Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 160 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I also speak to Amendment 173A in my name. I spoke at Second Reading about the infringement of personal liberty and not allowing individuals to take their own decision; I stand by that. My amendment would make it less difficult to vape than to smoke, but without increasing the risk to children.

The National Health Service website says that although vaping is not completely harmless,

“Nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking. It’s also one of the most effective tools for quitting smoking … The routines and rituals of smoking can be hard to stop, so vaping can help you gradually let go of these while immediately reducing the health risks of smoking cigarettes”.


I also quote Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer”.


Again, I suggest that, by making the purchase of vapes more difficult and reducing the number of shops that they can be brought from, the Government are not helping. Vaping does away with the danger of passive smoking. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake research into the potential effect of fewer smokers switching to vapes and nicotine products, or fewer consumers continuing to use these products instead of cigarettes as a result of these regulations, and of extending the provisions in Part 6 to such products.

The essential point here is that the Government should not proceed with their plans unless they have properly investigated the expected impacts of the Bill on those who are smoking and vaping. As I have already commented, vaping is safer than smoking and the Government’s policy should reflect that fact. Ministers should be required to consult the sector properly when assessing these impacts. We must not allow a situation where well-intentioned, if overbearing, government policy has the effect of worsening health outcomes for individuals.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 161 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and I am interested in the themes in Amendment 173A, about which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, because I think that an assessment of and research into the impact of any kinds of advertising and sponsorship restrictions is very important moving forward. The reason why I am concerned about any advertising restrictions is that people who currently smoke and are looking to switch to vape can do so only if they know what vapes are and understand the facts around relative harms, where these products can be purchased and so on. Imposing these restrictions as written in the Bill without consultation would have grave unintended consequences. At the very least, there must be clearly defined exemptions.

In this House there is constantly talk about the problem of misinformation. I agree that we do not want people to be making judgments about anything based on misinformation or factual inaccuracy. Yet the difference between vaping and smoking is not well understood. Public Health England and, indeed, Doctor Khan’s independent review concluded that vapes are 95% less harmful than tobacco, yet misperceptions about the harm of vaping have risen at the same time. In 2025, 56% of adults believe that vaping is more harmful than or equally harmful as cigarettes, compared with 33% in 2022. In other words, misinformation is creating ever more misperceptions every year. Opinium research from July 2025 found that 51% of all respondents believe that vapes are equally harmful as or more harmful than smoking, with 48% of current smokers believing that. Certainly, they do not know that vapes and other nicotine products have 99% less toxicants than cigarettes. Curtailing the opportunity to provide public information on the relative benefits of vaping, as this Bill threatens to do, would further exacerbate this lack of understanding.

My concern is that a lot of the discussion is driven by a small but very loud portion of lobbyists who are very concerned about youth vaping rates. Lobbying groups particularly push that issue, as has the public health industry. Actually, the percentage of young people who vape is dwarfed by adult vapers, many of whom, as we have heard, have switched to vaping from smoking for health reasons. That safer alternative could now be in jeopardy unless we allow advertising to make it clear that vaping is in fact a desirable, healthy option. By putting forward the argument that vaping is not desirable and just as dangerous as smoking, we risk doing public health a real disservice.

Even now, vaping products are allowed only very restricted advertising since the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations came into force in May 2016. Additional to these restrictions, I fear that clauses in the Bill go so far as to treat vaping products as though they are the same as tobacco products. That sends an implicit message that nicotine, tobacco, smoking cigarettes and vaping are all much of a muchness. That is one of the themes that I have been pursuing: we need to have a much more granular, nuanced approach. Prohibiting any form of marketing for vape or nicotine product manufacturers directly undermines the important role that marketing has to play in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping or other nicotine products.

Just to finish off, there seems to be a complete contradiction. On the NHS Better Health webpage, it says in big letters, “Vaping to quit smoking”. I want to know: is that not advertising? It contains a range of information and advice for people who smoke and are looking to quit—in fact, I read it when I was smoking and looking to quit. It includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use a nicotine vape compared with other nicotine replacement products, like patches or gum.

I want to ensure that adult smokers like me have access to information. When I read that, I then had to go out and find out about vapes. I went to the local vape shop and had a bit of a seminar. I then went to talk to the local convenience store and looked at the range of vapes. Then, as a consequence, I took up vaping and eventually gave up smoking—which I would have thought the Government want. If I had not been able to see where those vapes were on sale and to see and read the advertising and the marketing, then I might have stayed a smoker. This is not about me but about all the other smokers who as yet do not understand that vaping is a safer option than smoking. They might as well find out about it. I would have hoped that the Government would be encouraging, not discouraging, them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak against all the amendments in this group. They all, in various ways, could restrict or delay action by the Government—action that is urgently needed.

