Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests as set out in the register. I am an unpaid member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs and have written for the Politeia think tank, both of which have published on health issues. The former has also examined some of the evidence published by the Government and others on the Bill. As a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, I am helping it set up its new medical school and am giving it advice on that. I am a visiting scholar at the Vinson Centre at the University of Buckingham, which also has a medical school. I am also an unpaid member of the advisory council of the Startup Coalition, some members of which are health-related start-ups, and some are perhaps even related to smoking cessation. I just wanted to be clear and get all that out.

This has been a long but excellent debate with many speakers—so long, in fact, that I suspect that noble Lords who are members of the informal Terrace smoking club will be longing to reach for their cigarettes or vapes. In detaining them a little longer, I thank all noble Lords who took part in today’s Second Reading. I am also grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill in her usual clear way, and to her officials for meeting us earlier.

We have heard a range of views. At one end of the spectrum, there are those who believe that smoking should be banned as soon as possible and in as many places as possible. At the other end, there are those who see the debate in terms of freedom of choice and the right to smoke despite knowing the harm that it causes. Earlier today, when I was discussing this with another noble Lord, he quoted Kingsley Amis to me:

“No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home”.


I respect the range of views, but in doing so, I think there are probably a few truths on which I hope we can agree. First, smoking is not good for you. That might sound like British understatement; maybe I should go stronger and say that smoking kills and nicotine is addictive. Secondly, the current evidence suggests that vaping is safer than smoking. The current evidence also suggests that not vaping is healthier than vaping. In recognising these three truths, I appreciate that the Government are trying to achieve a difficult balance—or, as the Minister said earlier, a “nuance”—between these two positions. The first is that vaping is a useful pathway away from smoking. The second is: how do we stop young people from taking up vaping and encourage current vapers to quit? The noble Lord, Lord Rook, very eloquently put the case of how we need to tackle youth vaping.

To achieve this difficult balance, we on these Benches want to see the Government making laws based on evidence, but also in a way that is effective, accountable and pragmatic. My noble friend Lord Howe raised the Government’s additions to the previous version of the Bill, especially the huge number of delegated powers. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra, a former chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, for highlighting his concerns over criminal offences being made by secondary legislation or even just by delegated powers. That is something that we will probe from this side.

Among these delegated powers are the new powers in Part 7 to expand smoke-free places and impose further restrictions on where people can vape. We will want to probe whether it would be more appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill to make healthcare settings, children’s playgrounds and educational establishments smoke-free, rather than relying on the intention of some future Government. We should also consider the evidence for expanding vape-free areas, given the current lack of evidence about the harms of second-hand vape inhalation, and as that evidence evolves, we should find ways of reacting. I can understand that as an argument for delegated powers, but we have to get that balance right and not use it as an excuse.

We will also want to probe the possible unintended consequences of being seen to treat vaping and nicotine products in the same way that we treat tobacco products. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, research has shown that approximately 50% of all UK adults believe that vaping is as harmful as, or even more harmful than, smoking. We know that current evidence does not suggest that. This is despite the fact that the NHS website says:

“In 2022, UK experts reviewed the international evidence and found that ‘in the short and medium-term, vaping poses a small fraction of the risks of smoking’”.


It also says:

“Vaping has not been around for long enough to know the risks of long-term use. While vaping is less harmful than smoking, it is unlikely to be totally harmless”.


We will probe whether placing similar restrictions to those on cigarettes on vaping and nicotine products will unintentionally deter current smokers from switching to less harmful vaping products.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the impact of the Bill on small businesses, as did many of my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Sharpe. Small independent retailers and convenience store owners have faced increased costs, such as the increase in national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage. Whatever their merits, the cost of those increases has clearly been passed on to small businesses.

Some worry about the cost of the Employment Rights Bill and now there is the additional licence fee for implementing the generational sales ban and the advertising ban on nicotine products. There will also probably be further regulations and restrictions under the number of secondary powers in this Bill.

I will quote Gurpal Jhutty, who runs a Nisa local in Leamington Spa. In a submission to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, he said:

“Look, I’m not a lobbyist. I’m not a politician. I’m just a shopkeeper trying to make a living, and I’m writing to you today because the proposed Tobacco and Vapes Bill has me seriously worried about the future of my business. You can consider this a retailer’s plea for common sense … I’m tired of being ignored. Retailers are on the front lines of this issue, and we have valuable insights to offer. Let’s ditch the bureaucratic nonsense and work together to create a policy that actually makes sense”.


Let me be clear: we are not asking to ditch this Bill, but we will probe it to create a Bill that is workable and makes sense.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have rightly raised concerns about personal liberty, problems with prohibition and the practicality of the measures, especially age differentiation. We have heard both sides of that debate.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brady and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have pointed out that smoking cannabis is illegal but is pervasive in many parts of London. The point is that this is not a Bill against smoking; it is a Bill against the sale of tobacco and vape products. We have to be clear about that.

Having said that, Inga Becker-Hansen of the British Retail Consortium told the Public Bill Committee on 7 January:

“in 30 years’ time if you have someone who is 45 versus 44 from the date of January 2009, it may lead to ID for each sale of a given product … Points of sale can be a flashpoint for violence and abuse against retail and shop workers, so it is a real concern for retailers”.—[Official Report, Commons, Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, 7/1/25; col. 58.]

We will also probe the impact of this Bill on the illicit trade in tobacco and vaping products. HMRC has estimated that in 2022-23 illicit tobacco accounted for 14.5% of the total UK market. Current estimates show that illicit vapes account for about 30% of the total vaping market. A 2024 report by the Home Office’s National Business Crime Centre found that the provisions in this Bill mean that

“the demand for illegal tobacco products is set to grow dramatically”.

We have to be careful about these unintended consequences.

Like my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Leicester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, we will want to probe whether restrictions on vaping products could lead to an increase in the illegal trade, leading to a risk of more dangerous and unregulated products being used and finding their way into circulation. We are all united in wanting to tackle illicit and illegal products.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Murray, have expressed concern that the Government appear complacent about the illicit tobacco trade. While they rely on figures that show a drop in illicit tobacco sales, a Europe-wide report from KPMG—based on looking at discarded tobacco packages, rather than on assumptions and mathematical formulae—reported an increase in illicit consumption in the UK in 2023. I understand why these figures have been dismissed, because the report was funded by a tobacco company; I completely understand that reasoning.

