Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and indeed to join her in saying how important it is that this is a further step in the process of strengthening our tobacco control regime and that we should do that on a cross-party basis. I agree with her that we should certainly put this, as I think the Front-Bench speeches did, in the context of a range of measures over a substantial period of time.

I was part of the health team—with my noble friend Lord Howe and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—back in 2010, when in the coalition Government we took the measures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, just referred and implemented those regulations. My noble friend Lord Howe was quite right to stress the importance of understanding how such powers are to be used, and in the passage of this legislation I hope we will understand very well and, if necessary, challenge the powers that are to be given and how they are going to be used, all the while, I hope, as my noble friend Lord Howe was doing, supporting the principles and trying to ensure that they are carried through with effective enforcement and a lack of unintended consequences.

We had supported the 2006 ban on smoking in public places from the Front Bench, but gave, as I think the Labour Party did at the time, a free vote on that measure, which helped, I think, to ensure that it was pursued without some of the complex exemptions which the Government were considering. I think that led us to the conclusion that, where some of these public health measures are concerned, as Horatio Nelson said, the boldest measures are the safest, and we were bold in 2010. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, that boldness was very rapidly proved successful, so I think we may once again be bold. We set out, after 2010, with the ban on vending machine sales, the display ban and the consultation, which I initiated, on standardised packaging that was completed in 2015. All of this was very much focused on trying to ensure that we did not have a constant re-creation of a cohort of young people who went on to spend much of their lives trying and failing to quit smoking. The reduction of the initiation of smoking is a central part of this.

It is a less attractive habit to quote oneself, but back in March 2012, as Secretary of State, I said:

“My objective is to achieve smoke-free communities”.


That was over 13 years ago now. It was pretty controversial at the time, but I think it is now much less controversial and much more of a widely shared objective. The question was always how to achieve it, and I reinforce the credit to Prime Minister Sunak and my friend the then Secretary of State Sajid Javid for asking Dr Javed Khan, in his review back in 2022, to propose that bold step of an incremental rise in the age bar on cigarette sales. I very much support that, because it was not clear how we were going to achieve it and I think this now shows us the path to achieving it.

I support the Bill. I want to look at it constructively to ensure that it delivers what we are aiming for, including such practical measures as securing that trading standards officers have the powers and resources needed to secure compliance. Many noble Lords will talk about why we need to achieve this. From my point of view, it is not just that so many smokers suffer so much from their addiction to cigarette smoking; it is how it contributes so dramatically in society to the inequalities between parts of the country. We have to reduce those.

I have one point on vaping: I hope we will also look to take an evidence-led approach, think about what the long-term consequences may be and give ourselves the powers to respond to that over time rather than necessarily making all the judgments that we need to make now. I hope we will look at how we can make the enforcement procedures more effective as well. With all those thoughts yet to come, I very much support the Bill.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9, tabled in my name, would create an offence of selling tobacco products online. This is a probing amendment.

If the generational ban policy is to be effective, or the alternative policy of an age limit of 21, there would be a clear loophole if tobacco could be bought online, as roughly 9% of sales are at the moment, without any form of age verification. Such a policy would be unusual for the UK, as there is not currently a product that is available for sale in a bricks and mortar shop that you cannot legally purchase online. However, we would by no means be the first country in the world to introduce this measure: Brazil, Mexico, Finland, France and Greece, to name a few, have all banned the sale of tobacco products via the internet, so there are some clear international precedents.

Banning the online sale of tobacco was recommended by the Khan review in 2022 and the World Health Organization, which argued that internet sales constitute

“display at points of sale”

and

“inherently involve advertising and promotion”.

Today you can look up tobacco products on any of the major supermarket websites or shopping apps and see reviews, such as:

“Quite nice for relaxing on a summers day, beside a bubbling brook perhaps or at a test match”,


as one purchaser of Pall Mall Flow Red Superkings commented. Last time I went to a test match, smoking was prohibited.

Separately from the point about the delivery of smoking products, are these the messages that we want smokers to see about such a lethal product, given that such advertising was banned on television some 60 years ago? When retailers sell tobacco products, they are not permitted to display them, yet there are pictures of products online. This seems inconsistent. Products such as heated tobacco and cigarillos have colourful packaging, as they are not captured by plain-pack laws, which seems to be a regulatory oversight. I appreciate that the Government may be doing something about this, so perhaps the Minister can give us some details—but it feels like the online world is somewhere where rules are often bent with little repercussion, and the amendment would address that.

At the moment, online sales are not heavily exploited by underage individuals attempting to circumvent the law. However, we should be mindful of that possibility in the future. If the Government are minded to resist the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain how age verification will be secured at the point of delivery. Someone born after 2009 can order their groceries online and include tobacco, but they could not buy it in the shop. How might this be enforced without the amendment? Does the Minister plan to go down the route that we have taken for the delivery of knives? Since 2022, a retailer has to verify the age of the purchaser before he or she sells a knife and, if that knife is delivered after an online order, it has to be checked at the point of delivery. Does the Minister have that in mind for tobacco sales? Who will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the policy if tobacco products are available online? I look forward to her reply in due course.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for introducing this group of amendments, and I agree with his proposals relating to the mechanism by which the House looks at statutory instruments. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham about the desirability of further constraining online sales. However, I do not want to talk at length about those; I want to talk simply about age-verification technology and the potential that it offers.

--- Later in debate ---

In answer to the other question about engagement from officials and the department, I can confirm that officials have engaged directly with the company which was being spoken about. The issue is not just about powers but about competitive advantage. To re-emphasise, the Bill is focused on the sale of products, not the use of them.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of the retailers—some 3,000 of them—which have written to Ministers to make the point, which emerged in a number of noble Lords’ speeches, about how concerned retailers are about the emphasis upon them denying access to vapes? The use of age-gating technology would substantially relieve those pressures on retailers.

We need to look at what the evidence may be about whether adult smokers who wish to quit by using vapes would be at all deterred by the age-gating technology. To that extent, what worries me is that we may conclude, either through international experience or pilot schemes in this country, that they are not deterred at all. Then suddenly we do not have access to a technology that would deal with illicit sales and proxy purchasing, which the point-of-sale restrictions will not bite upon. I worry that we should have the powers available.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord makes. I believe I said that it potentially risks making vapes less accessible. I know that that is not a view that he shares. I also agree that, where there is evidence, we need to be focused on it in the measures we are taking. But the position I have outlined is the case. I will reflect on the comments that he and other noble Lords have made, which I have heard very well. I understand the concerns of retailers and I am very aware of them; that is why we continue to work so closely with their trade associations to overcome difficulties. We do not want retailers to be put in a position where they cannot do the job that they want to do. We will continue in our work in that way.

