the numbers have stalled. So the freedom from addiction and debt should be included in any discussion of what the freedoms are. For those reasons, I will be voting against this package of measures.

My Lords, I am also against these amendments. I will disclose a conflict of interest: I started smoking when I was 16—and 33 years later, like many of us who start to smoke at that age, because it is a childhood disease, I gave up.

We know and have heard about all the health effects of smoking, but we also have to realise that smoking is an easy addiction to start. I have looked after every addiction—heroin, cocaine, alcohol—and smoking is the easiest. You need only two cigarettes for 80% of people to be addicted, like me, for 33 years, and many people, like me, try to give up.

It is not just addiction that is the problem. It is not even about death, although death is a bad outcome to have. It is also about all the other complications. Like many smokers, I have lost many of my teeth. Our eyesight goes. We have skin problems. Smoking causes all sorts of things.

As a GP for nearly 30 years, I am pleased that I have seen a massive reduction in people with smoking-related diseases. My surgeries used to be full of what we call blue bloaters and pink puffers and full of people with premature heart disease. It is not an accident that I no longer see that in my consulting room; it is because of the hard work of our Chief Medical Officers, the Department of Health, ASH and many others to stop normalising smoking.

On the issue of the black market, there is of course a price differential. Wherever there is a price differential you will get a black market, whether it is diesel, cigarettes, alcohol or whatever. But the Bill is about stopping people starting—as the noble Lord said, preventing the next generation that has not even been born from starting. We have to focus on prevention, which is what the Bill is about.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, called this a world-leading policy. It is world-leading, because no one else in the world has chosen this policy. One wants to know why. At least the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, admitted that this was novel and therefore untested. Can we at least have a little humility by admitting that the Bill is an experiment? It is a risk.

How you do age verification, as rather wittily described by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, is a bit untested. How will we cope with the 84 year-old versus the 85 year-old—will there be a scrap? It is said that it is not going to happen for many years, but I thought the idea of legislators was that you were meant to think about the future, not just tomorrow, and the long- term implications of policies that pass.

Let us be honest: there is no good practice to copy with this Bill. There is no evidence about exactly how it will work or whether it will work. The claims on its behalf are largely based on modelling and speculation, and that is not evidence; it is not scientific. Therefore, the moral high ground and the sense of certainty deployed by those who are enthusiastic about the Bill, and the disdain towards those of us who are sceptical about it, are just a little misplaced.

I therefore request that, as we go through the very short Report stage, because a lot of us have been through a longer Committee stage, we are honest about things such as cost-benefit analysis—what is lost, what is gained—and, rather than moral righteousness, consider whether this is actually fit for purpose, even the purpose of those people who are putting the Bill forward. Whatever the intentions of those promoting the Bill, many of the clauses in it are counterproductive.

I know we are not on this section yet, but as an ex-smoker who started vaping, I am utterly distraught that we now have a Bill that, to all intents and purposes, treats vaping and tobacco as interchangeable, despite a denial by the Government. I do not think that there will be the health gain that is claimed.

My final point at this time—because I will be back —is that it is a little rich to sneer about freedom. Saying the word “libertarian” gives certain people a thrill; they can feel as though they are morally virtuous. I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, despite what Wikipedia says. However, I fully embrace living in a free society. I do not think that freedom is something I should be embarrassed about, nor that saying that people should be given choices about their lifestyles makes you to the right of Genghis Khan, or whatever it is that people are implying—or, worse, in the pay of big tobacco, which is the inference of many of the contributions. At some stage relatively soon, lots of adults—the 84 and 85 year-olds, because these kids do grow up to be adults—will be denied a choice. This Bill affects adults.

People can make choices about whether they take risks in their health. I suspect that practically everyone I know is using those weight-loss injections. To me they are a bit risky—I think, “Are they safe?”—but I am not mounting a campaign yet, because half this House would be out. People say it is worth the risk. A lot of people do daft things such as going skiing—mad; too risky for me. There are all sorts of things. People have been known to have the odd extra pint or eat the odd greasy breakfast. People take risks and make choices about their health all the time.

