Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 22 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As my noble friend said, it seeks to prohibit pre-filled single-use vaping pods, mainly for environmental reasons. These things have been the tobacco industry’s response to—indeed, its pre-emption of—the ban on single-use vapes that was introduced in June this year. Single-use vapes were such an effective entry point into vaping for young people and such a terrible blight on the environment.

These liquid pods are single-use vapes by another name. Just because you have to insert the pod does not mean that this is a multi-use product. They are cheap and available and have turned out to be just as bad for the environment as the single-use ones were, for all the reasons outlined by my noble friend. Indeed, they have introduced a new litter problem, which is that the removable sticker from the liquid container is appearing everywhere, stuck on to waste bins and pavement furniture after people have peeled them off to insert the pods. Local authorities have to spend time removing those, as well as the discarded vapes. They are just as much of a litter hazard as their predecessors were. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why they should not be treated in the same way as the original single-use vapes.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the industry has only itself to blame for the ban on single-use vapes, because it used them, via its egregious marketing, to attract young people to addictive nicotine products. So the Government were quite right to ban them.

The problem with Amendment 145 is that single-use vapes were immediately replaced by the devices we are talking about in this group. There is no point reviewing the effect of the ban on the original single-use vapes alone, because they are all mixed up with the emergence of these products at pretty much the same time. A review would only cause a delay to the introduction, by this Bill, of measures to reduce youth smoking and vaping and to assist smokers to quit—which is an objective to which everybody who I have heard speak so far is committed.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I had prepared a whole speech opposing Amendment 145, but I have now abandoned it, because the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made my points for me.

Before I make some observations on that, I take this opportunity to say that, on the first day in Committee, I spoke to an amendment in the first group, but I had to leave before my noble friend the Minister responded. Therefore, I take this opportunity to apologise to the Committee and to my noble friend the Minister for that discourtesy.

The reason I am now slightly perplexed about the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that her amendment purports to seek a report and an extra process before the regulations on content and flavour can be introduced. However, as we heard from the noble Baroness, we already know the effects of the ban on single-use vapes: as was widely predicted, trying to ban those products had very limited success in attaining the Government’s environmental and health goals. As has already been said, we can plainly see how the ban has failed every time we walk down our high streets and see very similar products available—I suspect that most people who use vapes cannot tell the difference between them. I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the report, review and consultation that she seeks have already been answered by what we can see every time we go to the supermarket.

I wonder why, in her view, it will be necessary to hold up the regulations in the way that is proposed. Surely, given the extent of the apparent consensus among Members in Committee that we would like to see youth vaping greatly reduced because of the harm it brings, we would want to see regulations not held up unnecessarily. Obviously, we want the Government to proceed carefully and introduce legislation that will be effective and reach its objectives efficiently, but we have to get on with it and not introduce delays and barriers where they are not necessary. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify that.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group to which I have added my name and all those in the names of my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Basically, these amendments offer a far more practical and balanced way for the Government to meet their goal of reducing youth smoking. Simply raising the legal age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21 would be more effective, easier to enforce and less damaging to small businesses than the proposed generational ban.

The idea of banning tobacco by birth year might sound bold but, in reality, it will be a bureaucratic and economic nightmare. Allowing one person to buy tobacco products for themselves but not for their friends born a few weeks later will complicate enforcement and lead to discrimination between people based solely on their date of birth. No other country has introduced such a complicated and confusing ban; as my noble friend Lord Murray said, this would not wash under European Union legislation.

Retailers would also be forced to check birth dates indefinitely, creating confusion and increasing the risk of violence and abuse against their staff. As noted, before, according to the British Retail Consortium, there are more than 2,000 incidents of violence or abuse against shopkeepers every single day, 70 of which involve a weapon. Retail crime costs businesses £4.2 billion a year, including £2.2 billion in theft, yet these same shopkeepers would be expected to enforce an ever-changing age threshold. This would inevitably lead to further violence and intimidation towards them and their staff.

It will also create unnecessary harm to small businesses. Independent retailers are already struggling with rising business rates, higher national insurance and the overall cost of living. Small manufacturers and importers have repeatedly warned that a generational ban would be devastating. For some, it would mean gradual decline and, for others, business closure. For a Government who pride themselves on being pro-growth, this is quite a strange way to go about it, extinguishing the future of many small, often family-run, businesses that have traded for generations.

By contrast, raising the age to 21 would achieve the same public health goals, by the Government’s own figures, without punishing retailers or driving trade into the hands of criminals, as so well explained earlier. The truth is that the generational ban, combined with already very high excise duties, would hand a huge advantage to organised crime.

