Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Strathcarron Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, in that a minority investor in one of my companies also manufactures vapes, although my concerns for this Bill have nothing to do with vapes but relate to its treatment of cigars and pipes, and the fact that a generational ban is, in practice, unenforceable and therefore unworkable.

It is an unfortunate part of this Bill that, as drafted, pipe tobacco and cigars are lumped together with cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco where they do not need or deserve to be. In fact, cigar smokers are such a vanishingly rare breed that the ONS stopped collecting data on them in 2018, at which point it was recording that one cigar is smoked per 22 adults in a year. Looking around your Lordships’ House, with about 25 noble Lords attending, this means that, between us all here right now, we smoke one cigar a year.

The noble Lord smoking that one imaginary cigar—probably me—will know that it is made from pure tobacco leaves, without any of the added chemicals found in cigarettes or their filters; that the cigar smoke is not inhaled, and therefore the health risk relative to cigarette smoking is non-existent; and that, as a result, cigars are not addictive and there is no evidence at all that they are a gateway to other forms of smoking—in fact, it is quite the opposite, as smokers migrate from harmful cigarettes to harmless cigars and pipes as part of the quitting process. Cigars are such a non-existent problem that they are referenced only three times in the entire 294-page impact assessment report.

There are also drastic implications for shops and SMEs, especially related to the unintended consequences of the new packaging requirements, which we will have time to explore more in Committee.

My second concern with this Bill is more fundamental: a generational ban is unworkable and unenforceable, and surely we should not be passing legislation that we know is doomed to fail before it even starts. It is almost as if the whole idea was thought up by someone who has never smoked, drunk, gambled or smuggled. Versions of a generational ban have been tried twice before: first, in New Zealand, from where the idea came, where it was abandoned as soon as it became clear that it would not work; and, secondly, in Australia, where they now have contraband wars, with tobacconists being firebombed, as the regulated market is taken over by smuggler gang activities.

As anyone even passingly familiar with drugs policy or prohibitions will know, it is one thing to ban something but quite another to prevent people ignoring the ban. Of course, when they ignore the ban, they are, by definition, breaking the law, which begs the question: do we really want to classify as criminals whole swathes of people who are law-abiding in every other way?

As drafted, the Bill will require shopkeepers to be its enforcers. But really, how realistic is it to ask a shopkeeper to tell whether someone who comes in to buy a pack of cigarettes was born in this year or that year? A moment’s thought, or time spent in a busy shop, will confirm that it is impossible and unreasonable to expect it to be otherwise. As the designated enforcers of this unworkable scheme, shopkeepers are, rightly, up in arms about it. They do, however, offer a solution which is enforceable and which will work: that is to make the sale of any tobacco product illegal to anyone under 21. Just as it is very difficult for any of us to tell the precise age of a teenager, it is comparatively easy for us to tell whether or not someone is an adult. To reinforce this common-sense solution, all the evidence suggests that hardly anybody starts smoking over the age of 21.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that smoking is already dying out among the young—dramatically so—because they are choosing not to smoke, not because they are banned from doing so. Over 21 is an obvious and simple solution, supported by its enforcers, and more likely to make the Bill succeed in the way in which it was originally intended than the way it is currently drafted.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Strathcarron Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a company, one of the minority shareholders of which is a vape manufacturer.

We all start off on common ground. We all want to discourage young people from starting to smoke. What we are debating here is the best way of making this happen. I am speaking to amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to understand why the Government think that the complexities and unintended consequences of a generational ban are a better way of achieving this than the simplicities of an age limit, such as the challenge schemes that already exist and are well understood and working.

As a non-affiliated Member of your Lordships’ House, I find it surprising that the Government would not take the opportunity to improve on the previous Prime Minister’s pet project, which this was. As I know from personal experiences, he is almost professionally abstemious and does not really cater for the rest of us who are not. His generational ban stems from this outlook. For some reason—I hope it will be explained—in spite of all the evidence against it, which I will come to, the Government persist with his legacy scheme.

My first question is: why, when prohibition has never worked anywhere in the world throughout history without unintended consequences—all of them bad—do the Government think this de facto prohibition will work here now? Do the Government not understand that if you try to prevent someone buying something easily available legally, they will simply buy it illegally as they have always done and will always do? Why, when the DSHE’s own research and analysis modelling in preparation for the Bill showed that increasing the age to 21 would result in exactly the same outcome as the generational ban, do the Government ignore their own advice and everyone else’s common sense?

