Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Howard of Rising]

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

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 160 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I also speak to Amendment 173A in my name. I spoke at Second Reading about the infringement of personal liberty and not allowing individuals to take their own decision; I stand by that. My amendment would make it less difficult to vape than to smoke, but without increasing the risk to children.

The National Health Service website says that although vaping is not completely harmless,

“Nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking. It’s also one of the most effective tools for quitting smoking … The routines and rituals of smoking can be hard to stop, so vaping can help you gradually let go of these while immediately reducing the health risks of smoking cigarettes”.


I also quote Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer”.


Again, I suggest that, by making the purchase of vapes more difficult and reducing the number of shops that they can be brought from, the Government are not helping. Vaping does away with the danger of passive smoking. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake research into the potential effect of fewer smokers switching to vapes and nicotine products, or fewer consumers continuing to use these products instead of cigarettes as a result of these regulations, and of extending the provisions in Part 6 to such products.

The essential point here is that the Government should not proceed with their plans unless they have properly investigated the expected impacts of the Bill on those who are smoking and vaping. As I have already commented, vaping is safer than smoking and the Government’s policy should reflect that fact. Ministers should be required to consult the sector properly when assessing these impacts. We must not allow a situation where well-intentioned, if overbearing, government policy has the effect of worsening health outcomes for individuals.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 161 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and I am interested in the themes in Amendment 173A, about which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, because I think that an assessment of and research into the impact of any kinds of advertising and sponsorship restrictions is very important moving forward. The reason why I am concerned about any advertising restrictions is that people who currently smoke and are looking to switch to vape can do so only if they know what vapes are and understand the facts around relative harms, where these products can be purchased and so on. Imposing these restrictions as written in the Bill without consultation would have grave unintended consequences. At the very least, there must be clearly defined exemptions.

In this House there is constantly talk about the problem of misinformation. I agree that we do not want people to be making judgments about anything based on misinformation or factual inaccuracy. Yet the difference between vaping and smoking is not well understood. Public Health England and, indeed, Doctor Khan’s independent review concluded that vapes are 95% less harmful than tobacco, yet misperceptions about the harm of vaping have risen at the same time. In 2025, 56% of adults believe that vaping is more harmful than or equally harmful as cigarettes, compared with 33% in 2022. In other words, misinformation is creating ever more misperceptions every year. Opinium research from July 2025 found that 51% of all respondents believe that vapes are equally harmful as or more harmful than smoking, with 48% of current smokers believing that. Certainly, they do not know that vapes and other nicotine products have 99% less toxicants than cigarettes. Curtailing the opportunity to provide public information on the relative benefits of vaping, as this Bill threatens to do, would further exacerbate this lack of understanding.

My concern is that a lot of the discussion is driven by a small but very loud portion of lobbyists who are very concerned about youth vaping rates. Lobbying groups particularly push that issue, as has the public health industry. Actually, the percentage of young people who vape is dwarfed by adult vapers, many of whom, as we have heard, have switched to vaping from smoking for health reasons. That safer alternative could now be in jeopardy unless we allow advertising to make it clear that vaping is in fact a desirable, healthy option. By putting forward the argument that vaping is not desirable and just as dangerous as smoking, we risk doing public health a real disservice.

Even now, vaping products are allowed only very restricted advertising since the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations came into force in May 2016. Additional to these restrictions, I fear that clauses in the Bill go so far as to treat vaping products as though they are the same as tobacco products. That sends an implicit message that nicotine, tobacco, smoking cigarettes and vaping are all much of a muchness. That is one of the themes that I have been pursuing: we need to have a much more granular, nuanced approach. Prohibiting any form of marketing for vape or nicotine product manufacturers directly undermines the important role that marketing has to play in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping or other nicotine products.

Just to finish off, there seems to be a complete contradiction. On the NHS Better Health webpage, it says in big letters, “Vaping to quit smoking”. I want to know: is that not advertising? It contains a range of information and advice for people who smoke and are looking to quit—in fact, I read it when I was smoking and looking to quit. It includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use a nicotine vape compared with other nicotine replacement products, like patches or gum.

