Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

“rates of smoking”

and

“reduced use of vaping products amongst children”,

and whether the operations of the Act lead

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

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

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

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

Amendment 124 withdrawn.