Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group. For the record, I declare my interest as a trustee of Action on Smoking and Health. First of all, I follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, around a road map. Surely a road map is less strong in terms of action than the very substance of this Bill in the first place, which is about action. Each successive year of the implementation of this Bill will take another year of smokers out of the reach of the tobacco industry. Therefore, the actions as proposed in this Bill are stronger than a road map would suggest, as that implies a level of choice further down the line. That is clearly what this Bill is intended to avoid—the further consideration of actions to reduce smoking instead of decisive measures to reduce smoking now. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the legal opinions, which I believe was a piece of work commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, whose members include BAT, JTI and Imperial. Given the industry’s long and litigious history, both here and internationally, it would be remarkable if they did not try to use this process to threaten legal action; that has been their playbook for decades. Some noble Lords will have heard directly from advocates in Kenya, Zambia and Pakistan at a recent ASH briefing. They described years of aggressive industry interference, including a six-year battle in Kenya over measures as basic as health warnings, measures that the industry had already failed to overturn elsewhere. The purpose of these cases is rarely to win on the law; it is to depress political will, delay implementation and exhaust public authorities. That effect is especially corrosive in countries with fewer resources or resilience than the UK. So when we are presented with yet another industry-funded legal opinion, it is reasonable to treat it with caution. The smoke-free generation policy is indeed novel, but novelty as a concept is not a legal defect; it is simply untested. That is not in itself a reason to abandon a policy designed to protect children from addiction and future generations from avoidable disease. ASH has commissioned its own legal opinion from academics at the University of Liverpool with expertise in both public health and EU law. Their analysis directly addresses the issues raised in the group of amendments that we are debating now. They conclude that there are strong grounds to believe any legal challenge would fail and that the Bill is compatible with EU law. I will explain why.