I want to ensure that adult smokers like me have access to information. When I read that, I then had to go out and find out about vapes. I went to the local vape shop and had a bit of a seminar. I then went to talk to the local convenience store and looked at the range of vapes. Then, as a consequence, I took up vaping and eventually gave up smoking—which I would have thought the Government want. If I had not been able to see where those vapes were on sale and to see and read the advertising and the marketing, then I might have stayed a smoker. This is not about me but about all the other smokers who as yet do not understand that vaping is a safer option than smoking. They might as well find out about it. I would have hoped that the Government would be encouraging, not discouraging, them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. This kind of question also comes up in respect of other products: for example, the 9 pm watershed, in terms of the advertisement of high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt foods in order that that advertising is not affecting children and young people. So, this is a constant discussion: that is not a criticism but an observation, of course. What is interesting to me in respect of tobacco is that the evidence found that partial bans are not as effective as a comprehensive ban when it comes to the aim, ambition and intent to reduce tobacco consumption. Similar assumptions can clearly be drawn on vapes. I hope that helps in terms of clarifying the point I am making, even if it may not satisfy the noble Baroness, which I understand.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 160 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howard of Rising]

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

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 161A withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

184A: Clause 139, page 82, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) whether it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present in that location is aged 18 or over.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the use of heated tobacco products within locations where it is reasonable to expect that everyone present is over 18.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My amendment seeks to allow ministerial discretion for heated tobacco products. As I have said previously, we know that vapes and heated tobacco products are much safer than smoked tobacco products. We need a regime of regulation that promotes switching where smokers are unable to stop. This small change may shift the dial in favour of switching. I hope that Ministers will consider this amendment in the constructive way in which it is meant.

I am trying to make a consistent point across all my amendments to improve the number of smokers switching to safer alternatives. We all know our doctors are often harsh in their advice; they will tell us that drinking alcohol is always unhealthy, even though many of us drink socially and are not unhealthy. The fact is that we need a system that encourages people to make healthier choices without riding roughshod over their personal liberties. That is what I am trying to propose. By allowing discretionary powers on spaces where everyone is reasonably expected to be over 18 in respect of heated tobacco, Ministers will be able to nudge people to make healthier choices, when they have found it impossible to quit smoking. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly against all the amendments in this group. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about our understanding of heated tobacco products. I am drawing here, as I have been throughout Committee, on the excellent briefings from Action on Smoking and Health. I note its conclusion, that there is not currently good-quality evidence on the health harms of heated tobacco devices or their efficacy as a smoking cessation tool. Therefore, in that context, we need to be very cautious of the potential health impacts. The Bill as it stands is in the right place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and the Minister for her response. I hope she and her officials will take away some of the considered points made by noble Lords in this debate for consideration as we make further progress with the Bill. I hope the point about encouraging smokers to switch where they cannot quit will be taken on board. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 184A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kamall and I have previously raised the concerns of retailers in relation to several aspects of this Bill. Amendment 188 is intended as a probing amendment to ask the Government whether they have any plans to work with retailers and other partners to develop and publish a strategy to reduce retail crime against retailers of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products.

Noble Lords will be aware that these retailers are often the most affected by retail crime. Their businesses are often small, independent stores that lack the means to hire security, as larger retailers are able to do. The size of these businesses also means that retail crime has more of an impact, due to smaller profit margins. On top of that, by the very nature of selling age-restricted products, the likelihood of confrontation is heightened by the increased interaction with customers. This problem is being exacerbated by the rampant rise in shoplifting over the past year. Shoplifting offences across England, excluding London, have risen by 15%, and, in London, the number is almost unbelievable: 54%. That figure is now at a 20-year high, costing retailers £2.2 billion in lost profits.

Retailers, both large and small, are being pummelled by an increased disregard for the rule of law and, very often, a lack of response from the authorities. The department’s impact assessment acknowledges this when it says that the Bill

“could lead to an increase in aggression and abuse towards retail workers”.

That is why, in Amendment 191, I suggest that the Government have a responsibility both to oversee the transition that they are mandating in the Bill and to provide suitable guidance. Whatever noble Lords’ views on the provisions of the Bill, this amendment re-emphasises the need for clear consultation and for the Government to work with retailers to address their concerns.