I do not want more people to smoke, but I also think that, in a free society, we have to give a certain degree of room for people to make choices—even the wrong choices. We live in a free society. Deciding the right and wrong choice is what happens in authoritarian regimes, but in a free society we say, “I don’t think you should do that, but I’m not necessarily going to legislate so that you can’t do everything I personally disapprove of”. We should not even say, “You shouldn’t do that, because I know best for your health what you should and shouldn’t do”. In medical ethics, there are times when you go to your doctor, who says, “Take this”, and you say, “I decline to take that medication; I do not want that Intervention”. In a free society, a doctor cannot force you to do what you do not want to do—even the virtuous health professional who we are all meant to revere.

As we carry on this Report stage, can we all show a bit of humility? Living in a free society puts before us difficult moral decisions. There is no necessarily right or wrong. We are allowed to scrutinise a Bill that is put before us without being accused of somehow being evil because we do not go along with the Bill. Just because the Conservative Government, when they were in, and the Labour Government now agree—if that is the basis on which we should not scrutinise, we might as well all go home. I am sad to say that, for some of us, the Conservative Party has had far too much agreement with the Labour Party over recent decades.

I am a Conservative Member who, in the other House, voted against this proposition. Does the noble Baroness not share my concern that one of the unspoken nonsenses of this legislation is that far too many young people are already choosing to smoke cannabis, instead of cigarettes that they might legally obtain? That proves that, however we try to legislate or regulate this market, people will do what they choose to do. Virtually no effort is made to clamp down on the illegal smoking of cannabis.

I am allowed to come back on that. All I want to say is that I do not want it to go down in Hansard that I am such a libertarian that I support the smoking of cannabis: I am not Zack Polanski. It is also the case that we have to think of the unintended consequences and the real world and real young people, rather than imaginary ones.

My Lords, I support the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray. We have heard a lot of nonsense from those from whom we would expect to hear a lot of nonsense. It is more surprising that those from whom we would have expected to hear some good sense have most grievously erred and strayed.

The proposed legislation will in no way stop people smoking; it will simply drive smoking underground. Health issues will not improve and highly aggressive criminal involvement in this trade will soar. His Majesty’s Treasury will be denied at least £10 billion a year, which will accrue to the benefit of the criminal underworld. This crass development will turn out to be a disastrous policy swerve. Look at the empirical evidence: prohibition or intended prohibition has turned out to be a disastrous and damaging policy in many parts of the world. This ill-thought-through legislation will have to be repealed in due course. Let us come to our collective senses: the consequences of this proposed legislation will be dire.

My Lords, I will be very brief. I am worried not about whether it is right or wrong to try to stop smoking but about whether this would work. There is no point in passing Laws that do not work, as they are not respected. I think back to the amount of pot that was smoked when I was at university, to all the drugs generally around the place, and to the switch from alcohol to ecstasy and other things when they were cheaper because the price of alcohol had been raised. We tamper around with it, but the problem is much deeper than that: people need to take things to stave off reality a bit, from time to time.

I was not a smoker, because I saw my friends wheezing at school. I tried it; everyone was worried about the amount of chocolate I ate, so I briefly tried smoking. I gave up after my second sore throat and saw no benefit from it. To be honest, this will not be an effective way of stopping smoking, so I see no point in it. It will cause problems with policing. We can handle age verification in various ways, but I will not bore your Lordships with that now. We should not make life more complicated for everyone. They will go on smoking if they are driven to it, and we do not want to make it look attractive, which driving stuff underground does.

Before I say a few brief words about the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and his excellent speech, I congratulate my former constituent, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who made an excellent speech. He spoke for common sense in how we treat adults. We will probably be allowing people to vote at 16 and we allow all sorts of things to happen at a much younger age, yet we do not realise how this generational ban will affect older people making decisions about their own lives and health.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, people take risks all their time. I am suffering from a very sore back, because I took a risk in thinking that, at my age, I could still ski—I found it quite difficult last week. We all take such choices. After the age of becoming an adult, people have to be able to make those choices. We should be spending our time educating young people. I do not want people to smoke—I have never smoked in my life—but I do not see this generational ban working.

To the people who want to see smoking stopped, I point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, this generational ban will end up in the courts. Labour Peers did not listen when people said that the immigration Bill and the legacy Bill would not apply to Northern Ireland. It is clear from what has already been said by many noble KCs, by the European Union itself and by those seven countries that have given detailed reasons that this Bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland, not just because of the Windsor Framework but generally because of the tobacco directive.

