Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the six amendments in this group that stand in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the CTSI, although I emphasise that these amendments are not linked to the CTSI or my role there.

Before speaking to those amendments, I will speak in support of Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Howe, because small businesses will need all the time they can get to prepare for yet another layer of administrative burden. By way of background, the track and trace system, for which specialist tobacconists have been preparing for over five years, requires every economic operator to have a unique identifier code that they must supply when an order is sent out to them. Even something this simple has been remarkably complex and very time consuming. It has taken one supplier in the handmade cigar sector well over two years to register all its customers, and it is not yet there. A fully fledged licensing system, with all that it entails, is likely to be much more complex, especially for businesses such as hotels, for which cigars are not a primary source of income.

Businesses will suffer and possibly cease trading if the licence application process is excessively burdensome in terms of cost, time or hassle. Traditionally, the handmade cigar sector, which comprises mostly family-owned businesses, has been permitted extra time to prepare for new legislation, such as on packaging, display restrictions and so forth, in recognition of how much harder it is for small and micro-businesses with fewer resources to adapt.

I move on to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in this group. I hope that these amendments will be seen as being a constructive, good-faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for specialist tobacconists. Their principal business, comprising some 70% of their turnover, is in handmade cigars. As I explained on the first day of Report, handmade cigars, which are artisanal, individually crafted, high-value and relatively expensive premium products, are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small-format cigars and cigarillos. In other words, they occupy a completely different segment of the market. That distinction matters in terms of price, consumer characteristics and, most importantly, the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.

There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. That fact was challenged last week, and I should therefore reiterate that where there is any data or evidence of cigar usage by young people, it refers not to handmade cigars but to machine-made, mass-produced, lower-priced, small-format cigars and cigarillos. The overwhelming majority of those purchasing handmade cigars are over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Furthermore, handmade cigars are not inhaled and are consumed infrequently, not habitually. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult customers.

In these amendments, we do not oppose the principle of licensing. The introduction of a new licensing framework, however, raises legitimate concerns about how it would apply to existing specialist tobacconists. They are a small number of lawful specialist businesses whose principal business is handmade cigars. Most of them are long-established, multi-generational, family-run, small and micro high-street enterprises. They have long been separately recognised in legislation and regulations. These amendments would provide for the grandfathering of existing specialist tobacconists into the new licensing scheme and seek to protect them from future regulations that might impose numerical caps or geographical restrictions.

These amendments do not go as far as proposing a separate category of licence, nor do they propose exempting new entrants from the licensing regime. They simply recognise that the small businesses operating lawfully under the current stringent regulatory framework should be neither unnecessarily destabilised by the introduction of a new regime nor gradually extinguished by density or zoning controls designed for different purposes. On this point, it is worth noting that in certain locations—St James’s in London is one example—they form a recognised specialist cluster that is popular with tourists and is not dissimilar in character to Savile Row in the context of the bespoke tailoring.

At a time when small businesses face significant economic pressures, we should be cautious about regulatory layering that risks unintended consequences for niche sectors that do not present the public health harms that this Bill is designed to address.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments laid in my name, starting with Amendments 24 and 25. Noble Lords will note that Amendment 24 seeks to establish a national register of tobacco and vape retailers. The reason I am pushing this so strongly is that the national register would strengthen traceability and support our trading standards officers and, importantly, could become a mechanism to strengthen consumer confidence and public reporting of rogue traders, by providing the general public with the means to distinguish legitimate retailers from rogue operators.

As for Amendment 25, noble Lords will hopefully understand the significant challenges that small businesses in this country are facing at this time. Yet here we are, through the Bill, finding yet more ways to strangle our small, legitimate traders with more red tape and more bureaucracy. I, like several people, I am sure, have heard directly from small retailers that many of them do not even bother to report people who carry out smash and grab thefts to the police, due to the time it takes out of their working day.

With these themes in mind, we should be mindful of passing legislation that places new and undue burdens on these small businesses. If we get this wrong, I fear that this legislation unamended would push many small and currently legally trading businesses into the hands of criminal enterprises that are fuelling illicit tobacco and vape trading across the UK. That is why, through Amendment 25, I am asking for the creation of a single digital portal for licence applications and renewals. This digital portal would lessen the burden on businesses, while also enabling greater oversight from enforcement agencies, all the while reducing the risk of administrative errors.