However, I would be interested in understanding whether the Government will commission similar research looking at discarded tobacco packets as a method of understanding the illicit tobacco trade. If they will not, can they explain why—not immediately, but in writing? Could they explain why they have doubts about this methodology and prefer the formula used by HMRC, which has been criticised by many people for the assumptions it makes around smoking? We will be probing the Government on this and on what action they will take to tackle this rise in illicit sales. We know that all noble Lords will agree on tackling illicit sales of illegal products.

Finally, I am a huge believer in the role of local community non-state initiatives that improve people’s health. I have worked with organisations that help to tackle obesity and local financial and other problems. We will probe the Government on what they have learned and can learn from local community initiatives that have reduced smoking. We have not heard enough today about local community initiatives, the people who understand their local communities and the projects in those communities that could reduce smoking. Most of it has been about top-down measures to try and reduce smoking.

Whether noble Lords smoke or not, I hope we are united in our desire to reduce the incidence of smoking-related deaths and share concerns over the rise in youth vaping. I am also sure many of us will want to help the Government achieve an appropriate balance based on evidence, pragmatism and proportionality. I thank all noble Lords who spoke and look forward to the many days of debate ahead.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

13: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Ban on manufacture of high-strength oral nicotine products (1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength oral nicotine product. (2) In this section “high-strength oral nicotine product” means a nicotine product that—(a) is intended for oral use,(b) is not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and(c) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment bans the manufacture of nicotine pouches containing more than 20mg of nicotine.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom I am grateful. Together, these amendments seek to prohibit the manufacture, sale and supply of high-strength oral nicotine products—those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion—and empower HMRC officers to seize and detain such products before they reach consumers.

The reason for these probing amendments can be summarised by a BBC article in July which told the story of Finn, a 17 year-old who started using nicotine pouches after getting bored of vaping. What began as curiosity quickly became addiction. He described how he and his friends would use pouches so strong—some claiming to contain 150 milligrams of nicotine each—that they would vomit or become physically immobilised. At school, he hid them under his lip, until one day he turned “bright green” in class and had to run out of the room. His mouth, he said, was “shredded to bits”.

This is not an isolated case. Recent data suggests that use among 16 to 24 year-olds has risen sharply in recent years, a deeply worrying trend. These pouches come in bright tins, flavoured with mango ice or bubble gum, and are marketed as clean, safe, and discreet. In reality, some of these products are many times stronger than a cigarette and far more addictive. This is a form of nicotine ingestion which is socially acceptable and often unnoticeable. Children can and do consume these products, sometimes even in class.

The point is not that nicotine pouches have no legitimate role at all. For adult smokers trying to quit, properly regulated products can have a place as part of the harm reduction strategy and a pathway off smoking. Although the Minister knows that my classical, liberal views mean that I am generally against banning things I do not like, what we have at present is the sale of nicotine products that are so strong that dentists have reported that they can burn gums, cause lesions and even expose the roots of teeth.

For these reasons, more reputable manufacturers already limit their products to under 20 milligrams per pouch. They also want a market that encourages and rewards responsible production, and which acts against rogue operators flooding the market with dangerously high-strength pouches. These probing amendments suggest a possible, sensible and enforceable ceiling that would align with good industry practice and give clarity to both regulators and retailers.

However, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of these products is only part of the solution. Unless enforcement agencies have the statutory power to act, those prohibitions risk becoming little more than words on a page. That is why our amendment to Clause 88 proposes that HMRC officers should be explicitly empowered to seize and detain high-strength nicotine pouches, preventing them entering the market in the first place. I know that the Government have indicated that they recognise the need for action in this area; this amendment probes the Government on how they intend to address concerns over these high-nicotine products.

Do the Government think that we should rely on downstream enforcement after these products have already reached young people? That is my first question for the Minister. My second question is: do the Government agree with the sentiment of the amendment on the need to address this issue at the border, where these goods are entering the country in large quantities, especially by giving HMRC the clear legal authority to do so? Thirdly, do the Government see the need for immediate action, or will they require a series of future consultations? Finally—I know that I am asking a lot of questions—do the Government believe that it is more effective to have a firm and immediate statutory assurance in this Bill, in order both to allow these products to be controlled and to give enforcement agencies the clarity that they need to act?

These amendments can be seen an opportunity to protect people, in particular young people, before they become addicted instead of punishing them afterwards. It is about ensuring that, if these products are so dangerous, they should not be able simply to be bought over the counter or ordered online. I recognise that all tobacco products may to some extent be classified as dangerous—or, at the very least, as not good for you— but the products at which these probing amendments are aimed are particularly dangerous. I am, therefore, interested in the Minister’s answers; in the Government’s position on high-nicotine pouches; and in how the Government intend to address the concerns here, as exemplified by Finn’s story. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendments 13 to 15. I apologise for not adding my name to Amendments 139 and 140, but I strongly support them.

I added my name to this group of amendments because I did not know an awful lot about oral nicotine. I was talking to a group of university students about my strong dislike of vaping. They introduced me to the subject and told me—they were at several different universities—that many university students use vapes almost continuously for lots of different reasons.

A lot of my concerns are around the impact on young people. Growing up, I remember the TV adverts that showed all the damage that smoking would do to your lungs, with images such as the pouring out of a glass of tar, but I am not sure that young people necessarily understand the impact that vaping will have on them. I am concerned about the high levels of nicotine in these products, but I am also concerned about the potential for vaping to lead to addiction and cardiovascular issues such as increased blood pressure.

I have read the same report as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. It mentions young people talking about using vapes until they vomit. The report talks about a young man, Finn, using vapes and says that they immobilise the individual—especially when they use two or three in one go—which is not at all the intended consequence of them. Finn goes on to say:

“You feel this burning sensation against your gums, and then you get the hit”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, these products have impacts on oral health, including gum disease and gum recession. Vaping is also linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, such as oral, pancreatic and oesophageal cancers. It can also have, potentially, a negative effect on adolescent brain development.

My problem with these products is that they are so easy to hide. The fact that children in school are able to use these products should be cause for concern, because young people are talking about sweating, salivating and struggling to concentrate. These products that should not be anywhere around young people. There is also a lot of discussion about how they can be used as a gateway to vaping or smoking. There is a lot of debate around how vaping and smoking are meant to be helping each other, but I have concerns about that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

Returning to the issue of protecting young people, our commitment is to act swiftly and responsibly, which is why we have already launched the comprehensive call for evidence to better understand the available evidence. It would be extremely problematic if we were categoric at this stage and then found, in a very changing landscape, new potential harms that we would not be able to deal with in the appropriate way. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we are taking this exceptionally seriously and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; I welcome their thoughtful discussion and the important points that a number of them made. As I said earlier, this was a difficult group for me to put into words, in moving this amendment, because, as many noble Lords will know, I tend to take a classical, liberal perspective on many things and I do not like banning things.