Why do the Government not accept endless research and the evidence of our own eyes that practically nobody starts smoking after 21 and therefore the age limit solves the problem? Equally important in this context, it polices itself. Why do the Government think it in any way sensible or reasonable to pass responsibility for enforcing their law on to retailers, many of them small family businesses, which will have to second-guess a customer’s age, which will change year by year? Surely the Government can see that on the ground in a shop, perhaps late at night with all that entails, this is completely unrealistic—especially when there is a practical age-limit solution to hand, such as the challenge scheme, which the shop will probably already be operating for other products.

Why do the Government ignore the blindingly obvious fact that, while it is quite possible to tell the difference between a 16 year-old and a 21 year-old, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a 56 year-old and a 61 year-old and so on, up and down the age range, as retail staff will now be asked to do? Why do the Government ignore the obvious consequences of proxy purchasing, whereby all adults will be able to buy alcohol but only some will be able to buy tobacco? We will have the irregularity of all adults being allowed to smoke, but only some adults being allowed to buy what is needed to smoke. Anyway, is formalising two-tier justice really a good idea?

Why do the Government ignore the British Retail Consortium? Its members have already reported an increase in violence towards their shop workers in recent years. Its view is that the generational ban will make this violence and abuse even worse.

Why do the Government not take note of the advice of the Association of Convenience Stores? The generational ban will have a disastrous effect on its members’ shops, not just financially but on their health and well-being as they are asked to enforce, on the Government’s behalf, the unenforceable.

Why do the Government ignore the experiences of Australia? A generational ban was tried there and it was found that organised crime moved into the vacuum created by good intentions. It has resulted in tobacco turf wars and an enormous increase in illicit sales.

Why do the Government think there is any point in giving an additional £10 million to trading standards and £100 million over five years to Border Force and HMRC to clamp down on illicit sales, when the ONS figures suggest that illicit sales lose the Government £6 billion a year in tax revenue? The Home Office-funded report by the National Business Crime Centre says that the proposed generational ban means that the demand for illicit tobacco will increase dramatically—I might add, obviously. Has the Treasury been consulted about losing all this revenue?

Lastly, I make a quick point about the use of statistics in this debate. Referring to the illicit trade in tobacco, can we all admit that, by the very nature of illicit trade, none of us knows what the real figures are now or what they will be in the future, only that, by virtue of common sense, they are bound to increase with prohibition, as they always have? All I can contribute is that I know three people who smoke cigarettes and two of them tell me that they buy them by the carton illicitly at £50 a carton. By extrapolation, this does not mean that 66.6% of cigarettes smoked are illicit, but the way that some Members, and the Government, were bandying statistics around at Second Reading was quite surprising. For instance, in answer to some points that I raised, the Minister quoted a statistic and I think that, even as she was reading it, she must have thought to herself, “Hang on, this one’s a bit iffy”:

“There are around five times more people smoking non-cigarette tobacco … than a decade ago”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 741.]


In a subsequent Answer to a Written Question, she confirmed my findings that there are no statistics at all to back this up. The so-called research comes from an ASH-funded scare project—as we all know, researchers seldom bite the hand that feeds them. Without coming clean about it, they rather conveniently included shisha, some of which contains hardly any tobacco at all, and all of which is freely available on Amazon and elsewhere. The increase is accounted for by the enormous demographic change that we have seen over the past 10 years of people for whom smoking shisha is part of their cultural heritage—toes on which I would have thought the Government would be loath to tread, electorally.

