Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the six amendments in this group that stand in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the CTSI, although I emphasise that these amendments are not linked to the CTSI or my role there.

Before speaking to those amendments, I will speak in support of Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Howe, because small businesses will need all the time they can get to prepare for yet another layer of administrative burden. By way of background, the track and trace system, for which specialist tobacconists have been preparing for over five years, requires every economic operator to have a unique identifier code that they must supply when an order is sent out to them. Even something this simple has been remarkably complex and very time consuming. It has taken one supplier in the handmade cigar sector well over two years to register all its customers, and it is not yet there. A fully fledged licensing system, with all that it entails, is likely to be much more complex, especially for businesses such as hotels, for which cigars are not a primary source of income.

Businesses will suffer and possibly cease trading if the licence application process is excessively burdensome in terms of cost, time or hassle. Traditionally, the handmade cigar sector, which comprises mostly family-owned businesses, has been permitted extra time to prepare for new legislation, such as on packaging, display restrictions and so forth, in recognition of how much harder it is for small and micro-businesses with fewer resources to adapt.

I move on to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in this group. I hope that these amendments will be seen as being a constructive, good-faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for specialist tobacconists. Their principal business, comprising some 70% of their turnover, is in handmade cigars. As I explained on the first day of Report, handmade cigars, which are artisanal, individually crafted, high-value and relatively expensive premium products, are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small-format cigars and cigarillos. In other words, they occupy a completely different segment of the market. That distinction matters in terms of price, consumer characteristics and, most importantly, the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.

There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. That fact was challenged last week, and I should therefore reiterate that where there is any data or evidence of cigar usage by young people, it refers not to handmade cigars but to machine-made, mass-produced, lower-priced, small-format cigars and cigarillos. The overwhelming majority of those purchasing handmade cigars are over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Furthermore, handmade cigars are not inhaled and are consumed infrequently, not habitually. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult customers.

In these amendments, we do not oppose the principle of licensing. The introduction of a new licensing framework, however, raises legitimate concerns about how it would apply to existing specialist tobacconists. They are a small number of lawful specialist businesses whose principal business is handmade cigars. Most of them are long-established, multi-generational, family-run, small and micro high-street enterprises. They have long been separately recognised in legislation and regulations. These amendments would provide for the grandfathering of existing specialist tobacconists into the new licensing scheme and seek to protect them from future regulations that might impose numerical caps or geographical restrictions.

These amendments do not go as far as proposing a separate category of licence, nor do they propose exempting new entrants from the licensing regime. They simply recognise that the small businesses operating lawfully under the current stringent regulatory framework should be neither unnecessarily destabilised by the introduction of a new regime nor gradually extinguished by density or zoning controls designed for different purposes. On this point, it is worth noting that in certain locations—St James’s in London is one example—they form a recognised specialist cluster that is popular with tourists and is not dissimilar in character to Savile Row in the context of the bespoke tailoring.

At a time when small businesses face significant economic pressures, we should be cautious about regulatory layering that risks unintended consequences for niche sectors that do not present the public health harms that this Bill is designed to address.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments laid in my name, starting with Amendments 24 and 25. Noble Lords will note that Amendment 24 seeks to establish a national register of tobacco and vape retailers. The reason I am pushing this so strongly is that the national register would strengthen traceability and support our trading standards officers and, importantly, could become a mechanism to strengthen consumer confidence and public reporting of rogue traders, by providing the general public with the means to distinguish legitimate retailers from rogue operators.

As for Amendment 25, noble Lords will hopefully understand the significant challenges that small businesses in this country are facing at this time. Yet here we are, through the Bill, finding yet more ways to strangle our small, legitimate traders with more red tape and more bureaucracy. I, like several people, I am sure, have heard directly from small retailers that many of them do not even bother to report people who carry out smash and grab thefts to the police, due to the time it takes out of their working day.

With these themes in mind, we should be mindful of passing legislation that places new and undue burdens on these small businesses. If we get this wrong, I fear that this legislation unamended would push many small and currently legally trading businesses into the hands of criminal enterprises that are fuelling illicit tobacco and vape trading across the UK. That is why, through Amendment 25, I am asking for the creation of a single digital portal for licence applications and renewals. This digital portal would lessen the burden on businesses, while also enabling greater oversight from enforcement agencies, all the while reducing the risk of administrative errors.