With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel about to withdraw his amendment.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, from whom we have not yet heard—but that is the way the order works. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I am slightly torn because the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just put forward a strong case. There are indeed huge problems with the funding of trading standards. I go to a recent report in the Financial Times in which the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute said that the underfunding of trading standards has left consumers open to rogue traders and fake goods. There is a huge problem there and, as the noble Lord said, the Government’s own impact assessment says this measure is going to increase the burden and they are already hopelessly overburdened.

However, Amendment 81 goes in a different direction, towards public health initiatives to be determined by local authorities. Either of these has a strong case. I prefer the public health case, because public health is something that I am gravely concerned about. There is a real logic to the money going from where damage is being done to public health towards dealing with damage done by illegal activity.

I talked about how much trading standards is suffering. We all know that public health in the UK is in a terribly parlous state; when we compare ourselves with other countries that we might consider similar to ourselves, we are doing much worse in public health. I suspect that the Minister will get up and say, “Yes, but in February this year we gave £200 million to public health”, but that is to go towards smoking cessation programmes —which are very relevant to the Bill—along with addiction recovery, family and school nurses, sexual health clinics, local health protection services and public health support for local NHS services, and £200 million does not sound like quite so much when I read that list out.

There is a real logic to making sure that this is not just a small drop of money going into the ocean—the Treasury—and that the money goes to where the damage has been done, to public health. Trading standards would still be better than the money going straight into the Treasury. These are simple, logical ways to make sure that we stick some plasters on to some of the crises that are affecting our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me say a brief word on the new burdens assessment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords—ah.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his almost intervention on that very point. I shall try to get the tense right here. As is standard government practice, a new burdens assessment will be conducted and shared with the Local Government Association. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the additional net cost to local authorities in England will be considered in line with the new burdens doctrine. In summary, I hope that, for the reasons I have given—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

None the less, the impact assessment, which I quoted, says:

“A new burdens assessment will be completed … ahead of the Bill being introduced”.


The Bill has been introduced so, clearly, the impact assessment was incorrect in that respect. I also reiterate to the Minister the request for her to say that the Government will be willing to look not only at the costs —there is an estimate of those—but at what the revenues from fixed penalty notices turn out to be, in case there is a gap between the cost of enforcement and the revenue from fixed penalty notices. Even if they continued to receive money into the Consolidated Fund, would the Government be willing to consider making additional Exchequer grants beyond the £10 million to meet any such gap?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

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

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

I appeal to the Minister: flavours are not the Government’s problem. They are not what make young people vape. There are all sorts of things going on that you should not regulate unless you want to end up with some unintended consequences, which I know Minister would not want to see happen.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I wanted to intervene just to say one or two words in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. In a sense, it challenges the Government to explain what they are trying to achieve, and if that is to regulate flavour descriptors, that is exactly what we should put into the Bill. I think the industry is very aware of the need to control flavour descriptors, because certain descriptors can be intentionally directly attractive to youth vapers and children, and the industry knows it needs to act on that. I will talk about that a bit more later.

We should use this amendment and this debate to find out what the Government are trying to achieve, and I hope the Minister will give an explanation. If the intention is to go down the path of, for example, the Australians or the New Zealanders, with a very narrow control of vape flavours, we run exactly the risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was just talking about. As she said, the academic research on restricting vape flavours shows that that leads to vapes not being as effective at smoking cessation as we want them to be. That is an important consideration.

I could not explain it to anybody in detail, but I remember how the uncle of a good friend of mine when I was a boy was a flavour scientist at Bush Boake Allen, now part of International Flavors & Fragrances, and there is a very precise relationship between the chemical additives that can be added to products. Of course, there were no vapes in those days; he was working on crisps. On one occasion we went to their house, and they provided for us the very first occasion on which anybody ever tasted prawn cocktail-flavoured crisps. That was a remarkable moment in one’s early life, never to be revisited.

The point is that the relationship is modulated by these companies extremely carefully. So, it is possible to regulate it, but it is quite an intrusion into an industry to think that we should need to do this. I suspect that my noble friend is on to exactly the right issue in saying that, if we regulate the descriptors, we will have done the thing that it is most important for us to achieve.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 146. It seems to me both sensible and essential to set the groundwork, as he put it, for further work on defining vape flavours—keeping in mind at all times the Government’s intention, which we support: to allow vapes as an effective, proven tool in quitting smoking tobacco while at the same time addressing the egregious activities of the tobacco industry vis-à-vis young people. It has used colours, flavours, images, packaging and marketing to encourage young people who have never smoked to take up vaping. We know that, once hooked on the nicotine in these products, it will be very difficult for these young people to wean themselves off them when they want to. We also know that evidence of real and lasting harm will continue to emerge over the next few years, and that is why the work to define flavours is so important and why I support this probing amendment.

I am one of those nerdy people who, when they go shopping at the supermarket, takes a little magnifying glass with them. I strongly suspect that the “banana ice” vape of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the “mango ice” vape of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have never been within five miles of a banana or a mango, and that anything called “raspberry fizz” will never have been within five miles of a raspberry. These things are put together. They do not contain any raspberry, mango or banana; instead, they contain a whole mix of chemicals. It might be more honest to label them with, “This vape tastes a bit like banana, but it contains the following 15 chemicals”, but you cannot do that, can you? Hence the Government’s problem.

As with the other amendments in this group, Amendment 142 would open the way for the Government to include big-puff vapes and other technical measures in regulation—perhaps things such as age-gating at some future point—but it would not mandate them to do so. So, I would certainly not oppose it, although the Minister might tell us that the Government can do all this without the amendment.

Amendment 144 could inadvertently restrict the Government’s opportunity to limit the number of flavours. I would not want to do that, so I do not support this amendment, but I would like to see the Government allow a reasonable range of flavours to help people who use vapes or who are quitting smoking, for the very reason indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: smokers like the fruity flavours, which certainly help them. That would be a very good thing. I really do think that allowing only a tobacco flavour would be a bad idea, because tobacco is the very thing that smokers want to get away from.