Talking electorally, given that the previous Prime Minister was not always right about everything, I am sure we would all be interested to hear the Government’s response to all the questions that I have asked and about why they think that introducing all the constitutional complexities and practical inefficiencies of a generational ban is a better way to what we all want—preventing young people smoking—than the wonderfully simple, existing, workable, enforceable and Windsor Framework-friendly alternative solution staring us in the face. It would also be the Government’s own policy, not one copied from a regime that they were so quick to vilify in opposition.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Strathcarron Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

All I am asking the Minister and the Government to consider is a proper fact-based assessment of the difference between cigars and other tobacco products. Only then will we have legitimacy for banning their sale, which, by the way—as we should be aware—will cost many thousands of jobs and destroy an important community of people whose mental health should be a priority. It will end the fabulous tourist attraction of our specialist tobacco and cigar shops and, importantly, reduce my freedom and happiness—ambitions no Government and this House should meet without proper evidence. It is wrong to interfere in someone’s life without good cause. All I ask is that we gather the evidence, publish it, assess it and, if it shows that cigars are not the enemies we think they are, remove them from the proscribed list. That is why I speak to my amendments.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the first day of this Committee, there was agreement among all noble Lords that the Bill was about public health. The purpose of these amendments, to which I have added my name, is to show that handmade cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco pose undetectable threats to public health and that they, through no fault of their own, have been caught up in the net meant for a very different type of tobacco product—mass-produced inhaled cigarettes.

Amendment 106 defines what a handmade cigar is. It is an individual, artisanal product, made entirely of specially grown and cured tobacco leaves, and almost exclusively in friendly Caribbean countries, in what could be thought of as cottage industries—in our terms. By contrast, mass-produced cigarettes contain tobacco that has been treated by a moisture controller such as glycerol or sorbitol, a sugar such as sucrose or an invert sugar, preservatives such as sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate, and reconstituted tobacco binders such as guar gum or carboxymethyl cellulose. All these are then wrapped in paper that has been bleached white with hydrogen peroxide and had added to it potassium or sodium nitrate to make the cigarette burn evenly. All these are inhaled through a filter usually made from cellulose acetate fibres. None of these ingredients can be found in a handmade cigar.

As with the difference in content between a handmade cigar and a mass-produced cigarette, the same extreme differences can be found in the manufacturing process. Whereas modern cigarette-making machines can make up to 100,000 cigarettes a minute, a torcedor or artisan cigar roller can make only between 25 and 100 cigars a day, depending on the length and gauge of the cigars that he or she is rolling that day.

Just as mass-produced cigarettes and handmade cigars are different products made in different ways, so is how they are smoked. The most obvious and significant difference is that mass-produced cigarettes are inhaled, whereas handmade cigars are not inhaled. In fact, the reason cigarettes are so heavily treated with additives and chemicals is to make them inhalable and therefore addictive. That is where and how the damage is done. Again, none of this public health damage applies to handmade cigars.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, another major difference between mass-produced cigarettes and handmade cigars is the quantities consumed. Desktop research shows that the average cigarette smoker smokes 11 cigarettes a day, whereas figures for cigar smokers are impossible to come by because they are such an infinitesimally small group of people. Retail evidence from repeat customers suggests once a month—a bit more in summer and a bit less in winter, as it is largely an outdoor pursuit. Tellingly, cigar smokers feel no need ever to smoke a cigar again because they are not addictive, but they hope they will smoke a cigar again because they are often smoked in celebration of happy events such as weddings or anniversaries.

If the primary purpose of the Bill is to stop young people from starting to smoke, I am pleased to tell the Committee that cigar smokers are comparatively a much more elderly cohort and that there is no evidence at all that someone who has smoked their first cigar at any age then goes on to smoke any type of mass-produced cigarette; in fact, I am sure that the chemicals and additives would make them feel quite sick if they tried to do so. If the purpose of the Bill is to stop young people smoking, handmade cigars should certainly not be one of its targets, as it simply does not apply.

Like many of the amendments in this group, this one calls for an impact assessment on the effect of including handmade cigars in the Bill, as they were totally ignored in the Government’s initial impact assessment, having not been mentioned once in 294 pages. The Bill’s packaging proposals in particular would collapse affected businesses in three to five years, because they would be caught in the cross-fire of a Bill that is aimed at a very different type of tobacco product.

A further objection to the inclusion of cigars is a diplomatic one. The Minister has no doubt seen the letter to the Prime Minister jointly signed by the UK ambassadors of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic expressing their concerns regarding the Bill, which

“could disproportionately impact cigar-producing countries through measures that are not justified by evidence”.

The letter compares evidence that supports its case, most recently from the US Food and Drug Administration and conducted for it by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and it compares that with the evidence provided by the Government to support the Bill, which, as the authors say,

“uses a single UCL study, which has been widely criticised for methodological limitations that undermine its reliability as the foundation for sound and solid evidence-based policymaking”.