Amendment 31 would enable licensing authorities to suspend or revoke alcohol licences in cases where tobacco or vape licence conditions are persistently breached. Beyond the fact that, in breaching tobacco and vape licensing requirements, the person would fail to meet the definition of a “fit and proper person”, if the Bill is to succeed, it must be based on meaningful economic consequences that hurt and impact illicit trading. Alcohol represents a very significant proportion of convenience store turnover. Linking the two regimes creates a deterrent and uses existing powers under the Licensing Act 2003. If everybody is serious and genuine in their endeavours to protect children through this legislation, we must close this enforcement gap and send a message to those who breach tobacco and vape conditions by deeming them unfit to sell alcohol.

Finally, Amendment 44 seeks to ensure fairness and avoid regulatory arbitrage by ensuring that there is consistency across England and Wales. I seek your Lordships’ consent to apply the same alcohol licence linkage principle in Wales to that which I have proposed for England. That principle is that serious and persistent breaches of tobacco retail conditions should carry real commercial consequences, hitting rogue traders in a way that seeks to gravely disrupt and deter rogue trading.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a very valuable debate so far on the practicalities of a generational ban on smoking. I have been particularly intrigued by the journey we have taken. In that journey, a number of people have come to me, and I thank them for the enormous amount of information and support we have received from the specialist cigar industry. I was particularly delighted, noble Lords may be interested to hear, that my noble friend Lord Parkinson alerted me to a brand of cigars that sadly no longer exists called the House of Lords Cigar Range. I am sure we could sell that in the gift shop if things changed.

I also thank the Minister for her assurances over sampling rooms. I know this was debated, but I would be grateful for further clarification relating to her correct assertion that plain packaging will be difficult for specialist tobacconists to comply with, and thus extra care will be taken to ensure that they can carry on their business within the law, and that their specific needs will be met, as they are already in relation to the display of tobacco products.

However, these amendments, to which I have added my name, go further in protecting this important if niche industry of specialist tobacconists. The purveyors of these handmade, hand-rolled cigars, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, employ hundreds of people. They are largely family-owned or small businesses. They have been trading in some cases for hundreds of years and, importantly, provide delight to thousands of tourists and enthusiasts every day.

Regarding compliance with local licensing regulations, I do not believe that these shops have ever had any form of enforcement or issue around their compliance. I believe their behaviour to be exemplary. If we do not acknowledge the difference of these specialist tobacco shops but simply lump them in with the hordes of vape shops that are a blight on our high streets, we will end up in the worse situation that is causing the sorts of problems that we see today and that have just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister.

--- Later in debate ---

I have probably annoyed a number of noble Lords, which certainly was not my intention—I wish to have everybody on my side, not least the Minister—but I think that I am being very helpful to the Government. I hope that the Minister will, with alacrity, accept my two amendments.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 136A deals with the rapid emergence of devices with a very high puff count—so-called “big puff” devices—which are clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of existing regulation. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, approved by this House and the other place, set a 2-millilitre limit on vape tank size. That limit was deliberate. It was intended to restrict the volume of nicotine liquid immediately accessible within a device. Yet now we see devices incorporating multiple pods or attaching 10-millilitre refill containers directly to the unit. These create systems with an effective capacity far beyond 2 millilitres. If the law says 2 millilitres it should mean 2 millilitres, not 2 millilitres multiplied by clever engineering.

These are no longer niche products. Millions are now sold weekly. They are cheaper per puff than standard devices and they are particularly attractive to younger users. Research indicates that almost half of 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are opting for these devices with a higher puff count. We now see products on the market claiming to deliver 100,000 puffs. To put that into perspective, that is broadly equivalent to the puff volume of something like 8,000 cigarettes all contained within a single device. The concentration of nicotine exposure in one unit on that scale should give us all very serious cause for concern.

I do not believe this is simply a matter of marketing exaggeration. Some of these devices contain several times more liquid than traditional products, materially increasing the potential volume of nicotine consumption and moving far beyond what Parliament envisaged when it established the 2-millilitre limit. We also see superficial attempts to comply with the ban on disposable vapes. Devices are fitted with USB charging points but retain non-replaceable coils, so that once the coil burns out, the entire device is discarded. This is disposability in all but name.

I anticipate that the Minister may suggest that the Bill already contains sufficient powers to regulate such devices through secondary legislation. If that is so, this amendment merely makes explicit what the Government believe is already implicit. Parliament has previously set a clear quantitative limit. It is entirely reasonable to reaffirm that limit in unambiguous terms, particularly where the market has moved to exploit perceived gaps.