On vaping, I know that the Advertising Standards Authority has expressed concern about product placement on websites such as TikTok. There are concerns and, given the new technology and new media around, further action may well need to be taken on vaping. But I will focus on nicotine pouches; I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some information on them.

I note that today, for example, Convenience Store magazine reports that Imperial Tobacco has launched new nicotine pouches

“with five flavour options—Sweet Mint, Cool Mint, Watermelon Ice, Juicy Peach and Berry Blast”.

They apparently have a “better mouthfeel” than previous versions and smaller, slimmer tins that will fit conveniently in your pocket. That does not really sound like a stop smoking aid, does it? You will see these nicotine pouches in convenience stores, as the site of that announcement suggests—colourful tins with colourful labels stacked conveniently right beside the chewing gum. But this is not just about the nature of the product or where it is stored. I invite noble Lords to have a look next time they catch the Tube, where they will almost certainly see adverts for nicotine pouches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord regards it as a laudable ambition. We will come to exemptions in the next group, and I look forward to doing so.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I, too, am slightly confused by this. I was reading something the other day from the DCMS, boasting about the creative industries, and one of the big and most profitable parts of the creative industries in this country is advertising and marketing. It is considered to be something we are proud of. Lots of products have age issues. If you are a cider producer, you have to advertise, but you do not want a six year-old drinking it. We have discussed things such as fizzy drinks, so I appreciate this. This appears to be a blanket catch-all. It does not seem to take up the ways we have learned, in the advertising and marketing world, how, in a society that has children in it at the same time as adults, you can have a sensible restriction on advertising sometimes without depriving everybody of the gain of the advert. NHS information, while useful, is not the same as marketing choice, giving people ideas of the options they might have with vapes, which are not all the same product.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. This kind of question also comes up in respect of other products: for example, the 9 pm watershed, in terms of the advertisement of high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt foods in order that that advertising is not affecting children and young people. So, this is a constant discussion: that is not a criticism but an observation, of course. What is interesting to me in respect of tobacco is that the evidence found that partial bans are not as effective as a comprehensive ban when it comes to the aim, ambition and intent to reduce tobacco consumption. Similar assumptions can clearly be drawn on vapes. I hope that helps in terms of clarifying the point I am making, even if it may not satisfy the noble Baroness, which I understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 167 and 171 in the names of my noble friend Lord Kamall and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. They seek a carve-out from the ban on advertising for smoking cessation purposes.

In Part 6, which is about advertising, I cannot see any exemption for those services. It may be tucked away somewhere else in the Bill. My enquiries about this led me to believe that the qualification that you have to act in the course of business before the ban applies is an exemption for the health service, local government and any other public health agencies. I wonder whether that is good enough. Pharmacies are businesses, and many GP practices are limited companies. If I went into a pharmacy or to my medical centre and asked for help to give up smoking, it seems that they might commit an offence because they are a business. I think there is some merit in those two amendments, unless there is something somewhere else in the Bill that provides a specific exemption for smoking cessation services.

I have looked at the defence in Clause 199, “Advertising: defences”, and there is a defence, but it can be exercised only by somebody “in a relevant trade”—in other words, selling tobacco products, herbal smoking and the rest. If the only exemption is for business purposes, it seems to me that there are some grey areas. Surely there is a case for making it clear that we want these products to be promoted as smoking cessation services and people should not run the risk of getting caught by what I think is rather vague drafting of the Bill as it stands.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, much has been said on this. It might be worth noting—I appreciate this is the wrong place to note it—that the ultimate virtue in life and the bottom line of every single decision we make does not have to be public health. If you think that other things are important, it does not make you beyond the pale, evil or somebody who can be cast out of society. Public health is one of the balancing things we have to consider in society, but there is a range of things we need to discuss.

I say that because when we are talking about these exemptions, which I think are very sensible, moderate and proportionate, one of the things that is interesting is that the plethora of specialist vape shops—I appreciate that people in this Room might not be familiar with them—are full of geeky people who understand the wide variety of vapes that are available legally on the market in this country. They are not somewhere that young people hang out; I mean young in the sense of being under 18. They are often frequented by people who are interested in the different types of vaping you can choose to indulge in. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has made is that they are not places for children.

It is interesting that many of the people who work in those establishments see themselves as being in the smoking-cessation business; they actively see themselves that way. Many go on training courses in smoking cessation and are therefore almost zealots. So, in some ways, I would much rather buy my vapes from a convenience store than go into a vape shop, because they give you a lecture in all things related to vaping, very often to do with public health.