I very much look forward to the Government’s response, particularly to my noble friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who tabled amendments in this group. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is unwell, and I am sure we all wish him well. On his Amendment 142, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, restrictions currently set a 2-millilitre tank size limit, and a 10-milliletre refill tank size limit for vaping products. Over recent years, manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill tanks are attached to the device itself. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords that the Bill already contains powers that allow us to regulate the nature and amount of substance that may be released into the body of a person using a relevant product, which includes vaping devices and the emissions released by such products. This includes restricting not only the nicotine in the tank but the nicotine that can be emitted in the vapour.

My next point is key to a number of points made in the helpful debate today: on 8 October we launched a call for evidence, which runs until 3 December. That, to me, is crucial in informing the development of future regulations under the Bill, which noble Lords are correctly asking for. We are seeking evidence to ensure that all nicotine-containing products have safe and appropriate levels of nicotine.

I understand the spirit in which Amendment 144, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 146, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been tabled and the points that were made. I also heard clearly the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We agree that descriptions of flavours are part of the appeal of vapes to children. The Bill allows us to regulate flavour descriptors. However, evidence suggests that children are attracted to the fruit and sweet flavours of vapes, both in their taste and smell, as well as how they are described.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Can the Minister tell me exactly where in the Bill the power to regulate flavour descriptors is to be found?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that I will be able to do that, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue in the meantime.

What we do not yet know is the long-term harms of certain ingredients or flavours. This is why we need to be able to limit the flavours themselves, with the ability to respond to emerging evidence or scientific advances in the future, as well as how flavours are described. I can refer the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the point that he raised to Clause 91, which says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—”


et cetera. I hope that will be helpful to him.

I understand the concerns that were raised about how restrictions on flavours can impact former smokers who have switched to vaping. We absolutely recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers, and we will carefully consider restrictions to avoid any unintended consequences for those who seek to quit smoking. Our aims for future regulations on vape flavours, as well as for the wider regulations on vapes, are to reduce the appeal of vapes to young people while ensuring that they remain a viable quit aid for adult smokers. I heard the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about ensuring that the legislation is right. I am sure that all noble Lords share that view.

The published call for evidence includes flavours of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, to ensure that we are considering the best available evidence. We will also review the approaches taken by other countries, to learn the lessons and to consider whether they are appropriate for the UK. I give an assurance, as I have done before, that we will then consult on specific proposals before making regulations.

On the point about international comparisons—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a certain aspect of them—there are varied determinations on what a flavour is. For example, in the Netherlands, there is a specified list, and, in Finland, there is a restriction on all characterising flavours. That is why the call for evidence and the subsequent consultation are so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

May I make a suggestion? It seems that we are trying to find out whether it is the Government’s intention to regulate flavours—that is, to determine which chemical additives can or cannot be added to vapes, which would end up determining what flavours are allowed—or whether it is the Government’s intention to regulate the description of flavours, meaning which flavours are to be “described”, “characterised” or any such word. We do not yet know what the Government’s intention is. If the Government want to retain the power to do both, I submit that they need to specify in Clause 91 that they will have the power to do both.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Before the Minister answers that, may I ask her another question? Which agency regulates and licenses the various flavours used in vapes? Is it the Food Standards Agency or some other agency?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

154: After Clause 110, insert the following new Clause—
“Industry self-regulationInsofar as the Secretary of State makes regulation under this Part relating to vaping products or nicotine products, they may have regard to the availability of relevant codes of practice, guidance or standards made by independent self-regulatory bodies which are supported by representative industry bodies and may provide for a self-regulatory body to exercise functions relating to provisions under these regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to enable the Secretary of State to take advantage of self-regulatory initiatives relating to vaping & nicotine products in implementing part 5 of the Act.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in this group we are, in a way, returning to an issue that we discussed earlier in relation to my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment on the nature of the regulatory regime and how it will be deployed. I freely admit that mine is by way of a probing amendment, because we want to establish how this regime will work.

I will briefly establish my way of thinking on this matter. We have a tobacco control regime; I was responsible for it once. I think that we had about the toughest tobacco control regime anywhere in the world in those days, and I do not want in any way to do other than to strengthen it. We are debating the vaping industry alongside the tobacco industry, but I contend that we need to examine the regime of regulation for the vaping industry in its own terms and not by reference to the tobacco industry, despite the fact they are in the same Bill. These products are substantially different in terms of their possible harm—I will not dwell on that point; we will have a later group on that in relation to my Amendment 197. Picking up a point made by the Minister, the importance of research and of understanding the relative harms of a long-term use of vaping products both need to be established over time. I also contend that that should be independently interpreted in relation to how the regulatory regime will be managed.

A better analogy, although not an exact one, for the regime that we are looking to establish for the vaping industry is with that for the alcohol industry. We are discussing products that if used inappropriately, or if used by young people or used to excess, can do significantly greater harm. However, as I think we generally acknowledge, we want the products to be accessible to adults. We principally want them to be accessible for the reasons of smoking cessation, but we do not intend to prohibit access to them for other purposes; it is all part of a general proposition that they should be accessible to adults. There is therefore, to an extent, an analogy with the alcohol industry but not with tobacco.

In this group, my noble friend Lord Moylan has Amendment 198, which I think is complementary to my own amendment in the sense that what I am proposing is about an independent industry body. I will go on to describe what I have in mind by analogy with the Portman Group, which works in relation to the drinks industry—noble Lords may well be familiar with it through its work over quite a number of years. What my noble friend’s Amendment 198 is talking about is a forum representative of the industry for discussions with the Government about the application of the Government’s powers in relation to the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

154A: After “Part” insert “or Part 6”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I hope noble Lords will forgive me: I have tabled an amendment to my own amendment, just for the purpose of making it clear that it became apparent that, in relation to brand sharing, for example, it might be appropriate for this to apply in Part 6 as well as Part 5. All the arguments similarly apply.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that all of the amendments I have proposed so far have generally been met with a buoyant response and a good level of engagement. I suspect that Amendment 198 will be less welcome; I will speak to it briefly, partly because my noble friend Lord Lansley has already explained what the amendment says and made a comment with which I do not, in essence, disagree.