If we were really serious about getting rid of smoking, we would ban tobacco altogether. That will never happen, because the Government like having the money that comes in from it. I do not understand how anyone could think that, by voting for something that will take years to implement, no matter what the Government say, we will not land up in court over and again with legal issues. Until the Windsor Framework goes, this will not happen. I have an amendment next week, so I will not go into any more detail on that now. Whether or not you agree with the generational ban, this might be a reason to look seriously at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the age of 21, even if you think that, in principle, adults over the age of 18 should be allowed to make their own decisions.

My Lords, I will briefly sum up for the front bench on this interesting group of amendments. Our position is that we support this generational change and welcome the Government bringing it forward. This is not party-political; these ideas come from across the House, and we welcome them.

From our point of view, changing the age of sale to 21 would be tinkering at the edges and would not bring about the change that we all know we need. Nobody who has ever smoked a cigarette or been a smoker would wish otherwise. Imagine for a moment that, today, we were not considering this ban but contemplating introducing cigarettes for the first time. Nobody with a modicum of common sense would ever contemplate introducing cigarettes and allowing corporate companies to sell products that kill half their users. We all need to change this. My own father died of emphysema, and I am sure there is hardly anyone in this House who has not been impacted by tobacco.

This might be one of the most important things that any of us in the House do in our lifetime. It is hard to see another piece of legislation having such a beneficial impact on preventing harm and misery for people in society and helping them to lead healthier and better lives.

We see no insurmountable problem in this legislation. Yes, it is new and novel, and there will be teething problems—I cannot say there will not be—but they are all surmountable. Age verification and ID are commonly used, we need to look after our small retailers and look at how this change will be implemented, and there are other views on the EU question, but this is essential and it needs to be done. We have had conversations about freedom of choice, but we would not allow any young person to pick up a loaded revolver with two chambers and one bullet and give them the freedom of choice to spin it, put it against their head and pull the trigger.

Does the noble Earl not agree that we would save many lives if we passed a law saying that nobody should be allowed to drive a motor car unless there is a man waving a stick walking in advance of them? Similarly, if we banned electric bicycles, we would prevent a great deal of injuries and possible deaths. We all have to face these kinds of judgments as part of the human condition and living in a society.

With the greatest of respect, there are degrees of risk. There is no electric bike or motor vehicle that we have allowed that kills 50% of people who get on a bike or in a car. The noble Lord is comparing apples with pears. The dangers of smoking are known and proven, and are far greater than anything else.

To conclude, we welcome this generational ban. There are particular issues that need to be looked at and the Bill will need to be regularly reviewed, but we will come to amendments on that. This is the most important thing that we must do. It is essential that we make progress to improve the public health of people in this country.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for his amendments in this group and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important and lively debate.

Reducing smoking rates and, in particular, preventing young people from taking up tobacco, with its highly damaging and pernicious consequences, are goals that I believe command broad support across the House. My noble friend’s amendments present us with an opportunity to settle in our minds the best way those goals might be achieved. From our debates in Committee and again today, we know there is a dichotomy of views on that.

My noble friend has eloquently made the case for substantially lifting the age of sale such that the legal purchase of tobacco by anyone under the age of 21 would be rendered impossible. The Government, on the other hand, have proposed the much more radical step of initiating a complete ban on tobacco sales to anyone born after 1 January 2009, thus creating, year by year, a wider and wider cohort of individuals for whom access to cigarettes and other tobacco products in shops will be legally barred.

Neither of these proposals, whether that of my noble friend or that of the Government, provides an absolute block on young would-be smokers accessing tobacco; so long as cigarettes remain a legal product, nothing could. However, if the generational ban can be made to work as intended, there can surely be no doubt that the benefits to public health over the long term will be immense. My Right Honourable Friend the previous Prime Minister arrived at that realisation during the last Government, and the present Government have seen fit to agree with him.

There are two main arguments against the generational ban: one relates to civil liberties; the other is that of practical workability. I will not repeat the points that have been made on those themes, but I acknowledge that what is proposed in the Bill is, by any standards, without precedent in our consumer law. For the first time, a permanent legal distinction will be drawn between two adults based solely on their date of birth. One person may lawfully purchase a legal product while another, perhaps a year younger, may not. This would be not because of any difference in capacity or circumstance but purely by virtue of when they were born. The question people ask is whether in a free country that is right.