For that reason, I support the principle behind my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising’s Amendment 200A. The policy set out in the Bill to prohibit those aged under 18 from buying nicotine products can be enforced only by age-verification checks. Where technology is involved in such checks, this will cost retailers money. Smaller retailers will find this burden commensurately heavier. This probing amendment from my noble friend— I hope he will allow me to call it that—allows us to ask the Minister how the Government intend to lighten the burden on those retailers.

I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 200A touches on a different theme from the other amendments that I have tabled. As my noble friend Lord Howe commented, it is a probing amendment to test the Government’s attitude to small shops and the burdens that they face. I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend about shoplifting because it no longer seems to be a crime—you just go in and help yourself to what you want.

This amendment is focused on the burden placed on businesses by their need for age-verification technology. The businesses that will have to comply with this Bill are not just major supermarkets or established tobacco specialists; they are also corner shops and convenience stores up and down the country. These are small businesses on which local communities rely. They are run by local businessmen who provide employment in our villages and towns. They are a place where essential services, such as postal services and phone or bill payment services, can be accessed.

Any additional burden on our corner shops must be considered in that context. Can the Minister please set out what assessment the Government have made of the impact of this Bill on small businesses, especially convenience stores? Can she assure us that, if the impact on these businesses is shown to be overly burdensome following the passage of this Bill, Ministers will look closely at how to support convenience stores further by reducing the regulatory burden that they face? I should declare an interest in that I own a convenience store, although I do not run it.

It is essential that we do not proceed blindly without a proper understanding of the impact that this Bill will have on small businesses, so I hope that the Minister will be able to address my concerns fully in her closing remarks.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very much in favour of these three amendments. As we come to the end of Committee, it is important that we consider some of the unintended consequences of this Bill, particularly in relation to retailers. In relation to Amendment 188 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I stress in particular proposed new subsection (4)(a) and (b) on the need to consult retailers of relevant products and representatives of retailers of relevant products. This is key and would help to inform the guidance on implementation for retailers that is called for in Amendment 191.

I want to say something on consultation because, throughout Committee, whenever the word “consultation” has come up, the Minister has assured us that retailers have been consulted. I am not impugning her at all, but I do not think that the notion of widespread retail consultation is strictly accurate. Twenty witnesses were invited to give oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, but the solitary witness from retail, the British Retail Consortium, represented large retailers. More broadly, a wide range of organisations representing independent shopkeepers and related stakeholders such as pubs and hospitality supplied written evidence. Nineteen of the witnesses called to give oral testimony represented health charities, public health practices, health regulation and local government officials. That is a distorting set of witnesses in relation to what will have a big impact on different sectors such as retail and hospitality. It distorts the evidence base and the information that the Government are working with, and it shapes the narrative away from one of the sectors that is affected by this legislation.

The sort of retailers that are caught up in and detrimentally affected by the Bill are thousands of small retail outlets, mini marts and convenience stores, often family businesses with up to half run by British Asians—the sort of shops that are the heart and soul of so many communities and are especially important in rural areas. They are a vital part of local economies, especially in areas where large corporate retail companies do not have much of a presence. I have been talking to a number of these retailers, and I think that it would be useful for the Government to talk to them to get an accurate picture of their fears and concerns and, indeed, to listen to some very imaginative and creative solutions they have to the challenges presented by the Bill. I recommend to the Minister that her department and officials start by reading a useful academic essay by Maged Ali, reader at Essex Business School, University of Essex, entitled The Backbone of the UK Under Attack: The Economic Effects of Tobacco Generational Sales Ban on Retail SMEs because it provides a lot of rich detail.

The economic effects are very important for Amendment 200A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, on the need to provide financial assistance and grants for the acquisition of age-verification technology. I stress how important this is. The sector is largely driven, as I have indicated, by independent retailers who run 71% of convenience stores. They are self-financing individuals who will have to invest their own money to enforce policies that, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will mean them receiving potentially more abuse, intimidation and violence in terms of ID checks. They certainly need some help in dealing with all this.