The amendment seeks to establish a vaping and nicotine industry forum so that the Government can engage with the industry properly. It would disapply the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which Ministers treat as if it were binding but which has not been the subject of a parliamentary statute imposing it on Ministers. My noble friend Lord Lansley says that this should not be necessary—I rather agree with him—but, in fact, it is necessary in practice because Ministers are treating the framework convention as binding. They are, therefore, excluding from their consultation vaping industry firms that are part of tobacco groups. They will engage with those firms that are involved exclusively in producing vapes—or are at least involved in producing vapes without being tobacco firms—but they will not engage with the others. Obviously, that leads to a very fragmented level of engagement with the industry.

We must be practical and realistic about this. As the tobacco companies transition—they clearly are transitioning—away from cigarettes and into vaping and e-cigarette products, the Government should start to engage with them differently as to their background. That is what Amendment 198 proposes; I do not have to say very much more about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, each amendment in this group constitutes a suggestion to the Government that there is a place for regulation with a lighter touch in what is currently a rather heavy-handed Bill. As our Committee debates move forward, I get the sense that a large number of restrictions, rules and regulations are now being devised centrally and will, in due course, be placed on some very large industries, some of them very responsible, without those industries being brought properly into the loop. I hope that I am wrong on that latter point.

My noble friend Lord Lansley has helpfully drawn attention to the codes of practice and the standards that already exist in the vape and nicotine industries, which are overseen by representative industry bodies. The existence of these standards and codes is a reflection of a desire on the part of those businesses to act responsibly towards consumers—and to be seen to do so because, of course, these industries understand their businesses best and are in the best position to frame rules that are designed to drive out poor practice but nevertheless maintain healthy competition in the marketplace.

My noble friend may correct me if I am wrong but, as I interpret his amendment, he is not saying that there is no room for government regulation on top of what these industries are already doing; as we debated earlier, there may well be further restrictions that, for public health reasons, prove to be appropriate. What he is saying, however, is that the Government need regulate only where there is a patent need to do so; and that there may be less need to regulate if there is a responsible industry body in place. There is a parallel with the Portman Group.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend moves on to that helpful analogy, I would like to say—not least in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said—that I do not regard what I am putting forward as asking for industry self-regulation. In fact, I am asking for co-regulation in that relationship with government. Making the regulation effective is what I am all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

To my knowledge, he did not. I return to the point about consultation. There is a requirement to consult before making regulations under the majority of the powers in the Bill. At the risk of repeating myself, which I will do, we published a call for evidence on 8 October. The evidence is—I am sorry for pausing, but I have a cough. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would like to take advantage of that.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I will give the Minister a moment to drink a glass of water.

If I may presume to ask a pointed question, I am looking for Ministers not to say, “Well, you didn’t do it in the past, therefore you can’t be expected to do it in future”, but to have a conversation with the industry about what this new regime will be, how it will work and how we can—most effectively, with the least interference in how an industry operates and with the lowest compliance costs—arrive at something that is flexible and effective. This may mean that the industry comes together to do something that it has not done in the past, but I do not think that we should exclude the possibility that the industry is capable of doing that.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand that. I refer to my previous comments about Clause 104 already providing for legislative sub-delegation, although I am aware that the noble Lord has raised a broader point and drawn on the interests of the alcohol industry. I understand the point he is making. However, at the risk of repetition, our concern is very much based on our experience and the evidence of the industry. I realise that the noble Lord does not agree with that.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If I may intervene, since this is Committee and we cannot interrupt each other on Report and have this conversation, the point I am making is very simple: the past is not a necessary guide to the future. The fact that the industry did not do something in the past does not mean that it is not capable of doing it effectively in the future. As the Minister knows, the department’s experience is that, in relation to the alcohol industry, the Portman Group is an effective instrument for coregulation, so we should not exclude that possibility. I acknowledge that it is not simply a question of what powers are in the Bill; it is about how one structures the regime, and that conversation should happen now.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will be very happy to write further to the noble Lord, referring to the points that he raises, but I feel that he and I are at risk of repeating the same points to each other. My concern is that the industry has had much opportunity and not taken it. Indeed, it has been extremely creative—I am being polite—in working its way around legislation. Noble Lords will have heard my resistance to setting up more loopholes, and that is also for this very good reason. Although in theory I can understand the point the noble Lord is making, I am afraid that my reality does not bear it out. But I will gladly write to him. I appreciate that he is seeking to be constructive and draw on good practice elsewhere, which I understand. I thank him for the break that he gave me.

Finally, as I said, we published a call for evidence on 8 October on issues where more evidence is needed before we consult on specific proposals. That allows all stakeholders, including those relevant to Amendments 154, 154A and 198, to contribute their views. I hope that, with this, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I had plenty of opportunities to respond as we went along during the debate, so I simply take this opportunity to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 154A.

Amendment 154A (to Amendment 154) withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Of course; I am going to come on to the point about online advertising.

Amendments 167 and 169, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, Amendment 168A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and Amendment 171, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all seek to create exemptions to allow for the promotion of products for the purposes of smoking cessation—something that was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Young. As I mentioned on the previous group, I repeat the assurance to noble Lords that the Bill as drafted will allow certain public authorities to continue to take steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking. This is a matter that I will come back to on Report.

The offences in Part 6 apply only to those acting in the course of business. For example, following the passage of the Bill, local stop smoking services will still be able to take steps to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised an important question about GPs and pharmacists having such a facility. I assure him that we will be further reviewing whether the Bill provides the necessary approach considering the points that he made.

I also mention something relevant to an earlier group—I may be stepping a little outside of things here, but I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular, making this point. The advertisement offences will not prevent a retailer offering verbal smoking cessation services to their customers. While I am sympathetic to the intention to ensure that vapes remain accessible and visible to adult smokers, there are already strict rules in place for nicotine vape advertising. Under current legislation, it is illegal to advertise nicotine-containing vapes on television, radio, most online platforms and in newspapers and magazines. Companies are not allowed to market a vape as a smoking cessation product or to make medicinal claims about products unless these have been authorised as a medicinal product by the MHRA. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, we believe that promoting smoking cessation is best led by the appropriate health authorities, including the NHS, which can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support.

I should be clear that all tobacco products are harmful to health, including heated tobacco, which contains tobacco and generates aerosols with carcinogens. The department therefore does not recommend the use of heated tobacco products to quit smoking.