Amendment 31 would enable licensing authorities to suspend or revoke alcohol licences in cases where tobacco or vape licence conditions are persistently breached. Beyond the fact that, in breaching tobacco and vape licensing requirements, the person would fail to meet the definition of a “fit and proper person”, if the Bill is to succeed, it must be based on meaningful economic consequences that hurt and impact illicit trading. Alcohol represents a very significant proportion of convenience store turnover. Linking the two regimes creates a deterrent and uses existing powers under the Licensing Act 2003. If everybody is serious and genuine in their endeavours to protect children through this legislation, we must close this enforcement gap and send a message to those who breach tobacco and vape conditions by deeming them unfit to sell alcohol.

Finally, Amendment 44 seeks to ensure fairness and avoid regulatory arbitrage by ensuring that there is consistency across England and Wales. I seek your Lordships’ consent to apply the same alcohol licence linkage principle in Wales to that which I have proposed for England. That principle is that serious and persistent breaches of tobacco retail conditions should carry real commercial consequences, hitting rogue traders in a way that seeks to gravely disrupt and deter rogue trading.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a very valuable debate so far on the practicalities of a generational ban on smoking. I have been particularly intrigued by the journey we have taken. In that journey, a number of people have come to me, and I thank them for the enormous amount of information and support we have received from the specialist cigar industry. I was particularly delighted, noble Lords may be interested to hear, that my noble friend Lord Parkinson alerted me to a brand of cigars that sadly no longer exists called the House of Lords Cigar Range. I am sure we could sell that in the gift shop if things changed.

I also thank the Minister for her assurances over sampling rooms. I know this was debated, but I would be grateful for further clarification relating to her correct assertion that plain packaging will be difficult for specialist tobacconists to comply with, and thus extra care will be taken to ensure that they can carry on their business within the law, and that their specific needs will be met, as they are already in relation to the display of tobacco products.

However, these amendments, to which I have added my name, go further in protecting this important if niche industry of specialist tobacconists. The purveyors of these handmade, hand-rolled cigars, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, employ hundreds of people. They are largely family-owned or small businesses. They have been trading in some cases for hundreds of years and, importantly, provide delight to thousands of tourists and enthusiasts every day.

Regarding compliance with local licensing regulations, I do not believe that these shops have ever had any form of enforcement or issue around their compliance. I believe their behaviour to be exemplary. If we do not acknowledge the difference of these specialist tobacco shops but simply lump them in with the hordes of vape shops that are a blight on our high streets, we will end up in the worse situation that is causing the sorts of problems that we see today and that have just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister.

--- Later in debate ---

I have probably annoyed a number of noble Lords, which certainly was not my intention—I wish to have everybody on my side, not least the Minister—but I think that I am being very helpful to the Government. I hope that the Minister will, with alacrity, accept my two amendments.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 136A deals with the rapid emergence of devices with a very high puff count—so-called “big puff” devices—which are clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of existing regulation. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, approved by this House and the other place, set a 2-millilitre limit on vape tank size. That limit was deliberate. It was intended to restrict the volume of nicotine liquid immediately accessible within a device. Yet now we see devices incorporating multiple pods or attaching 10-millilitre refill containers directly to the unit. These create systems with an effective capacity far beyond 2 millilitres. If the law says 2 millilitres it should mean 2 millilitres, not 2 millilitres multiplied by clever engineering.

These are no longer niche products. Millions are now sold weekly. They are cheaper per puff than standard devices and they are particularly attractive to younger users. Research indicates that almost half of 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are opting for these devices with a higher puff count. We now see products on the market claiming to deliver 100,000 puffs. To put that into perspective, that is broadly equivalent to the puff volume of something like 8,000 cigarettes all contained within a single device. The concentration of nicotine exposure in one unit on that scale should give us all very serious cause for concern.

I do not believe this is simply a matter of marketing exaggeration. Some of these devices contain several times more liquid than traditional products, materially increasing the potential volume of nicotine consumption and moving far beyond what Parliament envisaged when it established the 2-millilitre limit. We also see superficial attempts to comply with the ban on disposable vapes. Devices are fitted with USB charging points but retain non-replaceable coils, so that once the coil burns out, the entire device is discarded. This is disposability in all but name.

I anticipate that the Minister may suggest that the Bill already contains sufficient powers to regulate such devices through secondary legislation. If that is so, this amendment merely makes explicit what the Government believe is already implicit. Parliament has previously set a clear quantitative limit. It is entirely reasonable to reaffirm that limit in unambiguous terms, particularly where the market has moved to exploit perceived gaps.