We can reach the Government’s public health objective without punishing shopkeepers, small producers and law-abiding adults. Raising the legal age to 21 is proportionate, workable and enforceable. It is a policy rooted not in ideology but in common sense. So I, too, urge the Minister to review the generational ban and look at the amendment. It offers a practical path to the same goal—a smoke-free generation—without the confusion, complexity and unintended consequences on businesses.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I am very sorry that the Committee stage of this Bill has kicked off with an attempt to remove the intergenerational ban for tobacco products, because these amendments self-evidently attempt to severely weaken the Bill and run counter to its central objective of ensuring that those born after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco. I know that all noble Lords present know that, but I think we need to go back to basics here.

The objective is also to break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, which starts very young. This is made very clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill and I know that all noble Lords will have read them. I wonder whether the sponsors of these amendments in this group actually support the intention of creating a smoke-free generation. The Government’s own modelling says that the Bill would virtually eliminate smoking in under-30s by 2050. These amendments would make this desirable objective far less likely.

I shall not bore the Committee with the statistics that we are all very familiar with about the extent of the harms of tobacco. They are readily available and we all know them. But it is not in doubt that the Bill’s measures, if enacted in full, would result in fewer addictions and a reduction in harms and untimely deaths. The amendments in this group would dilute these desirable benefits.

I turn to the references that have been made to the possible replacement of legal sales by the black market. I am not sure that we have sufficient evidence to make the confident predictions that we heard at the beginning of this debate. Even if we had, I would suggest that the measures in the Bill, in full, do not preclude separate government actions to tackle illicit sales—if indeed such sales and such criminal activity are a consequence of the Bill. As I said, at the moment we do not have enough evidence to predict that with total confidence.

I will make two further small points. If the Bill ends up, as these amendments seek, specifying a lower age of sale than 21, tobacco companies would be very likely to target their marketing at the threshold age, resulting in more addiction, more ill health and a greater mortality risk.

Finally, the objective to create a smoke-free generation, which the Bill unamended would do, is publicly extremely popular. In the October 2023 UK-wide consultation, 63% of the public supported a sales ban on tobacco for those born after 2009. That public support has been fully endorsed by many other opinion polls since that government survey. I would hope that those supporting and proposing the amendments in this group will not persist.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill is a massively significant public health intervention that will save lives. I have heard the arguments today about personal freedoms, and I say this: anyone in my age group grew up in a cloud of toxic second-hand smoke in our homes, on public transport and in our workplaces, and many of us saw our parents die prematurely from smoking-related diseases. Later generations have been spared those harms by regulation and strong public health messaging, and the Bill before the House goes a long way to completing the job. We know that regulation works.

We were reminded at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that 11.9% of adults in the UK still smoke today. It is worth repeating that that is too many, and we know that most of them want to stop. They are risking their health and they risk untimely death. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, spoke with the authority of Cancer Research UK in reminding us that tobacco is the biggest cause of cancer deaths in the UK, with tobacco killing one person every seven minutes. So the Bill’s phased-in smoking ban is a vital public health benefit, as will be the later restrictions on smoking in outdoor spaces.

There is agreement across the House that no child should be vaping. It has been illegal to sell nicotine vapes to under-18s for 10 years, but a survey last year by Action on Smoking and Health showed that 18% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping. That is nearly 1 million children, and most children who vape use nicotine vapes. The harm is obvious, yet, as many others have said today, these products are blatantly marketed to children, with bright packaging and child-friendly names. Children are being sold these products every day on our high streets. That is why the powers in the Bill to regulate packaging and display—and, yes, flavours—are essential, along with the ban on disposable vapes and more robust enforcement.

In opening the debate, my noble friend the Minister talked about a balance. The Bill does strike the right balance. These restrictions on vapes should protect young people, while not preventing adults who want to use vapes doing so—whether or not they use them as a way to stop smoking cigarettes.

Several speakers have expressed concern that the Bill contains many new and amended delegated powers. I accept the Government’s argument that this is necessary to enable flexibility and future adjustments as new evidence, products and loopholes emerge. On the detail, the new and amended delegated powers will mean that there is space for further consultation, including on the new licensing and registration schemes.

It has been suggested in the debate that the Bill will encourage a black market. There is no evidence showing us that previous restrictions on tobacco have increased the black market in tobacco products as a direct consequence of that legislation. But I concede that there needs to be vigilance. Each month, tens of thousands of illegal vapes are seized from black market sellers across the UK. There are no safety checks on those products. Heaven knows what is in them—they are a health hazard. However, the new licensing and registration schemes will bring us greater enforcement opportunities, as will the new vaping products tax. Nevertheless, there will need to be continued monitoring and realistic levels of resourcing for enforcement bodies.

I end with an invitation to the Minister to pick up in her response the points that other speakers have made about the consequences for retail workers, who are already in the front line of enforcing age-restricted sales. I would welcome assurances that the protections for retail workers in the current Crime and Policing Bill will be robust and flexible enough to deal with the additional pressures that shop workers could face when the provisions of this important and welcome Bill come into force.