Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Udny-Lister

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing those amendments so well and explaining some of the concerns. I am particularly pleased that he brought back the point about artistic freedom because it was very well made.

I will talk more broadly about the amendments in this group, which sum up the dangers of mission creep inherent in the Bill and highlight the pitfalls in allowing the Secretary of State to have such leeway, away from democratic scrutiny, to move the goalposts. Granting Ministers the power to extend smoke-free areas, including outdoors, to include vaping and heated-tobacco use, should not just be nodded through. It would mean the use of secondary legislation to allow the banning of, for example, smoking or vaping outside in the beer garden of a pub and the ring-fencing of whole swathes of outdoor uncovered spaces, such as outside health and social care facilities or education settings.

It is worth remembering that this would mean that for front-line workers, from teachers to care workers, never mind patients or residents, it could be illegal to go and have a vape outside their workplace. Is that reasonable? Is that proportionate? It is one thing for the workplace to designate that they should not, but for the law to intervene is more dangerous. This again, in effect, conflates smoking with vaping, undermining the perception that vaping is relatively safer, as I have endlessly, boringly, repeated.

I want to say something about smokers because, in this relentless bid to banish smoking, there is a danger that we end up demonising smokers—millions of our citizens who can be punished for indulging in a risky but legal habit—and saying that we do not want to see them anywhere in the public sphere. I do not know that this is the kind of society that the Government have in mind. Even Cancer Research UK warns 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”.

There again are those unintended consequences.

Part of the justification for many of these outdoor bans is the notion of modelling and normalisation theories that are so popular in academia, which say that we need to protect children so that they never see adults smoking or vaping and therefore do not copy them and it is never normalised. I want us to think about what that would mean if that was why we could never have adults vaping outside where children might see them. If we are saying that children might copy adults who vape or smoke, is that not a green light for the state to start seizing children from their parents and leading public health home invasions to rescue children from their vaping parents? I am frightened to say that because it might give the Minister some ideas.

The amendments in this group that I have put my name to are again largely those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, because he tabled some brilliant amendments. They seem to me to be entirely proportionate and sensible, seeking to keep the Bill on track and focused on its stated aims instead of being a vehicle for outlandish overreach that is not evidence-based. The arguments in favour of restricting vaping and smoking outside venues seem to hinge on a prohibitionist personal distaste for the habit rather than evidence-based policy.

That is why the issue around passive vaping and the lack of evidence in relation to it is worth highlighting. Cancer Research UK supports the Bill but keeps putting out warnings in its briefings that you must be careful not to go too far. It says:

“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping, however the current evidence does not suggest that breathing in second hand vapour is harmful. Given that evidence indicates that vaping is far less harmful than smoking, it’s likely that second-hand vapour would be less harmful than second-hand smoke”.


Meanwhile, Dr Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at UCL’s tobacco and alcohol research group, explains:

“Second-hand exposure also differs: smoke comes both from the burning tip of the cigarette and exhaled smoke, whereas e-cigarettes release aerosol only when exhaled, resulting in far lower bystander exposure. Research led by UCL found that people exposed to second-hand vapour absorb around 84% less nicotine than those exposed to second-hand smoke. While not zero, exposure from vaping is far lower than from smoking, and levels of other toxicants are likely to be lower still”.


They are basically saying, “Hold on, keep a sense of proportion”, and that is all that we are talking about here.

I hope that the Government will seek out such voices in their consultation on smoke-free, heated tobacco-free and vape-free places in England, which was announced on the first day of Recess on Friday 13 February. Of course, these free places will be anything but free, as they will deny individuals personal freedoms and impinge on the freedoms of a great many private and public venues.

I urge the Minister and her department to widely and loudly advertise that consultation so that a diverse group of respondents can be encouraged to feed in beyond the usual suspects, NGOs and lobbyists. I especially hope she will encourage the hospitality industry and individual venues to respond because, as we have already heard, the hospitality industry is under the cosh.

The British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that 62% of its members fear that these kinds of bans will negatively impact their trade and 20% believe it would lead to the closure of their pubs. Sometimes when we discuss issues in the Bill, we view all aspects of society only through the prism of public health. It can be a rather joyless, arid and sanitised version of “The Good Life”, in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the world of pubs, pub gardens, nightclubs, or eating or music venues, overregulation will kill them off; it will kill off the atmosphere, never mind kill them off financially.

The truth is that if one looks at the research, 49% of regular pub-goers are smokers—shock horror—even though smokers account for less than 15% of the UK population. More and more, of course, are vapers. That is not a crime nor a problem. Funnily enough, a lot of people who go to pubs also like to have a drink. Yet, bizarrely, they are in trouble for that too. Many in hospitality worry that the Bill will be used as a blueprint for alcohol, as well as anything else. Indeed, the Department of Health is considering preventing under-18s from purchasing no-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks in pubs, because they say it would encourage alcohol uptake in the future. Then there is a discussion about adding health warnings and imagery and plain packaging to alcohol bottles.