The Minister may also say that the Government have launched a call for evidence and that legislation at this stage would be premature. However, the concern here is not about developing future policy but about the exploitation of the existing framework. The 2-millilitre limit is already law. The issue is whether that settled position can be circumvented in practice through structural design. This amendment does not stifle legitimate reusable products. It does not prohibit refill bottles sold separately. It does not alter the 10-millimetre refill rule. It does not interfere with lawful refillable systems. It simply ensures that a single device cannot be engineered to exceed the 2-millilitre limit through multiple tanks or attached containers.

Effective enforcement depends on legislative clarity. Trading standards officers should not be left to debate whether what is in effect a 12-millimetre system technically complies with the 2-millimetre rule. Clear drafting reduces ambiguity and strengthens compliance. At the very least I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there will be no undue delay in addressing devices that are clearly designed to sidestep the intent of the current rules and that prompt action will be taken to close this loophole and uphold the 2-millimetre limit in practice.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and the ambition to create a smoke- free generation. Throughout my clinical and academic career, I have consistently argued for bold preventive action, because nothing would do more to reduce preventable death and health inequality than ending tobacco addiction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendments 125 and 134. I understand the instincts behind them, but I cannot support them. These amendments would limit the Government’s power to regulate flavour descriptors—the words on the packet rather than the chemical ingredients that create the flavour. Put simply, we would be regulating the label, not the substance.

The Chief Medical Officer’s evidence note is clear. Flavoured vaping products contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are safe to eat but dangerous to inhale. The long-term effects of inhaling these substances are simply not known yet. Restricting regulations to descriptors alone would deny the Government’s ability to act as new science emerges. As we have heard, flavour is one of the principal drivers of youth uptake. If we regulate only what the packet says and not what the product contains, manufacturers will simply reformulate to maintain the same appeal. We would be inviting a regulatory game of cat and mouse, and it is a game that children will lose.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

149: Clause 113, page 62, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition regarding advertising.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, while I am on my feet moving Amendment 149, I will also talk about the other amendments in my name. We must prevent an indiscriminate or blanket prohibition without proper scrutiny and consultation. I fear that, without these safeguards and measures, and with the approach being taken, years of success in smoking cessation will be reversed rapidly.

Further still, in the drafting of this Bill it is apparent that advertising is being looked at as merely a commercial persuasion. I would argue that this is wrong. We are forgetting that advertising is a channel of product differentiation and risk communication. We must therefore provide manufacturers with the opportunities to communicate factual and regulated information regarding relative risks and cessation pathways. Otherwise, we will be creating a system in which misinformation will flood the gap.

We must not allow a blanket prohibition on advertising vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products without consultation. To do so would be an affront to our business community and contrary to the way that things should be done. As already raised in Committee, half of all smokers now wrongly believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking. If communication is prohibited through an advertising ban, how do we correct misinformation such as this? How do we promote public health outcomes?

The impact assessment acknowledges potential unintended consequences for smoking cessation. These unintended consequences must be rooted out and the only way to achieve that at this stage is through wider and effective consultation. The amendments I have put forward all seek to prevent harm reduction being undermined, and on that basis I hope to gain support.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 168 is in my name. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 196, which is in the next group, but the subject matter is broadly similar. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for signing these amendments.

These amendments, taken together, would serve the purpose of providing safeguards and guarantees for the hospitality sector within the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I should be clear that they would not tie the hands of government in any way. They would not create carve-outs or specific loopholes, with the exception of a very narrow exemption in Amendment 168. They merely propose a requirement to consult specifically with the hospitality, retail and entertainment industries before making regulations in these areas.

I ask noble Lords, when thinking about these amendments, to consider the broader burdens currently faced by the hospitality industry. It is well known that the sector has been exposed to a number of challenges as a result of government policy in recent months and some aspects of this Bill have the potential to substantially add to these challenges. It is worth looking at the broader context, because the hospitality sector contributes £93 billion to the UK economy each year. It is the third-largest employer, with 3.5 million people employed in the sector. Since the 2024 Budget, over 89,000 jobs have been lost, which accounts for roughly 53% of all job losses in the economy. That is before the impact of the Employment Rights Act, which 49% of business leaders have said will make them less likely to hire new staff.