--- Later in debate ---

That is a terrible thing to do. As well as being complex to achieve and having no health benefit, it would be a serious travesty to put people out of work, reduce investment and reduce someone’s well-being by closing down something well established for no reason whatever. I ask noble Lords to come alongside me in making sure that the facts are known and that we are dealing only with facts-based legislation, rather than any other sort. If the Minister were to look at this as a possibility, which I hope she will not, clearly, we would have to agree now that a full impact assessment would be brought to bear to understand the real cost to the economy and to people’s lives and livelihoods. The premise would have to be based on there being a significant risk to health and that this would fit within the overall legislation to bring in a smoke-free generation of those born after 2009.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the issue of theatres. This is one of those peculiar issues where “Why on earth would you do this?” is a good question. What is the problem with the present circumstances? It reminds me of the previous group. This could compromise artistic freedom for no good reason. In the previous group, I suddenly envisaged advertising and product designers being rounded up and facing two years in prison at some point. It speaks to the dangers of the state being drunk on power. It is state overreach, where it gets carried away with itself, saying, “We are righteous, on a good cause, on a mission. We are very zealous”, and suddenly all sorts of important norms get thrown out of the window.

I know that the Minister personally is very reasonable, but sometimes legislation gets carried away with itself. I suggest that this legislation needs a fine-toothed comb run through it to get rid of these disproportionate, perhaps unintended, consequences. Once that happens, it encourages others to table amendments that make a virtue of such state overreach. I completely support the previous speech, and I am opposed to Amendment 180, which is a huge hammer to deal with a very small issue that is not even a problem but somehow gets lumped in with everything else.

I am also opposed to Amendment 186, which would introduce the notion that:

“Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited”.


I remind the Committee that hospitality is absolutely under the cosh. We spend a lot of time worrying about the fate of the high street. I am involved in lots of discussions at the moment about fragmenting communities: people not going out and about and socialising. We worked hard as a society—we had to—to get people back socialising with each other after the terrible lockdown period, and even now, hospitality is finding it hard to recover.

There are all sorts of economic reasons for that, so it seems ludicrous to say that pavement licences—for sitting out, enjoying yourself, meeting your friends and so on—will be granted by local authorities only if smoking is prohibited. Individual establishments might decide to prohibit smoking; that is up to them. They are entirely free to do so, and people who smoke will not go to them. Or, if there is seating outside, a pavement licence can be granted so that in some of the space you are allowed to smoke or vape. In other words, grown-ups negotiate their way round this. I, for one, enjoy that we have found café society in coming out on to pavements, and it is really misanthropic and mean-spirited to try to stamp on that in any way. I therefore completely oppose Amendment 186. It is in the spirit of the relentless, never-ending attempt at banning, regulating and stopping.

I also think that it is a terrible insult to local authorities’ autonomy to tell them what to do in this way. It seems both ridiculously petty-minded and authoritarian at the same time. The evidence is there, and there is a notion around the dangers of smoking outside; this point relates to the previous group. I remind the Committee that Cancer Research UK says, in relation to passive smoking and smoking outside, that

“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.

If you take an approach where the state decides that the public square is its own, and the state imagines that it can sanitise it of all kinds of things it does not want the public to do—that is not a free society, by the way—then, ironically, there can be unintended consequences. You push people into the anti-social home, in some ways, where, if you are a smoker, you will smoke. You might as well let them outside—but, of course, some people here do not want that either.

As I have said, unless you have the courage to make smoking a criminal offence, you have to have a certain sense of proportion and allow smoking outside in some instances. In my case, that is outside cafés if the establishment allows you to.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I obviously support my noble friend Lord Howe’s amendment. However, I would like to make some remarks in opposition to Amendment 180; the principal points have already been covered by my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Johnson, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

A proposer of this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey—outlined an experience of hers, based in a hotel. It suggested that she has perhaps confused an outdoor smoking area with a sampling room; as we have heard, there are only 25 sampling rooms. It behoves the Committee to look at the regulation this amendment seeks to revoke. It is carefully drafted and was signed in 2007 by the then Health Minister, who had brought in the Health Act 2006. The way in which the regulation works—it certainly repays careful attention—is that its first phrase reads:

“The shop of a specialist tobacconist that is being used by persons who are sampling cigars and pipe tobacco is not smoke-free for the duration of that sampling if”—


I will pause there to unpack the various conditions that have to be met in order to smoke in a sampling room. First, it has to be in a specialist tobacconist. Secondly, it has to be used by a person who is sampling cigars or pipe tobacco. Cigars, I might add, are specified in the regulation to have “the same meaning” as that in the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003, the same regulation which specifically defines specialist tobacconist.

It is not an option for any old tobacconist—or, indeed, any old public house—to set up a sampling room. That cannot be done in accordance with the regulations. The effect of the exemption is to disapply the smoke-free ban in the 2006 Act from those premises for the duration of the sampling. For the rest of the time, the ban still applies; it is not a general smoking room as existed in, perhaps, working men’s clubs prior to the ban.