The Minister may also say that the Government have launched a call for evidence and that legislation at this stage would be premature. However, the concern here is not about developing future policy but about the exploitation of the existing framework. The 2-millilitre limit is already law. The issue is whether that settled position can be circumvented in practice through structural design. This amendment does not stifle legitimate reusable products. It does not prohibit refill bottles sold separately. It does not alter the 10-millimetre refill rule. It does not interfere with lawful refillable systems. It simply ensures that a single device cannot be engineered to exceed the 2-millilitre limit through multiple tanks or attached containers.

Effective enforcement depends on legislative clarity. Trading standards officers should not be left to debate whether what is in effect a 12-millimetre system technically complies with the 2-millimetre rule. Clear drafting reduces ambiguity and strengthens compliance. At the very least I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there will be no undue delay in addressing devices that are clearly designed to sidestep the intent of the current rules and that prompt action will be taken to close this loophole and uphold the 2-millimetre limit in practice.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and the ambition to create a smoke- free generation. Throughout my clinical and academic career, I have consistently argued for bold preventive action, because nothing would do more to reduce preventable death and health inequality than ending tobacco addiction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendments 125 and 134. I understand the instincts behind them, but I cannot support them. These amendments would limit the Government’s power to regulate flavour descriptors—the words on the packet rather than the chemical ingredients that create the flavour. Put simply, we would be regulating the label, not the substance.

The Chief Medical Officer’s evidence note is clear. Flavoured vaping products contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are safe to eat but dangerous to inhale. The long-term effects of inhaling these substances are simply not known yet. Restricting regulations to descriptors alone would deny the Government’s ability to act as new science emerges. As we have heard, flavour is one of the principal drivers of youth uptake. If we regulate only what the packet says and not what the product contains, manufacturers will simply reformulate to maintain the same appeal. We would be inviting a regulatory game of cat and mouse, and it is a game that children will lose.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

149: Clause 113, page 62, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition regarding advertising.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, while I am on my feet moving Amendment 149, I will also talk about the other amendments in my name. We must prevent an indiscriminate or blanket prohibition without proper scrutiny and consultation. I fear that, without these safeguards and measures, and with the approach being taken, years of success in smoking cessation will be reversed rapidly.

Further still, in the drafting of this Bill it is apparent that advertising is being looked at as merely a commercial persuasion. I would argue that this is wrong. We are forgetting that advertising is a channel of product differentiation and risk communication. We must therefore provide manufacturers with the opportunities to communicate factual and regulated information regarding relative risks and cessation pathways. Otherwise, we will be creating a system in which misinformation will flood the gap.

We must not allow a blanket prohibition on advertising vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products without consultation. To do so would be an affront to our business community and contrary to the way that things should be done. As already raised in Committee, half of all smokers now wrongly believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking. If communication is prohibited through an advertising ban, how do we correct misinformation such as this? How do we promote public health outcomes?

The impact assessment acknowledges potential unintended consequences for smoking cessation. These unintended consequences must be rooted out and the only way to achieve that at this stage is through wider and effective consultation. The amendments I have put forward all seek to prevent harm reduction being undermined, and on that basis I hope to gain support.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 168 is in my name. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 196, which is in the next group, but the subject matter is broadly similar. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for signing these amendments.

These amendments, taken together, would serve the purpose of providing safeguards and guarantees for the hospitality sector within the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I should be clear that they would not tie the hands of government in any way. They would not create carve-outs or specific loopholes, with the exception of a very narrow exemption in Amendment 168. They merely propose a requirement to consult specifically with the hospitality, retail and entertainment industries before making regulations in these areas.

I ask noble Lords, when thinking about these amendments, to consider the broader burdens currently faced by the hospitality industry. It is well known that the sector has been exposed to a number of challenges as a result of government policy in recent months and some aspects of this Bill have the potential to substantially add to these challenges. It is worth looking at the broader context, because the hospitality sector contributes £93 billion to the UK economy each year. It is the third-largest employer, with 3.5 million people employed in the sector. Since the 2024 Budget, over 89,000 jobs have been lost, which accounts for roughly 53% of all job losses in the economy. That is before the impact of the Employment Rights Act, which 49% of business leaders have said will make them less likely to hire new staff.

On business rates reforms, pubs have been granted a limited stay of execution, but, in the wider hospitality sector, the estimate is that it will cost the industry an additional £150 million, or the equivalent of about 12,500 jobs. The beer tax in the 2025 Budget has forced up the price of a pint by effectively eliminating the profit margin on beer through the alcohol hike of 3.55% from last month. That is all before the increases to national insurance, which have driven up operating costs across the board, as well as sky-high energy prices. This is an industry that is under considerable existential pressure.