It is no wonder that all those different hospitality organisations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted are saying that they are worried about the impact of the Bill and its provisions on trade, customers’ behaviour and operating costs. To be honest, it is no wonder that many publicans have banned Labour MPs from their locals, if one considers everything that has been added on.

Presently, hospitality venues put up their own restrictions. In other words, they ban people they do not want; they have rules. That is because they deal with their clientele with absolute common sense. But there is a fear that such proportionate self-regulation by the sensible people who run the hospitality industry in this country will be trampled on by the Bill.

Finally, sadly, trusting small SMEs in hospitality to act responsibly is not a feature of Amendment 199 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley. It seems apt to note, in my final speech on this Bill, how shocked I am—shocked, I tell you—that the Liberal Democrat Benches are neither liberal nor democratic on this issue. Through Amendment 199, they want to inveigle local councils into compliance by using this law to issue future pavement licences only as smoke-free. So much for localism, encouraging a thriving high street or cafe society, or supporting local autonomy. It is a step too far; I think a few things are, but that really is the limit. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government are not as illiberal as the Liberal Democrats. I will not necessarily hold my breath.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, it is really hard to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she gives a speech like that. Amendments 193, 194, 197 and 198 hope to address the powers to designate vape-free and heated tobacco-free places. The argument, really, is that it is all a bit over the top. There is limited evidence of harm from passive vaping compared with that of inhaling second-hand smoke. It is my fear that, as currently drafted, the Bill could inadvertently force ex-smokers to have relapses if they are using alternatives alongside smokers. That is what is going to happen. They are all going to be pushed into the same area, and that, I suggest, is the worst of all outcomes.

I further push the point that age-gated venues should be able to retain the discretion that they already have. Our hospitality and pub sectors need these safeguards.

Of course I agree with everybody that we must protect children but, in doing so, we must not inadvertently drive adults back to cigarettes and destroy our pubs in the process. That, I am afraid, is exactly what we run the risk of doing.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Udny-Lister

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I will briefly speak to Amendment 26, which is in my name, about the cost implications for small retailers and convenience stores. It is really a plea to the Minister to make some money available and introduce a grant system which can assist them. Age-verification technology is not cheap. They need to invest in a robust IT system. We need to build up a market for age verification. We also need one that protects consumers’ data and strengthens enforcement without penalising shopkeepers.

I think we all acknowledge that small shopkeepers are already in difficulty; it is not an easy time for them. We should look at anything we can do to help, and I think this would help. A simple act such as this would make it that much easier to ask the difficult question about age verification.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I half support Amendment 26. I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

The introduction of this regressive and untested generational ban on tobacco sales obviously raises the thorny issue of how it will be implemented in terms of retailers checking ages. Following the discussion on the first group, it is worth noting that this is very different from standardised age checks, which we already have, where there can be challenges at 18 or 21 and over.

I would like to quote Trading Standards Wales, which described it as creating

“a two-tier age system for tobacco whereby someone born in 2008 would be legally able to purchase tobacco products whilst someone born in 2009 would not”.

It seems that, for this Bill to work in its own terms, enforcement is key, but it is not clear how that will be practical. Again, to quote Trading Standards Wales:

“Having a two-tier age system means that young people could still obtain cigarettes from older friends or family members that smoke and, it is unlikely that any parties would report each other to the authorities as both would face legal consequences in doing so”.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Udny-Lister

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of my amendment to Clause 10 is simply to ensure that heated tobacco products are explicitly addressed within the age of sale framework. I am strongly of the view that, when Parliament seeks to regulate a product, it must define it clearly. As other noble Lords have repeatedly mentioned, there is still a high level of inconsistency and ambiguity in this Bill, which renders it fundamentally flawed unless many of these amendments are supported over the next few days. Both retailers and trading standards officers require certainty when it comes to product classification, and a clear statutory definition would avoid later confusion, reduce the overall risk of litigation and strengthen accountability, which must remain the overriding purpose of this Bill if it is to stand any chance of delivering what I believe is the Government’s intended result. In the interest of making the Bill workable on the ground, I hope that this minor change will have your Lordships’ support.

My amendment to Clause 11 mirrors the approach that I have taken concerning Clause 10. I am again asking for consistency so that, where vaping products are referenced, heated tobacco products are dealt with explicitly. We cannot pass legislation through this House where there is ambiguity. I fear that, if these points are ignored, the Bill will lack the clarity required to make it practically enforceable. As such, we in this House will be placing a grave, unfair burden upon those in enforcement. Furthermore, we will be creating unfairness for compliant businesses, which comes with the not inconceivable risk of pushing retailers towards the temptation of rogue and illicit trading. We need to legislate coherently across product categories rather than allow voids to undermine the objectives that the Government are seeking to achieve.

