Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the characteristically clear way in which she has opened this debate. As she indicated, the Bill in large measure replicates a Bill introduced in the other place towards the end of the last Parliament. Speaking as someone who helped take through some important anti-smoking legislation during my time in the Department of Health, I begin by saying that the overall aims the Minister has set out for this measure are ones I fully subscribe to.

Some little time has of course passed since I occupied the Minister’s departmental seat and, in the intervening years, we have seen the rise of vaping as an alternative form of nicotine consumption, sometimes as a perfectly valid means of quitting smoking, but increasingly as a habit adopted by non-smokers leading directly to nicotine addiction. I am therefore the first to say that I share the Minister’s acute concern about this trend, which is in part caused by the numbers of young people taking up vaping who have not previously smoked.

The Bill therefore has some laudable aims and some welcome aspects. In the spirit of similarly motivated legislation going back over the past 25 years, it is surely our duty as legislators to look for ways to discourage smoking, to protect those who do not smoke from second-hand smoke and to prevent children accessing tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products as if they were toys or fashion accessories. It is right too, while we are about it, to look at the wider dimensions of the issue, such as the sale of non-nicotine vapes, as well as other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. The Bill before us takes us into all these areas.

At the same time, there are two crucial tests that legislation of this kind needs to pass. They are tests that Parliament has rightly applied to all previous anti-smoking measures: the tests of proportionality and practicality. Much of what we shall need to debate in Committee and beyond will revolve around those two tests, where there is often a delicate balance to be struck—for example, the balance between personal freedoms and health gain, between health gain and business burdens, and between business burdens and free enterprise. Par excellence, in this particular area, we are dealing with another balance that threads its way through all the others: the balance of probabilities around human behaviour.

This Bill bears the same name as the one introduced by the previous Government and shares many of the same features. It is nevertheless substantially different. It will not therefore surprise the Minister to know that there are aspects to it which we shall wish to explore, to question and, in some cases, to directly challenge.

I mention first the most egregious. The Bill before us contains no fewer than 66 delegated powers, which is double the number present in the previous iteration. This should concern us. Whether one supports the main principles of the Bill or not, it cannot be right to condone a legislative model that leaves large swathes of policy areas with scant detail to be amplified later by ministerial decision.

It is not simply the volume of issues to which the regulation-making powers relate; it is also the nature of those issues. When the Bill was reintroduced, it transpired that the Government had inserted a new Part 7, permitting the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers to designate, by regulations, anywhere that is open to the public as smoke-free, including outdoor areas, and to designate any smoke-free place as vape and heated tobacco-free, once again by regulations.

I recall the debates that we had in the House in 2006 on the Health Bill, which banned smoking in all indoor settings and on public transport. I supported that ban from the Front Bench on the grounds that there had recently been conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke indoors posed a serious health risk to those who chose not to smoke. That policy has indeed stood the test of time.

What is less clear-cut is whether there is significant health value in removing the proportionality of the Health Act 2006, which requires the Secretary of State to apply the test of the risk to a person of inhaling “significant quantities of smoke” when deciding where to designate as smoke-free. There was a very good reason for that: it struck a balance between the public health concerns associated with second-hand smoke exposure and the rights of people who wish to smoke. It was deemed to be the correct and most proportionate test. The Government have decided to do away with that. I must simply ask: why?

The Bill’s delegated powers extend to other areas. Part 5 grants the Secretary of State significant power to regulate the features, retail packaging and content of not just tobacco products, which the Secretary of State can already regulate, but all vaping and nicotine products. I do not disagree that there are a number of novel products that should see greater regulation. Nicotine pouches, for example, can currently be sold at extraordinarily high strengths of nicotine, with some being sold online containing 30, 50 or even 100 milligrams of nicotine per pouch. This certainly should be regulated. The problem is that we do not know how these extensive powers will be exercised. What do the Government have in mind? Why can we not see some specific proposals in the Bill? The Minister would have been the first to jump on this kind of open-ended drafting when in opposition.

I have a particular concern around packaging, which is one instance where issues of proportionality rear their heads. Clause 89 grants the Secretary of State expanded powers to regulate retail packaging. The packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco has been heavily regulated for some time, and with good reason. Up to now, though, there have been exemptions for the packaging of cigars and pipe tobacco products. They were exempted from the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 and the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. There were also some exemptions for these products in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Over the years there have been several consultations, all of which have supported the continuation of the exemption. I am not aware of any cogent argument to persuade me that it should now be abandoned. This is certainly something that we shall wish to question at later stages.

The Bill also includes the power to restrict the flavour of nicotine products, and the Government have signalled that they are considering banning certain flavours of vaping liquids. On the face of it, this may seem a reasonable proposal, bearing in mind the troubling rise in youth vaping. The problem here, though, is one of perverse consequences. There is increasingly strong evidence that access to a variety of flavours is a key factor contributing to smokers making the switch to vaping and then not going back to cigarettes. During the Public Bill Committee in the other place, Louise Ross, who launched the world’s first stop smoking service, wrote in her submission:

“Flavours are really important to adult users of the products, whether new users or those who are staying smokefree with a vape”.


She added that those who use vaping products report it is flavours that

“stopped them from going back to cigarettes, which they found tasted terrible after a few weeks of vaping”.

Evidence of that kind should give us pause, before we go hurtling into a ban on what some see as no more than a tempting gimmick to trap unsuspecting teenagers. Once again, we can dig deeper into these questions in Committee.