I turn to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Forgive me for interrupting, but I did not quite follow. Where in the Bill is the reference to the ability to place an advertisement for a product that is authorised as a medicinal product, where it also happens to be a vaping product? I do not know where that is to be found in legislation.

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

197: After Clause 157, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent expert panel on vaping(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish an expert panel, consisting of members independent from the production, distribution, supply or sale of vaping or nicotine products.(2) The expert panel constituted under subsection (1) must consist of members nominated by the Secretary of State, whom the Secretary of State considers to have relevant expertise in relation to—(a) the health effects of vape use or of nicotine addiction,(b) consumer behaviour in respect of vaping or nicotine use, or(c) the economic effects of the market for vaping and nicotine products.(3) The expert panel must report to Parliament not less frequently than annually incorporating evidence relating to—(a) the health effects of the use of vaping or nicotine products,(b) the supply and use of such products by consumers, and(c) the impacts of regulations made under this Act on the supply and use of vaping and nicotine products.(4) The expert panel may make in its report such recommendations relating to the use of powers under this Act, in respect of vaping and nicotine products, as the panel considers to be beneficial in the light of the evidence they have identified.(5) In making regulations under this Act in regard to vaping products and nicotine products, the Secretary of State and Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have regard to the reports of the expert panel and their recommendations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to provide a continuing source of evidence to support the future implementation of the regime for vaping and nicotine products.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to the last group of amendments in Committee. I hope that the smiles evident on the faces of Members, because we have reached this point, will encourage a positive response to this final amendment to be debated.

This amendment is rather neat in the way it fits in at the end of our discussions. In listening to the debates on this Bill—particularly in relation to vaping and nicotine products—we have heard on many occasions, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, an emphasis on the requirement for the production of evidence. The Minister rightly said that the Government are undertaking a research programme—that is a good thing—but we need to emphasise that we are not simply strengthening the tobacco control regime and seeking to create another regime that parallels it; we are seeking to create a regime that is particular to the circumstances of vaping and nicotine products. They should not be treated as the same as tobacco, nor should they be treated the same as drink—they should be treated in their own terms. What I hope we might consider at this stage in Committee is that, on Report, we will increasingly identify how the vaping and nicotine products regime should be justified in its own terms—that is, not referencing the other regimes, with which parallels have been drawn, but looking at what is appropriate in relation to these products, their circumstances and the evidence pertaining to them, as well as how the regime should be established.

Amendment 197 is structured to say that there should be an independent expert panel. Why do I think this would be particularly helpful? First, the requirement for independence is illustrated in the amendment itself, in that it will not include those people who are responsible for the production, supply, distribution or sale of vaping and nicotine products. Happily, the industry is supportive of this, as it recognises the value of not seeing the advice that is given to government and Parliament—and, indeed, the advice that will then, I hope, be used as a basis for explaining in public communications what steps are being taken and why. As the discussion we just had demonstrated, these things should not be trammelled by being directly involved with the people who benefit, financially and otherwise, from the advice that is given. So independence is a first, straightforward step.

Secondly, this is not simply a scientific panel. It is really important that we deliver into the regime as much evidence as we can about health harms and the scientific basis for understanding the impacts of vaping products and nicotine addiction over time. But, as the amendment makes clear, we should also include in the expert panel people who understand all the behavioural science aspects of trying to structure a regime that is about seeking to influence behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this debate, which concludes the work of the Committee. As I have said before, I certainly share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who tabled this amendment, to ensure that regulations are based on the best available evidence. I appreciate the consideration he has given to the amendment and the reason he put it forward.

I say in response that we continue to monitor emerging evidence, which we have much discussed, on vapes and nicotine products, including commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. For example, we commissioned a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies—referred to in the debate—which was published recently, and a five-year-long living evidence review that will collate the latest and most robust research into the health impact of vaping. This living evidence review is accompanied by a scientific advisory panel, which includes independent experts, appointed independently from the Government on merit, who the Government can call on for advice on the latest evidence. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, earlier this year we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health effects of vaping on young people’s health.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that misperception of the harms of vaping is of concern; I take that point. Vaping absolutely can play a role in helping adult smokers to quit, as we have discussed, but children should not be vaping and nor should non-smokers. We are committed to carefully considering the scope of restrictions, to avoid unintended consequences and the misperception of harms, which is an area for further work.

We also fund a vaping expert panel, which provides valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations. Under many of the powers in the Bill there is a requirement to consult before making regulations and, on 8 October, we published a call for evidence on issues where more evidence is needed before we can consult on specific proposals. We will monitor the impacts of measures brought in by the Bill and subsequent regulations. We will also be able to update regulations in future to ensure that policy is responsive to evolving evidence, should this be necessary.

It is our view that we have access to appropriate expert advice, which I know is the noble Lord’s intention, and we will consider the best available evidence in making regulations. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to the debate. It is both helpful and timely at the conclusion of Committee to have exactly this debate. In a funny way, perhaps we should have had it at the beginning, because it helped to fill out some of the details of the ways in which the evidence base for the vaping and nicotine product regime will be assessed and understood.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

I should also add that the Green Party wants to legalise drugs: I think it made that announcement on the same day that it came down so heavily on cigars. I am not against that at all as a libertarian, but it seems inconsistent, to say the least, that under the Greens’ benign rule you will be able legally to take cocaine but not smoke a Cohiba. The future would not be in trusted hands at all, which is why we are looking for these reassurances. Can the Minister make a clear statement about this situation and put our minds at rest that Davidoff of London is not to be turned into a drugs den?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend, although I fear that, after his poetry, I will be much more prosaic. I will speak to Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I want to talk in particular about the implementation of the enforcement and licensing scheme in relation to vaping and nicotine products.

In Committee, we discussed how the Government might implement the registration and licensing scheme, and the regulation of vaping and nicotine products, in co-operation with industry. I am grateful to the Minister for our subsequent discussion and for her letter. However, while the letter followed up the analogy we used in the debate with the role of the Portman Group on the regulation of alcohol products, it referred to the wrong bit of what the Portman Group does. She referred to the voluntary aspects in relation to advertising and sponsorship, whereas the correct analogy is with what it does in relation to the naming, packaging and protection code.

In essence, what that does is ensure that where products which are intended, as determined by the adjudication panel, to appeal to children are put on the market, it is able to notify retailers, who ensure that the product is not stocked. In the Bill, in relation to vaping and nicotine products, as the Minister will be aware, there is intended to be a tighter regime than is the case in relation to alcohol products. That still lends itself to the co-regulatory solution, not because the industry is looking for a voluntary solution but because it is looking for a more proportionate and effective solution.