The intention of the amendments in this group was to probe the Government on whether they believe that action to address these products, which have such high levels of nicotine that they lead to consumers vomiting, is required sooner rather than later; dentists also warn that these products physically burn gums, cause lesions and expose the roots of teeth. In probing the Government, the intention was to set clear, enforceable limits rather than pursuing an outright ban.

These probing amendments were aimed at achieving a balance between taking dangerous products off the market when they are easily obtained by young people and allowing properly regulated, lower-strength products to continue to help people come off smoking. However, one of the advantages of probing amendments is that you are able to test your argument and to hear other arguments—either those in favour, which reinforce your view, or those that challenge your view.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Finlay, for raising their concerns about pouches. That is an important point. We should understand whether the Government believe that nicotine pouches can play a role and that they are an effective pathway off smoking. Given that vaping is probably seen as the thing that the Government would promote most as a pathway off tobacco, that would be a very interesting conversation to have.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because she made some interesting points in sharing the evidence from, I believe, Cancer UK. She also posed some questions. What are we trying to achieve here? Are we trying to address the harms of tobacco or are we trying to tackle addiction? Should we be tackling addiction or harm? These are important points. What is more harmful? That seems to be the debate in this Room: we agree that tobacco is harmful, but how harmful is nicotine? That needs to come out a bit more, perhaps, as we debate the Bill more.

I am grateful to the Minister for answering directly some of the questions that I put to the Government. That was really important. Having listened to the Minister, and to the many noble Lords who challenged the intentions behind these probing amendments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

May I join the argument? The noble Earl is quite right: there is a synthetic nicotine product, which is manufactured chemically. So you can have nicotine that is not a tobacco product. However, as far as we know, most of the nicotine used in vapes is derived from tobacco.

By the way, I want to come back, slightly tongue-in-cheek, on the noble Earl’s question about where it comes from. Of course, I was hoping that he would say, “From tomatoes, potatoes, nightshade and some other plants”, from which you can also get small amounts of nicotine.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I fear to tread here—I will be brief. The Bill distinguishes between tobacco products, nicotine products and vaping products. They are separate products. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: vapes are not risk-free, although they are less harmful than smoking. They do not involve burning tobacco, which releases tar and carbon monoxide. However, I must say, having heard the range of debate, I feel that it would be very helpful for me to write to noble Lords with further clarity on these points.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

26: Clause 13, page 7, line 12, leave out from first “consult” to end and insert “and take into consideration the view of—
(a) retailers of relevant products or their representatives, and(b) any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe are probing the Government, in one way or another, on the question of consultation. What we seek to do is quite simple in many ways: to recognise that the impact of the Bill is not just on big tobacco, as many noble Lords have said; it will impact some vaping companies, not all of which are big tobacco. It is really important that we make that distinction. Some tobacco companies have vaping divisions. In fact, I have asked tobacco companies: when these Bills go through, what will you do and where will you diversify? It is very interesting to hear some of their answers, which I would be happy to share at some other stage.

The other thing we need to understand is that this will impact retailers, some of which are specialists and some of which sell other products but this is part of their income stream. We want to make sure that we get the balance right.



What we really want is to understand the nature of the consultation. Which voices with experience are being listened to? Which retailers are being listened to? On manufacturers, I want to be slightly careful, because I have had some conversations since these amendments were laid. In fact, I have been told by some people that we should not ask the manufacturers, particularly big tobacco, for their views. I have also been told that some companies do not want to be consulted, because that would be seen to be diluting the result of that consultation. Given that these are probing amendments, I will be a little careful about which manufacturers should be consulted and which should not.

--- Later in debate ---

I confirm that we have already started this engagement. On licensing and some of the Part 5 powers, such as registration and product requirements, we have launched a call for evidence. Those with evidence to share can contribute now and we will consider their feedback prior to consulting on specific proposals. We will publish a consultation on our proposals for display regulations shortly. With those comments, I hope that I have given the reassurance sought and that the noble Lord therefore feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for her response. With these probing amendments, we were trying to make sure that the consultation was as wide as possible. We completely understand the WHO requirements, but we sometimes worry about some of the more specialist cigar manufacturers, which are not big tobacco but much smaller specialist organisations.

I seek some clarity from the Government at this point. Are they saying that the WHO guidelines mean that they cannot speak to these small, specialist manufacturers? We understand not consulting the big Philip Morris Internationals of this world, and others, but is it the Government’s understanding that they cannot speak to the small specialist cigar manufacturers because WHO guidelines preclude them from doing so? Or are they saying that they can speak to those small manufacturers?

Clarification on that from the Minister would be welcome. Is she able to give an answer, or shall I witter on a bit and hope that the officials can give her an answer in that time? I will do that; I am trying to be helpful. That clarity is essential. I am not asking that they call in the likes of the big firms, such as BAT and Philip Morris, every time they want to do a consultation; we know what their business models are. This really is about the small specialist manufacturers who feel that they are excluded and lumped in with big tobacco all the time. Their demographic is very different. It is an ageing demographic; perhaps literally a dying demographic —who knows?

The newspaper that came to see me told me that its readership was not consulted even though their trade associations claimed that everything was fine. Therefore, we need to understand those nuances. In my experience, I have seen some trade associations claiming to represent a wider membership than they do. They are not the ones who are damaged.

I welcome the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s response. I had a conversation with the Minister only yesterday about a particular organisation not feeling that it had been consulted. Immediately, she said, “Let’s meet with that organisation”, so I recognise the sentiment. However, I would like that clarification now if it is available.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We require all those with links, direct or otherwise, to the tobacco industry to disclose them when answering consultations. I hope that is the clarification that the noble Lord requires.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Just to understand, they can be consulted—that sounds reasonable; I do not think anyone would say otherwise. It is important that they do not hide where they are from.

If there are organisations that have written to me about this in the past and I have had conversations with them, I am sure that the Minister will be open to having conversations where appropriate. With those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am at the mercy of the Committee, but we have some more time and the ability to go on until 5.15 pm. If noble Lords agree, we have one more group to do to get to the target. Shall we continue?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mott is not here to move Amendment 29 and has obviously not sent a substitute to speak on his behalf. What is the procedure from here?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I suggest that the Committee adjourns.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

32: Clause 16, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“(5A) Draft regulations under this section must be published before the end of the period of six months from the passing of this Act.”

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, in some ways this group will follow on from the last; some of the comments I will make now could be applied to the previous group of amendments.

