Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Howard of Rising]

160: Clause 113, page 62, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v)

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 160 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howard of Rising]

161A: Clause 114, page 63, line 26, leave out “or has reason to suspect”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the offence for designers regarding a “reason to suspect” as an offence regarding the design of imagery that contains these kinds of products.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

In moving Amendment 161A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will speak to Amendments 168A and 170A in this group. My Amendment 168A seeks to permit the advertisement of vapes, heated tobacco and other nicotine products to adult smokers as a public health measure. We know that these products are less harmful than smoked tobacco, as I have already pointed out today, so it is important that adult smokers are provided with adequate information on these products. It would be a perverse outcome if this legislation resulted in less harmful products being made less accessible to adult smokers who currently use the more harmful smoked tobacco products. Will the Minister says what steps the Government will be taking to ensure that adult smokers are still able to access less harmful alternatives to smoked tobacco? I would be interested to know whether the Government will take this point on advertisement away for further consideration before Report.

Amendment 170A in my name would permit compliant retailers to communicate at point of sale to their legal-age and nicotine-consuming customers information about vapes, heated tobacco and other nicotine products, so that adult smokers are empowered with full information on the alternatives available for them to switch to.

Noble Lords may have seen reports in the press in October that the managing director of UK and Irish operations of British American Tobacco argued for allowing a very strict marketing framework targeted only to adults, which could make smokers aware of the alternatives and encourage them to switch. Surely, we want smokers who are currently using more harmful smoked tobacco products to switch to less harmful vaping and heated tobacco products, especially if they are unable to quit completely.

Can the Minister please confirm whether she has met British American Tobacco, or any other producer of vapes or heated tobacco, to discuss this issue? Does she agree that it is beneficial for the health of smokers to switch if they cannot quit? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will be happy to come back to the noble Lord and be precise about that while I am going through the rest. If I do not get the opportunity to do so, I will of course write.

I turn to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 170A from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I am sympathetic to the intention of ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make a purchase. This was spoken to by not only the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, Amendment 170 is not necessary because retailers, as I have said, will continue to be able to provide the necessary factual information about products to enable purchases. Amendment 170A is also not necessary because the Bill does not prohibit businesses displaying the categories of information that this amendment refers to, as long as the information is not promotional.

The noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Moylan, referred to online providers. The Bill builds on existing legislation and effectively bans all advertising of relevant products, including online. On the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we expect enforcement bodies to take a proportionate approach, as they currently do with the advertising of tobacco products.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked about government engagement. We will continue to engage with independent vaping associations and other vaping businesses, but I remind him and the Committee, as I said probably on day one, that the UK Government are committed to Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which means the protection of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. So I have not met and will not meet British American Tobacco.

I will need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and will be glad to do so. I hope this will allow the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to withdraw Amendment 161A.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 161A withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, nobody can fault the good intentions of the Bill, which are to be applauded, but it has the potential to profoundly impact personal choice and responsibility in our society. While I acknowledge the pressing health concerns surrounding smoking, I stand before your Lordships to advocate for the preservation of individual freedoms and the minimisation of state interference in our personal lives.

At the heart of the discussion lies a fundamental question: should government dictate what individuals can consume? In a truly free society, the right to make personal choices, even those which may be deemed to be unwise, should be respected. The role of government should not be to shield people from every risk but to empower them with information, education and support, so that they may choose for themselves. The Bill before us proposes sweeping regulations on tobacco and vaping products, ostensibly in the name of health, but with significant implications for personal freedom, economic viability and the effective use of public resources.

First, let us consider the economic consequences. The weight of compliance will fall heaviest on small businesses—corner shops, independent retailers and family-run enterprises—which often lack the resources to keep up with ever expanding regulatory demands. These businesses form the backbone of our local communities, but they will struggle to meet the stringent requirements outlined in the Bill.

Secondly, the cost of enforcing legislation will be significant. Trading standards will require a colossal increase in funding to successfully monitor compliance, conduct inspections and prosecute violations. In a time of constrained public finances, we must ask: is this the best use of taxpayers’ money? Could these resources not be more effectively deployed towards improving our schools, strengthening palliative care or tackling crime?

Thirdly, there are the unintended consequences. Restrictions on advertising and sponsorship may hinder the ability of companies to provide essential information about safer alternatives to smoking. Many adults are already making the transition to vaping and heated tobacco products that, when properly regulated, may pose fewer health risks than combustible cigarettes. If we silence responsible communication in this space, we risk keeping smokers in the dark, prolonging harm rather than reducing it. A well-informed public are better equipped to make choices to look after their health, and it is our responsibility to ensure that accurate information is accessible to all adults who smoke.

