Not all lords are leaping to make smoking obsolete

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill was debated in the House of Lords yesterday.

This was the second reading of the Bill in the upper house and it will now move to the Committee stage when amendments can be tabled and debated.

Given the small cabal of anti-smoking peers that lie in wait this represents another moment of danger because who knows what amendments may be tabled.

Yesterday's debate however was notable for the number of peers who spoke opposing the Bill, or elements of the Bill such as the generational ban or the threat to e-cigarette flavours.

Unusually, advocates and opponents of the Bill on the list of speakers were split fairly evenly so well done to the latter for making themselves heard.

Here are some of the quotes from opponents of the Bill:

Lord Blencathra: “We have a Bill with excessive powers and with large parts that are possibly unenforceable; it will lose the Government money and give young people a way to get cigarettes illegally.”

Lord Naseby: “I do not think that a generational Bill is necessary. I am sure that there has to be control but, frankly, the generational dimension makes it needlessly complicated.”

Lord Scriven: “I support many provisions within the Bill, but I have serious reservations about the centrepiece: the so-called smoke-free generation. This mechanism raises profound practical, legal and philosophical problems.”

Lord Brady of Altrincham: “I cannot think of another example where legislation has so blatantly sought to discriminate against different adult citizens according to their exact date of birth, and I find that deeply worrying.”

Lord Howard of Rising: “My Lords, nobody can fault the good intentions of the Bill, which are to be applauded, but it has the potential to profoundly impact personal choice and responsibility in our society.”

“While the intentions behind the Bill are to be applauded, I urge the House to reconsider our approach. Let us instead reaffirm our commitment to personal freedoms, informed choice and responsible government. Let this be a Government of facilitators, not enforcers.”

Baroness Hoey: “One of the fundamental principles of a free society must be personal and family responsibility. The more that the Government ban and regulate, the less that families and people feel they have to make their own decisions.”

Lord Moylan: “I regard this as essentially a reckless Bill, because it invites us to set out on a wholly untested course of a generational ban, with all the difficulties of enforcement …”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: “I believe that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, and that, of course, includes bad choices.”

“A smoke-free future is obviously in everyone’s interest, and I say that as an unrepentant smoker, but so would be an alcohol-free future, a drug-free future and probably a cream bun-free future. These are noble aspirations, but in practice they are not going to happen.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley: “It has been quite refreshing today to hear members of the Liberal Democrats talking about liberalism—something of a shock to the system, but I am delighted.”

“Why, oh why, are the Government so fixated on demonising flavoured vapes? Does the Minister really believe that only children like sweet things? Has she not noticed the exponential rise in the flavoured gin market for adults?”

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

The Earl of Leicester: “Throughout history, prohibition has never extinguished consumer demand. In fact, too often it has the opposite effect: it creates new demand.”

Lord Murray of Blidworth: “The idea that, in a few years hence, a staff member in a corner shop will routinely deny tobacco to a 37 year-old but allow it for a 38 year-old is a circumstance bordering on the incredible.”

Baroness Meyer: “History also shows that bans do not work. Remember prohibition in the United States in the 1920s. It did not end up stopping drinking; it empowered gangs and created the mafia. In 2021, South Africa’s Covid tobacco ban saw criminals fill the gap, with 93% of smokers switching to illegal sources.”

Baroness Bray of Coln: “I was a smoker for about 50 years or so and gave up seven years ago. If I am honest, it was not that hard. I do not find it possible to support the Bill as it stands.

“Smokers should always be mindful of people around them when they light up, but there is space for considerate smokers, and that is surely a reasonable balance.”

Lord Udny-Lister: “I further fear that the Bill is a grave attack on personal freedom and liberty. Sadly, it represents another step in the creep of the nanny state.”

Baroness Fox described the overall debate as "depressing", and it was certainly annoying that even opponents of the Bill often expressed support for the overall aim of the Bill (ie to stub out smoking).

For example, instead of arguing that no government should commit itself to making smoking obsolete (because that shouldn't be the job of government), several speakers focussed not on the principles of personal liberty and freedom of choice but on the unintended consequences of 'well-intentioned' legislation.

Other objections were technical – the fact, for example, that the Bill gives ministers the power to introduce further measures without having to seek Parliament's approval – while another peer urged the Government to draw a line between cigars and cigarettes.

You can read the full second reading debate here.