This leads me to advertising. As noble Lords will know, tobacco advertising has been banned in this country for many years and, although difficult to prove, there seems little doubt that the ban has played its part in bringing about the marked fall in smoking prevalence that we have seen over the past 10 to 15 years. So, if you want to reduce rates of youth vaping—as most right-minded people wish to do—it is only natural to look closely at the idea of extending the advertising ban to vaping products. However, the difficulty with that idea is, once again, the risk of unintended consequences. There is a danger that Part 6, which would ban advertising on all vape and nicotine products in all scenarios, may turn out to work against the valid efforts of the NHS to encourage smokers to give up cigarettes. It is telling that the Government’s own impact assessment for this Bill admits that the ban on vape advertising could lead to more people smoking for longer. It says:

“Whilst smoking prevalence in the UK has been falling for many years, the risk of this policy is that the potential health gains from reduced vaping consumption, could be offset by a slowing of smoking cessation at a societal level”.


So what is the right response? The Government’s manifesto contains a commitment to ban the advertising of vaping products to children, and most of us, I am sure, are deeply uncomfortable with the thought that there are vaping products on the market that have been designed to appeal specifically to young people. Therefore, this is a situation that requires a nuanced and proportionate response. Surely to goodness, adults who use vapes as a smoking-cessation tool should still be able to access information that allows them to make informed decisions on the products they purchase. There could and should be some room for controlled advertising of nicotine products to be permitted in relevant settings within the NHS, in pharmacies, at the point of sale and, potentially, in other retail settings such as specialist vaping shops, in the same way that specialist tobacconists are exempted from tobacco advertising bans. We shall return to this issue in Committee.

This is a further example of how certain aspects of the Bill could hamper the commendable progress we have made in this country on reducing smoking prevalence. It would surely be madness if we allowed this Bill, which is expressly designed to bear down on the incidence of smoking, to unintentionally have the opposite effect. We absolutely must guard against that.

Finally, I turn to the proposal set out in the Bill to introduce a licensing regime for the sale of tobacco and nicotine products. While many have welcomed this as a practical method of dealing with enforcement, many column inches have been devoted to the practicability of an age-verification scheme that will be not just about the need to distinguish a 17 year-old from an 18 year-old; as time passes, it will require retailers to check the ages of people in much older age brackets, so as to distinguish a 37 year-old from a 38 year-old. I do not propose to dwell on this issue now —we can do so, as necessary, at later stages—because there is a much more immediate problem to occupy us.

Once again, the licensing regime is to be established by regulations. This means that we do not yet know any details of what the regime might look like or how it might be implemented. If you are a retailer, this really matters. There is a certain amount of detail in Schedule 1, but the phraseology is, I am afraid, rather vague. The regulations to establish a licensing scheme “may” make

“provision limiting the number of licensed premises”

in a particular area; they

“may make provision about the duration … of licences”;

and they

“may … enable a licensing authority to attach conditions”—

any conditions—“to a licence”. I suppose those are clues, but what will this licensing scheme actually look like? We simply do not know.

The Bill permits the licensing authority to “charge a fee” for an application for a tobacco and nicotine licence. How much might it charge? We do not know. What will be the upper limit that can be charged? Again, we do not know. Will retailers be required to apply for a tobacco licence separately from a nicotine licence or an alcohol licence and be charged for all three? We do not know.

In its written evidence submission to the Public Bill Committee, the Association of Convenience Stores said:

“If the licensing fees replicated the same rates as the alcohol licensing scheme for the convenience sector, we estimate it would result in an additional cost of £11.4 million per year initial sign up and £10.4 million for annual renewal fees for convenience retailers”.


These sums of money represent additional costs at a time when, as I think we all recognise, small retailers simply cannot afford them. The association went on to say that the proposed ID requirements were a major concern and that retailers were already stretched thin trying to manage age verification effectively with current regulations. It said that adding another layer of complexity with the potential for increased fines and penalties would simply make it harder for convenience stores to do their job and increase the likelihood of honest mistakes happening. These are real concerns that retailers have. They are not concerns fed to us from the tobacco industry or the vaping industry; they are concerns relayed to Parliament by the very people that this Bill will impact the most.

In preparing for this Bill, I reread part of our proceedings on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, way back in 2001, when I asked the Minister to accept that there was no difference between us on the end we had in view, which was to reduce the prevalence of smoking, particularly among young people. I repeat that assurance today, and I would add an assurance on youth vaping.

It is indeed our duty to protect the health and well-being of everyone in our United Kingdom. However, we must never forget that it is possible for Governments to champion those worthy aims by imposing regulation and burdens that are disproportionate to the good that they will do, or that, in our desire to change the law for the better, we pay too little regard to the law of unintended consequences.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we were talking about the issue of one person almost the same age as another person having less freedom of choice. The point is that once you are addicted to nicotine, your freedom of choice is extremely limited, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Northover. She gave the example of her nephew, who found it extremely difficult to give up. My late mother-in-law was in the same position. She tried to give up smoking until she died—and she died of smoking, sadly.

It is very important that we have a robust system of enforcement. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling us about it, and what future measures the Government might take to reduce the number of illicit cigarettes—although I am told that it has declined by about 90% since 2000. One or two noble Lords mentioned the case in Australia. The fact is that it was a lack of robust enforcement that caused the problem in Australia. Despite that, the amount of people smoking has indeed gone down—but I agree with noble Lords who say that we need strong enforcement. When it comes to a smoker who, let us say, is my age, or who will be my age in many years’ time, who needs to provide some kind of ID, as long as it is not absolutely mandated, I am sure that some form of ID will be devised by clever people for those aged 82, and it will not be very difficult for them; they will just be able to do it, and that will sort that problem out altogether.