In particular, I want to make it clear that if there is a register of products, and Clause 94 says there will be, there will then have to be somebody who makes a judgment on whether a product that is registered is compliant with the requirement of not being intended to be attractive to children. The essence of what we are setting out to do is to avoid children accessing or being attracted to vapes.

The scheme in this Bill needs somebody to do a job like that of the adjudication panel. Through the licensing that is in the clause, it is available for conditions to be attached to licences for retailers to make it clear that if there is an adverse adjudication in relation to a product that is registered, it would not be stocked by the retailer. This is not voluntary; it seems to be intended to be watertight, but somebody somewhere has to make an adjudication on whether the naming, packaging or promotion of a product, although it may be compliant with the legislation, is none the less intended to be attractive to children.

As the Minister will know, a series of judgments over time will inevitably have to be made. The least proportionate approach is for there to be a constant effort on the part of the Government to establish in regulations what is and is not permissible. It is much better to have a process, as the Portman Group does, by which an adjudication panel arrives at a quick and effective solution.

I am asking the Minister that we continue the debate which he has kindly entered into with me and that officials use the time which my noble friend is looking for in Amendment 21A to ensure that we have an implementable solution which the vaping industry, and the retailing industry in particular, can be confident in and can put in place before commencement of those provisions.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. If there is to be a retail licensing scheme, it needs to be more robust, fairer and more enforceable than currently envisaged. It needs to respect and reward retailers who are already complying with the law, which is the point behind Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and other noble Lords, and identify and punish those who are operating illicitly and illegally, which is the point behind Amendments 31 and 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister.

The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, proposes that existing, compliant and currently exempted specialist tobacconists selling handmade Caribbean cigars be automatically included in the new retail licensing scheme. This tiny number of about 120 micro-businesses, many of them multigenerational, already face the prospect of the damage done to their business by the proposed packaging regulations, and, albeit in many years to come, as their customers are almost exclusively into early or late middle age, the prospect of competing with illicit sales as a consequence of the generational ban part of the Bill.

As they are the very model of compliant, law-abiding specialist retailers, would it not be only fair at least to give them the certainty that they would automatically be included in the retail licensing scheme? Would it not lessen the burden and cost of the new licensing regime itself if it automatically granted licences to those 120 responsible businesses with a proven track record of being good actors in the tobacco area? The Minister has already said that she is not in the business of putting small businesses out of business, so I hope the Government look favourably on these amendments, which would give them an easy way of keeping at least some of these businesses in business.

Amendments 31 and 44 recognise the reality that many tobacco products are sold from premises that not only sell alcohol but derive most of their business from it. As drafted, there would be two separate licensing regimes—one for alcohol and the other for tobacco products. Would alcohol retailers not be far more circumspect about selling illicit tobacco products if, by doing so, they risked losing their alcohol licence and therefore their main source of income? Would trading standards officers and local authorities not find it much easier to enforce one combined licence than two separate ones? Would illicit products’ supply chains not be more easily disrupted if they lost their sales outlets through an unrelated alcohol penalty? Finally on these amendments—here I cross over to the previous amendments—would it not be fairer for existing specialist tobacconists if the bad actors were discouraged from unfairly competing with the good actors by having their alcohol licence removed and thus their businesses seriously affected?

--- Later in debate ---

I have one final comment. I was disappointed not to be here last week due to illness, and so I could not speak to Amendment 204 on the “polluter pays” levy, but I did watch online. I was also disappointed at the Minister’s response, particularly the assertion that we already have such a levy through excise taxation. This is not the case, as all costs are passed on to consumers while companies continue to make huge profits. The Minister has been most helpful in this group already, and I hope to continue this conversation beyond the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I say a big thank you to the Minister for listening; as she rightly said, she has listened and taken on board the comments made in Committee. Amendment 78, which I tabled in Committee, is in fact in the same terms as the Minister’s Amendment 64, which she introduced earlier this afternoon. My purpose was to ensure that local authorities would be able to enforce, more effectively and more substantially, the provisions of the Bill and their trading standards responsibilities generally. I am very glad that the Minister listened so positively to our Committee debate.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I was very happy to give way to my noble friend to allow him to heap more praise on to the Minister. Sometimes Government Ministers cannot always be assured of receiving praise from other Benches.

My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome these government amendments and are grateful to the Minister and Department of Health and Social Care officials for reflecting constructively on our debate in Committee on fixed penalties.

On Amendments 66 and 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, while I do not disagree with the sentiment, which is admirable—since in theory hypothecation of taxes, public fines and penalties would lead to more transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent—there is also a strong argument in favour of more fiscal devolution to local authorities, and whether we should use legislation to tell local authorities what they should be doing with the funds they are responsible for. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to those amendments, and I thank her and the Government once again for their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

I will come to that point in a moment and explain further. The TRIS process concluded on 18 February. The UK Government have provided a clear and satisfactory response to the concerns raised by member states, which I hope offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Far from being alarmed by the UK’s approach, several EU countries are watching it carefully. In France, a similar Private Member’s Bill is gathering cross-party support. In the Republic of Ireland, Ministers opted to raise the age of sale to 21 at this stage but have been explicit that future Governments may “keep going” and consider a rising age of sale. Countries across the EU are following developments here with great interest. We cannot say that positions taken by EU Governments in the past will determine their future positions on this issue. We are clearly leading a global conversation about how best to respond to the harms caused by tobacco. There is not just EU-wide but global interest in what the UK is doing here.

Finally, two successive UK Governments, of different political persuasions, have brought forward the Bill with the smoke-free generation policy at its heart. Both will have taken detailed legal advice and agreed to proceed on the basis of its content. The fact that alternative legal advice commissioned and funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association offers an opinion to the contrary does not, for me, outweigh the judgment of two successive Administrations firmly committed to protecting public health. I therefore cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I hope that the House will consider the strength of legal arguments in favour of the Government’s position as assurance that this is the right and moral thing to do.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and to speak to my Amendment 206. I might say to him that, to me, it seems clear that what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and other noble Lords intend in Amendment 202 is to complement what is in the Bill rather than to in any sense contradict it. The intention was entirely to look at how, in addition to the measures in the Bill, we can move to a smoke-free country, rather than simply relying upon the assumption that in the fullness of time—as my noble friend said, in a matter of decades—the smoke-free generation will take over and give us a smoke-free country. It is a very long way ahead that we will arrive at that point.

