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.