That is the much-derided study that claims a fivefold increase in the use of non-cigarette tobacco in the last decade but conveniently forgets to mention that it includes sheesha and heated tobacco, makes no mention at all of handmade cigars, pipe or nasal tobacco and has everything to do with the changing demographics of the country.

The letter highlights the socioeconomic and cultural damage that would be done to the sector in their economies:

“Cigars are produced predominantly in small and medium size companies, sustaining the livelihoods of more than 400,000 people, many of them women and smallholder farmers in rural communities. For our countries the industry represents not only a source of dignified employment and economic stability but also a vital element of cultural heritage”.


I am sure the Committee will agree that it seems bizarre that those three countries are recipients of our foreign aid on the one hand, yet what we are proposing with the Bill is to cause them serious economic and socioeconomic damage on the other for, as the letter says, no proper evidence-based reason. The ambassadors’ letter to the Prime Minister finishes with the crux of the matter:

“There is a clear precedent for this approach”—


that is, an exemption—

“in previous tobacco related legislation in the United Kingdom, where the unique characteristics of cigars have been recognised and proportionate exemptions granted. The rationale for these exemptions remains just as relevant today”.

The precedents they refer to relate to packaging and display allowances in specialist tobacconists, where any change to the current regime would be particularly damaging to these small, independent businesses which rely on handmade cigars for the bulk of their income. It would be impossible operationally, and suicidal commercially, for these Caribbean cottage industries to comply with the UK-only proposed plain packaging requirements, designed for multinational, mass-produced cigarette manufacturers. It also shoots the fox which says that the proposed legislation will make no difference to current cigar smokers. Of course, it will, because it means they will have nowhere legal from which to buy them if there are no cigar retailers because the cigar producers cannot comply with this unique UK legislation.

The only similarity between a mass-produced cigarette and a handmade cigar is the word “tobacco”—not the content called tobacco, which is radically different between them. No, we are talking here about a word, not a reality. But Bills are made of words, and, occasionally, reality gets caught in the crossfire—hence the need for defined exemptions for these handmade, artisanal products made in friendly countries and sold by small businesses across the country.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was going to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, but I will go ahead. I was not intending to speak on this. I also wanted to sign the amendments, but such was the popularity of them that there were too many signatures. I support completely what the noble Earl and the two noble Lords who have spoken have said. I think they have covered practically everything that could be said about this issue. If the Minister is listening—and particularly if her officials in the Department of Health and Social Care, where I expect this has been pushed, are listening—I really cannot see why she would not consider, even at this stage, just dropping the whole thing about cigars.

I am particularly concerned about the issue of cigars and handmade cigars. I really do not understand why this is happening now, after all the years when there has been other legislation about tobacco—cigars have been left out and not included. Parliament has always recognised the unique aspect of this. I would hope that, after this debate in Committee has finished, the Minister will go back and recognise that taking this out now would solve a lot of problems with timing and getting things through quickly, given this whole debate. I would certainly support that.

The Government’s own impact assessment has been mentioned. It does not mention handmade cigars at all, and it mentions cigars very little, so I do not think any of us can really feel that a proper impact assessment has been done on the effects of cigars. I share the concern that has been expressed. I have also seen the letter from the three ambassadors—from the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Cuba—to the Prime Minister. Up until last week, there had not been a response. It was sent on 20 October, and I know that the Prime Minister has been quite busy recently, but I hope that they will get a full response to it, because it is very much going to have an effect. We always say that we care about what is happening to poorer communities across the world, and here we are going to have a situation that, without doubt, will lead to a real effect on smallholder farmers in rural communities. It is also very much a cultural thing in those countries. We should be taking that into account, apart from just the effects.

I have yet to see a 16 year-old, a 14 year-old or a 12 year-old standing around smoking a cigar. Now, maybe I have missed out, and maybe the Minister has seen that. I do not think that this is an issue about age—well, it is, in the sense that it is older people. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Apart from the cost of it, young people do not think of cigars as something that they would want to smoke. So it will make no impact whatever, in my view, on the health situation.

Years ago, in 1968, during my radical student days, I visited Cuba to plant coffee. I never went back to see whether the coffee that we planted actually grew—but we came back from Cuba, and of course in those days I brought lots of Che Guevara T-shirts and Cuban cigars. Sadly, people were more interested in having a present of the Cuban cigars than the Che Guevara T-shirts. So my interest in cigars goes back quite a long way.