Following on from that are the questions around enforcement and general practicability. There are major questions around verification. As the years go by, shopkeepers will need to satisfy themselves that the person in front of them seeking to buy tobacco is 42 as opposed to 41, and so on. That does seem very different from a straightforward age of sale cut-off, which is a rule that everybody understands. Would shops and customers get used to this rigmarole? How easy would it be? As my noble friend rightly said, a number of countries have chosen to adopt the course that he is advocating rather than the generational ban.

I must, however, declare my hand. This Bill, as I have said, is an opportunity—an opportunity to make a transformational change in an area of public health that successive Governments have agreed is one of the two or three most important and far-reaching in our midst. Indeed, I would say that it is the most important. I do not think that the civil liberties arguments stand up to scrutiny for very long when we are talking about the chance of preventing serious ill health across millions of our population. Smoking needs to be made deeply unfashionable. My noble friend’s amendments, although entirely well meant, are unlikely to achieve that scale of health benefits nor that kind of attitudinal change.

There is uncertainty in whatever we decide to do. I am content for my noble friends on these Benches to make up their own minds on these matters. My noble friend, whom I greatly respect, will urge colleagues to join him in the Lobbies if he chooses to divide the House. At the same time, I hope he will understand that it ill behoves me, as my party’s spokesman for health and social care and as a former Health Minister, to pass up what I see as a golden opportunity to do something imaginative and radical, which is why I support the Government in their excellent ambitions.

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I think we can safely say that there is no unanimity of view, as a number of noble Lords have commented. I am particularly grateful for the support from both Front Benches, as has been consistent throughout. I am also grateful for the support of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Young, Lord Rennard, Lord Stevens and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and others.

The amendments before us in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, propose a complete change to the smoke-free generation provisions. They would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 21. Without any Shadow of a doubt, this would turn the core part of this Bill on its head.

I understand why the noble Lord and other noble Lords feel as they do, but it is important to remind ourselves why this Bill is needed. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health. It claims the lives of around 80,000 people a year in the UK and causes one in four of all cancer deaths in England. Up to two-thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking. Somebody is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute and up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to smoking each month. Furthermore, smoking is estimated to cost our society £21.3 billion a year in England alone. It is quite clear that we need bold action to address this. That is why we are gradually raising the age of sale, to create the UK’s first smoke-free generation, delivering on our manifesto commitment.

The Chief Medical Officer and I made ourselves available for a meeting—an opportunity that I am glad to say a number of Peers of differing views took up—to discuss the overwhelmingly positive impact that this Bill will have across the UK. I hope we would all agree with Professor Whitty that:

“This generation of children should not have to endure the damage caused by tobacco”.

I would also like to acknowledge the previous Government’s role and the courage that they showed in proposing the Bill. This was referenced by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Bethell, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, among others. It is a mark of the strength of the Bill that there is support from across the Benches on what is, indeed, a landmark policy.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Sharpe, and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to their view that the impact assessment produces exactly the same outcome whether these amendments are agreed—in other words, the ban comes in at the age of 21—as with a smoke-free generation. I have to say that this is not true. I also have to say to your Lordships’ House that, in fact, it is the tobacco industry that is saying this. It is incorrect. The published modelling did not even model the impact of raising the age of sale to 21. It did look at different scenarios for the impact of the smoke-free generation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, if we raised the age of sale to 21 by adopting these amendments, the tobacco industry would simply change its business model to target older adults. It would not meet our ambition of a smoke-free UK, which is the core of this Bill. Stopping young people from ever starting to smoke is the easiest way to reduce smoking rates.

The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, suggested that he may be asked for his birth certificate in his later years, as any of us may be. I assure him that the Bill does not affect current smokers. It is aimed at those born after 1 January 2009. Modelling shows that creating a smoke-free generation is expected to help reduce the smoking rate of 14 to 30 year-olds to near zero by 2050. Over the next 50 years, that will save tens of thousands of lives and avoid up to 130,000 cases of lung cancer, strokes and heart disease. For me, these are prizes worth having.