As noble Lords might have gathered, I support the Government’s generational approach to reaching the point of a smoke-free Britain. It is a public health crisis, as is obesity, on which the Government also need to take action. Lots of amendments are coming up about various aspects that have been mentioned today, such as age-gating, which we will discuss in greater detail. This has been a very extensive and passionate debate. I must say that I find myself a little surprised that so many of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party are so against what the Government are trying to do achieve his ambition. However, I shall leave it at that.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for bringing forward the amendments in his name, because he has allowed us to begin this Committee by engaging with one of the central and, dare I say, most controversial pillars of this Bill: the generational smoking ban. It is fitting that we start with this big policy issue, because the clause goes to the very heart of what the Government are seeking to do in creating what they describe as a smoke-free generation.

Before I turn to the points made in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which we are discussing the Bill—and a number of noble Lords have underlined that context. Smoking remains the single biggest entirely preventable cause of illness, disability and death in our country. It kills some 80,000 people each year. It costs our NHS and social care systems more than £3 billion annually. Someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute. It shortens lives, it devastates families, and it deepens inequality. Yet, as we debate this issue, we can recognise that, happily, the direction of travel is positive. Smoking rates have been falling: in 1990, nearly one in three adults smoked, but, today, that figure stands at just above one in 10. The number of children who smoke is falling as well.

Those are not arguments for complacency or for not legislating, but nor are they arguments for legislating carelessly. My noble friend Lord Murray asked some pertinent questions for the Minister to answer, in particular on the Windsor Framework and the dangers of a burgeoning illicit market, but, more generally, he was surely right to challenge the Government to explain exactly how the generational ban will operate. I say that he is right, because the proposal will represent a profound shift in how the law treats adults. It will, for the first time, make a permanent legal distinction between two adults, based solely on their dates of birth. One person aged 35, say, will be permitted to buy a legal product, while another person aged 34 will put a tobacconist in criminal jeopardy for selling him precisely the same product.

I emphasise that I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless, serious practical questions arise from that distinction, quite apart from the questions around discrimination throughout this Bill, to which we need—I say this to the Minister—to face up. Some of those questions have already been foreshadowed by my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Moylan but, as a starter, let me pick up the question of enforcement, which came up in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. How exactly do the Government intend these measures to be policed? How much responsibility will fall on shopkeepers, how much on trading standards and how much on the police?

Then there is the impact on retailers. How will small and independent retailers be supported to implement the new age checks and avoid inadvertent breaches of the law? Are we just going to leave them to cope as best as they can? Importantly, there is also the question of public understanding. How will the Government communicate to the public, especially younger adults, that some people of more or less the same age may face entirely different legal restrictions?

Can the Minister confirm one point of detail, which we discussed in our meetings on the Bill ahead of Committee? Will a person born on or after 1 January 2009 be permitted to sell tobacco products to someone born before that date? In other words, will someone who is themselves legally prohibited from purchasing tobacco still be able to serve or sell such products to others who remain entitled to buy them? That may seem a minor question, but it is one of the many practical questions that shopkeepers and retailers are already asking. The answer will affect staffing and hiring practices. What age will an employee of a tobacconist have to be to handle tobacco sales? Those are not arguments against the generational ban, but I hope that the Minister can address these concerns in her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate in different ways to age verification and the role of retailers and how these new rules will be implemented, monitored, enforced and supported in practice. I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and—through the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for their thoughtful and varied contributions. Noble Lords have raised from different angles the same essential question: how can we make sure that the Bill works, not just in principle but in practice, and that those on the front line of enforcement are properly supported in the roles that they perform?

I start with Amendments 3 and 17 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, which would ensure that any regulations specifying methods of age verification were made under the affirmative resolution procedure and would implement a greater age threshold during the interim period. I fully support my noble friend. These regulations should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. The powers that we are talking about are far from minor; they will determine how retailers verify a customer’s age, what technologies can be used and what systems are deemed compliant. The verification methods will be central to the success and fairness of the new regime, and it is therefore right that they should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny before coming into force, not least because the technology in this space is evolving rapidly and the decisions that the Government make on this front will have real implications for retailers and enforcement bodies as well as consumers. I suggest that it is becoming even more important, given the Government’s announcement around a national digital ID.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I turn next to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, which would introduce requirements and provide enabling powers for age-verification technology to be built into vaping devices themselves. This proposal opens up all sorts of interesting avenues of thought. The idea of age-gating devices, using technology to prevent use by those who are underage, is innovative by any standards. As we heard from my noble friend, there is already at least one technology that would facilitate this; like him, I am led by the manufacturers to understand that it has been successfully trialled in the United States.

There could be distinct advantages to such a system: it would close a loophole that rogue sellers currently exploit; it would be more effective as a way of reducing the incidence of underage vaping; it could avoid unpleasant confrontations in retail stores, about which we know retailers are very worried; and, as my noble friend said, it would not affect the way in which adults use vapes as a way of quitting smoking. From the Government’s point of view, an amendment along the lines of my noble friend’s would act as a form of future-proofing the Bill, because it would enable them to regulate the technology in devices or packaging— a power that this Bill does not currently give them. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered systems of this kind and whether officials are aware of developments in this field?