But seriously, this proposal is really not sensible. It is not necessary and is not going to affect the health of one single person, but it will really affect those lovely, niche, small tobacco shops. There is one in Belfast, in Church Lane, called Miss Morans, which is visited by tourists because it is tiny and historic—I think it was started in 1870. Those are the kinds of shops that are going to be affected. People will be put out of jobs, not just in the handmade cigar places but in those kinds of shops. It is just not necessary. Although I recognise that the Minister perhaps cannot withdraw the whole clause today and take cigars right out of this, I hope that she will reflect on what has been said today, which is a very strong case for why cigars should not be part of this Bill.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Strathcarron Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 180 in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, to which I have added my name. Amendment 180 would remove the sampling exemption to smoke-free legislation that currently allows cigar lounges to operate.

This exemption has created a loophole that accommodates smoking indoors in a public place—something that we rightly consigned to history in 2007. The 2007 statutory instrument carved out an exemption for specialist tobacconists, allowing for the sampling of products within the premises. The justification offered then was that cigars, being a niche and luxury product, required a try-before-you-buy approach.

Yet what I see today bears little resemblance to the spirit of that exemption. These venues are no longer retail premises merely offering brief product sampling; they are fully-fledged cigar lounges. They are described by no less an authority than the Daily Telegraph as:

“The last place you can smoke indoors in the UK”


and

“a network of hangouts where smoking is not just permitted, but encouraged”.

That is surely not what Parliament intended.

In some of these lounges, food and drink are served as cigar smoke fills enclosed spaces. Some noble Lords may be enthusiastic supporters of what one nearby cigar lounge’s website describes in the following terms:

“Nestled in a quiet corner of the city lies … a haven for those who seek solace in the timeless ritual of cigar smoking. Step through our doors and be transported to a world of refined tranquility, where every detail is crafted to enchant the senses and soothe the soul”.


Note the absence of any reference to sampling, by the way.

What about those who work in these environments—staff being exposed to second-hand smoke on every shift? I saw the reality of this at first hand just a couple of months ago at a friend’s birthday party in a smart London hotel. As the guests, including myself, wandered from room to room and from snacks and dancing to drink, we were amazed to see that one of our options was a cigar lounge. Although this was indeed an option for us—one that I obviously chose to skip, given my father’s untimely death from lung cancer—it was not an option for the staff, who were working in all parts of the hotel.

The smell of that cigar smoke took me back to my childhood and teens before my father died at 66. He usually smoked cigarettes and a pipe—it was Cut Golden Bar, if any noble Lords are old enough to remember the cheaper brands of tobacco. He would smoke a cigar, purchased as a present or as a treat for himself, once a year at Christmas. I remember the smell of that smoke in the room. I had no idea—I do not know whether he did—of the harm it was doing to his two daughters, who now suffer from asthma.

During the campaign for the smoking ban, trade unions and the hospitality industry made one of the strongest arguments for change: all workers have the right to a safe workplace free of second-hand smoke. Does that principle not equally apply to those working in cigar lounges? We are seeing new lounges open, too. In Sheffield, for example, a new lounge opened earlier this year despite strong objections from the public health team at Sheffield City Council. The team noted that the venue was within 400 metres of a school and that smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the city. It warned that such a venue risked normalising tobacco use for young people, undermining the council’s public health objectives, yet the lounge opened regardless.

The health harms of cigars are clear. Even when not inhaling, cigar and pipe smokers are at increased risk of cancer of the mouth, oesophagus, throat, voice box and lungs. There is no safe form of tobacco. I strongly support the Bill taking action on all tobacco products and look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments regarding indoor smoking in these establishments.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the first day of this Committee, there was wide agreement that this Bill was about public health in general and about preventing young people starting to smoke in particular. Amendment 180, against which I shall speak, addresses neither of these objectives. As we have heard, the amendment is based on the oft-repeated shibboleth that all tobacco is dangerous, but that is as nonsensical and unscientific as saying that all water is drinkable. Neither proposition stands up to even the most basic inquiry: with water, it all depends on where it comes from, and, with tobacco, it all depends on what it is done with.