On business rates reforms, pubs have been granted a limited stay of execution, but, in the wider hospitality sector, the estimate is that it will cost the industry an additional £150 million, or the equivalent of about 12,500 jobs. The beer tax in the 2025 Budget has forced up the price of a pint by effectively eliminating the profit margin on beer through the alcohol hike of 3.55% from last month. That is all before the increases to national insurance, which have driven up operating costs across the board, as well as sky-high energy prices. This is an industry that is under considerable existential pressure.

It is important to reiterate these facts in light of the briefings from many of the public health charities that have been campaigning on this Bill. They claim that these amendments are not necessary. But every single UK hospitality industry association, including UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association, has warned about the damages this Bill could do to the sector. These amendments are therefore needed because the industry has said that it has absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs.

While the Government have said that it is not their intention to legislate for smoke-free and vape-free places for the hospitality industry as it is not the right time, that statement carries the clear implication that they might choose to do so in the future. To be clear, these amendments would not stop the Government legislating in this area. They would merely require that they guarantee consultation, with an impact assessment, before doing so. Why the guarantee? It is because too often we see sectors with concerns around this area being dismissed for having vested interests—we have heard many arguments this evening around the same subject—and the Government heeding only the submissions of organisations that tell them what they want to hear. In view of this, we suggest that these amendments and safeguards are extremely important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her explanations and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 149 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing those amendments so well and explaining some of the concerns. I am particularly pleased that he brought back the point about artistic freedom because it was very well made.

I will talk more broadly about the amendments in this group, which sum up the dangers of mission creep inherent in the Bill and highlight the pitfalls in allowing the Secretary of State to have such leeway, away from democratic scrutiny, to move the goalposts. Granting Ministers the power to extend smoke-free areas, including outdoors, to include vaping and heated-tobacco use, should not just be nodded through. It would mean the use of secondary legislation to allow the banning of, for example, smoking or vaping outside in the beer garden of a pub and the ring-fencing of whole swathes of outdoor uncovered spaces, such as outside health and social care facilities or education settings.

It is worth remembering that this would mean that for front-line workers, from teachers to care workers, never mind patients or residents, it could be illegal to go and have a vape outside their workplace. Is that reasonable? Is that proportionate? It is one thing for the workplace to designate that they should not, but for the law to intervene is more dangerous. This again, in effect, conflates smoking with vaping, undermining the perception that vaping is relatively safer, as I have endlessly, boringly, repeated.

I want to say something about smokers because, in this relentless bid to banish smoking, there is a danger that we end up demonising smokers—millions of our citizens who can be punished for indulging in a risky but legal habit—and saying that we do not want to see them anywhere in the public sphere. I do not know that this is the kind of society that the Government have in mind. Even Cancer Research UK warns that

“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.

There again are those unintended consequences.

Part of the justification for many of these outdoor bans is the notion of modelling and normalisation theories that are so popular in academia, which say that we need to protect children so that they never see adults smoking or vaping and therefore do not copy them and it is never normalised. I want us to think about what that would mean if that was why we could never have adults vaping outside where children might see them. If we are saying that children might copy adults who vape or smoke, is that not a green light for the state to start seizing children from their parents and leading public health home invasions to rescue children from their vaping parents? I am frightened to say that because it might give the Minister some ideas.

The amendments in this group that I have put my name to are again largely those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, because he tabled some brilliant amendments. They seem to me to be entirely proportionate and sensible, seeking to keep the Bill on track and focused on its stated aims instead of being a vehicle for outlandish overreach that is not evidence-based. The arguments in favour of restricting vaping and smoking outside venues seem to hinge on a prohibitionist personal distaste for the habit rather than evidence-based policy.

That is why the issue around passive vaping and the lack of evidence in relation to it is worth highlighting. Cancer Research UK supports the Bill but keeps putting out warnings in its briefings that you must be careful not to go too far. It says:

“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping, however the current evidence does not suggest that breathing in second hand vapour is harmful. Given that evidence indicates that vaping is far less harmful than smoking, it’s likely that second-hand vapour would be less harmful than second-hand smoke”.


Meanwhile, Dr Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at UCL’s tobacco and alcohol research group, explains:

“Second-hand exposure also differs: smoke comes both from the burning tip of the cigarette and exhaled smoke, whereas e-cigarettes release aerosol only when exhaled, resulting in far lower bystander exposure. Research led by UCL found that people exposed to second-hand vapour absorb around 84% less nicotine than those exposed to second-hand smoke. While not zero, exposure from vaping is far lower than from smoking, and levels of other toxicants are likely to be lower still”.


