Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to all the amendments in this group—Amendments 140AA, 140C, 140D, 140E, 147A and 147B—I seek your Lordships’ support to ensure that the Bill is both proportionate and evidence-led and that we do not undermine the considerable effort made over the past few decades to help adult smokers quit.

In tabling these amendments, I seek to ensure that the Bill has the ability to protect young people without abandoning support for adult smokers who are trying to quit. The quiet success of British public health policy over the past decades has been the principle of harm reduction through individual choice, and central to this has been how this country has led the world in promoting alternatives to traditional smoking.

As a result of this multiagency and industry approach to tackling smoking, from nicotine replacement therapies to the state-sponsored rollout of e-cigarettes, smoking rates have fallen faster here than in almost any other country. The data speaks for itself: in 2023, just 11.9% of UK citizens smoked, which is down from 20.2% in 2011. I fear that this progress risks being undermined if we allow our regulatory processes to become too rigid and too slow to adapt to innovation and behavioural trends. Currently, this Bill fails to distinguish adequately between combustible tobacco and less harmful alternatives. I worry that, unless these amendments are agreed, we will unintentionally create perverse incentives that could drive consumers back to smoking cigarettes—the very outcome that I believe the Government wish to prevent.

In summary, through Amendment 140AA, I seek your Lordships’ support in replacing rigid regulation with flexible guidance. In doing so, the aim of this amendment is to set conditions under which the Government have the ability to set informed expectations without overregulating legitimate harm reduction tools, which have so far proven themselves invaluable in supporting adult smokers to quit. Furthermore, I hope that, through this amendment, we can reduce any future bureaucratic delays that could stump the rollout of fast-evolving vape technologies. I put it to the Committee that this amendment would support proportionate state oversight while safeguarding consumer choice and innovation.

Continuing on this theme, Amendments 140C and 140D seek to achieve the same while reinforcing that, in this technical policy space, Ministers should guide rather than dictate. Both amendments would offer businesses clarity while ensuring that there is space for the Government to guide and advise. In Amendment 140C, I seek the Committee’s support in preventing overreach through secondary legislation that would, I believe, stifle the vaping and heated tobacco sectors.

In Amendment 140E, I seek to strengthen public confidence in this Bill by showing that there is fair and balanced consultation. Legislation of this scope should not be passed without adequate consultation. Through this amendment, I am seeking to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult manufacturers, retailers, adult users and other stakeholders. Given how this Bill intends to curb individual liberties, the only way in which the Government can seek to get the public onside is through co-design and properly understanding the views and the practical challenges. Unless this amendment is agreed, there will remain a blurred line between smoking and harm reduction. I put it to the Committee that the Government have a duty to prevent a one-size-fits-all approach that would, I fear, push people back towards smoking.

Amendment 147A seeks, in a similar way to Amendment 140AA, to replace rigid regulation with flexible guidance. I tabled this amendment as it would allow the Government to act swiftly, as trends change, through allowing for agility in the setting of advertising and presentation standards.

Finally, I shall speak to the last amendment in this group: Amendment 147B. In it, I again call for consultation. I am seeking to balance responsible marketing with adult consumer freedoms. Through this amendment, I seek to send a clear message that the target of harm reduction products is smokers seeking to quit and that, therefore, advertising should be limited and controlled in order to protect children.

Collectively, these amendments balance agility with accountability by providing proportionate oversight as opposed to overly prescriptive control. I hope that the Government will recognise the constructive nature of these amendments, especially as they seek to ensure transparency and engagement with the most affected and to provide a clear differentiation between cigarettes and safer alternatives. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group draw attention to a practice that rightly causes outrage—the inclusion of images on vapes that are used to market them to particular groups, most often children. There are images of vapes that feature, for example, characters from “The Simpsons” and other popular TV shows. Vapes should be tools for smoking cessation. My noble friend Lady Walmsley referred to that earlier and noble Lords appear to agree. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, commends the public health progress that we have made in combating smoking. Vapes should not be children’s toys. However, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley has pointed out, vapes cannot yet be regarded as risk-free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendments 148B to 148E and 149A. They follow a very similar theme to an earlier grouping that I spoke on. They seek to support the Government’s ambitions for a smoke-free generation, while ensuring that the legislation is both practical and proportionate. In passing legislation, we must ensure that we are responsive to science and inclusive of expertise and that transparency is not replaced by the opaqueness of ministerial discretion. This grouping therefore should be seen as a constructive route to getting the framework right, ensuring that regulation by the Bill is guided by science, informed by consultation and subject to practical and proper parliamentary oversight.

