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.