Noble Lords will be aware that, as discussed in the previous group, the licensing regime the Bill sets out is complex. Many of the Bill’s provisions are yet to be determined in regulations, meaning that businesses across the country are faced with something they dread: uncertainty. Some retailers have told me they already see this on top of the double whammy of increases to employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, and they have had to face that doing business is more difficult, as is taking on new employees.

We all know that the large retailers have public affairs teams, legal teams and compliance teams, all helping them navigate the complexities of changes in legislation. For them, the sale of tobacco and tobacco products counts for a small proportion of their total revenue stream. However, the situation could be very different for small, family-run businesses, staffed by two, three or four people, often working from dawn to dusk—staffing the till and the counter, and sorting out bills and expenses. For many other people, just managing half this workload would be a good day’s work. Imagine, on top of all this, having to find the time to understand, and make changes to abide by, these new regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group.

I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is not in his place to speak to his amendments, but I will just touch on them briefly, if I may. Basically, his amendments seek to require licensing regulations to be made within three months of the relevant provisions in the Bill coming into force. The amendments would also extend the existing retailer register in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that, of course, the Government share the noble Lord’s desire to move as quickly as possible to implement the licensing scheme. That is why we have recently launched the call for evidence on the range of issues that we have laid out, including questions on the design of the retail licensing scheme. The feedback received will be absolutely critical, and we want to get on and launch this as soon as possible. However, it is also important that the Government have sufficient time to ensure that the regulations are properly thought through. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, when he hears the discussion, will be reassured and understand that three months is not sufficient time to run a consultation, analyse the feedback received and prepare well-considered regulations. That is as much as I shall say on his amendments.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I hope to give him the reassurance that he seeks, as we discussed in last week’s Committee, that I understand these particular concerns. His amendments would similarly require Ministers to publish draft regulations implementing a retail licensing scheme for England and Wales within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent.  The Government are committed to ensuring that those impacted by regulations and those with expertise have the opportunity to contribute their views. We want to minimise additional costs and burdens as far as possible, while ensuring that the scheme is a success and achieves our aims of supporting legitimate businesses as well as tackling those that disregard the law.  Again, the recently published call for evidence seeks input on a range of topics, including the implementation of the retail licensing scheme. As I have said, this will inform the consultation, which we will launch as soon as possible.

To respond directly to the noble Lord’s comments, our call for evidence also asks about the implementation of the scheme and how long will be required to implement the policy. We will, of course, work through the appropriate channels to ensure that businesses have the necessary guidance to implement the changes. I cannot emphasise enough that this is for all businesses, regardless of their size or the organisations that represent them. We want to make sure that we get that message out loud and clear, so that they have confidence that their views will be regarded with the same importance as all those who contribute to the policy.

I note the noble Baroness’s comments about making sure that we get this right, so we cannot be beholden to specific timeframes on the face of the Bill. We all acknowledge that this is a complex policy and, while we want to move swiftly, it is important that there is enough time to ensure that the policy is properly thought through before developing regulations. I repeat that requiring the Government to publish draft regulations before adequate consultation may risk creating a flawed policy. For the reasons that I have outlined, bringing together previous comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate on this group of amendments. The intention was always that these would be probing amendments; whether it was three months, as from my noble friend Lord Mott, or six months, as from us, we wanted to get some certainty and find out whether, at this stage, any thought has been given to an outline timetable. This is so that the retailers that will have to face this new licensing regime can understand the different stages—the Minister laid out some of the consultation stages—and the overall timetable. Here we are, getting towards the end of the 2025, and they are wondering, “When will this new licensing regime be in place? Will it be sometime in 2026 or in 2027?” That is the sort of outline assurance they want.

It was very helpful of the Minister to mention some of the consultation stages, but it would also be helpful if, perhaps in writing, she could give us a timetable that relates to real dates in the next two or three years—and, in doing so, avoid “in due course” or “as soon as possible”—so as to reduce the uncertainty for those retailers that will have to prepare for this measure. I also welcome the acknowledgement from the Minister of the importance of consulting small retailers—that point has already been made in our debates on previous groups—as well as her understanding of the role that these small retailers play. The burden for them is very different and disproportionate as compared to that for some of the larger retailers.

In general, we welcome the tone from the Government and understand that there must be consultation stages. However, we are asking for some sort of outline timetable in writing, if possible, on when the Government envisage the licensing regime being in place—with the usual caveats, perhaps, depending on what comes back from the consultation. Some certainty would be really welcome at this stage.

Having said that, and having reflected on the comments from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell and Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard. I will also rehearse arguments in favour of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested there is some confusion about why people might want to ban filters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that a ban is about both public health and environmental considerations.

It has been clearly shown that filters of all kinds have no health benefits whatever. Indeed, I maintain that they are actively harmful to health, but I will come to that later. They are also very costly to public authorities and bad for wildlife and the environment. Filters have been called, by a Back-Bench Member of the government party,

“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/25; col. 1043.]

because they were formerly advertised—when cigarette advertising was still allowed—as being safer and less harmful to health than cigarettes without filters. This lie has had a long tail because even now only 25% of people understand that they have no health benefits.

As a result of the false perception that the filter—because of its very name as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Bourne—removes some of the tar and other harmful tobacco chemicals, evidence shows that smokers of filtered cigarettes inhale deeper and more frequently. Proof that filters were invented to deceive is the fact that they were deliberately made from a white substance which turns brown when heated, adding to the illusion that they were removing some of the harmful elements from the tobacco smoke. This was deliberately to mislead the smoker.

Filters of all kinds are bad for the environment. The plastic ones in particular contain thousands of toxic substances, including microplastics and nanoplastics. They take up to 10 years to break down in the environment, releasing all these microplastics as well as the 7,000 toxic chemicals from the on average five millimetres of tobacco that remains attached to each butt. These are washed into our soils and water systems and damage marine life, other wildlife and our drinking water.

Microplastics are ubiquitous. They have been found from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. They cause cancer, including colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast and lung cancers, and the levels of them found in human brains—causing who knows what effects—have increased by 50% since 2016, according to pathologists. Even the so-called biodegradable ones contain microplastics in the glue and in any case take a very long time to break down. I deliberately put one in my compost heap, and it was still there a year later. In any case, they, too, always have some tobacco attached. They have zero health benefit and lead to a false sense of security.

The environmental damage is also very costly. We all pay to clean them up when they are discarded through littering; as has been said, local authorities spend £40 million every year, money paid by taxpayers—you and I—which could be better spent on public health and other services. Some 86% of the public and even most smokers believe that manufacturers should switch to fully biodegradable filters rather than plastic ones, but, frankly, I think that is not enough to fix the problem, for the reasons I have outlined.