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, which calls for a review of age-verification methods. The Committee will be grateful to him for raising this idea; it links into my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, but it also speaks to the crucial principle that we must remain properly informed about how these measures will work in practice. This Bill introduces a major new regulatory framework, so it has to be monitored and tested against real-world evidence. Age verification will, as I have said, be central to the Bill’s success, so we need credible and accurate systems to facilitate it. The noble Viscount is therefore right to emphasise the need to engage directly with those on the front line: the retailers who will have to implement these rules every day. Their experience will be one of the best indicators of whether the system is working as intended.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seek to place a statutory requirement on businesses to operate age-verification policies in England and Wales. These are well-intentioned amendments, and we share entirely the objective of preventing underage sales. However, as I read it, the Bill as drafted already makes it an offence to sell tobacco or vaping products to anyone below the legal age and provides for a due diligence defence for retailers who have taken all reasonable precautions. In practice, that means having and enforcing an age-verification policy, which is the very outcome that these amendments seek to achieve. The familiar Challenge 25 model is already a well-established part of a range of retailer compliance. So, although we understand and respect the motivation behind these amendments, we do not believe that it is necessary to restate these duties in the Bill.

I welcome the amendment from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which would prohibit the online sale of tobacco products. This raises serious and timely questions around enforcement, fairness and the protection of legitimate retailers. My noble friend put his case very well. Online sales prevent a potential route for illicit or underage trade; as purchasing habits continue to shift online, that risk will surely only increase. We therefore see every benefit in exploring whether a prohibition or stricter control of online sales is appropriate.

If I were to voice a caveat, which I am sure my noble friend would not object to, it would be that we must always ensure that law-abiding retailers—those who comply with the law and operate responsibly—are not disadvantaged. Any new regulation has to be clear, enforceable and fair. The central question here is: has the Minister given any thought to this issue? If so, what capacity do the Government have to enforce a measure such as the one suggested by my noble friend? What mechanisms exist to distinguish legitimate traders from those operating illicitly? Can we control online sales in the way we would like to do? I am sure that the Minister will be the first to recognise that, if unregulated online trade becomes a loophole—indeed, it already is—it will seriously undermine the objectives of the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important topics of age verification and online sales. I am grateful to all noble Lords for not just their contributions but the intent behind these amendments—an intent that I have heard as being presented to assist the Bill. I am grateful for noble Lords’ considerations; I have certainly heard the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to a number of these amendments.

I turn to Amendments 24 and 25 tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is not able to be in his place. We wish him well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for presenting these amendments, which would introduce a requirement for a person carrying on a business selling tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products, in England or Wales, to operate an age-verification policy. I certainly welcome the intention to prevent underage sales and to express a view—as I have heard not just from the noble Baroness but from other noble Lords—about supporting retailers to do the job that we are asking of them. I associate myself with that, but we believe that the Bill’s current provisions are sufficient in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to my noble friend Lady Northover’s amendment on communications strategy. One of the ways in which the Government need to invest is in an effective communications strategy. Over the years, tobacco manufacturers have spent millions on advertising their products—much of it misleading, such as the earlier claims on the so-called health benefits of filters; although that has stopped now, some people still believe it. So it is time to turn the tables and invest in making people aware of the dangers, for both health and personal wealth, of smoking. For young people, perhaps the most effective communication will be if some celebrities and influencers whom they admire and with whom they identify could be persuaded to make it uncool to smoke; that is what I would like to see contained in a communications strategy.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group engage with some of the central questions in the Bill: how can we reach a smoke-free future? Also, how is that process to be monitored, communicated and, in some cases, accelerated?

I begin with the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, which would require the Government to publish regular reports setting out a road map to a smoke-free United Kingdom, together with a communications plan, to support the implementation of a smoke-free generation policy. We on these Benches welcome the principle that underpins these amendments; they are thoughtful, constructive and rooted in the simple but vital idea that Parliament’s responsibility does not end when a Bill becomes law. Once legislation is enacted, our duty of oversight begins. A five-yearly report outlining the Government’s road map—including interim targets and data disaggregated by region, age and demographic group—would help provide a picture of how well the Act was working and enable Parliament to see whether progress was genuinely being made, particularly among communities where smoking rates remain stubbornly high.

Equally, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which would require a communications plan, is extremely sensible. The success of the Government’s policy will depend as much on public understanding as on the legal framework itself. People must know what is changing, why it is changing and what the benefits are. I made this point earlier but, if the policy is to succeed to the maximum extent, it must carry consent—and that consent depends on clarity and effective communication from the Government. If we are to measure the success of the policy honestly, we also need to assess not just how far smoking rates have fallen but whether the problem has simply been pushed underground, and we need to do so at regular intervals.

I shall cover briefly the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, which would establish a universal prohibition on the sale of tobacco products from 2040. My noble friend made a closely argued case. I recognise his sincere commitment to public health and his aim is admirable; notwithstanding that, I am afraid that I cannot support his amendment. The Government’s generational approach, for all its complexity, is precisely that: generational. It is designed to allow the harmful habit of smoking to decline naturally as fewer people take it up. The goal of a smoke-free future is the same but it is achieved through prevention and behavioural change, not a single act of prohibition.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of our Benches, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 12. I also support Amendment 148, of course, although my name is not on it yet; I have a bit of a track record on changing “may” to “must”, so I am very much in favour of that amendment.

As my noble friend said, the tobacco industry sits on a rich source of data that would help public health planners and practitioners to plan and deliver public health smoking cessation services in a granular way. That could help to reduce inequalities, so my noble friend’s Amendments 12 and 148 are no-brainers for the Government in the fight against health inequality, which I know they are in favour of winning. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, if you have the data, you have a powerful weapon; the industry uses it and the Government should have it.