It has been suggested in the debate, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this policy infringes on people’s liberties and their right to choose, but there is no freedom of choice in addiction, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said. The tobacco industry took away young people’s choice when it got them addicted to nicotine at a young age. Three-quarters of people—we heard from some, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada—wish they had never started smoking and the Majority want to quit.

We also heard concerns that the smoke-free generation will cause a rise in the illicit tobacco market, but the Bill will prevent people ever becoming addicted to smoking in the first place. As the total market for tobacco products shrinks, demand for the illicit market shrinks. I remind your Lordships that we have experience to draw on: when the age of sale was increased from 16 to 18, it meant that 1.3 million more people were no longer able to be sold cigarettes. However, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed is estimated to have fallen by 25%. There is no immediate connection.

We have heard much about Australia. It was suggested that the illicit market going through the roof and the lawlessness that goes with it is because of a change to the age of sale, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, rightly said, Australia has not changed its age of sale since 1998. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Naseby, that tackling the illicit market remains a priority. That is why I am pleased to confirm again that we will continue to invest up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2028-29 to tackle the illicit and underage sales of tobacco and vapes, and to boost the trading standards workforce.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, rightly said, and it is worth repeating, that violence and abuse against retail staff is never acceptable. The Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect hard-working and loyal staff who are doing a job in their communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised a point about Northern Ireland in his introduction. We are content that the measures in the Bill that are intended to apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor Framework. I have heard the points raised by noble Lords. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, we will cover this issue in further detail in group 12. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, as I mentioned earlier, that this is a UK-wide Bill. It has been developed in partnership with the devolved Governments, and we have received legislative consent Motions from all.

Questions have been raised about the evidence base. It might be helpful if I refer noble Lords to the technical note that is available to all Peers, including evidence sources and references, which was sent by the four Chief Medical Officers from around the UK. The Government are determined to stop the cycle of addiction and disadvantage. I hope that noble Lords will support us in creating our first smoke-free generation.

I turn to Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We are committed to ensuring the successful implementation of the Bill. I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that we will take forward a communications plan; therefore, we do not need this requirement within legislation. We are working to ensure that everyone is aware of the provisions of this landmark legislation, what it means for them and the associated commencement dates. That includes working closely with the retail sector. The noble Baroness asked whether we are working closely with enforcement agencies as well as with retailers to publish clear guidance on this legislation.

The noble Baroness’s amendment also seeks to raise public awareness of the harms of smoking and the benefits of quitting. We are committed to supporting and promoting smoking cessation. I hope that noble Lords have seen or heard our most recent national stop smoking campaign, launched earlier this month. This campaign is in addition to more than £150 million of ring-fenced funding to local stop smoking services each year until 2028-29. I hope that your Lordships’ House can understand why the Government will not accept these amendments and that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will now feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, what an excellent debate showing your Lordships’ House at its best, with superb speeches on both sides of the argument. It would be invidious to list them, so I will not. I thank the Minister for her reply and her tolerance of my points throughout Committee and Report on the Bill.

Three thoughts occurred to me during those speeches. The first related to the point first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is a man to whom I listen very carefully. He tried to draw an analogy between my Amendment and the ban on heroin, or the requirement for people to wear seat belts in a motor car or a helmet when riding a motor cycle. That is, however, to ignore the fact that there is always a balancing exercise in deciding whether to ban something. One of the factors to consider is proportionality. We know from the excellent speeches we have heard this evening that what the Government propose by the Bill is untested and a gamble, not only with the lives of people who may take up smoking but with the livelihoods of shopkeepers and many involved in the retail trade. This policy is not properly thought through, and I am afraid that the analogy made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, does not satisfy me that my reasoning is flawed.

The second thought that occurred to me as I listened to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is that I am always astonished that they retain the use of “liberal” in the title of the Liberal Democrat party. Having heard their speeches, it is surely redundant.

My third thought was during the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. She said that freedom is not something to be embarrassed about. I very much hope, if the noble Baroness has yet to order her coat of arms from Garter, that she uses that redounding phrase as her motto. With that ringing in your Lordships’ ears, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Ayes 78, Noes 246.

Amendment 1 disagreed.

Amendment 2 not moved.