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.