The killer fact, to coin a phrase, is that there is a strong epidemiological link between the rise in the prevalence of cigarettes containing filters and the proportionate rise of a kind of cancer called adenocarcinoma, while other lung cancers have fallen along with the reduced prevalence of smoking overall. A paper by Min-Ae Song et al published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in America in 2017 analysed 3,284 citations in scientific literature and internal tobacco company documents and concluded thus:

“The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban”.


Indeed, such a link had originally been suggested by the surgeon-general as far back as 2014. Therefore, I am inclined to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but at the very least I hope the Government will accept Amendment 34 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell.

On Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard, I hope the Minister will see the sense of consulting on this. Not every cigarette smoked by a child or a young person or an adult smoker comes immediately out of a packet bearing health warnings. Many children, when they start illicit smoking, share a packet among themselves and many never get to see the packet at all. That is why the principle, already accepted by successive Governments, that a health warning on the packet should accompany tobacco-containing products should apply to individual products and not just the packaging. I am aware that the Government plan to make sure that there is an insert in each packet signposting smokers to cessation services and products. This is a welcome positive measure to accompany the deterrent measures of health warnings, but it is not enough. I am sure the first thing many will do is throw away the insert and never read it, as people sometimes do with pills. They cannot throw away the paper that wraps the cigarette. That is why it would be the most effective place to put the warnings.

If you believe that the health warnings on packages work and deter, how much more effective would it be to reinforce that message every time a cigarette is removed from them? A consultation and a review of the evidence of the ban in other countries would be a good idea, and I recommend it to the Minister.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the amendments in their names.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, Amendments 141 and 143 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would require a consultation on health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, this matter has been under consideration since 1980—a considerable period of time. The Bill restates, with some modifications, the existing power to make regulations on the features of tobacco products, including cigarette sticks. Not only this, but it goes further and extends this power to other products, including cigarette papers. Therefore, as my noble friend Lady Ramsey predicted I would say, we already have the ability to regulate the information provided on products, which would enable us to mandate health warnings in future. Driving down smoking rates among current smokers is important—

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I asked how long the Government think they will need for evidence from Australia and Canada before they will be in a position to judge whether those health warnings have been effective. Can the Minister answer that either now or in writing? Secondly, do the Government have any evidence on what wording is most effective for health warnings? Once again, the answer could be in writing.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will gladly add to the brief points that I am going to make to the noble Lord. I was just about to turn to international comparisons. Sometimes, I feel the answer is “How long is a piece of string?” However, quite seriously, we constantly keep international comparisons under review because we are keen to learn and see. The challenge, which I will come on to, is to draw exact comparisons, for a range of reasons, including on what we are already doing.

On the point about international comparisons, it is important that we recognise that the UK already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging, which already emphasise health harms. This includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. As I have already referred to and noble Lords have discussed, we have announced that we will be introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I understand the motivation for these amendments, but we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time. We will continue to monitor the evidence.

We are implementing many of the recommendations of the Khan review. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. For example, we are majoring on the smoke-free generation policy, which is a major shift. Not only are we implementing many of these recommendations but we continue to keep them under review.

My noble friend Lady Ramsey asked about targets. Again, they will be kept under review. Unsurprisingly, our real target is delivering the Bill and designing the regulations so that they work. Some of this is also about where we can make the greatest impact in the quickest way, which is why we are focusing on the inserts rather than looking for additional things to do at this stage.

I hope that this is of some interest and reassurance to noble Lords and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the future powers of HMRC will further reduce illicit supply and whether and how regularly this will be reviewed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and beg to move.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, before turning to the amendment in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Howe. They propose the establishment of a new licensing scheme for the distribution of tobacco, vape and nicotine products in addition to the retail licensing scheme already provided for under the Bill.

While I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I am sure it will come as no surprise that we have some concerns. My noble friend Lord Howe and I have already shared concerns about the impact of the regulatory framework of this Bill and the burden it will place on legitimate businesses, especially small retailers and distributors, which are already subject to extensive compliance requirements under existing law, and which will be beset with further regulation under the proposals outlined in the Bill.

However, we understand the underlying concerns behind these amendments about the illicit market, so we believe that they are helpful in probing the Government to understand where they believe there are enforcement gaps and whether they have evidence of gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level of the supply chain. I am, therefore, grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Our understanding is that there are concerns over enforcement in relation to illegal imports at the customs level and illicit point-of-sale activity. These amendments give noble Lords an opportunity to ask the Minister where the Government believe the enforcement gaps are, and whether they currently exist.

In addition, if the Government have identified these gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level, do they believe that they could be best tackled by having a new, separate distributor licensing scheme, or do they share concerns over creating a second, parallel system operating alongside the retail one? My noble friend Earl Howe and I are concerned that such duplication risks adding unnecessary administrative complexity for local authorities, trading standards and legitimate operators alike. We also have concerns over how these two systems would interact, and whether businesses operating both wholesale and retail functions would be required to hold multiple licences and pay multiple fees. We are interested in the views of the Minister about our concerns.

Amendment 190, in my name and that of my noble friend Earl Howe, would require the Government to prepare and publish a national illicit tobacco and vape enforcement strategy within one year of the passing of this Act. This is a probing amendment—we have suggested one year; it could be slightly longer or shorter. We believe that this is a practical proposal which chimes with the intentions and ambitions of the Government on this Bill. Indeed, it is a concern that has been raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. All noble Lords are concerned about illicit sales of tobacco and vapes, wherever we sit in this Room.

While we entirely share my noble friend Lord Bethell’s concern about the rise in illicit trade, we believe that the Government need a far more comprehensive view of how products enter, move through and are sold within the United Kingdom. They must develop an overall strategy to cover the stages of the supply chain from the point of import to transportation within the UK and, ultimately, to the sale of these products on our streets and online. In short, we need a coherent and strategic plan of enforcement that gives an overview, rather than one which tries to attack certain bits. Once we have the overview, we can look at where the gaps in enforcement exist and seek to plugs those gaps.

The trade in illicit tobacco and vape products is a serious and growing concern. We have heard throughout Committee that the introduction of a generational ban and other prohibitions in this Bill may, if not properly managed, risk pushing more activity underground into the illegal market. No noble Lord wants this to happen. No one benefits from a thriving illegal market but criminals and those that seek to circumvent the law. It undermines legitimate businesses, deprives the Exchequer of revenue and exposes consumers—often young people—to unregulated and potentially dangerous products.