The noble Lords on both Front Benches—my noble friend and the Minister—and I have all been involved in many of the measures that have got us, over the years, to a reputation of having among the strongest tobacco control policies anywhere in the world. I hope that is something we can collectively work to sustain.

On the point about reviews, and at the risk of lauding the Minister again, I welcome that she has brought forward her amendment. I know my noble friend says it is only a little more than is required in any case, but it is not necessarily required in statute, which is rather important. I note the presence of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who was kind enough to sign Amendment 206, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did likewise. In part, we were setting out to establish exactly in each statute that there should be the necessary review process. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, Amendment 206 has some granularity about what this review actually requires.

I draw attention to what is in Amendment 206. In a sense, I am asking the Minister to say that, in addition to the fact of a review, there will be substance that contributes to the review and is reflected into it in due course. First, there should be independent and substantial research into the harms associated with vape, in particular, and nicotine products. In Committee, we discussed this a number of times and were all less than convinced that we knew what the long-term health impacts would be of substantial vape use. We have some evidence over up to 10 years, but that will certainly not be sufficient for the longer term. We need to have much more and better evidence. I hope the review will not just be about the process of the operation of the Act but will look to where the underlying issues at the heart of the Bill are moving over time.

Likewise, that is why we have included in proposed new subsection (5), to be inserted by Amendment 206, that we should look specifically at the extent to which the operation of the Act reduces

“rates of smoking”

and

“reduced use of vaping products amongst children”,

and whether the operations of the Act lead

“to a reduction in the use of vaping products for the purposes of smoking cessation”.

From the point of view of Action on Smoking and Health, one of the central issues that we need to examine is whether we can be certain we are continuing to secure the benefits of vaping products but not leading more young people, or others, into using vaping products rather than using no smoking products at all—which would be the better solution. We also want to look at what the economic impacts of the Bill might be and have, on a number of occasions, discussed small and micro-businesses.

While it is not my intention to press Amendment 206 to a vote, I hope that some of the granularity within it will be reflected in the review the Minister has vouchsafed to us under Amendment 205, and that she might at the Dispatch Box make it clear that, in due course, they will all form part of the review.

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who deserves much personal credit for his work on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and I are on the same side on these issues. I will speak in support of Amendment 202, because it would be a good thing to require the Government to publish five-yearly reports, setting out a clear road map towards a smoke-free country.

While the smoke-free generation policy will rightly protect future generations from the harms of tobacco, it does not in itself sufficiently address the needs of the 5.3 million people who still currently smoke. If we are serious about creating a smoke-free country then we cannot afford to overlook them. Smoking remains responsible for around 74,000 deaths each year and a national strategy would ensure a focus on getting smokers the support they need to live healthier lives, free from the harms of tobacco. The UK’s tobacco control policies have, over many years, delivered a remarkable decline in smoking rates, representing a major public health success story, but further progress is not inevitable without sustained action.

This can be shown by the example of Germany, where smoking rates have remained at around 30% since 2017. Key differences are the absence in Germany of a comprehensive national strategy and Germany having weaker restrictions on tobacco. Without a clear plan, progress can stall. Crucially, this amendment includes targets and specific interventions for groups and areas with a persistently high prevalence of smoking. This matters because smoking rates remain deeply unequal. In the most deprived areas of the country, one in five people, 21% or so, smoke, compared with just 6.2% in the least deprived areas. Around half of the gap in healthy life expectancy between these groups can be attributed to smoking. Supporting people in these communities to quit would make a significant contribution towards the Government’s stated ambition to reduce health inequalities and make our country more productive, as well as happier. We need to do more to reach groups where smoking prevalence remains stubbornly high, such as people with serious mental illnesses, those living in social housing and those in routine manual occupations.

The Bill will help to ensure that nobody starts smoking, but it must be the first step in a wider national road map to ensure that everyone is supported to kick the habit, which is what most smokers seek. The publication of a road map would complement the Government’s own Amendment 205, which sets out how the implementation of the Bill will be reviewed. A clear plan would articulate what the Government aim to achieve in future and by when. It could also encompass further measures, long called for by the APPG on Smoking and Health, including action on so-called cigarette filters, the publication of industry sales data and warnings on individual cigarettes.

Amendment 202 urges the Government to be bold, set a new target and back it with a credible long-term plan. The APPG examined evidence last year and recommended a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament, alongside a clear ambition to make smoking obsolete within the next 20 years. These goals are achievable. I urge the Minister to seize this opportunity by indicating that there will be a road map of the kind that we seek very soon.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

124: Clause 89, page 50, line 33, at end insert—
“(l) the technological features, markings or identifiers on packaging required for product authentication or the prevention of illicit products.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to introduce this group and, in particular, to speak to my Amendment 124. This group is about the features of products in Clauses 89 and 90—not the ones that we have just discussed but in particular the technology features to be found in products.

If I can jog to the later amendments, government Amendments 130 and 132 and my Amendment 131 relate to a subject that a number of noble Lords will recall we discussed in Committee. We discussed whether there should be powers in the Bill to regulate the technology in vapes such that the mechanism for regulation would not only be at point of sale but could also be at point of use. My Amendment 131 is designed specifically to achieve that. The Minister has been listening again, and I am pleased to have the opportunity again to thank her for her engagement and that of officials. I also thank her for the amendments she has now brought forward.

The Minister’s Amendments 130 and 132 together would have the effect of allowing for the features of a product to include the technology associated with that and, in Amendment 132, the software included with that technology. What is the point of that? It is to be able to secure that known technology which would allow age gating and verification, linking the electronics in the vape to a smartphone with age verification built into it. This would enable us to provide that only verified adults would be able to use vapes.

What is really interesting is that this is not speculative: the technology is presented to the Food and Drug Administration in America and the latest information I have from IKE Tech, which I thank for its work on this, is the application for a pre-market tobacco product, including a human factors study. In tests, 100% of adults were able to access the product successfully, while 0% of under-age users were able to do so. It is an effective technology.