It is important to reiterate these facts in light of the briefings from many of the public health charities that have been campaigning on this Bill. They claim that these amendments are not necessary. But every single UK hospitality industry association, including UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association, has warned about the damages this Bill could do to the sector. These amendments are therefore needed because the industry has said that it has absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs.

While the Government have said that it is not their intention to legislate for smoke-free and vape-free places for the hospitality industry as it is not the right time, that statement carries the clear implication that they might choose to do so in the future. To be clear, these amendments would not stop the Government legislating in this area. They would merely require that they guarantee consultation, with an impact assessment, before doing so. Why the guarantee? It is because too often we see sectors with concerns around this area being dismissed for having vested interests—we have heard many arguments this evening around the same subject—and the Government heeding only the submissions of organisations that tell them what they want to hear. In view of this, we suggest that these amendments and safeguards are extremely important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her explanations and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 149 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be super-brief, because I spoke broadly on my Amendment 196 in the previous group when I made the case—it is not hyperbole—that the hospitality sector faces an existential issue. I agree with all my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s words on this.

My Amendment 196 is extremely straightforward: it insists on a consultation if any regulations are made under Clauses 135 to 138 in relation to designating a place smoke-free or vape-free. Please consider the interests of the hospitality sector, which, as I highlighted in the previous group, is responsible for so much activity and employment in our economy.

I just finish by saying that I am shocked beyond compare that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she and I have been in this House for the same time—has only just noticed that the Liberals are illiberal.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My only comment on this group is that we would not support Amendment 26, which would require a fund to be set up for age-verification technologies. If any fund were to be set up—we do not see the need for it—then it should be funded by the tobacco industry. I note with great interest that the Minister has signed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[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

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

11: Clause 10, page 5, line 15, after “vaping product” insert “heated tobacco product”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the new definition of heated tobacco product is included in the age of sale and other regulations covering vapes and nicotine products.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The specific definition is “tobacco control research”, so it would be strange if it did not include what we know about already, which includes heated tobacco. I will be glad to confirm that to the noble Lord in writing.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reassurances, although I am afraid that I do not agree with her. However, I accept that we have taken this as far as we can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am never quite sure whether I should declare an interest in this debate as someone who has smoked the occasional cigar, but on this set of amendments I declare an interest in that I have teenage children. I see their actions, which chime very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just discussed.

We are in danger of creating a two-tier system—we do this across the board, and I am afraid we in this House are guilty of it—whereby we have excess intense regulation, which affects law-abiding citizens and consumers, and we focus on that, feeling that we have done our job and can sit back and relax, having stopped smoking, drinking or whatever it may be. But the reality is that we simply end up creating a second and entirely unregulated market.

I saw the same documentaries that my noble friend saw and was surprised, but not by the clandestine nature of organisations and illegal groups of pirates supplying illegal cigarettes and vape products under the counter or under the table in a pub—these were shops that were well advertised. In fact, I was quite impressed with some of the branding. Some of them were chains; they have become multinational corporations with headquarters, running an effective illegal system that pays no taxes. Clearly, as these documentaries showed, they had other issues, such as money laundering and very bad employment systems.

In conversations with the Minister, I have been encouraged by the realisation of this two-tier issue. It is not simply in the physical sense; it is also online. The teenagers I speak to say they have never actually bought a legal packet of cigarettes. It would not occur to them: at £20 a packet, they would be better off taking up cigars. Instead, they buy everything online, where there are no age checks. They can usually get hold of somebody else’s credit card, and it is delivered to the house. I find it very alarming that we will spend our time in these debates, and the Government will spend a huge amount of effort on a so-called ban of smoking and nicotine products, while at the same time allowing an illegal market to flourish.

From conversations with the Minister, which I found extremely helpful, I am aware that online sales are hard to regulate because of how enforcement happens at the local level: there is no one authority, although specific authorities will take leads in certain areas. There does not seem to be enough money or focus on this important issue. I am saying this because I care about the retailer and about the end ambition, in some measure, of this overall government initiative. It would be extraordinary if we focused all our efforts on a great sledgehammer to crush legal, law-abiding and decent retailers who are trying to do their job, and law-abiding consumers, without realising that we are creating another monster that needs to be tamed.

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

140AA: Clause 89, page 50, line 7, leave out “regulations” and insert “guidance”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the mechanism by which the Secretary of State may make provisions to guidance.

[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 ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for bringing these amendments forward, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.