I am sure that, after reading Hansard on day four of this Committee, the noble Lords who were not here and who support this amendment will have learned that the tobacco used in handmade cigars is a totally different product to the tobacco used in mass-produced cigarettes. It is smoked by a much more elderly cohort of users and is handmade as an artisanal product by cottage industries in friendly, foreign-aid-supported Caribbean countries, which are, in turn, the very opposite of what most people refer to as the tobacco industry. They will also have learned that cigars are not inhaled, are not addictive and are smoked only occasionally at best; and that, as such, there is absolutely no evidence at all that handmade cigars pose any danger to public health. In fact, it is quite the opposite if we refer to the US health studies already mentioned in Committee, there being no UK equivalent.

Turning to the second objective of this Bill—to discourage young people from starting to smoke—again, there is absolutely no evidence, either statistical, anecdotal or commonsensical, that young people take up smoking cigarettes after smoking a cigar. So one is left wondering: what is the point of this amendment?

I turn now to its specifics, bearing in mind the call for proportionality here. There are only 25 sampling rooms in the UK. Access to them is usually by appointment and they are certainly open only to the tobacconist’s cigar aficionado customers; under no circumstances are they open to the general public. I know of only one of these places. It is on the roof of a shop that has a tin roof in case it rains but is otherwise open on all four sides; I have heard that others have powerful extractor fans, which is the norm. I cannot see any possible danger to the consenting adults sampling cigars in these circumstances or to anyone passing by, by which time the smoke will have long since disappeared into the greater good.

Sampling cigars is very different to sampling, say, a piece of cheese or a piece of chocolate. A cigar takes half an hour to smoke, and it changes throughout that half hour; therefore, it is necessary for the whole cigar to be smoked. That is in the tobacconist’s interest because, at the end of the sample smoke, the customer may well buy a box of 25 cigars, which could cost, on average, about £750. Methinks that noble Lords supporting this amendment are not familiar with what they hope to ban.

On day four of this Committee, in referring to the question of a health threat from smoking cigars, many noble Lords from all Benches—or, like me, from none—emphasised the need for evidence before legislation and pointed out that, in this case, there is none. Many argued that, ergo, cigars should continue to be exempted from it. Many also referred to the lack of any impact assessment and so to the unintentional, possibly terminal, damage that would be done to the related retail and hospitality sectors. Whether intentionally or unintentionally—it is not clear—this amendment hits right at the heart of these sectors for no evidential benefit. In the absence of any evidence that there is a problem that needs legislation—and in the spirit of, “If no harm’s being done, let us live and let live”—I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is quite simply not needed.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I rise to speak in favour of the first amendment, proposed by my noble friends, and against the second amendment: Amendment 180.

On actors and their ability to smoke on set, in my view, this is something that needs further refining. I ask the Minister to go back slightly on the previous amendments discussed, but intertwined with those is this question: what is an offence and what is not an offence? If I were to be playing myself, as I may be now, would I be able to light a cigar in an authentic fashion in order to prove that point? Where are we talking about these regulations being relevant and effective? How far do the regulations intend to go when people are posting on social media, which is a far cry from the adverts of the 1970s promoting the joys of smoking? If they put themselves on social media smoking a cigar and talking about its delights, is that advertising the genre, as the Minister said it was? Would that be a criminal offence? If that is the case, we are going to find ourselves in extreme difficulty, aside from the absurd attacks on our liberty.

I am afraid that I will also speak very firmly against Amendment 180, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath. She made a strong case for how she saw these processes, but the reality is that this is an exemption temporarily used by premises to enable people to sample tobacco. The idea that this is something that somehow Parliament should be focusing on is a little bizarre when there is so much going on in the world. The anti-smoking lobby has found somebody somewhere somehow smoking a cigar, and the entire machine has focused its gaze, like the great Eye of Sauron, on this activity that is, at worst, fringe and, at best, quite relevant in ensuring that people can legitimately engage in the trade and sale of occasional cigar smoking, which we have established has no factual health consequences at all, regardless of the desire of many who want to see the end of smoking and a smoke-free generation. I disagree with that fundamentally but can see the point of it; this is contradictory to that point. It is important that, as legislators, we understand the facts and take a fact-based approach to the way we legislate.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Strathcarron Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments standing in my name together with those from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston. As referenced by many of the previous speakers, they deal with the grandfathering rights that we would hope to get for the particularly small businesses in this sector. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues and her willingness to take meetings and have discussions.

