Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Harlech Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel I might lower the tone, especially after the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston. This is absolutely not my world; I am much more on the grubby vaping/smoking side of the fence, to be honest. However, the world of cigars and other tobacco products is also not the world of the nation’s youth. There just is not an epidemic of teenage pipe-smoking—not that I am aware of, at least.

These amendments are incredibly important to the Bill because they are all about evidence and the Bill’s attitude to it. I am concerned not to have a situation whereby “tobacco” is used as a scare word that blinds us to facts, medical science and what is actually happening in terms of real harms and risks. The speech from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, helped explain the distinction between cigarettes and vapes in terms of the consumer-based demographics, usage patterns and risk profiles for these other tobacco products. If you just lump them all into a one-size-fits-all, we shall behave in a disproportionate, unevidenced way, based, to a certain degree, on prejudice.

Can the Minister also explain whether there is new evidence to explain this new approach? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, explained, previous legislation has successfully been used to differentiate in the regulation of these particular tobacco products. What is new that means that the Government now want to treat them all as though they are indistinct? I appeal to the Minister to add some nuance to the Bill, because we really must stop conflating things that are not comparable. We should stop conflating tobacco with nicotine, as I have argued, and we must stop conflating cigarettes with all the various tobacco products without differentiation.

I added my name to Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, but, as he does not appear to be here to speak to it, I shall speak to it briefly instead. This amendment asks for evidence of the potential harms posed by heated tobacco compared to cigarettes. Again, this is important to me. Heated tobacco devices are being used by cigarette smokers to quit smoking cigarettes. It is perfectly proportionate and reasonable to ask for evidence of whether they carry the risk of any kind of significant harm. So far, the Government have not come up with any arguments for why they should be treated as though they are indistinguishable from cigarettes.

It speaks to a certain carelessness, if you like, around evidence—and, indeed, around liberty—if specific activities carried out by adults are all treated the same on the basis that a one-size-fits-all approach to public health means that we can all forget the details. However, as scrutineers and legislators, we should never forget the details and always think about the unintended consequences, regardless of our attitude to smoking fine cigars; that is irrelevant to why we should support these amendments.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to his group of amendments far more eloquently than I can, and other noble Lords spoke about the evidential and ethical case behind them. But I want to make one point and give one example, at this time of remembrance and with society’s understanding of mental health developing—and, indeed, given the Minister’s role for mental health. A great number of veterans and serving personnel come together to talk about their mental health and their experiences through the medium of cigar clubs. It would be a great tragedy if those communities were lost due to the unintended consequences of the Bill, and I hope that the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care are listening to the arguments that have been made this afternoon.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly respond to these amendments on cigars. It is clear that the parliamentary cigar club is out in force today, and the noble Lords have made their case very well. I will speak on snuff, because every argument made for cigars is undermined by including snuff within the amendments. The arguments around snuff are extremely different. Snuff use among our 16 to 24 year-olds has seen a fourfold increase over recent years. Snuff is easily available; it is flavoured and easy to hide for young people. Frankly, including snuff undermines the group of amendments.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Harlech Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the ambition of the amendments in this group, particularly my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendment on tobacco extinction 2040, which is the level of ambition that we should be looking for. The Government are to be applauded for this measure, but we need not just a direction of travel but a destination, which this provides. I also very much agree that the end-point legislation that we have seen on asbestos and leaded petrol are examples of two very successful approaches that we could replicate here.

I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, from whom we have just heard. It is very important that we seek to tackle those areas that have the highest deprivation and suffer most from smoking. These amendments seek to do just that. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the need for a clear communications strategy. That is central and should be led by the department, as she so rightly said.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to offer a slightly different perspective.

I understand the intent behind the Bill and my noble friend Lord Bethell’s Amendment 4 in this group. However, I believe that this amendment and the Bill as a whole lack some nuance in separating cigarettes from cigars and other tobacco products, which I will hereafter refer to as OTPs. If this were the cigarettes and vapes Bill, I would not have much issue with it, but there is a vast difference in mortality impact between cigar smokers and cigarette smokers. Cigars are not inhaled and are made from natural tobacco, while cigarettes are inhaled, are habitual, are used with high frequency and are often made with additives and chemicals.

I implore noble Lords and the Government to recognise this difference. The reason why is that we risk destroying a 500 year-old business with products that are made by artisans and are often, or almost exclusively, sold by independent family retailers who do not stock or sell cigarettes because cigars and OTPs are the only products that they sell. I draw attention to subsection (3)(b) of the new clause proposed by my noble friend’s Amendment 4, which refers to

“supporting tobacco retailers and businesses in transitioning away from tobacco product sales”.

If that said, “cigarette sales”, I would have no issue with it. If you are a large retailer such as Tesco, you can easily put something else in that shelf space; if you are a family business that sells only cigars, however, the impact of this measure is that you will go out of business.

By including cigars and OTPs in this amendment, we risk putting these family-owned, responsible traders out of business for a very negligible health gain; we also risk losing tourism and tax revenue at the same time. So can my noble friend and the Minister look again at separating cigarettes from cigars and OTPs, both in the Bill in general and in this amendment specifically?