Member

The amendment also proposes the imposition of a levy on tobacco companies, as does Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The levy would be calculated by reference to tobacco companies’ sales in the UK, the proceeds of which would be hypothecated for public health and other NHS purposes. This is not a new idea, as we have heard. It is one we consistently resisted when in government and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. The simplest and least bureaucratic way of raising money from tobacco sales in this country is by way of tobacco duty. I appreciate the arguments in favour of a levy, some of which are attractive, as my noble friend Lord Young reminded us but, in practice, if one were to impose a levy on tobacco companies in the way that the noble Earl has suggested, I do not think it would act as a deterrent to those companies. The cost of the levy would only be passed on sooner or later to consumers, and the net effect would be exactly the same as imposing a rise in tobacco duty. And as tobacco sales diminish, as they certainly will with a generational ban, so will the yield from both the levy and tobacco duty, so I do not think a levy should be seen as a sustainable way of helping to fund public health programmes.