I should start by providing clarification that I hope will be helpful to the Committee. The Secretary of State is already able to issue guidance in these areas. However—I particularly make this point to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who I listened to closely—here is the problem. Guidance is not enforceable, as he is aware. Instead, we would have a voluntary system that industry could choose whether to comply with. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support in the arguments I am about to make.

The reality is that industry is already able to choose to package its products in a way that does not appeal to children; it could already be doing that now. There are some companies that are to be credited for following this line of not appealing to children, but the fact is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, that we see far too many vapes marketed alongside cartoons and other imagery that can only be described as focused on young people. It is therefore appropriate and necessary for the power to make regulations to remain.

The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, referred to heated tobacco. We had an extensive debate on the tobacco products in scope, including heated tobacco, on a previous day in Committee, so I will not take up any more of the Committee’s time on that.

As for consultation, Clause 109 already requires the Secretary of State to consult before making any regulations in Part 5. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that we intend to consult on introducing restrictions on tobacco, vaping, which she spoke of, and nicotine product packaging as soon as possible next year. The consultation will be open to all, and we will listen very carefully to the views and evidence put forward by stakeholders.

Amendment 147B is also not needed. Clause 93, on non-compliant images, is intended to stop images being published of products that do not meet the packaging and product design requirements that could be specified under Clauses 89 and 90 respectively. Those clauses already allow the Secretary of State to restrict the use of imagery such as cartoons and images that would appeal to young people. There is therefore no need to amend Clause 93, on non-compliant images. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I shall return to this argument in a later group, so I will leave it at that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 140AA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

142: Clause 90, page 51, line 11, leave out “shape” and insert “design, shape or interoperability”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment empowers ministers to regulate the design and interoperability of products in order to prohibit the sale of very high puff count vaping devices.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mott is unfortunately ill, so with the permission of the Committee I shall move this amendment for him. I have made a few notes of my own, so this is my speech, not his, but I feel there should be a debate on the amendment, which I fully support, as Ministers should be afforded the powers, through the Bill, to regulate the design and interoperability of products, in order to prohibit the sale of very high puff count vaping devices.

The Committee should note that this amendment is entirely necessary to prevent the proliferation of the very high puff count vapes that are currently flooding the UK market and causing a lot of concern for enforcement bodies, teachers, parents and health professionals, a point that has been made previously. There are documented cases of children being hospitalised because of illicit high puff count vapes, and according to one trading standards report that I read, officers seized a vape that was seven times the legal limit, containing over 9,000 puffs. The scale of the challenge is stark. Of the 13.5 million vapes purchased each week, it is estimated that some 3 million are big-puff devices, and nearly half of all 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are using these devices.

What concerns me is that, often, these devices are deliberately engineered to circumvent regulation. Often, they present the superficial appearance of being reusable, yet they rely on the same non-replaceable mesh coils that lead to their disposal once the coil burns out. I note that Defra has already issued guidelines on what constitutes a genuinely reusable vape but, every day, irresponsible manufacturers are ignoring this advice, and it is therefore time that we put this on to a statutory footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree that it needs more careful thought, which is exactly why, rather than discussing the merits of a mango, a raspberry or any other matter, I will be pleased to look at the points about which noble Lords are concerned; I want to assist in this regard. I am grateful for the reflections of noble Lords in looking at the Bill, as I have done. However, the best thing at this stage would be to commit this to writing.

I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I am happy to withdraw Amendment 142.

Amendment 142 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

148A: Clause 96, page 54, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must publish a list of approved providers to undertake a study for a manufacturer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will provide clarity to manufacturers by publishing an approved list of potential providers who can assist in the undertaking of studies relating to a relevant product or ingredient.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for bringing forward these amendments in Committee. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for observing that the industry has failed to self-regulate—a view that I share.

Amendments 148B, 148D and 148E seek to impose specific requirements so that regulations pertaining to the testing, study and standard of products and their ingredients take into account the potential to reduce harms, relative to smoking. I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that regulations recognise that vapes and nicotine products are less harmful than tobacco products. As we have discussed a number of times, ensuring that vapes remain an accessible smoking cessation tool has been, and absolutely continues to be, a key consideration in the development of this Bill and future regulations. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that the use of powers under Part 5 of the Bill is subject to consultation, to which the industry is of course welcome to respond.

However, the purpose of the powers in relation to product standards, testing and studies pertains to compliance with product standards and safety. As I believe the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it is critical that the public can trust that the products on the market are what they say they are and do not pose a risk to health—and that quick action can be taken if they do. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that, for example, vapes on the market must not contain faulty or illicit elements and that if they do, whether they are safer than cigarettes is not the critical issue.