Through Amendment 148A, I seek to make a very simple yet important improvement to the practical worth of Clause 96. I seek a requirement to be placed on the Secretary of State to publish an approved list of providers who are qualified to undertake the scientific studies that manufacturers are obliged to commission under this part of the Bill. If the Government are serious in their desire to safeguard consumers through this provision, this amendment would provide a mechanism to strengthen this aim, while further bringing transparency and fairness to the process. I further put it to the Committee that such a move would support smaller British firms that are developing lower-risk nicotine products, by giving them the confidence that the laboratories they engage with meet the Government’s regulatory standards.

In pursuing this modest change to the Bill, we are following the established best practice of the global regulatory agencies, from the US FDA to the European Chemicals Agency, both of which maintain formal lists of approved testing bodies precisely to guarantee the integrity and compatibility of data. I therefore hope that this amendment would help streamline compliance and practically support smaller British businesses.

With Amendments 148B and 148D I again seek to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently drive adult smokers back to cigarettes. These amendments seek to reinforce the principle that regulation should correspond to risk and that we should encourage innovation in safer nicotine products, not penalise them.

Through Amendment 148C, and as a theme that cross-references Amendments 148B and 148E, I ask the Government to accept consultation with manufacturers, retailers, scientists and adult consumers before regulations are made. If the Bill is to succeed in delivering what I believe are the Government’s intended outcomes, we must ensure that there is public trust by demonstrating that any regulations imposed are technically informed. I have tabled these amendments as I am keen to prevent poorly evidenced secondary legislation arising that might have unintended consequences.

Tobacco control policy must be driven by scientific evidence, not ideology, and that is the basis of Amendment 148E. It would ensure that when future regulations are made about the composition or ingredients of nicotine products, they are assessed in a way that is relative to the harm caused by smoking. I put it to the Committee that comparative assessments are already standard across medicine, toxicology and food regulation and that the same principle ought to guide nicotine policy. Amendment 148E would encourage smarter, targeted regulation in a way that focuses efforts where harm is greatest. It would ensure that we continue to distinguish between products that kill and those that help people.

Finally, in this grouping I have tabled Amendment 149A, as we need to ensure more adequate parliamentary oversight and accountability for the ministerial powers proposed in the Bill. One of my overriding concerns with the Bill is that its provisions are wide and, in many cases, open-ended. Through Amendment 149A I seek to preserve the constitutional norm that Parliament grants powers and departments exercise them. Through this amendment the Secretary of State would be required publish the rationale for any discretionary decisions. Beyond maintaining transparency in regulation, I believe that this is needed to protect both industry and consumers from uncertainty and ensure that there is fairness across the UK market. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, this group contains a number of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to what he identifies as burdens that are potentially being placed on the industry when assessing the harms of products. There is much here that can and should be explored through consultation on this legislation. For example, it is important that clear standards are set for appropriate facilities to undertake testing, but it does not feel appropriate or proportionate to have a set list of providers who can undertake this. That feels like locking manufacturers into a bit of a closed market, although I hear what the noble Lord says his intention is behind this.

I also caution against amendments that seek to compare nicotine products as benign, when compared with tobacco. We have had quite a debate about that this afternoon. Obviously, it can be helpful in assessing whether a particular nicotine product should be used for smoking cessation purposes, but defining it as simply less harmful than tobacco does not mean it would be a good public health standard, as we have heard. Not all users of these products will be smokers, as we have also heard, and we already know that the route to smoking for young people is now often via vapes. We have had quite a discussion of that, and the fact that nicotine is addictive. We have heard how difficult it is to give up nicotine, however much we may wish that not to be the case. It is therefore important to assess the impact on health of nicotine in its own right. The noble Lord may feel that that comparative approach is included in his amendment, but I would be concerned about adding his amendment to the Bill.

