Health Bill [HL]

I turn to an issue that I hope the Minister will want to look at seriously—that is, how the current law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors might be tightened up. Before speaking to the detail of the amendment, it is perhaps worth my making a general point. The measures contained in the Bill are designed to bear down on the prevalence of smoking, particularly smoking by children. That is the main justification put forward for them, and the underlying aim is of course wholly right in public health terms. However, both of the Bill’s main measures in this area—the ban on point-of-sale-displays and restrictions on vending machines—impinge in one way or another on personal and commercial freedoms. The balance to be struck between public health and personal and commercial freedoms, and the proportionality of the measures in the light of the evidence available, is where the debates tend to be centred. On point-of-sale displays in particular, as we have just discovered, it is a debate of some complexity. I contend that the arguments about balance and proportionality are made more difficult if, in making them, we cannot say that we have done as much as we can to make the current law work effectively. Parliament has made it illegal for cigarettes to be sold to anyone under 18. It is perhaps too soon to tell how well or badly that law is working. However, Parliament has not put in place measures that would back up and buttress that law and give it the best possible chance. There are several things of that kind that could be done, none of which impinges to any great degree on personal or commercial freedoms. I have picked on one of those measures in this amendment, and it relates to proxy sales. When we consider the subject of underage smoking, we should remember one important fact, which is that one of the most likely ways for a young person to get hold of cigarettes is from adults. This is true both for their first ever cigarette and for underage regular smokers. Currently there is no legal deterrent to adults who purchase tobacco on behalf of young people and supply it to them. It was therefore disappointing to see that in the Government’s consultation of last year, they stated that they are not minded to make it illegal to proxy purchase, and gave two reasons. The first reason was that there was little evidence that proxy purchasing is a common practice. That statement was extremely puzzling. The Government’s own figures as quoted in the consultation document show that 89 per cent of young people cite that they either buy or are given cigarettes by another person. Thus, proxy purchasing, far from being uncommon, is the most serious component part of youth access to tobacco. The second reason given by the Government was that the law would be difficult to enforce. Here it is true that the burden of evidence required to prosecute a proxy purchaser creates an enforcement challenge and that there are barriers in the way of action on this front, mainly to do with resources. However, recent developments in the enforcement of alcohol legislation show that it is possible and can be cost-effective. One example comes from the community alcohol partnership approach that is currently being trialled in parts of the country. In St Neots in Cambridgeshire, local agencies have been working with retailers and focusing resources on deterring and detecting underage alcohol sales using a combination of intelligence-led action against proxy sales and confiscation powers. As a result of this approach, a real reduction in underage drinking in the town was achieved, and the enforcement costs were no different from more standard enforcement approaches. Although a proposal to make proxy purchasing an offence was briefly debated by Members in another place during the course of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, it was opposed by the Government. I do not believe that the issues have yet been fully debated—I am not aware that they have been debated in this House—and I strongly believe that such a measure would command public support. ACS recently commissioned an independent poll by GfK NOP, where 92 per cent of those who responded supported the introduction of penalties for adults who supply tobacco to children. Knowingly buying tobacco for a person who is legally too young to smoke is unarguably immoral and, I believe, should be illegal. The evidence available shows that it is one of the main routes by which underage smokers get hold of tobacco products, and that is why I believe that a strategy in this area that does not include a credible means of deterring adults from supplying tobacco to children is both incomplete and likely to fail. I beg to move.