The data would also shine a light on the massive profits of the tobacco companies, which saw the writing on the wall about the decline of tobacco smoking and shifted part of their business model to hooking young people and existing smokers into being addicted to their nicotine vaping products instead. They then surrounded them with brightly coloured packaging, attractive-sounding flavours and masses of expensive advertising. One has to wonder why they spend so much money on advertising and the attractive displays in my local village shops. Ah, yes—it must be because that enables them to hook people to their profitable products for life.

These profits are addressed in Amendment 192 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and in my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 194, which I also support. Both amendments propose a levy on the profits of tobacco companies. Tobacco and the nicotine it contains are uniquely harmful products, which is why they should be treated in this way. They are highly addictive for some people from their very first use, by the way; that is sometimes ignored. Tobacco kills more than 76,000 people in England every year—that is almost as many as were killed by Covid in just one year, in 2020—and the four manufacturers that are responsible for most of the UK’s tobacco sales make excessive profits that require regulation. It has been said that they make an estimated profit of £900 million a year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%; as my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, most manufacturers of other goods are quite satisfied with an average of 10%. Yet those companies currently pay very little corporation tax in the UK. The tobacco tax of £6.8 billion that they pay does not even scratch the surface of the harm they do; as has been pointed out, that tax is paid by the consumer and not by the producer.

In other areas of society, polluters are required to avoid and minimise pollution and to pay to clean it up. Tobacco companies make no effort to do either. In other monopoly situations, such as energy supply, the Government intervene, yet tobacco companies get away scot free, despite the fact that their products cost the NHS £1.82 billion annually and the ill health caused by them causes major suffering to individuals and families; they also have a major effect on productivity and the economy, costing society in England £43.7 billion a year.

Given this Government’s objectives on growth, I would have thought that a “polluter pays” tobacco levy would be very popular with them, as it is with the general public, 76% of whom support the policy. It could raise up to £700 million per year to fund vital smoking cessation and wider public health activities, as my noble friend Lord Russell suggests in his amendment. It could prevent industry manipulating prices to undermine the health aims of tobacco taxes. A levy would make tobacco less profitable in the UK and reduce industry incentives to lobby against government actions to achieve a smoke-free country. I know that they are very clever lobbyists. Although I trust that this Government will resist such lobbying, this would ensure that the cost burden of taxes is not shifted to consumers because a levy alongside a cap on manufacturer pricing would prevent manufacturers passing the costs on to consumers.

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, alongside obesity caused by poor diet. Investing in the resources raised by the levy to help smokers quit, as in Amendment 194, will support the Government’s ambitions to halve the difference in healthy life expectancy and shift healthcare from treatment to prevention, an ambition outlined strongly in the Government’s 10-year health plan.

These amendments are very much in line with what the Government want. I hope that they will have the courage to accept them. The key principle is that the revenue to tackle the harms of tobacco should come from the industry, not the poor, addicted and often sick consumer, and the cost of the damage caused by tobacco should certainly not come from the taxpayer.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses common themes: the regulation of the tobacco industry, its profits and its reporting obligations. Collectively, these raise important questions about transparency, fairness, proportionality and the limits of state intervention.

Beginning with Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, these concern the provision and publication of information by tobacco manufacturers and importers. We recognise the intent behind these amendments: to improve the quality and availability of data so that public health policy can be better informed. Data, transparency and evidence-based policy-making are essential to an effective tobacco control strategy. However, would these amendments enable us to achieve that? Requiring every manufacturer and importer to publish detailed quarterly sales data broken down by product type, brand and region would give us more information, but how useful would it be? The Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already have access to significant data from HMRC such as market surveys and other reporting systems. The question usefully begged by this amendment is whether there are any gaps in that data that could usefully be filled.

This brings me to Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seeks to change Clause 95 so that the Secretary of State “must” rather than “may” make regulations requiring producers and importers to provide information about their products. I would like an answer to my earlier question before I jump one way or the other on that amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which she has tabled it. Having more data would certainly be useful, but we need to know exactly what data before we compel companies across the board to do one thing or another. It is generally better to provide Ministers with flexibility, allowing them to act where there is a clear and proportionate need, without imposing automatic or universal obligations on every business regardless of its size or nature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I appreciate the noble Earl’s point about duties versus levies. Might he be open to considering a percentage of duties being hypothecated for smoking cessation? Might that be a way of squaring the circle?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It certainly could be—it sounds a very interesting way forward. I did not take it that the noble Earl was suggesting introducing a levy as a substitute for tobacco duty but as an addition to it, so, in the nature of things, if this were accepted, that is the mix we would get.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.

Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.

I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.

I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.