Amendment 148C would remove the following provision:

“The regulations must prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without the individual’s consent”.


We feel that should remain part of the Bill.

Amendment 149A refers in effect to delegated powers. I understand the concern about those powers but also why the Government seek wide and flexible powers in the Bill, given what they are dealing with and the fast footwork in this industry. Would it not have been good had the vaping and tobacco industry made sure that nicotine substitutes were targeted only at smokers trying to shed their smoking habits? Who would have thought, as we looked at this a few years back and supported the use of such products for such purposes, that we would be where we are now? But we are—so I hope that the Committee will forgive me for my jaundice on this matter. This ship has sailed; the manufacturers have shown themselves not to be trusted to market them only as smoking cessation tools, and the Bill rightly seeks to protect our children and grandchildren. Waiting for primary legislation to come around again on this, while the industry targets in a new and inventive way so that children get hooked and cannot free themselves from its embrace, is not what a responsible Government should do.

Had the industry proved trustworthy in the past, I would maybe have a different view, as someone who thought nicotine substitution was a useful down ramp for addicted smokers—so I remain unconvinced. Who would have predicted that we would be where we are? This industry is nothing if not inventive, and we should therefore oppose these amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raises a number of sensible points about proportionality, transparency and evidence within the regulatory framework that the Bill will establish. Amendments 148A and 148C speak to the question of clarity and accountability, both in research and in representation. They would ensure that everyone—manufacturers, the Government and members of the public—can have sight of who exactly is responsible for carrying out studies on products and who is representing a manufacturer’s interests.

I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about a closed list. It seems to me that the besetting problem in this entire area is that the general public do not know what information they can rely on. There is an awful lot of myth and misinformation out there, as well as suspicion. By requiring that studies are undertaken by approved providers and that the nominated responsible person has a genuine connection to the UK, these amendments would bring about welcome transparency and help to provide confidence—to consumers and the industry alike—that those undertaking research and providing information are properly qualified and within reach of UK oversight. That principle seems very sensible. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.

--- Later in debate ---

None the less, the Government have been perfectly reasonable in relation to alcohol. The Portman Group is a good model, and therefore I think that having an industry-wide body, proper consultation and an eye to a bit less regulatory overreach and state control of everything—dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s—would be much more in line with the Government’s own attitude, which is constantly saying that they want to be flexible enough, tear up the red tape regulations where they are not needed and help business thrive. These amendments seem to be encouraging what the Government are already saying they want to do everywhere else, and I think we should encourage that. I am not suggesting that they should suddenly get into bed with big tobacco, but I think that, because we are not going to conflate everything with no nuance at all, these amendments are worth taking very seriously.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, consultation and the extent to which certain groups are involved has been a key theme of these debates so far. Amendment 154, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises some interesting points regarding existing codes of practice, guidance and standards. He is quite right that there is a real range when it comes to manufacturers and retailers of vaping products. However, as a general principle, I think he will recall from his time in government that self-regulation has had a lot of problems, as the Minister reminded the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

One relevant example here is the voluntary code that was introduced for tobacco advertising in 1971. I am not aware of a model in the vaping industry that has been effective in regulating products in a way that reduces their appeal to young people, as we have been debating. As the Minister pointed out, it has had that opportunity and it has not taken it. Although I recognise that Amendment 198 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is speaking specifically about vaping policy and products, the fact remains that it is the manufacturer or company that is captured by the WHO treaty. The suggestion in Amendment 198 is, in effect, that the Secretary of State should disregard Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is part of a global treaty to protect health policy from the pernicious influence of the tobacco industry. I made reference earlier to what I saw when I was a Department for International Development Minister—tobacco companies giving children in developing countries cigarettes and pressurising Governments, who hardly had the resources to push back, to allow them free rein.

