Daniel Dalton: For all the harm smoking causes the Government’s smoking ban is equally harmful

Dan Dalton was a Conservative MEP for the West Midlands, and served as CEO of the British Chamber of Commerce in the EU and Belgium.

When Rishi Sunak announced a progressive smoking ban to create a smoke-free generation, very few people thought this would ever become law. Only New Zealand had committed to a similar policy, and a few months later, they reversed course, as it became increasingly clear that the law was unworkable.

The proposed progressive smoking ban, rumoured to be the brainchild of Chris Whitty, will make it illegal for anyone born after the 1st of January 2009 to ever purchase tobacco by progressively raising the minimum age by a year every year. Although it didn’t make it into law under Sunak, Labour has committed to the policy.

On paper, it may sound like a bold public health initiative, but in reality, it’s poorly thought-out, discriminatory, expensive and will likely hurt our international standing. It’s harder to implement in the UK than it would have been in New Zealand, given both the UK’s proximity to European markets, where tobacco will remain freely available and most worryingly, the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland post-Brexit.

For several years, I served on the Regulatory Policy Committee, the government’s independent regulatory scrutiny body that looks at whether a draft bill’s impact assessment has sufficiently evaluated the potential effects the bill will have, and I was on the RPC when the bill was reviewed.

We had strong concerns about the wider impacts of this law, particularly its effects on tourism, and we heard many representations from smaller retailers who were concerned about the negative economic impact it would have on their sector – but ultimately the RPC doesn’t judge the policy, only if its impacts were correctly identified in the impact assessment. Ultimately, it was given a green light as the predictions on the economic cost were well evidenced, but the RPC has significant limitations, and this case highlights them.

I do not raise my concerns to defend smoking, but to highlight the impact of a law which will be discriminatory, will promote smuggling and ultimately will be unworkable.

Smoking is harmful. The government has a duty to inform and discourage harmful behaviours, and successive governments have done so with remarkable success. Smoking rates have declined significantly over the past 20 years. But this new approach, essentially banning an entire generation from ever being allowed to make a personal choice, veers from sensible policy into authoritarian territory.

Instead of treating adults like adults, “the government is deciding” to infantilise citizens. Someone born in 2009 will never be able to legally purchase tobacco, even if they’re 40 years old in the year 2049. Meanwhile, someone born a day earlier will retain that right for life. This arbitrary cut-off point introduces a form of age discrimination that is hard to justify.

In what other realm of public policy would we tolerate such selective treatment of citizens based on their date of birth?

We wouldn’t. And for good reason.

The ban also raises enormous questions of enforceability, which will fall squarely on predominantly smaller retailers. Tobacco products make up a significant share of revenue for newsagents and corner shops across the UK. They’re also a footfall driver for these independent retailers, as customers often buy other items when purchasing cigarettes.

Our future shopkeepers will have to try to guess if someone is 51 or only 50 years old, on pain of fines or prosecution if they get it wrong. They’ll have to verify birthdates on ID from every tobacco sale forever to avoid prosecution.

The policing and bureaucratic demands of this system are significant. Will police have to intervene when a 50-year-old tries to buy a pack of cigarettes? The reality is that the law will only be selectively and unpredictably enforced.  Worse still, it creates an overnight grey market. People born before the cut-off can buy and supply those born after. Black markets will flourish, and law enforcement resources will be wasted chasing middle-aged smokers.

All significant problems, but the biggest comes from the Windsor Framework.

Under the framework, Northern Ireland remains aligned with certain EU single market rules to ensure that no controls are needed on the border with the Republic of Ireland. As there will be no ban in the EU, the UK ban contradicts the EU rules and therefore will almost certainly not be able to be applied in Northern Ireland. So, a person born in 2009 will be able to legally buy cigarettes in Belfast, but not in Birmingham.  Unless the government wants to impose customs checks on people travelling within the UK (itself a breach of the Windsor Framework and the promise made to Brexit voters on the integrity of the Union), anyone from the mainland will be able to go to Northern Ireland, stock up on their cigarettes and come back. It creates another source of completely unavoidable friction in an already fraught relationship between Dublin, London and Brussels.

There are far more intelligent and effective approaches to reducing smoking.  The ones already in use that respect individual choice – taxation, switch to vaping, indoor public space bans and education already significantly reduce the smoking rate.

The smoking ban is a classic example of overreach masquerading as progress. It’s discriminatory, impractical, damaging to small businesses, and risks serious fallout for the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.

As a country that prides itself on personal freedom, common sense, and fair play, we can do better.