Amendments 148A to 148E speak to the ongoing call for evidence that we launched in October to support the policy development of regulations to be laid under the Bill. This includes seeking evidence on elements of the new product registration scheme, as I have referred to, including on the role of the responsible person and who that responsible person might be. The future registration system will play an important part in enforcing our rules on product requirements to ensure the consumer safety that noble Lords seek, while improving retailer confidence in the products that they are selling, which is also important. We want to hear the views of respondents and consider those carefully before bringing forward more detailed policy proposals. I hope the Committee understands that I do not want to pre-empt the call for evidence and how future consultation might pan out before deciding on the right approach. We need that call for evidence to be met and for the consultation to take place.

On Amendment 149A, I understand the noble Lord’s intention. I can reassure him that any sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I mentioned, there is a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under Part 5 of the Bill. I also remind noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the Government’s stance on whether research on the harms of products is sufficiently robust. We obviously seek that robustness and continue to monitor the evidence before us. Perhaps most importantly, our commitment to research on harms is crucial. For example, the department has commissioned significant pieces of research into vaping and nicotine products through NIHR. Notably, this includes a living evidence map bringing together international evidence on vapes and nicotine products, including their health harms, trends in use and emerging evidence on cessation. However, I share his interest in ensuring that research keeps up with what we seek to achieve, and we are committed to doing so.

With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 148A withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

74: Clause 37, page 19, line 33, leave out “must be £200” and insert “committed by a person for the first time and deemed serious by a local weights and measures authority must be £500 if the amount is paid before the end of the period of 14 days following the date of the notice, and otherwise £1,000.
(4A) If the fixed penalty notice is not the first notice issued to the person in respect of such an offence, the fine is—(a) £2,500, if it is the second fixed penalty notice so issued;(b) £5,000, if it is the third fixed penalty notice so issued;(c) £10,000, if it is the fourth or any subsequent fixed penalty notice so issued.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create a stepped approach to fixed penalty notices based on how many times a person has been issued a notice.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled two amendments in this group, both with the intention of creating a stepped and more proportionate approach to fixed penalty notices, which I feel to be a very draconian measure in the first instance. Under the unamended drafting, the Bill would allow immediate penalties regardless of the scale or context of the offence committed. This is bad practice, contrary to the societal change that is needed if this legislation is to succeed.

Through these amendments, I want to enable enforcement authorities to apply sanctions gradually starting—this is important—with education and warnings for minor or first-time breaches. These would escalate only when non-compliance persists. This is a well-established approach of enforcement that is rooted in fairness. The goal of the Bill should be not to trap small retailers or inadvertent offenders in red tape but to encourage dialogue and corrective measures to be the mantra of our enforcement agencies. This is how you get change and compliance.

The tiered approach that I have outlined through Amendment 74 will build some much-needed credibility into the enforcement clauses of the Bill in a way that keeps the law tough when needed but ensures—this is important—that it is proportionate and, above all, fair. I beg to move the amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group that are in my name—Amendments 78, 86, 88 and 89. Particularly perceptive Members of our Grand Committee will remember that, when they looked at the third Marshalled List, the Minister had signed my Amendment 89. I understood at the time that she had signed it not for the same reason that I tabled it—as we discovered at the last sitting of the Committee, the Minister did not move a whole set of government amendments. We will doubtless return to those issues later.

My amendments are all of a piece. The object is to dive into Clause 38 and remove those parts that relate to money that is received through fines for licensing offences from the hands of the Consolidated Fund to put it into the hands of the local weights and measures authorities or—as we might get to, in due course—the relevant authority, which is the trading standards enforcement authority. My proposition is a terribly simple one: we should prioritise the receipt of resources not only from fixed penalty notices but from the fines imposed for licensing offences and they should be made available to local authorities with trading standards responsible for enforcement.

The background is probably well known to Members of the Grand Committee. Trading standards is operating with substantially fewer members of staff than it did a decade ago. The Local Government Association has warned that trading standards may be unable to fulfil its statutory duties and the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers has warned of a growing gap between its statutory duties and the available resources.

Happily, today we meet with a realisation that this has not inhibited trading standards departments across the country from taking effective action together with the leadership of the National Crime Agency, which reported 2,700 premises—barber shops, vape shops and other trading establishments—operating illegally. Where vaping is concerned, which is our interest here, these are being used as a route for the sale of illegal vapes—without paying the appropriate duty or doing so in due course—including to minors, which is of particular concern for many noble Lords. There is also the employment of staff who are not properly able to work in this country.