I will speak now to Amendments 87, 89, 90, 101, 113, 189 and 190 in my name. I wish to ensure that the phrase “or consumed in any other way” is removed and that a clear definition of heated tobacco is inserted. It is important to note that heated tobacco does not burn tobacco; it heats it. This is important as evidence indicates lower toxicant exposure compared with that of most cigarettes. If future adult access is to be prohibited, this decision must be based on proper assessment and evidence, which is lacking at this time. The purpose of Amendments 189 and 190 specifically is simply to insert some precision into the Bill. These amendments replace “consumed” with “smoked” and remove reference to heated tobacco devices. I put it to your Lordships that “consumed” is excessively broad. Through slightly better drafting, we can protect businesses, enable better enforcement and protect the courts from uncertainty. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for helping to differentiate products and for having some precision in the way we discuss these issues. I have been concerned throughout about a one-size-fits-all approach. I do not think it helps anyone. It certainly does not help in relation to health, let alone retailers and so on, as has been described.

Heated tobacco should not be conflated with vapes, but it should also not be conflated with smoking cigarettes or tobacco in that sense. As the noble Lord explained, heated tobacco products are heated, not combusted. That means that, although they might have some degree of harm, there is a body of evidence that shows that there is a huge reduction in harmful products from heating tobacco rather than smoking tobacco. This matters to me because a lot of people use heated tobacco as a smoking cessation tool, as a form of giving up smoking.

When I have raised issues concerning the evidence on heated tobacco, I have been told that the problem with that evidence is that it is based on research produced by the tobacco industry rather than by independent researchers. I point out that, none the less, it is scientific evidence and can be tested as such, whoever pays for it. But if there is some concern about the evidence, I encourage the Government to consider how they can fund research into the very different types of product we are talking about, rather than simply dismissing any evidence they do not like the look of because of who funds it. We need to have a sense of proportion and should not treat all products the same. As I say, I therefore reject the one-size-fits-all approach. We will have much better legislation if these things are clarified on the face of the Bill and we all know what we are talking about, and do not just lump things under the single heading of “harmful and dangerous”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I shall talk about the two amendments in my name. First, the Bill does not provide a deterrent; the proposed fixed penalty of £200 is nothing to those involved in this illicit trading and organised criminal activity. It is obvious that the unscrupulous retailers will simply absorb the costs and just continue with what they are doing.

It is worth mentioning at this point—and I have seen this—that when people are selling illegal tobacco it is not under the counter. You can have a nice card with all the different brands laid out for you to pick and choose from. It is very professional: a serious bit of criminality out there. I might add that I do not smoke, but I have seen it with others. That is why I am seeking through this amendment support to introduce a stepped penalty regime, escalating for repeat offenders and enabling referral to national and enforcement bodies where organised criminality may be involved. If we want to stand any chance of cutting down this illicit trade and the sale of tobacco and vapes, enforcement must have real teeth. Without a stepped penalty regime and referral powers, the Bill and the generational ban will be nothing more than symbolic.

Amendment 63 is on the points I have just made about having a more robust and stepped approach to penalty notices. I want to strengthen enforcement further by introducing a new statutory referral duty where a fixed penalty notice is issued. If the Bill does not confront the organised criminal network, it will just continue. We want local authorities to issue fixed penalties, and then to refer the matter to the National Crime Agency and relevant police forces and to share intelligence, which is key. It is further my intention that this amendment place a statutory duty on the NCA and police to investigate whether organised crime, excise or VAT evasion is at scale or other serious offences are involved.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wanted to speak to two amendments in this group that are about the opposite ends of the retail spectrum. On the one hand, there are law-abiding shopkeepers who need to be given a certain leeway if they mess up at the start of this legislation. At the other end of the spectrum are those open lawbreakers who hide in plain sight.

I added my name to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about giving relevant authorities the discretion to issue a warning notice to first-time offenders. Because this is totally novel and internationally unique legislation, enforcement will be important; but because this is a bit of an experiment, some leeway has to be given to allow it to settle in without criminalising people unnecessarily.

Fixed penalty notices are precisely designed to enable offenders to avoid criminal prosecution and reduce the burden on the courts. That is how they are usually used. I am just worried about the overcriminalisation of shopkeepers via this Bill; it is important to be proportionate and allow that discretion. Allowing trading standards officers to issue warnings to first-time offenders would promote the idea that shopkeepers can learn what the rules are and find out that they have had their warning. I am sure that many initial breaches are likely to be unintentional, and a warning will help a business to understand the rules and allow them not to repeat the mistake, and so on. Therefore, fines are reserved for repeat or serious offences; that is an important way in which to approach this.

In relation to an earlier amendment about communicating what the Bill will do, although I do not necessarily agree with it, it is obviously important that people understand the implications of the Bill when it becomes law. If it passes, which it will, there will have to be quite a steep learning curve for all sorts of different parts of society.

I want to draw attention to something called Local Vape Action, which has just been launched in Maidstone in Kent. It is a local partnership involving retail shops working with the local community and doing education, engagement and enforcement. There are initiatives happening locally where people are trying to say, “We are the good guys; we are the people who are compliant; we’re trying to keep to the rules”. They are trying, for example, to improve the appearance of high streets, making sure that legitimate vape retailers—not the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, described—want to take some responsibility for not being the rogue traders. I think that is to be commended.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Udny-Lister

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time.

The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open.

I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises.

We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart.

The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.