If I can anticipate the Minister’s view, it is that Ministers are not yet convinced that this is the approach to take; they want to ensure that there is effective point of sale verification. However, I hope they agree that, given the progress that has been made, not least through the FDA in America, which will be demonstrated in a substantial market, the combination of point of sale and point of use may be necessary in future to achieve the level of assurance about age gating to vapes that we want to achieve. At the moment—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not with us at the moment, so I am able to quote from Action on Smoking and Health—ASH tells us that nearly half of under-age vapers are buying them from shops, so there is a substantial job to be done. We know that nearly a quarter of under-age vapers receive them via proxy purchases. We will not eliminate proxy purchases through the point of sale restriction, but age gating, in the technology of the product itself, may achieve exactly that.

I think we are all agreed—at least, I hope we are —following the debate in Committee, when we were supported by my noble friends on the Front Bench, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we want to have this power available, and I hope that Ministers will look actively at whether this is a desirable thing to achieve. Government Amendments 130 and 132 will achieve that.

There is also the question of Amendment 124, which is the basis of this debate. It relates to Clause 89 and the technology essentially in the packaging of vaping and nicotine products. I shall not press the amendment, because I am assured by the Minister in our conversations that the powers available in Clause 89 would allow that the kind of technology for authentication of a product can be specified. We want to put into products a smart tag, which we discussed previously, and is effectively a near field communication tag embedded in the packaging to enable tracking of illicit products, giving real-time identification of the history of a product by enforcement authorities. It would also enable retailers and consumers with the appropriate technology in their smartphones to assure themselves of the authenticity and safety of a product that was available to them, doing so in a way which, unlike QR codes which can be copied, and some of the other coding systems presently used, can be done in a unique token ID system embedded in blockchain, meaning that it would not be able to be removed, copied or circumvented. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that Clause 89 already has the powers necessary to include technology as sophisticated as this. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group relates to the technology in devices. Government Amendments 130 and 132 are, we understand, designed to future-proof this legislation, particularly to prevent the placing of video games inside vaping devices. We on these Benches welcome the intention and the future-proofing of the legislation. This is of the utmost importance; we see it time and again and are right to expect that the tobacco industry will react to this legislation when it hits the statute book.

This is not abstract—it is based on real-life evidence and real-life vapes that exist. Cigarette companies are now producing vaping devices that incorporate video games, particularly retro video games, and even virtual pets. For some, this might appear as not that important or essential, but nothing could be further from the truth. The linking of nicotine addiction with a gaming addiction, and the linking with different rewards and sensory interactions, are extremely powerful and the motivation is only about increasing profits for Big Tobacco.

Looking at it in more detail so that your Lordships understand, the points that users can get in the games on the vaping devices are linked to the number of puffs they take, how frequently they take them and how often they interact with their vaping device. They can compare scores with their friends, and virtual pets can die if people do not take enough nicotine. This might look playful, but it is about feeding and deepening individual addiction to these devices. They are extremely powerful and harmful, particularly to the young people at whom they are aimed.

One of these new devices has apparently been viewed over 12 million times. British American Tobacco’s latest device, Vuse Ultra, was recently dubbed “the future of vaping”. These devices are available in the UK, and the market will inevitably grow if there are loopholes in the legislation. The devices push the boundaries, so it is important that the Government regulate them.

As we heard, the oversight remains weak, as do trading standards; the devices get into our young people’s hands; they might predominantly be purchased in shops, through friends or even sometimes parents. Online restrictions are not as good as they should be. These are important issues.

We welcome the two government amendments, but is the Minister convinced that the Government really have all the powers they need to future-proof this legislation? Do they feel that they have adequate powers in the Bill and future regulations to prevent vaping devices being linked to any form of online data collection and storage; to prevent the linking of vapes to apps in phones via Bluetooth, QR codes or joining the website; to stop the linking of users’ individual puff counts to games or online collection; and to stop the actual connection between the number and times of puffs taken and access to forms of promotion, discount or VIP passes? This is clearly where the industry would like to go if the guardrails are not provided by the Government.

I also welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Speaking to the words that he used, the hope is that government Amendments 132 and 130 will cover Amendment 131, but it would be good to have the Minister confirm that.

Finally, Amendment 124 is about the technology within the packaging and whether the Government feel that they have the powers they need to put in these near-field tracking devices to make sure that these are genuine products, not fraudulent or unreal. Do the Government need Amendment 124 to feel they can make sure that the products available in the shops are legal and not counterfeit, or are they satisfied with what they have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 130 and 132 provide a power that would allow the Government to regulate the technological features of vaping products and tobacco-related devices, and the software associated with those features, to address emerging risks and to protect children. While the Bill already provides powers to regulate various device features, such as colour, size and shape, I listened carefully to the points raised in Committee about vape technology and the need to future-proof the Bill in order to respond quickly to new risks. I appreciate the support of both Front Benches on this point, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how far one can ever go when future-proofing. I can assure him that we are not planning to ban everything, but I thank him for the interesting suggestion.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke to concerning examples of the emergence of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people. As he said, some can now come with gaming functionality and others can be linked to what are called puff leaderboards and reward systems, so the more you inhale, the more credits you build up. Emerging evidence suggests—and it is worrying—that these interactive and gamified vaping features may heighten their appeal to children. This raises serious public health concerns around their potential to escalate dependence on nicotine. Our amendments therefore ensure that such emergent technology features can be appropriately regulated to reduce the appeal to children.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 131 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Let me first reassure him, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with regard to Amendment 124, that the powers in the Bill already enable us to regulate markings, which could include digital markings such as QR codes, to be used as part of a system to authenticate products. On Amendment 131, with reference to the device itself, I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s suggestions and his contributions on how best to future-proof the Bill, including on age-verification technology.

While it is not the Government’s policy to verify age at the point of use, and we have no intention to do so at this time, we recognise that need, as I have said, to be able to regulate technology to protect public health and respond to evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, acknowledged. It is for this reason that we are introducing the new regulation-making power on technology to which I have just spoken. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

The Minister referred to QR codes on packaging, which are obviously covered by the terminology of the Bill as it stands. But the example I used was smart tags, which effectively incorporate an electronic feature into the packaging of a product for monitoring. I would like to be assured that smart tags, too, are covered by the existing powers in the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I would be happy to write to confirm that point, but we feel that the Bill covers what we need to cover now. Our amendments talk about future-proofing, which is the key thing, but I would be pleased to write further.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Kamall. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 124.

Amendment 124 withdrawn.