That is why we believe it is essential for the Government to set out clearly how they intend to meet this challenge, and to explain who will lead, how the agencies will co-ordinate, what resources will be allocated and how success will be measured. We have attempted to be careful and sensitive in drafting this amendment; it does not demand an immediate response but sets out a reasonable and deliberate timetable. It gives one year, or perhaps a bit more, for the Government to prepare, consult on and publish a coherent strategy. That would give Ministers the time to review the evidence, engage with enforcement agencies and draw together the different strands of policy that are already being developed across departments.

If this Bill is to succeed in its wider aims, it must also be accompanied by a credible and co-ordinated plan to tackle the illicit market that so often undermines those very goals. This probing amendment simply seeks to understand how the Government intend to develop a strategy to tackle the illicit market, and whether they intend to take an overall and strategic view.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions in this debate and for these amendments, which rightly highlight the need to take a systematic approach to the illicit market. Having said that, we do not believe them to be necessary; I will gladly set out the reasons why in my remarks.

First, I am grateful for Amendments 39 to 41, 53, 54, 58 to 62, 123 to 125, 133 to 138, 206 to 208 and 212 from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am sympathetic to the aims contained in these amendments; the Government certainly share the aim of strengthening enforcement throughout the supply chain and ensuring that only legal products are on the UK market. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill provides powers for the Government to implement a licensing scheme for tobacco and vape retailers. The focus on retailers is to ensure that illicit products do not reach members of the public where they pose a risk to public health. The retail licensing scheme will enable conditions to be imposed on retailers as part of the terms for obtaining a licence. We expect all retailers to comply with the law and not sell illicit products; doing so will risk their licence being revoked.

In addition to the licensing scheme, the Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to develop a new registration scheme for the products covered by the Bill. This will require all tobacco, vape and nicotine products to be registered before they can enter the market, meaning that wholesalers will be unable to supply illicit products to retailers as only compliant products should be available. The powers provided by the Bill also allow for the testing of products to ensure that they are what they claim to be. This will make it easier for enforcement officers to identify illicit products and to clamp down on both those who do not register products and those who seek to mislead.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about spice vapes. I have a couple of points to make here. Vapes containing controlled drugs, including spice, are obviously illegal; naturally, this is a matter for the police and Border Force. I am sure that it will be understood that the regulation of controlled drugs is not a matter for this Bill. However, the measures in it will create a simpler and clearer regulatory environment, which will assist enforcement agencies in identifying and taking action against non-compliant vapes. Border Force is taking action to detect and seize supplies of vapes laced with drugs at the border and is following law enforcement to dismantle the criminal gangs that attempt to smuggle illicit commodities into the UK. It is of course worth noting that the import, production or supply of a class B drug such as spice carries a maximum sentence of up to 14 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

As well as the new measures in the Bill, there are already policies in place to manage products through the supply chain. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked questions and made important points about the role of HMRC. For tobacco, HMRC already operates the tobacco “track and trace” system, which tracks the movement of all tobacco products, whether manufactured in or imported into the UK, through the supply chain all the way up to retail.

Also, the vaping products duty will come into force on 1 October next year, taxing vaping liquids at 22p per millilitre. To support the implementation of the duty, HMRC is introducing a range of measures, such as a duty stamps scheme to support the identification of non-duty-paid products, as well as investment in more than 300 additional enforcement officers. Vaping duty stamps will be in a hybrid digital and physical format, which will allow product tracing and authentication. Together, these schemes will better support a compliant market and weed out illicit products, as we all seek to do.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 190, which seeks to publish a strategy to deal with illicit tobacco and vapes. I understand the concerns that have been raised regarding illicit sales, but this amendment is unnecessary given that the Government already publish a strategy on illicit tobacco sales.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

175: Clause 135, page 76, line 29, leave out from “smoke-free” to end of line 3 on page 77 and insert “any place in England that is—
(a) an NHS property or hospital,(b) a public playground,(c) a provider of early years education, or(d) a school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to only hospitals, children’s playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 175 and 179 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe propose restricting the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to a clearly defined and limited set of locations: NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, and providers of early years education and schools. As it stands, Clause 135 gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers to add new areas and designations to the list of smoke-free places: in effect, to designate almost any space or area regarded as open to the public smoke-free by regulation. While well intentioned, it is a sweeping power that merits careful scrutiny.

Therefore, the purpose of these probing amendments is to seek to understand how the Government intend to use this sweeping power and whether they will act responsibly in exercising it. The four categories proposed—NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, early years providers and schools— are all spaces where there is a clear public health argument for restrictions and, indeed, support for these restrictions. They are environments that the Government have consistently said they wish to protect. However, the Government intend to designate additional places through delegated powers. Therefore, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion, scrutiny and accountability for any such changes. Will this be by way of the negative procedure, draft affirmative procedure or made affirmative procedure? We hope that the Government, in seeking to augment or change this list, will return to Parliament and make the case openly, thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State’s power in this area is clearly defined, appropriately limited and exercised with the scrutiny and responsibility that Parliament expects.

The other amendments in the group address in different ways the question of how far-reaching the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 135 ought to be and what safeguards should accompany them. Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which proposes that the Secretary of State can act only where there is evidence that smoking in a given place is causing harm to non-smokers, is a reasonable and proportionate test, but this evidential safeguard should be in addition to, not instead of, clear and meaningful parliamentary oversight. Amendment 177 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is welcome, since it seeks to ensure that Ministers are not handed sweeping authority to alter well-established rights, such as the ability to smoke in open, uncovered hospitality venues, without the explicit oversight or approval of Parliament. This also appears to be a sensible and proportionate check to ensure that government powers are exercised within a clear and democratically accountable framework and, when combined with Amendment 176 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would ensure that any extension of bans is justified by evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, all the amendments in this group seek to limit the powers in the Bill to make additional places smoke-free in England. On Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we know that passive smoking, whether indoors or outdoors, poses a risk to health. The rule of thumb is: if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. This is particularly important for children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

However, despite these well-known and very well-evidenced harms, trying to ascribe specific harms to locations is somewhat challenging, as this debate shows. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, in a large children’s play area it is difficult to evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke has caused a specific harm in a specific place. I can assure noble Lords that we are extremely mindful of this. Therefore, the test referred to in the amendment is overly restrictive, technically very difficult to do and not necessary, given the extensive evidence of harm to vulnerable people. It would also likely lead to a scenario in which we are unable to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harms of second-hand smoke.

Similarly, on Amendment 178, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as I mentioned, we know the harms of passive smoking. There is strong indirect evidence but, as I said, it can be difficult to demonstrate this evidence in specific locations. Again, this restrictive test would prevent areas where there are harms of second-hand smoke to children and medically vulnerable people from becoming smoke-free. Furthermore, as this amendment would apply in England only, it would leave England with more restrictive smoke-free provisions than the devolved nations. 