A wide range of these issues requires enforcement. My purpose is to try to ensure that the resources that are clearly coming into the system are devoted to trading standards. We know, or at least it is estimated, that trading standards enforcement costs over the next five years will total something like £140 million. We know that the Government have provided a grant of £10 million to support trading standards. There clearly will be an income to local authorities from the fines relating to licensing to the extent that they will be able to recover their direct costs, as well as from the fixed penalty notices. We do not have an authoritative estimate of what that sum will be. If the Minister has a clear estimate of what the sums accruing to local authorities will be, it will give an opportunity to see how much of that £140 million cost over five years is likely to be met from penalties and fines.

This issue was debated in the other place and the Government, as is their wont, resisted the idea that money should be paid to local authorities from these fines, instead of being paid into the Consolidated Fund, because, as the Government put it, they did not want to create a perceived conflict of interest such that the enforcement authorities seemed to have an interest in pursuing fines. We should think of it the other way round. We want enforcement authorities to do their job properly. With these amendments, I am testing the proposition that the Government should increase the support for trading standards officers. If they find a provision that makes the revenue from fines to local authorities too much to bear, I should be supportive of a commitment by the Government—if not at this stage, then later—to assess the gap between the revenue that results from the fines and penalty notices and the costs to local authorities and to meet that gap by Exchequer grant, once they know what the Consolidated Fund revenues from these fines may be.

In addition to that request in principle to the Government, I have been looking at the impact assessment, which says in paragraph 1401:

“A new burdens assessment will be completed to assess costs to local authorities ahead of the Bill being introduced”,


particularly in relation to the enforcement of the new powers relating to vapes. I cannot find the burdens assessment—my research may be inadequate—but what does it say are the costs that need to be met by local government? That too should be something that we assess: to what extent is local government going to receive fixed penalty notices or fines that enable it to meet those costs? We do not want to be constantly adding statutory duties to local authorities without the corresponding resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. We will of course keep these matters under review. I will certainly look again at the impact assessment and at the point made by the noble Lord; I would be happy to write to him further, if needed, once I have had a look at all of that. On his specific point, we will keep an eye on the revenue, but, again— I am not sure that this is exactly the point that the noble Lord made; perhaps I can provide that bit of cover—in our earlier discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, both acknowledged, as I did, that we are not seeking to get enough from fixed penalty notices to fund this. That is not our intention; in fact, we all hope that the revenue will decline as this Bill becomes increasingly successful in its impact. Let us also remember why we have this Bill: to introduce a smoke-free generation and drive down the demand for consumption. That changes the whole landscape. This is literally a generational change. So I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 74.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, nobody in this House would ever dispute the virtues of creating a smoke-free generation and protecting public health, but the reality is that legislation, if we want it to be effective, has to be both practical and enforceable, and it is there that I have real difficulties with this Bill. In the short time I have, I will touch on just one area: the undue burden that is now going to be placed on local councils. We are going to create laws that are ultimately unenforceable and will inadvertently encourage illicit trading and limit our personal freedoms.

On enforcement, we know that trading standards, the police and licensing teams right across the UK are already under-resourced and overstretched. The notion that we can somehow police every corner shop in Britain—all 50,000 of them—and regulate every e-commerce website and cross-border shipment is farcical. Even if we accept the premise of this Bill, which I do not, the Government have yet to properly explain how they plan to adequately enforce it. I might add that the previous Bill, put forward by the Conservative Party, was little better on that point.

We know that when Governments seek to overregulate or ban products outright, if people want those products and are used to getting them, the demand is not eliminated simply by passing an Act. Instead, over- regulation pushes the trade underground, resulting in illicit trades and dangerous counterfeit products entering the market that pose even greater risks to public health than the blueberry vape that somebody wants to buy over the counter at their local convenience store. Who is going to fund the additional staff and resourcing that trading standards teams will require to enforce the clauses of this proposed legislation?

The pressure this Bill will place on local authorities concerns me, because the Government have failed to understand that our councils are already overstretched, thin on the ground and struggling with limited resources. The Bill requires councils to become the front line—the very coalface enforcers of a sprawling new licensing regime for tobacco and vaping products. Anybody with any experience of local authority licensing will tell you that councils are already struggling to cope with existing alcohol licensing. Due to funding and recruitment issues, not to mention severe backlogs in our magistrates’ courts, they are already unable to achieve this.

