Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

[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 ---

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson. The amendment raises the broad question of how, as a society, we wish to define adulthood. From that point of view, I think the amendment is a useful one. Clause 10, like much of our statute book, assumes that 18 marks the threshold of adulthood—the age at which one may also contract, serve on a jury or purchase regulated products. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Moylan argued, proposals to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds invite us to reconsider that assumption. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment.

I turn to Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We have in Clause 12 a proposed measure that would outlaw any vending machine that dispenses vapes or nicotine products to a paying customer. The question that my noble friend and the noble Baroness have posed is whether the Government are prepared to consider any exceptions to this hard and fast prohibition. Is there not a strong case for saying that, in a smoking cessation clinic where there are adult clinical staff guiding patients through a structured programme, or in a mental health unit where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated? In those clinical environments, vapes and nicotine products are not promoted for casual use. They have a utility, and their utility lies as a means of harm reduction under clinical supervision. Let us just remind ourselves that patients admitted to mental health settings, or being treated in one, are much more likely to be smokers than other members of the general population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, drew attention to that. For obvious reasons, there is a deep reluctance within mental health units to permit smoking on the premises. Access to vapes, on the other hand, is a far less contentious issue, I suggest.

I would be grateful if the Minister could say why the Bill makes no provision for exceptions, even narrow ones, to the ban on vending machines. I am not contesting the proposal to ban such machines in the majority of settings, but vapes are not the same as tobacco. I have been approached by one vending machine operator that supplies machines to adult-only venues such as clubs. It asked the same question in its briefing sheet. Why is it that, in a place where anyone entering has been vetted as being an adult, they are being denied access to a vending machine? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment on that.

Amendment 21 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises a rather different question. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. The goal that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are aiming at is of course a worthy one. However, I have three problems with what they are proposing. First, if one makes vaping too expensive, law-abiding citizens who wish to quit smoking will be deterred from doing so. That is surely a risk. Secondly, smokers who may be less concerned about the lawfulness of the products that they buy will be steered towards unregulated products and/or the black market. I suggest that, under this proposal, that is simply bound to happen. Thirdly, any minimum pricing arrangement will act as a dampener on competition, and hence a dampener on innovation. A good example of such innovation is the age-gating technology that my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke about in our previous Committee session—technology built into a product or its packaging that prevents underage use. Approaches of that kind should be explored before we ever consider blunt instruments such as statutory price controls.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, which would prohibit the provision of free tobacco or vaping products through the course of business. Again, I completely understand and respect the motivation behind that proposal, but we should ask some questions about it. In the case of tobacco products, I am absolutely on the same wavelength as the noble Baronesses; at the same time, it would be helpful to know how much of a problem this now is.

First, is it not already illegal? If not, and if free samples of cigarettes, say, are being supplied by the manufacturers or importers to wholesalers or retailers, that sounds like an expensive exercise, bearing in mind the need for them to account to HMRC for the relevant tobacco duty, which I do not think they can avoid. What can the Minister tell us about that?

Secondly, on free samples of vapes, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I venture to say that different considerations apply to vapes compared to tobacco. My noble friend Lord Moylan was absolutely right: vapes are not in the same league of harm as tobacco products. They are also a smoking cessation tool. I would be the first to agree that free vapes should not be handed out to children. That is a given—

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

The advert I have here says that the samples they are giving out are actually derived from tobacco. Even though it says, “No smoke, no vape and no tobacco”, the advert states that the samples are derived from tobacco. My reference is therefore to tobacco products—that is the link there—but I also emphasise the point about nicotine.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

If it is a tobacco product, I take the point, but I thought that the noble Baroness was also arguing about handing out free vapes. Making it illegal for a shopkeeper to supply an adult with a regulated vaping product as a free sample feels very much like an unreasonable restraint of trade. If someone enters a shop to buy cigarettes—let us say he is a smoker—and the shopkeeper offers him a free vape, what exactly is wrong with that, as long as the regulations are adhered to? Do we really want to criminalise that kind of free supply? I am afraid that I am not convinced.

The Bill already imposes a series of significant new obligations and compliance costs on legitimate businesses. The restrictions contained in Clauses 13 to 15 alone are substantial and will likely require many retailers to make complex and costly adjustments. To introduce further constraints and prohibitions, as well as a substantial potential liability, however well-intentioned, has to be thought about very carefully before we go down that path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

To pick up on that, I ask the Minister to clarify the issue that was left slightly in the air earlier about the derivation of nicotine. While nicotine can be synthetically produced, it is derived from tobacco, but the point made by definition in the Bill is that a vaping product is a distinct product from a tobacco product. So the advertisement seen by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which I agree is highly regrettable, may be accurate in saying that the product is derived from tobacco but is not a tobacco product. Is that correct?

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

Can I comment on that? It has been very instructive to learn all about this subject. I could see a discussion occurring between the noble Earl and his noble friend but most nicotine is, in fact, derived from tobacco. This fits with what the advert I have here says, which is that the product advertised is derived from tobacco but does not contain tobacco leaf. Whether it is misleading for it to say, “No tobacco”, is another matter, but, clearly, dancing on the head of a pin is not very helpful here.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I respectfully disagree. It is helpful to dance on the head of a pin if we can distinguish “tobacco” from “tobacco product” and, again, distinguish a tobacco product from a vaping product. The Bill does that.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I disagree that we can necessarily distinguish between nicotine and a tobacco product, given that most nicotine products are derived from tobacco and are, therefore, tobacco products. However, the key thing here is that nicotine is being targeted at children, who often then graduate to smoking cigarettes. So you have not only an addiction but a potential route into the problem that we have worked on together for many years: reducing smoking, especially among the young, for all the reasons we know about.