Finally, history teaches us that prohibition does not eliminate demand. As a number of your Lordships have pointed out this afternoon, it merely drives it underground. Excessive restrictions on tobacco and vaping products will pave the way for a mass unregulated black market where safety and quality are sacrificed. This is not mere speculation, it is a lesson that has been learned time and again. If nicotine products are pushed underground, we risk turning law-abiding citizens into criminals and jeopardising the health and safety of consumers. The potential for unregulated products to proliferate in the shadows poses a far greater risk than responsible regulation in a legal market. What we need is not coercion, but education; not prohibition, but harm reduction. By providing accurate, evidence-based information, we can empower individuals to make decisions that benefit their health. This is the path of a mature, democratic society, one that trusts its citizens to act responsibly.

In conclusion, while the intentions behind the Bill are to be applauded, I urge the House to reconsider our approach. Let us instead reaffirm our commitment to personal freedoms, informed choice and responsible government. Let this be a Government of facilitators, not enforcers.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the analysis of the effects of Covid-19 produced yesterday is, to say the least, disappointing. It does not add much to our knowledge and it gives the impression of a document written to justify a decision already taken, rather than an objective appraisal on which to make a considered judgment.

Given that the report was issued only yesterday, it begs the question as to whether the Government used this report to base their decision on what action to take post-lockdown 2. Certainly, it would have been helpful to have had earlier sight of the report and slightly longer to consider it. The review of the tiers in the middle of December is very welcome. Can the Minister reassure the House that further and better particulars of the information on which the review will be decided will be laid in the House in good time? That would enable noble Lords to properly consider the facts and if necessary to raise the matter in this House and hold the Government to account.

One aspect that the report highlights is the comparison of death rates by age. It shows that under the age of 44 there is virtually no risk of death, and under the age of 64 the risk is minimal—probably no worse than it would be in any event. Can the Minister explain why the Government do not allow life to go on as normal for younger people, and business and commerce to continue, as my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned earlier?

The Government can advise the elderly to take precautions, and even go as far as offering them assistance if they cannot lead their lives properly if such assistance is required. It is worth noting that even someone of my age is five to one on to survive should I get the disease. That is what the table says; there are more optimistic figures.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered the questions put by me and other noble Lords. On occasions he has been noticeably reticent about giving answers. I remind the noble Lord, in a gentle way, that the purpose of debate in this House is for Her Majesty’s Government to provide answers to questions. It is what democratic government is about: sharing the reasons for taking decisions so that proper debate and scrutiny can take place.

Covid-19: Transparency and Accuracy of Statistics

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Lord is entirely right. The concerns we have for disadvantaged groups and those of an ethnic background are deep and sincere. That is why we have a large programme of work, sponsored by the NIHR, looking into a variety of different research projects to understand the behaviour of the virus and why it hits certain groups particularly hard.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Could the Minister clarify whether or not Professor Neil Ferguson, who has given such misleading forecasts, was involved in the preparation of the charts and graphs used on 31 October? Not only were they out of date, they were so inaccurate that the question arises whether those involved in the preparation of the material paused to consider if what they had produced might be badly misleading.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the precise roles of individual academics in the preparation of those charts. I am happy to go back to the department to see if I can find out, and will reply to the noble Lord.

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Great Barrington declaration, signed by more than 40,000 doctors and scientists, called for care of the elderly rather than lockdown. Such a large number of medical professionals taking this view makes one wonder why this country is being pushed into a devastatingly damaging lockdown. It is questionable whether lockdowns work or whether they merely push the problem forward. The information on which the present lockdown has been decided is out of date—which makes the idea of a lockdown even more suspect.

Charts presented by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s advisers last Saturday had labels at the bottom saying, “These are scenarios, not predictions or forecasts”. How have we reached a state of affairs where scientists can push the Government into decisions which have disastrous side-effects by using scenarios that are effectively guesses? Aside from the devastating—and, some would say, improper—attack on personal liberty, people’s lives are being ruined on a large scale. A huge number of businesses have had to close, many of which will never reopen.

The impact on health is nothing short of a disaster, from diseases such as cancer not being treated to others arising from the stress caused by lockdown. We have absolutely no idea what the destruction of the sense of well-being in the bulk of the population will lead to—all on the back of dubious scenarios by scientists with a track record of making lurid forecasts which have not come to pass. The present scenarios have been ridiculed by many well-respected members of both the medical and academic professions; even Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Whitty are now rowing back from what they have been saying. After 2 December, it will be time to ignore scaremongering scientists and get back to normal, with special care for the vulnerable, and let the remainder of the population return to living their lives.