Moving on to Amendment 12—

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 18 is a different matter. I trust it is a probing amendment, and I look forward to hearing how the Government plan to deal with the issue that it raises. There are currently a number of mental health trusts using vending machines to provide vapes as part of their smoking cessation services. Without an exemption to the vending machine ban for this purpose, the Government need to bring forward clear guidance that can deal fairly with this situation, since mental health trust premises will not be licensed premises under the regime currently being proposed. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that amendment as well.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

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

[Earl Howe (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, if the nicotine contained in the vapes is not extracted from tobacco, where is it coming from?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord, with his compendious knowledge, can enlighten us on that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

It comes from tobacco.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the clarification that the noble Earl has made. If that is the case, though, I have to say that that would send a complex pricing message to people, and we are not seeking to add complexity to where we are going. I am not sure I agree with the analysis but I am happy to look at the point that he is making.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the noble Earl that we are already acting to pick up the point that he rightly raised and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was keen to emphasise, which is to ensure that vapes are not sold for pocket-money prices. Indeed, the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty from 1 October 2026. That will set out a single flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres on all vaping liquids, and it will be accompanied by a simultaneous one-off increase in the rate for tobacco duties.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points about the environmental damage done by vapes. I will be pleased to hear and respond to the debate in the next group about single-use vaping.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about vapes being prescribed as a quit aid. We have a world-first scheme here, Swap to Stop, to help adults to ditch cigarettes as part of a 12-week programme of support, as I highlighted earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would prohibit businesses from providing free samples of tobacco and vaping products. The noble Baroness said herself that Clause 15 already bans the free distribution of any product or coupon that has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers, and that includes free samples. It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could have been legally handed out for free, and I am glad to say that the Bill closes that loophole. Clause 15 also states that products cannot be sold at a substantial discount, which will ensure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point where the price is no longer such a relevant factor for a prospective purchaser. So the noble Baroness is quite right to seek to close that loophole, and I am grateful to her for raising the issue, but I can confirm that the Bill already achieves her intention.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

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

[Earl Howe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, shines a spotlight on a fascinating question: when is a reusable vape not a reusable vape? The ban on single-use vapes came into force on 1 June this year, as we have heard. Single-use or disposable vapes are clearly defined in the guidance: they are vapes which are not designed or not intended to be reused. For all the reasons given by the noble Earl, especially the environmental reasons, that ban is soundly based. A reusable vape is one that possesses two key features: it must have a battery which can be recharged and the e-liquid container—that is, the cartridge or the pod—can be either refilled or replaced with a separately sold item, which is where the amendment comes in.

The regulation explicitly states that a device is not refillable or reusable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. In other words, the law at present tries to capture in the definition of a disposable vape all devices that look and function like a disposable vape. So far, I hope, so clear, but as we have heard from the noble Earl, this leads on the ground to some grey areas of interpretation. A vaping device may be packaged in such a way as to claim that it is intended to work with replaceable pods—and hence that it should be classed as refillable and reusable. In practice, however, that claim can sometimes be a fiction. If, in reality, the replacement pods are not readily available for purchase separately, the device is at risk of falling foul of the legal description of a reusable vape. Enforcement authorities will also check whether the battery is genuinely rechargeable and whether a replaceable heating coil is genuinely replaceable.

More and more reports suggest that in some shops, replacement pods are either not available at all or are in very short supply. Furthermore, so-called reusable devices are priced similarly to the former disposable vapes. The net effect is that the user is tacitly encouraged to throw away the entire device, including the battery and the pod, once they have finished using it. Functionally, the supposed reusable vape has become a disposable vape.

The question therefore is: is there a need to change the definition of what counts as a disposable vape? The noble Earl suggests in his amendment that part of the answer is to ban pre-filled single-use vaping pods. The problem with that suggestion is that some vaping devices properly classified as reusable devices genuinely depend on the supply of replacement single-use pods and are thereby genuinely reusable. Banning all single-use pods would mean removing those types of reusable vaping devices from the market, a step which, on the face of things, appears rather severe.

What, therefore, is to be done? If it is true that many devices currently on the market technically tick the box of being refillable or reusable but in practice behave like disposables, how are we to address that loophole? Is the answer to reframe the regulations, or does the answer lie in intelligent enforcement by local authorities and trading standards? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

That point links neatly to the second amendment in this group, Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which I think makes a sensible and pragmatic case, pace the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to whom I listened very carefully. In introducing further regulations in this area, we would be well advised to take stock of the prohibitions that have already been introduced and examine their impact in practice. The single-use vape ban that came into force on 1 June provides us with an opportunity to do that. We will no doubt debate at later stages the regulation-making powers designed to control flavours, and so on. I align myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in wanting to tread cautiously, reflecting on how the single-use ban came in as quickly as it did and whether some unintended consequences have ensued from it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the debate on this group of amendments. I will start with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to ban all “pre-filled single-use vaping pods”.

We understand the concerns being raised about the environmental harms of single-use products. The ban that was introduced by Defra came into force on 1 June, which was not so long ago. Under that ban, vapes must be rechargeable and refillable, while any coil must be replaceable. A vape is not considered refillable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. Pre-filled pods that can be replaced are therefore not captured, to the points raised by a number of noble Lords, as the ban focuses on tackling the greatest environmental harms. Those are posed by batteries and the surrounding elements contained in the vapes. I acknowledge that vaping creates waste; that is true when users fill up a tank or pod themselves using refill bottles, as the noble Earl described, as well as when pre-filled pods are used.

However, to minimise the environmental impact, since April 2024 it has been compulsory for all businesses selling vapes and vape products, including pods, to provide their customers with a recycling bin and to arrange for these products to be collected by a verified recycling service. I hope that makes a helpful contribution in answering the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Since this obligation came into force, some 10,500 vape takeback bins have been introduced into stores. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and will consider the environmental impact of any new vaping regulations brought in using the powers in this Bill.

I hear the concerns about the appeal of single-use pods to children. The Bill contains powers to regulate vape devices. Importantly, we have recently launched a call for evidence that seeks information on the role that different sizes, shapes and features of devices play in the appeal of vaping to young audiences. As part of that, we would welcome evidence on any types of vaping device that particularly appeal to children. I assure the Committee that we will use the evidence to inform future proposals on potential restrictions to devices.

Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to place additional requirements on the Secretary of State before regulations can be made on contents and flavour. I note that part of these requirements involves evaluating the impacts of the ban on single-use vapes, which came into force on 1 June. Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and a post-implementation review will be undertaken in line with statutory obligations.

Turning to the impact of future restrictions on contents and flavour, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for smokers seeking to quit. We will therefore consider the scope of restrictions very carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking rates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for her contribution on this group.

As I said, to support all this, the call for evidence was launched on 8 October. It includes questions about the role of flavours, their contents and the associated risks. I assure noble Lords that before any restrictions are introduced on contents and flavours, we will conduct an impact assessment. We will also undertake a consultation on our policy proposals, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. I hope that this response allows noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from whom we will hear later, address the details of a licensing scheme, which could, I believe, be better worked out during consultation and are better put in regulations than on the face of the Bill.

I think there are problems with the suggestion that there should be a joint alcohol and tobacco products licence—as superficially attractive as that may sound. This is for two reasons. The first is practical; there are plenty of retailers who sell both ranges of products, but there are plenty who do not, including some small shops and specialist vaping retailers. Let us not overcomplicate this by having several kinds of licence: joint and single.

The second reason is even more serious, because the objectives of the two schemes are not the same. The objective of the tobacco and vapes licencing scheme should be public health. Indeed, that is the main justification for the generational ban and other restrictive aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, public health was not the objective of the design of the original alcohol licence, and things are set to get worse—which I will come to. Therefore, there are issues about putting the two together.

On Amendment 35, there is a case for restricting the density of tobacco and vapes licensed premises in a local area on public health grounds. Local authorities already have the powers to limit the density of fast-food outlets in certain areas, such as near schools, on the basis that the food they sell is often high in fat, salt and sugars, and is energy dense. Why should local authorities not have the same powers for the density of shops selling tobacco and its various products? Therefore, I oppose Amendment 35. Density is better decided by the local licensing authority, which knows and understands its own area. It is not something that should be on the face of the Bill but something that should be considered in consultation.

I turn now to Amendments 30 and 42. The Government have recently launched a rapid consultation on alcohol licensing, led by an industry task force that would see “growth” incorporated as an objective of the revised scheme, rather than public health. Its recommendations have been warmly welcomed by the Government, but I would advise caution, especially in the light of calls for joint tobacco and alcohol licences today. It is true that hospitality outlets can be important for people’s well-being and community cohesion and often provide economic benefits to local communities. However, many of them rely nowadays more on the sale of meals than on just alcohol and provide an opportunity for family outings. The implication by the industry in the recommendations of the task force is that people cannot enjoy themselves unless they are consuming alcohol. That is, of course, a nonsense suggestion. By the way, each of the three working groups was led by a senior member of the industry and there was no representation on the task force from the Department of Health and Social Care or public health bodies, despite public health acting as the responsible authority for local licensing committees.

The task force report defines the core purpose of licensing as economic enablement and sets out a series of mechanisms to promote that approach. The foreword in the Government’s response, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only describes licensed hospitality as “foundational” to the UK economy but as selling “happiness, creating lasting memories”, and providing

“the glue that binds us together as a society”.

This is language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would probably breach the industry’s own code of conduct.

The task force’s recommendations would undermine the powers of elected local authorities in several ways: first, by the creation of a quasi-statutory national licensing policy framework to direct local decision-making; secondly, by the automatic addition of off-sales permissions to all on-sales licences; thirdly, by the enhanced powers for unelected licensing officers to override decisions of elected officers on licensing committees; fourthly, through the

“Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies”;


fifthly, by a blanket “amnesty” on licensing conditions deemed to be

“outdated in the modern world”—

deemed by whom, I ask—and, finally, by the imposition of a higher evidential bar for objections to licence applications, with adherence determined solely by licensing officers.

That is why there should be no attempt to link alcohol licences under such a regime with tobacco retail licences. There are other ways of helping the hospitality industry rather than undermining the very foundation of the alcohol sales licensing regime by attacking local democracy in this way.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 35 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will also express my strong support for Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All the amendments in this group are guided by an important principle. The success of a new licensing regime will depend not only on the strength of the associated enforcement powers but on the fairness, proportionality and practicality with which those powers are exercised.

Amendment 30 is a sensible and fair proposal. It acknowledges that the vast majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and already operate under stringent regulatory regimes. Many of those businesses hold alcohol premises licences and are personal licence holders, and as such as are meticulous in complying with the rules and standards legally in force to prevent under-age sales and the supply of illicit goods.

Clause 16 will impose new licensing obligations, checks and costs. Taken together, for many small independent businesses they will represent a significant administrative and financial burden. My noble friend’s amendment simply asks that the Government recognise the existing history of compliance by allowing a streamlined process for those that have already demonstrated that they meet high licensing standards elsewhere. This would embed efficiency and fairness into the enforcement system and reward good practice. It would save time and cost for retailers and allow enforcement resources to be focused where they are most needed, on those who persistently flout the rules.

Amendment 35 turns to another crucial point of principle: fairness and proportionality in how licensing powers are applied. As drafted, Schedule 1 would allow licensing authorities to impose proximity or density restrictions, in effect preventing a licence being granted simply because a premises happens to fall within a designated zone or is near other retailers that sell similar products. That is an extremely broad and, frankly, concerning power. It risks punishing businesses not because they are non-compliant through choice or negligence but simply because of where they are located.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 35 should stand part of the Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I feel it is appropriate that we should have at least a short debate on Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 130, partly because they raise concerns that are very similar to those I had intended to flag when responding to the group of government amendments that were, in the event, not moved. Our debate on that group of amendments must remain a pleasure in store.