They are basically saying, “Hold on, keep a sense of proportion”, and that is all that we are talking about here.

I hope that the Government will seek out such voices in their consultation on smoke-free, heated tobacco-free and vape-free places in England, which was announced on the first day of Recess on Friday 13 February. Of course, these free places will be anything but free, as they will deny individuals personal freedoms and impinge on the freedoms of a great many private and public venues.

I urge the Minister and her department to widely and loudly advertise that consultation so that a diverse group of respondents can be encouraged to feed in beyond the usual suspects, NGOs and lobbyists. I especially hope she will encourage the hospitality industry and individual venues to respond because, as we have already heard, the hospitality industry is under the cosh.

The British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that 62% of its members fear that these kinds of bans will negatively impact their trade and 20% believe it would lead to the closure of their pubs. Sometimes when we discuss issues in the Bill, we view all aspects of society only through the prism of public health. It can be a rather joyless, arid and sanitised version of “The Good Life”, in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the world of pubs, pub gardens, nightclubs, or eating or music venues, overregulation will kill them off; it will kill off the atmosphere, never mind kill them off financially.

The truth is that if one looks at the research, 49% of regular pub-goers are smokers—shock horror—even though smokers account for less than 15% of the UK population. More and more, of course, are vapers. That is not a crime nor a problem. Funnily enough, a lot of people who go to pubs also like to have a drink. Yet, bizarrely, they are in trouble for that too. Many in hospitality worry that the Bill will be used as a blueprint for alcohol, as well as anything else. Indeed, the Department of Health is considering preventing under-18s from purchasing no-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks in pubs, because they say it would encourage alcohol uptake in the future. Then there is a discussion about adding health warnings and imagery and plain packaging to alcohol bottles.

It is no wonder that all those different hospitality organisations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted are saying that they are worried about the impact of the Bill and its provisions on trade, customers’ behaviour and operating costs. To be honest, it is no wonder that many publicans have banned Labour MPs from their locals, if one considers everything that has been added on.

Presently, hospitality venues put up their own restrictions. In other words, they ban people they do not want; they have rules. That is because they deal with their clientele with absolute common sense. But there is a fear that such proportionate self-regulation by the sensible people who run the hospitality industry in this country will be trampled on by the Bill.

Finally, sadly, trusting small SMEs in hospitality to act responsibly is not a feature of Amendment 199 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley. It seems apt to note, in my final speech on this Bill, how shocked I am—shocked, I tell you—that the Liberal Democrat Benches are neither liberal nor democratic on this issue. Through Amendment 199, they want to inveigle local councils into compliance by using this law to issue future pavement licences only as smoke-free. So much for localism, encouraging a thriving high street or cafe society, or supporting local autonomy. It is a step too far; I think a few things are, but that really is the limit. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government are not as illiberal as the Liberal Democrats. I will not necessarily hold my breath.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, it is really hard to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she gives a speech like that. Amendments 193, 194, 197 and 198 hope to address the powers to designate vape-free and heated tobacco-free places. The argument, really, is that it is all a bit over the top. There is limited evidence of harm from passive vaping compared with that of inhaling second-hand smoke. It is my fear that, as currently drafted, the Bill could inadvertently force ex-smokers to have relapses if they are using alternatives alongside smokers. That is what is going to happen. They are all going to be pushed into the same area, and that, I suggest, is the worst of all outcomes.

I further push the point that age-gated venues should be able to retain the discretion that they already have. Our hospitality and pub sectors need these safeguards.

Of course I agree with everybody that we must protect children but, in doing so, we must not inadvertently drive adults back to cigarettes and destroy our pubs in the process. That, I am afraid, is exactly what we run the risk of doing.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be super-brief, because I spoke broadly on my Amendment 196 in the previous group when I made the case—it is not hyperbole—that the hospitality sector faces an existential issue. I agree with all my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s words on this.

My Amendment 196 is extremely straightforward: it insists on a consultation if any regulations are made under Clauses 135 to 138 in relation to designating a place smoke-free or vape-free. Please consider the interests of the hospitality sector, which, as I highlighted in the previous group, is responsible for so much activity and employment in our economy.

I just finish by saying that I am shocked beyond compare that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she and I have been in this House for the same time—has only just noticed that the Liberals are illiberal.