Amendments 175 and 179 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. As we have made clear but I would like to reiterate, in England we plan to consult on extending smoke-free places as and when. In the first instance, it would be to the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, children’s playgrounds and healthcare settings. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that all proposed smoke-free locations will be subject to consultation both now and into the future and that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will be guided by public health advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly observed that the powers within the Bill allow us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time, particularly where there is evidence of clear harms to children and vulnerable people.

On Amendment 177 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, we have made it very clear—I am glad to take the opportunity to do so again, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that outdoor hospitality settings will not be in scope of the consultation on smoke-free places. We fully recognise the balance that is needed to protect the most vulnerable as well as ensure that businesses are not financially impacted. We are confident that we have the balance right in deciding the places, which I have already outlined, on which we plan to consult.

However, the powers in the Bill, as has been observed, allow for additional places to be designated smoke-free in the future, subject to further consultation and parliamentary debate. The landscape may change significantly on tobacco legislation, as it has done over the years. Evidence and attitudes may also shift, again as we have seen over the years, so it is sensible to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed and can respond to evolving evidence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the wide range of noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. These are clearly intended as probing amendments, at this stage, to understand—as the Minister herself agreed—these wide sweeping powers to designate additional spaces as smoke-free. We are grateful because we were concerned about the level of scrutiny there would be. The Minister assured us that there will be consultation and that any changes will be by regulation following the affirmative procedure. We are very grateful for that and that perhaps answers some of the probing amendments that we have in future groups. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 175 withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

181: Clause 138, page 79, line 2, leave out from “designating” to end of line 3 and insert “as vape-free any place in England that is a—
(a) public playground,(b) provider of early years education, or(c) school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate vape-free places to only playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the designation of vape-free places. As with the earlier debate on smoke-free places, they probe—I stress, probe—the Government on the powers they seek to extend the restriction of the use of vaping products, and whether those powers will be exercised proportionately and responsibly.

There is a careful balance to be struck here, just as with other issues. We all agree on the importance of protecting children and preventing the normalisation of vaping among young people, but at the same time we must recognise that for many adults vaping represents a less harmful alternative to smoking—a point that the Minister has repeatedly made—which can be an essential part of a person’s journey towards quitting altogether.

It is with this balance in mind that we have tabled what I stress are probing amendments—Amendments 181, 183 and 184. Amendment 181 would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to designate vape-free spaces to three categories of child-centred environments where there is arguably a rationale for such prohibition. But beyond the specific context, the case for ministerial intervention may become weaker. As with the earlier group of amendments, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion and accountability in granting Ministers this very wide discretion to designate almost any public or quasi-public space vape-free, provided that it is also designated smoke-free.

This gives rise to two questions. First, if the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, as with the question on tobacco-free spaces, can the Minister tell the Committee whether the designation of vape-free spaces would be by way of the negative procedure, the draft affirmative procedure or the “made affirmative” procedure?

My second question relates to the consideration the Government have given to the effects of passive vaping as opposed to passive smoking, particularly in outdoor environments. I tried to look for papers on the effects of passive vaping and my impression is that there is as yet no definitive conclusion on the harms from passive vaping in outdoor settings. One study concluded:

“Bystanders in both settings (a car and in a room) experienced some short-term irritation symptoms, expressed as dry throat, nose, eyes, and phlegm. In conclusion, short-term use of an e-cigarette in confined spaces increased harmful particulates of 2.5 micrometres or less and caused some irritation symptoms in bystanders.”


Another study looked at the effects of 76 subjects who were vaping next to 73 non-vaping subjects who had agreed to be exposed to the vapour. The conclusion was that non-vaping subjects exposed to vapour had significantly higher oral temperature after 20 minutes of exposure, but blood sugar and forced vital capacity—in simple terms, a measurement of lung function—were not significantly affected by vaping or exposure to vapour.

The point here is that the vapers were sitting next to the non-vapers or passive vapers, and I have been unable to find any studies on the harms of passive vaping in outdoor environments. So my second question is a simple one: what evidence do the Government have on any negative effects of passive vaping in outdoor spaces? Can the Minister write to noble Lords with links to and details of these studies, and the department’s own assessment of them? Can she give an assurance that, if the Government designate further outdoor spaces, this will be based on scientific evidence of harm?

I also have to admit a certain concern about messaging. We know that some people believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, which is clearly a barrier to encouraging smokers to switch to vapes. If the Minister does not believe that the harm profile of passive vaping is the same as that of passive smoking, what is the rationale for linking smoke-free and vape-free places? If the Minister does indeed recognise that the harm profiles of these products are in fact different, does it not make sense that the places liable for designation under the Bill should in fact be different?

Amendment 183 is equally important and would prevent the Secretary of State from designating as vape-free any hospital or part of a hospital that provides mental health services. We have had the discussion before: in many mental health settings, many people have a higher risk of smoking than those in the general population. Vaping can be a vital tool in reducing harm, improving well-being and supporting gradual cessation. To impose a ban on such settings not only would be counterproductive but, in some cases, could be inhumane. It would risk forcing some of the vulnerable individuals in society back towards cigarettes and undermine the very public health objectives that this Bill seeks to promote.

I want to probe the Government on how the nuance will translate into practice. On an earlier set of amendments, the Minister said that

“vapes will still be able to be sold in healthcare settings via on-site shops. It is the sale through vending machines that we are seeking to prohibit in the Bill”.

When my noble friend Lord Moylan raised the issue of vapes for smoking cessation in hospitals, the Minister replied:

“We know that a number of mental health trusts, for example, are providing free vape starter kits as part of our national Swap to Stop campaign. The noble Lord’s point was well made, and we continue to work on that”.—[Official Report, 30/10/25; col. GC 232-33.]


Could the Minister clarify what was meant by “we continue to work” on that? Is she saying that all patients in mental health settings who want a cigarette or vape will be offered one of these free vape starter kits? If not, what is the solution that the Minister is working on to make sure that those who do want access to an e-cigarette or a vape can get one, as my noble friend Lord Moylan intended in his earlier set of amendments?

Amendment 184 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe simply suggests clear definitions for “public playground”, “provider of early years education” and “school” to ensure that any designations made under these powers are precise, transparent and legally consistent.