However, these clauses together confer on Ministers the power to take over the enforcement and prosecutions of local authorities or other enforcement authorities, either for individual cases or entire categories of cases. The inclusion of these powers in the Bill needs explaining, first, because they appear to go much further than is necessary or appropriate and, secondly, because they raise a number of important questions about the relationship between central and local enforcement and about accountability.

At present, the Bill rightly places day-to-day enforcement in the hands of local weights and measures authorities, which have the expertise, local knowledge and operational independence needed to make these judgments. Under these clauses, however, the Secretary of State or the devolved Ministers could simply direct that those functions are to be discharged instead by Ministers centrally. There is no statutory test to be met before that happens, no requirement for the local authority to have failed or refused to act, and no mechanism for consultation, appeal or review.

By any standard, that is a very wide power to exercise over democratically elected local authorities. In effect, it allows central government to displace local enforcement at will. Inherent in the exercise of this power is a risk that enforcement decisions become politicised. Local authorities act impartially and are guided by the evidential tests and the public interest. One can imagine a situation in which a future Government—I am not saying this one—choose to intervene and adopt an approach of their own when taking over investigations or prosecutions. How will we safeguard the impartiality of decision-making? How will the basis of any decisions be scrutinised or, indeed, challenged?

There is the added issue of proportionality. If these are intended as reserve powers for exceptional circumstances, the Bill should say so. At the moment, there are no thresholds, no published criteria and no requirement even to lay a Statement before Parliament when such powers are used.

We have tabled these stand part notices to probe the Government on several points, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. First, why does the Secretary of State need these powers at all, given the enforcement architecture already in existence and set out elsewhere in the Bill? Secondly, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage using them? Is this a genuine power of last resort or something that might be used more routinely? Thirdly, what safeguards will there be for local authorities whose functions are overridden? Will they be consulted, or have the right of challenge? Fourthly, how will accountability work once a Minister takes over enforcement? Will there be a published direction, a report to Parliament or any means of scrutiny? Finally, how do these powers sit with the devolved authorities?

We all want effective enforcement of the law, and there may be rare cases where national co-ordination is required. However, I think we need some further and better particulars from the Minister.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not support the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to delete Clause 35 and its associated clauses. I do not believe that the backstop, which enables the Secretary of State to take over enforcement from trading standards, is a power grab; it is necessary in case a local authority goes into administration and cannot fund trading standards. Similar measures to protect social services in the case of a local authority going into administration can be found in the Care Act 2014, amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 recognise that there may be situations where it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to act rather than local weights and measures authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to these comments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain further the clauses relating to enforcement powers, which I think is what he is seeking from these amendments, and to look at the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 30 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 provides a power for the Secretary of State in England or Welsh Ministers in Wales to carry out the investigation and enforcement of a particular case or a particular type of case instead of local authority trading standards. Similarly, Clause 36 provides a power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings relating to an offence under Part 1 or under any regulations made under Clauses 13 or 14 regarding the display of products or prices. Clauses 129 and 130 serve a similar purpose in relation to Part 6, which makes provisions on advertising and sponsorship. Clause 129 provides a power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make a direction about the enforcement of the Part 6 provisions. Clause 130 provides a power for the appropriate national authority to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings within their respective jurisdictions relating to an offence under this part of the Bill.

These clauses replace and are based on existing legislation. Trading standards operate in all local authorities, and it is standard practice that they would undertake required local enforcement action and pursue legal proceedings. However—this is referring to the comments made by the noble Earl—these powers provide a useful safeguard for the unlikely situation in which a local authority is unable or unwilling to take enforcement in a particular case. These powers reflect the landscape in which tobacco control measures operate. Individual local authority trading standards departments might not have the resources or willingness to take enforcement action and legal proceedings in cases where this action involves or has significant implications for large multinational companies. In instances such as these, these powers may be used to ensure consistent, strong and effective enforcement.

The noble Earl raised the devolved Administrations. Health is a devolved matter and the Bill builds on the existing legal frameworks of all four of the nations. This means that there are some differences in the provisions between each nation. I think we have outlined how the accountability of these powers will be managed through the different existing arrangements.

The noble Earl also raised the specific matter of scrutiny. I hope I have covered the points throughout the comments that I have made.

I hope noble Lords are reassured that these are necessary clauses based on existing legislation. Together they ensure effective enforcement and therefore should stand part of this Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of a clause stand part debate at this stage of the Bill is to ask some questions. There is no implication that the clause should be deleted. I simply wanted to ask those questions and to ensure that some answers are placed on the record, and I am very grateful to the Minister for doing just that.

I welcome her explanatory comments; it is right, in the light of what she said, that Ministers should have the tools they need to ensure effective enforcement where the public interest demands it. However, I remain concerned that the powers set out in these clauses are unqualified, and I would like to think about that further. I recognise that it is possible to conceive of circumstances where ministerial intervention might be justified—for example, where a case raises genuine national issues or where there has been a manifest failure to act for whatever reason. However, that is precisely why I felt some form of conditionality ought to be built into the legislation.

I appreciate that there is precedent for provisions of this kind, and I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. Between now and Report, I will consider whether the Bill could be improved with the addition of some clear thresholds, safeguards or procedural tests. For now, I am content to move to the next group of amendments.

Clause 35 agreed.