It has been said, but it is worth emphasising, that hand-rolled cigars are a distinctive business that has a different health impact and profile—of not having youth adoption. However, I repeat that it has a significant economic benefit for the luxury tourism industry, which is an important component of a country with the tourism profile that we have. Therefore, these businesses—small in number as they are—offer a distinctive service to the nation and should be considered carefully with the impact of the proposed legislation. There are distinct production methods, consumption patterns and market demographics for these products. Therefore, the risk of imposing a regulatory framework designed for industrial-size manufacture on a small-scale, family-orientated and economically sensitive sector requires adequate proportionality.

These amendments are designed to do that for the 120 or so businesses that would be covered by them, where there are huge concerns about economic viability, together with all the other matters that face small businesses. The Government have a strong concern to make sure that we do not always legislate such that we impede the opportunities for small businesses. These are very important principles to which we should adhere, and these amendments offer clear and enforceable definitions to ensure that the legislation can be targeted and proportionate. They would not undermine any of the public health objectives but would define their application to ensure that vulnerable specialist tobacco vendors were granted a retail licence under the new scheme, with the right arrangements to allow flexibility in circumstances around rental increases and other things that are particularly impactful on this size of business.

I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that these matters have been considered carefully and that the opportunities for these companies to continue to exist are supported by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the explanation for the amendments has been well made. I have added my name to a number of amendments, including Amendments 149 and 151 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would exclude vapes and nicotine products from prohibitions regarding advertising, and he has explained why.

It is genuinely shocking how many misconceptions there are about vaping and smoking among the public. There is a real job of communication that the Government have an obligation to do. If 50% of adults now believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, that is not a good thing. If only 30% believe vaping is less harmful, that is not positive.

Conflicting messaging about vaping can discourage smokers from switching to lower-risk products and therefore widen health inequalities—all the things we keep talking about. Misrepresentation is a real problem and I think we have got to tackle it. Banning advertising would reinforce the false perception that vaping is just as harmful as smoking.

As we are coming to the end, I will make my final declaration. As somebody who smoked 40 cigarettes every day for 40 years—can you imagine?—I want to put on record in Hansard that I am grateful to the vaping industry, and particularly to flavoured vapes, because I stopped smoking as a consequence of flavoured vapes. That is what I thought that everybody wanted us smokers to do, only to find that vaping and smoking are being treated as though they are almost the same. I am very keen that we do not do anything that will make vaping less visible or erase it from the public square.

The Government have sort of acknowledged that by allowing public authorities to run mass media campaigns encouraging adults who smoke to “Swap to Stop”. Dare I suggest that official public health adverts, even if they go on TikTok, might be a little bit dry and less appealing than seeing some adverts for vapes in a nightclub? Tens of thousands of people gather for a night out at hospitality venues, so that seems to be something that the Government would want to encourage. Although I know that the amendments do not make the Government do anything, I suggest that it would be very positive if, in venues where you have thousands of adult smokers, they saw adverts for less harmful alternatives to smoking. That is a clever way to encourage switch-and-quit.

That is one of the reasons why I have added my name to Amendment 168 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby. The emphasis on adverts for vapes and products that do not contain tobacco is well made. It is also important for us to consider the hospitality sector; that has been explained very well. Hospitality venues rely on marketing and sponsorship as part of their income. As I say, it would be a public service, rather than doing anything damaging, to allow them to carry on.

Many of us are worried about the fatal damage that the Bill will do to the retail sector. It seems ridiculous that another industry could be put in jeopardy by the Bill; that would not be good for the Government’s growth strategy. When UKHospitality stresses that the industry has

“absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs”,

we should listen. When the CEO of Whitbread, one of the largest hospitality operators in the country, says that the hospitality industry

“finds itself on the receiving end of a series of government interventions which together will significantly hold back our ability to contribute to growth”,

we should listen. We could, rather carelessly, be in a situation where we do not take that into consideration when we bring in some of these advertising restrictions. These amendments are proportionate; they suggest that we should hold back a little and at least organise a consultation.