Do the Government realise that this legislation will require councils to monitor shops, issue licences, carry out inspections, support businesses with training, resolve disputes and take legal action against offenders? If the answer to that is yes, will the Minister explain to the House where this army of enforcement and licensing officers is going to come from and where the funding is? For years, as we have already heard from a previous speaker, the trading standards sector has been making the case that more needs to be done to encourage recruitment and training of new officers. After all, trading standards are currently responsible for enforcing over 300 laws. Given the new burdens placed on trading standards by this Bill, I would like to see the Government commit to investing in the training of qualified trading standards officers through a new and dedicated apprenticeship fund. We must not set up our councils to fail, as we are doing. In the interests of protecting local authorities and strengthening our trading standards teams, I will be seeking to amend the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.

I further fear that the Bill is a grave attack on personal freedom and liberty. Sadly, it represents another step in the creep of the nanny state. As it stands, the Bill erodes personal freedoms, makes life harder for small business owners and places undue burdens on local councils, all without addressing the root cause of vaping and tobacco use. If the Government are serious about creating a smoke-free generation, they should note that education and support work carried out by public health is the way forward, not prohibition.

Finally, is it really the Government’s intention to ignore the ancient principle of equality under the law? For if left unamended, the Bill will result in individuals born just a day apart having permanently different rights. I believe that the duty of Parliament, and indeed of this House, is to preserve equality under the law, and therefore I cannot support this.

Covid-19: Vaccinations for School Pupils

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on what actions the Government have taken to protect school pupils and teaching staff from the reckless behaviour and damaging misinformation being propagated by anti-vax protesters?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very important point, which I know a number of other noble Lords have also raised. In a free society, we have to get the balance right between freedom of speech and ensuring that people have a right to say even those things with which we may disagree fundamentally, while ensuring that misinformation is not spread. The department has now provided information and guidance to schools on how to handle any misinformation, and who to contact if there are protests which step beyond the line of acceptability and contravene the law. The police now have comprehensive power to deal with the activities, especially those which spread hate or deliberately raise tensions through violence or public disorder. I am sure many people will be aware of the attacks on vaccination centres in Truro in October and in north Wales and at the Bromley Civic Centre earlier this month. That was going way too far on freedom of speech, and we want to make sure that we deal with the people who take part in these acts.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking this decisive decision to start getting the country back to normal, and in particular, to start getting the economy back to normal. Of course, this could not have been done without the success of the vaccine rollout. All that goes back to last March and April, when some very decisive decisions were made. The Prime Minister made it clear on a number of occasions that the way out would be vaccination.

I urge the Minister to go a little further and start getting the Government back into their offices in Whitehall and elsewhere and start helping those businesses which are so dependent upon our town centres—and, indeed, even this Whitehall area—to get them back together. I also urge him to start looking at the traffic light system, especially as Germany has now opened its borders to India. Now is the time to start trusting the vaccines.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I completely concur with my noble friend’s analysis. This is an opportunity for the economy to bounce back, and I am really encouraged by everything I hear from the private sector in terms of the energy, enthusiasm and resilience of the UK economy. The large number of people who will be holidaying at home this summer provides one shot in the arm for the hospitality industry, which I know it is taking advantage of.

When it comes to borders, we have to be careful. One does not like to think about it, but the existence of millions and millions of people with the disease today means that the possibility of further variants has to be on the agenda. That is why we take it one step at a time, and I pay tribute to those in Border Force and the managed quarantine scheme for the work they have done. It is ironic that the variant delta, which started in India, is now so prevalent in the UK that it is possible to think about India coming off the red list. But there are variants elsewhere that we have to be wary of.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Baroness points very well to exactly the kind of challenge that we face at the moment. She is entirely right that conditions such as arthritis and rheumatology require complex combinations and collaboration between many different staff, as well as the application of new and effective treatments and therapies. That is exactly where we are working hard to catch up. I will go back to the apartment, dig out any statistics I can and write to her accordingly.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, waiting lists were too long pre the pandemic and there are now some 6 million people awaiting treatment of one kind or another, many of them in a lot of pain and discomfort. The National Health Service has learned a lot during the pandemic. Will the Minister publish how he intends to speed up the treatment that these people need? Can he also advise whether he routinely uses his private email with his contacts?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the publication of NHS plans around the catch-up is happening on a regular basis, and there will indeed be further communication from the NHS on this. On the use of private email, I reassure noble Lords that I have read and signed the ministerial code and I seek to uphold it in everything I do.