Article 5.3 was a necessary reaction to decades of deceit by an industry that knew about, but covered up, the deadly effects of its products on those who are hooked on them. It was, in my view, an astonishing achievement to secure this measure through the WHO; I doubted that it could ever be achieved. In my view, we must do nothing to undermine that global agreement, and I hope we will not, but as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, Article 5.3 will not prevent the Government working with parts of the vaping industry that are not owned by the tobacco industry; nor does it exclude all contact. The guidelines are clear: parties should interact with the tobacco industry only when it is strictly necessary in order to enable them to regulate effectively. Tobacco companies have claimed that Article 5.3 should not relate to their non-tobacco products, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, indicated, but the requirements in the treaty are both clear and necessary. The tobacco companies’ profit motives are misaligned with public health goals.

Even with these guidelines and the UK’s strong position on Article 5.3, the tobacco industry continues to try to engage with Ministers. I was extremely concerned to see that, last week, the Trade Minister, Chris Bryant, was at an event sponsored by Philip Morris, Imperial Brands and British American Tobacco: the Asian Trader Awards. Paul Cheema, the retailer who fronts the “Protect Your Store” campaign, which is full of industry-backed misinformation, was awarded the Responsible Retailer of the Year award, sponsored by Imperial Brands, in recognition of his work to campaign against this very Bill. That campaign bears a strong resemblance to the “Save Our Shops” campaign, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will remember, as, no doubt, will the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. That campaign, launched in 2008, was funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association through the Tobacco Retailers’ Alliance.

I hope the Minister will remind her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade of their responsibilities in this area. The tobacco industry is extremely active in attempting to influence this Bill and other regulations, and it has deep pockets. I am very wary of the approach of these amendments, for the reasons I have given; I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, each amendment in this group constitutes a suggestion to the Government that there is a place for regulation with a lighter touch in what is currently a rather heavy-handed Bill. As our Committee debates move forward, I get the sense that a large number of restrictions, rules and regulations are now being devised centrally and will, in due course, be placed on some very large industries, some of them very responsible, without those industries being brought properly into the loop. I hope that I am wrong on that latter point.

My noble friend Lord Lansley has helpfully drawn attention to the codes of practice and the standards that already exist in the vape and nicotine industries, which are overseen by representative industry bodies. The existence of these standards and codes is a reflection of a desire on the part of those businesses to act responsibly towards consumers—and to be seen to do so because, of course, these industries understand their businesses best and are in the best position to frame rules that are designed to drive out poor practice but nevertheless maintain healthy competition in the marketplace.

My noble friend may correct me if I am wrong but, as I interpret his amendment, he is not saying that there is no room for government regulation on top of what these industries are already doing; as we debated earlier, there may well be further restrictions that, for public health reasons, prove to be appropriate. What he is saying, however, is that the Government need regulate only where there is a patent need to do so; and that there may be less need to regulate if there is a responsible industry body in place. There is a parallel with the Portman Group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the clarification from the noble Lord and am grateful for his question. In my language, it does not give us a problem to abide by these obligations; they chime with our experience, with the evidence and, as the noble Lord is aware, with all previous practice. I will come on to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about my ministerial colleagues in this regard, but this is also our government approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan—I hope that I am quoting him correctly; I know that he will correct me if not—asked about the treatment of vaping firms with tobacco industry links in respect of the consultation. When responding to the call for evidence, and with regard to any future consultations, we ask that respondents declare any direct or indirect links to, or funding received from, the tobacco industry. Input from those vaping companies that have links to the tobacco industry will be summarised with regard to the requirements of Article 5.3, and responses from those parts of the vaping industry that are independent of the tobacco industry will be considered alongside the contributions and evidence of other regulations.

Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the DBT Minister, Sir Chris Bryant, I can tell her that the award ceremony to which she referred followed the historic signing of the UK-India trade deal. It has previously been attended by Ministers to celebrate the small businesses that are, as we have spoken about regularly, the backbone of our high streets and are delivering economic growth. We are acutely conscious of government guidance; I assure the noble Baroness that no bilateral or brush-by meetings with representatives of the tobacco industry were held.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

Did the Minister know who was sponsoring that event?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

To my knowledge, he did not. I return to the point about consultation. There is a requirement to consult before making regulations under the majority of the powers in the Bill. At the risk of repeating myself, which I will do, we published a call for evidence on 8 October. The evidence is—I am sorry for pausing, but I have a cough. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would like to take advantage of that.