Another industry that the Bill imperils is the design industry. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 152, which would exempt designers from having committed an offence if they had “reason to suspect” that a design or imagery contains these kinds of products. The problem for designers is that they may be criminalised for designing something that includes products that the Bill is trying to eradicate from the public space. That is a serious attack on artistic freedom. This amendment should be incorporated into the Bill. I do not think that anyone intended for the Bill to criminalise designers—but this is a Bill that will do all sorts of things that were not intended. These amendments are very moderate and allow the Government to hold back the tide of that.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and of other noble Lords, because it seems so reasonable. Surely there is no harm done if the advertisement is in a licensed premises; is not visible, except from inside the venue; is not for a tobacco product; mentions a smoke- or vape-free area; and is age-restricted to adults only. I cannot see what there is to object to, unless we are saying that the age restrictions do not work—in which case, why are we pressing ahead with a generational ban in the first place? Do we really want to get into this overreaching, overregulated situation where the compulsory cure is worse than the voluntary disease—one entered into willingly and knowingly by consenting adults?

I particularly support subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. It asks for further investigation into the effects on the hospitality industry, which is already suffering the devastating consequences of other policies. It would be good to hear what losing these marketing revenue streams will mean for those who have to run a business to make a profit in order to employ people, especially bearing in mind that recent policies have cost nearly 100,000 jobs and are responsible for nearly 50% of all job losses.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to this group on advertising and sponsorship. On these Benches, we feel that it is essential that the Bill strikes the right balance between regulating the advertisement and sponsorship of nicotine products, to ensure that they cannot be marketed in ways that appeal to children, and allowing their promotion to adults who smoke as a way to quit smoking.

I have listened to the speeches that have been made in this group. The initial response in my head is that we are facing an absolute explosion in vaping, particularly among our children and young people. I do not think that the pub industry is going to survive on the back of vape advertising, and I do not particularly feel that we need more advertising for vapes. I listened to the argument on education, but education is not advertising, and I do not trust the industry to do the job of educating because they are interested in one thing, and that is not education but profits.

Responding to this group, I think there is a background problem here. We already have too many loopholes in the system. On the side of TfL buses, it is perfectly possible to see huge adverts for nicotine pouches with the health warnings written in tiny lettering. We already have problems with this. Big tobacco knows that marketing works, and it uses it for one reason. We need to be absolutely clear that the purpose of the Bill is not only to bring about a generational ban. We do not want to replace tobacco with vapes. Vapes are there to help and support people to stop smoking; they are not a whole new revenue stream for big tobacco to enjoy for ever more as a sop for it having to stop selling its products that kill everybody. That is clear.

ASH data on nicotine pouches has shown that, between just 2024 and 2025, awareness of this market has grown from 38% to 43% among young people in Britain, and that nearly 4% of teenagers now report having tried nicotine pouches. This advertising is powerful and it works; that is why these companies use it. We feel that the Bill closes the current regulatory loophole while still allowing nicotine products to be promoted as a cessation device. We feel that this is the right place for the legislation to be. It strikes a considered and appropriate balance to maximise the public health benefits, which is where our concentration needs to be. It does not need to be on promoting vapes or anything else; this Bill is about promoting public health.

Turning to the amendments, Amendment 168 would allow the advertising of non-tobacco products in hospitality areas. This is not appropriate. Hospitality areas are not the right settings. This would give a false impression that these products are for recreational use and not for smoking cessation, and it would potentially create a massive loophole in the middle of the Bill that will be exploited mercilessly by the industry. We have heard about its ever-ready need to put forward legal claims, whether it will win them or not.

I recognise some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made, as I said, and congratulate her on having stopped smoking. I agree with her on the need to have availability of vapes and better education, and I agree with her on the absolute need to maintain the flavours in vaping products for smoking cessation. However, I have to say that there is a greater risk with this amendment that these products would be seen as recreational and not for smoking cessation; to my mind, that is where our concentration needs to be.

On Amendment 152, this issue was discussed in Committee, and I thought that the Minister explained that the provision mirrored the approach taken on existing tobacco advertising and promotions, and we were satisfied with that.

Finally, Amendments 155, 157, 159, 161, 163 and 169 aim to remove the powers to restrict advertisement of nicotine products and heated tobacco unless there is a consultation with business. Again, we do not support this. It is already illegal to advertise heated tobacco under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, and we just do not support those amendments.