I turn briefly to Amendments 182 and 187 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. They offer an opportunity to probe the Government on whether they intend to prohibit only those under the age of 18 from vaping on school premises or whether they have had any discussions with teachers’ organisations or perhaps trade unions on banning teachers and adult visitors from vaping on premises of schools and colleges. I believe that most if not all noble Lords agree that vapes offer smokers a pathway to quit smoking. We understand the concerns about children taking up vaping, so how do we get that balance in settings where there are children but also adults—some of whom, maybe after a stressful class, will want to turn to a cigarette or a vape?

I quickly turn to Amendment 182A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, which raises the important issue of age and responsibility. In spaces where we know that most people will be over 18, it makes sense that vaping should be permitted. I understand that there may be certain settings where people under 18 manage to creep in. I am sure that in our youth we all did that, although I have no evidence of my own past misdemeanours in that sense. What consideration has the Minister given to the challenge that the noble Lord has raised and what is the Government’s view on the potential harms that vaping in such a space could have? In other words, why do they believe that the Bill as drafted, particularly with respect to these issues on vaping, is necessary? I look forward to the answers from the Minister and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me first turn to the opposition to Clause 138 standing part of the Bill, which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Clause 138 amends the Health Act 2006 to insert new provisions relating to vape-free places in England. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are also smoke-free.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about evidence. The fact is that evidence is developing, as the noble Lord himself rightly acknowledged, but we do know that while vapes are less harmful than smoking, there is a reason why the Chief Medical Officer says:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.


Vapes are not harm-free; there are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term health impacts of vaping. They produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potential toxicants, which poses health risks to children and medically vulnerable people in particular; for example, they can trigger asthma attacks. It is therefore important and right—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan—that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms. I should also say that evidence suggests that, in adolescence, the brain is more sensitive to the effects of nicotine, so there could be additional risks for young people compared to adults.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, many businesses and enclosed public places already have in place, on a voluntary basis, schemes to prohibit vape usage on their premises. We want to introduce legislative requirements to make it clear to the public where it is illegal to use vapes and to enable enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. I know that noble Lords understand the reasons for wanting to be clear about what is and is not legal, and this Bill and the provisions in it are very much part of that.

Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed, the main answer to all the questions today— I will continue to go through the various amendments—is that we will be consulting on making indoor settings that are subject to existing smoke-free legislation vape free. The consultation in this area and beyond is crucial, because we also plan to consult on making some outdoor places where children are present vape free—for example, children’s playgrounds, and the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about how we will recognise the difference between harms. I can assure him that this is an area we absolutely want to get right. We do want to ensure that adult smokers who are using vapes as quit aids are doing so in appropriate places, such that they do not return to smoking. That is exactly why we will consult before making regulations and carefully consider the responses to ensure the policy seeks the appropriate balance.

Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, would not be able to be made vape free. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her views on this. As I have already outlined, vapers pose potential risks to both users and non-users, especially indoors. We had a debate in an earlier group about the workability or otherwise of designating particular areas as able to police themselves. It is quite important to say to the Committee that the vast majority—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to these second-hand harms.

As discussed, this is a particular concern for medically vulnerable people whose conditions may not be in the least visible to the vaper, who I am sure does not wish to cause harm—for example, those with asthma. Additionally, people who wish to vape will still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings—for example, in the outdoor smoking areas of an over-18 nightclub. We have been very clear that we will not be consulting on including those outdoor areas in the scope of vape- free places.

Ultimately, the Bill grants powers to make places vape free and does not itself make any place vape free. The consultation will ask questions relating to areas that should become vape free, any necessary exemptions and any additional evidence on the second-hand harms of these products. Therefore, in our view there is no change needed to the primary legislation.

It is appropriate now to turn to Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would seek to limit the locations that can be designated as vape free. As I have already outlined, the current power allows us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time and ensures the Bill is future-proof. The noble Lord asked about the process. I can confirm as I have done previously that the power for vape-free places will be through an affirmative regulation. That will mean, as the noble Lord knows, a debate in both places. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about vape-free areas being specified in the Bill. I hope I have explained why that is not the case. It is particularly important as we talk about evolving evidence that we look to the future. That is why we will be consulting and why we will turn to regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned vape-free schools and asked whether that measure applies to children or adults. I can confirm that it is about the area rather than the people in it. So there are no limitations on people of a certain age; it is the area that would be designated.

I turn to Amendments 182 and 187 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to vape-free policies in schools and colleges in England that are made vape-free places. It is my view that these amendments are not necessary. As I have said, we have already made it clear that we will consult on making schools, sixth-form colleges and early years settings vape-free places. Public consultation will allow us to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders, including those who run education settings. Enforcement officers will have the power to issue on-the-spot fines or pursue convictions where they deem it necessary for the offence of using a vape in a vape-free place. However, we anticipate—this may be helpful to noble Lords—that there will continue to be a role for internal sanctions for pupils found vaping on the premises. Schools are already required to publish a behavioural policy.

In relation to education provisions for pupils on vaping, we have worked closely with the Department for Education to incorporate education on the risks of vaping and nicotine use in the recently updated relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance for schools and teachers; I am sure that the person referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will benefit from that in future.

I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and his intention in Amendment 183, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke. I agree that it is important that patients receiving care in a mental health setting have access to appropriate smoking cessation tools; that is particularly true given that smoking rates among those with a long-term mental health condition are far higher than in the general population. As I have mentioned previously, in England, we are considering making inside hospitals—but not outside them—smoke-free. I appreciate and am alive to the fact that there are particular considerations in the case of mental health facilities, but I assure noble Lords that we are keen to get things right in this area and are going to follow the evidence. We want to ensure that vapes can continue to be accessible as an effective quitting aid for adult smokers; noble Lords have made strong and important points about this. As outlined, we believe that the details of any exemptions are best explored through the consultation process, although we understand the intention behind the amendment.

I hope that this provides reassurance and understanding to noble Lords that the settings that will be in scope of the vape-free policy will be fully considered by consultation and then considered under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; I also thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that any further extension of the designation of vape-free places will be done via the affirmative procedure, which is very welcome.

I have a couple of outstanding questions; I suspect that the Minister and her department were not able to get the answers quick enough, thanks to the power of the internet or whatever, so I wonder whether the Minister could write to noble Lords on these matters. First, is there any evidence yet from studies of passive smoking in outdoor settings? As I said, the studies I looked at were all on indoor settings; nothing has been done on outdoor settings. It would be good to know what evidence the department currently has. I also ask the Minister to share that evidence, with the appropriate links, so that we can all understand it. usbI understand that the consultation is all about seeking further evidence, but it would be interesting to know what evidence the department currently has—on the understanding that the evidence is evolving, as the Minister rightly said.