Lord Moylan:

Moved by Lord Moylan

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment provides that regulations to specify methods of customer age verification must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 3 and 12, which would have the effect that the regulations to be issued in relation to age verification should be made under the affirmative process, rather than the negative process as originally envisaged.

When I tabled these amendments in Committee, the Minister showed what I thought was a hint of favour towards them, so I had the temerity to retable them on Report and lo, what do I find, but that the Minister has added her name to them. With that, I think they require no further argument. They were recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move Amendment 3 and will move Amendment 12 at the appropriate moment.

My only comment on this group is that we would not support Amendment 26, which would require a fund to be set up for age-verification technologies. If any fund were to be set up—we do not see the need for it—then it should be funded by the tobacco industry. I note with great interest that the Minister has signed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

I will briefly speak to Amendment 26, which is in my name, about the cost implications for small retailers and convenience stores. It is really a plea to the Minister to make some money available and introduce a grant system which can assist them. Age-verification technology is not cheap. They need to invest in a robust IT system. We need to build up a market for age verification. We also need one that protects consumers’ data and strengthens enforcement without penalising shopkeepers.

I think we all acknowledge that small shopkeepers are already in difficulty; it is not an easy time for them. We should look at anything we can do to help, and I think this would help. A simple act such as this would make it that much easier to ask the difficult question about age verification.

My Lords, I half support Amendment 26. I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

The introduction of this regressive and untested generational ban on tobacco sales obviously raises the thorny issue of how it will be implemented in terms of retailers checking ages. Following the discussion on the first group, it is worth noting that this is very different from standardised age checks, which we already have, where there can be challenges at 18 or 21 and over.

I would like to quote Trading Standards Wales, which described it as creating

“a two-tier age system for tobacco whereby someone born in 2008 would be legally able to purchase tobacco products whilst someone born in 2009 would not”.

It seems that, for this Bill to work in its own terms, enforcement is key, but it is not clear how that will be practical. Again, to quote Trading Standards Wales:

“Having a two-tier age system means that young people could still obtain cigarettes from older friends or family members that smoke and, it is unlikely that any parties would report each other to the authorities as both would face legal consequences in doing so”.

More pertinent to this group of amendments, Trading Standards Wales states:

“We do not think it is realistic to believe that in the future, 30, 40, or 50 year old adults who are purchasing tobacco products would be challenged about their age and asked to prove they were born before January 2009”.

Checking on age is tough at the best of times, but increasing proof-of-age ID checks on tobacco buyers of any age, which is what will eventually happen, could trigger an escalation of tensions, abuse and even violence for hard-pressed retailers. We heard some very important testimony in the first group about that issue. Anything the Government can do to ease these tensions and to help retailers cope with the very challenging demands this Bill will place on shopkeepers is to be welcomed. That is why I am drawn to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister.

The Government have an obligation to think about how those retailers will cope. Would the Minister consider a grant scheme to subsidise the cost of age-verification technology and reduce the financial burden on small retailers? It would certainly help improve compliance. The Government have to address shopkeepers being scared—the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used that word earlier, and it is an appropriate one. They are very scared about the impact of the generational ban on their businesses, the safety of their staff and the loss of income in an already struggling sector. It will no doubt lead to many of them going under or losing a great deal of income. To make this age verification work, they might need some help. Whatever happens, we should make no mistake that the weight of responsibility for the enforcement of this legislation will fall not on our shoulders but on the shoulders of retailers, who will have to navigate a new legal age threshold, which will change and become more challenging every year.

I mentioned that I have some reservations, and I am not sure how to resolve them. Amendment 26 is worded such that it targets all nicotine products. One of my concerns throughout this Bill is the elision of, for example, vapes and tobacco. The generational smoking ban makes it clear that we are going to have special age-verification needs, whereas at the moment, age checking is already needed for young people and vaping. I do not want that to undermine public perception, such that vaping is seen to be exactly the same as smoking tobacco.

Any age-verification technology will have an impact on an increasing number of adults as the generational ban kicks in. I am concerned that this could be something of a Trojan horse for everything from facial recognition technology to digital ID. I always get nervous when I think there will be more technology checking on you everywhere you go. It is the libertarian bit of me, even though I am not a libertarian. It makes me a bit nervous. Those are my reservations.

Those reservations aside, can the Minister address the core point made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister: how will the Government help reduce the financial burden, especially on smaller retailers, of the very challenging and complex demands that this Bill will pose in relation to age checks? Surely we cannot just pass the Bill and then abandon retailers and tell them to get on with it. This amendment is therefore worth considering seriously.

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister for their amendments in this group. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments and congratulate my noble friend on pressing the point.

Turning to the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will pick up the cogent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because this brings us to the broader question of age verification. Our debates in Committee demonstrated the genuine concerns among retailers that a strict “no ID, no sale” policy could become a serious flashpoint for violence and abuse directed at shop workers—an issue that, I am sure the Minister will agree, cannot be dismissed lightly. There is also a risk of confusion among customers, particularly where different age thresholds already apply across tobacco, alcohol and other age-restricted products; any new requirement must not add to that complexity. The process for purchasing these products should remain clear and readily understood by all members of the public and, crucially, shopkeepers.

Against that background, it would be extraordinary if technology were not to play a part in making that process easier and less potentially fraught. Can the Minister tell us anything about the cost and affordability of such technology? What specific consideration was given to these concerns during the Government’s consultations, and what assessment has been made of the potential impact on retail workers of what could become a cumbersome and confusing set of procedures with, as I have said, the added risk of threats and abuse to shopkeepers? At the very least, is any guidance planned to ensure that new verification requirements do not create a patchwork of conflicting obligations at the point of sale?

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing back Amendments 3 and 12, which would change from negative to affirmative the procedure for making regulations to specify steps that may be taken to verify the age of customers.

In Committee I committed to returning with the Government’s response to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have carefully considered those recommendations and listened to the support within your Lordships’ House, and I can confirm that we are accepting the recommendations in full. Therefore, as noble Lords have observed, I have—I think we can say unusually—put my name to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I can only counsel the noble Lord not to get used to it. I am very pleased to support his Amendments 3 and 12.

I have tabled government Amendment 105. For consistency, I have also tabled Amendment 110 to Clause 76, which is an equivalent amendment that provides the power to specify age-verification steps for Northern Ireland.

Amendment 26, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, would require the Secretary of State to establish a financial assistance scheme for the acquisition of age-verification technology by producers and retailers of nicotine products. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord’s aim is to support retailers—something that I hope the noble Lord heard me saying on behalf of the Government—and to strengthen adherence to age restriction Laws. But I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—it is important to clarify this point—that the Government have no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce age of sale.

Checking that a customer is over the age of sale is a well-established concept for retailers, and they should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell age-restricted products to anyone underage. To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that they can use, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age. This includes the types of digital identities that can be used.

On some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I know that other noble Lords are, rightly, concerned about this—I confirm once again that the Government will work with the retail sector, as we are already doing, to publish clear, workable guidance to support it with these legislative changes. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, understands the Government’s position, and I encourage noble Lords to support Amendments 3, 12, 105 and 110.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Concerning the debate about enforcement, as somebody who in the past had political responsibility for trading standards in a local authority, which is the mechanism by which enforcement of underage tobacco sales is achieved, and having sat through the whole of Report so far this afternoon, I am surprised that there has been no mention of trading standards. Perhaps we will get to this later, but trading standards will need some help as well, because a considerable burden is going to be placed on it if this mechanism of a generational age limit is to go ahead. With that, I am grateful for the support for my Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Clause 2: Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others

Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.