Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak on the Bill for the first time—not because of a lack of interest, but because it clashed with other Bills going on at the same time. I declare my interest as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, known as PASS, which looks to provide age verification in the form of a PASS card—currently it is a physical card, but I hope it will be digital—for those wishing to access shopping, nightlife and alcoholic drinks to prove their age.

I will say at the outset what the purpose is and why there is a need for Amendment 30. I am grateful to the Association of Convenience Stores for helping me prepare and draft the amendment. The ACS has 50,000 local shops and its membership would be greatly affected by the Bill, if this amendment is not carried. The explanatory note helpfully sets out the purpose of the amendment, which is to acknowledge that the majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and have robust policies in place to prevent sales to children and to prevent the sale of illicit or non-duty-paid products.

The Bill proposes the creation of a new licensing system for the sale of tobacco and vaping products, which will require thousands of existing retailers to transition to new administrative processes. Local authorities will also have to handle a significant volume of licensing applications. I omitted to say that I also chaired the ad hoc committee of your Lordships’ House that looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003 and which reported in 2016-17.

Without a proportionate transition system, the Bill may create unnecessary burdens for both businesses and enforcement bodies. There is an established precedent for a proportionate approach. I referred to the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, dealing with alcohol, which allowed grandfather rights that gave responsible existing licence holders permission to transit to the new framework in a streamlined way. With Amendment 30, I propose the creation of a fast-track application route for retailers that can demonstrate existing robust controls and compliance. The process would not remove scrutiny or licensing requirements but recognise that many retailers already operate under strong regulatory expectations. Eligible businesses would be those that hold an alcohol premises licence, are a personal licence holder and have not been subject to enforcement action in the last 12 months inconsistent with the conditions set out in the regulations.

Why does this matter? The majority of retailers act responsibly, uphold age-verification policies and do not deal in illicit products; for compliant retailers, we should freeze enforcement capacity to target bad actors and high-risk sellers. Also, a proportionate transition would reduce significant administrative strain on local authorities and businesses.

I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord Kamall and Lord Howe on their Amendments 35 and 42 in this group, but I end with a request for information on how retailers such as convenience stores and others are expected to have enough time to train and prepare their staff for the provisions of the Bill and particularly for a transition phase. That is key. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

I support this group of amendments. It is absolutely right that we have a thoroughgoing licensing scheme. Many people would be very surprised to find that we do not have a licensing scheme for tobacco, as we do for alcohol. It is unregulated, so I welcome the proposals to have a thoroughgoing licensing scheme. It should be streamlined; we need to recognise that the vast majority, as has been said by my noble friend, comply with the law and are fully responsible.

In developing a licensing scheme, we need to look at the experience of other, diverse countries that have a licensing scheme—Finland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada and Singapore, to name some—because there is a lot to be learned from them. I urge the Minister to have a good look at what is happening elsewhere.

A vaping licensing scheme is particularly welcome. Currently, vapes are prolific on our high streets, in markets and at counters in nail salons, and so on. They are unregulated, and that must change to protect people and hold those that are responsible to account. I very much welcome the move to have a licensing scheme here, and I associate myself with what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has just said.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from whom we will hear later, address the details of a licensing scheme, which could, I believe, be better worked out during consultation and are better put in regulations than on the face of the Bill.

I think there are problems with the suggestion that there should be a joint alcohol and tobacco products licence—as superficially attractive as that may sound. This is for two reasons. The first is practical; there are plenty of retailers who sell both ranges of products, but there are plenty who do not, including some small shops and specialist vaping retailers. Let us not overcomplicate this by having several kinds of licence: joint and single.

The second reason is even more serious, because the objectives of the two schemes are not the same. The objective of the tobacco and vapes licencing scheme should be public health. Indeed, that is the main justification for the generational ban and other restrictive aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, public health was not the objective of the design of the original alcohol licence, and things are set to get worse—which I will come to. Therefore, there are issues about putting the two together.

On Amendment 35, there is a case for restricting the density of tobacco and vapes licensed premises in a local area on public health grounds. Local authorities already have the powers to limit the density of fast-food outlets in certain areas, such as near schools, on the basis that the food they sell is often high in fat, salt and sugars, and is energy dense. Why should local authorities not have the same powers for the density of shops selling tobacco and its various products? Therefore, I oppose Amendment 35. Density is better decided by the local licensing authority, which knows and understands its own area. It is not something that should be on the face of the Bill but something that should be considered in consultation.

I turn now to Amendments 30 and 42. The Government have recently launched a rapid consultation on alcohol licensing, led by an industry task force that would see “growth” incorporated as an objective of the revised scheme, rather than public health. Its recommendations have been warmly welcomed by the Government, but I would advise caution, especially in the light of calls for joint tobacco and alcohol licences today. It is true that hospitality outlets can be important for people’s well-being and community cohesion and often provide economic benefits to local communities. However, many of them rely nowadays more on the sale of meals than on just alcohol and provide an opportunity for family outings. The implication by the industry in the recommendations of the task force is that people cannot enjoy themselves unless they are consuming alcohol. That is, of course, a nonsense suggestion. By the way, each of the three working groups was led by a senior member of the industry and there was no representation on the task force from the Department of Health and Social Care or public health bodies, despite public health acting as the responsible authority for local licensing committees.

The task force report defines the core purpose of licensing as economic enablement and sets out a series of mechanisms to promote that approach. The foreword in the Government’s response, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only describes licensed hospitality as “foundational” to the UK economy but as selling “happiness, creating lasting memories”, and providing

“the glue that binds us together as a society”.

This is language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would probably breach the industry’s own code of conduct.

The task force’s recommendations would undermine the powers of elected local authorities in several ways: first, by the creation of a quasi-statutory national licensing policy framework to direct local decision-making; secondly, by the automatic addition of off-sales permissions to all on-sales licences; thirdly, by the enhanced powers for unelected licensing officers to override decisions of elected officers on licensing committees; fourthly, through the

“Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies”;


fifthly, by a blanket “amnesty” on licensing conditions deemed to be

“outdated in the modern world”—

deemed by whom, I ask—and, finally, by the imposition of a higher evidential bar for objections to licence applications, with adherence determined solely by licensing officers.

That is why there should be no attempt to link alcohol licences under such a regime with tobacco retail licences. There are other ways of helping the hospitality industry rather than undermining the very foundation of the alcohol sales licensing regime by attacking local democracy in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, first on Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I was the first Health Minister to propose the health warning on cigarettes back in 1980. Those 45 years seem quite a long time to wait, and we have been pipped at the post by Canada, but I hope that this is a suggestion that will find favour. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that the font would be very small; on the other hand, it would be very close to the eye, so fairly easy to read.

When talking about her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “filter” is a misnomer. I am not sure where trading standards are on this, because it filters absolutely nothing; there are no health benefits at all. I have listened to the debate about banning just plastic filters. I went to a meeting last month of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health addressed by Dr Boots. He made the point that all filters are bad for the environment; there is no such thing as a totally biodegradable alternative to filters. As has been said before, 75% of smokers litter their butts. Dr Boots also made the point—one which we have just heard, and it worth emphasising—that the presence of a filter on a cigarette gave the impression to 75% of smokers that it was safer, and they therefore inhaled more deeply and did more damage to themselves than if the filter had not been there.

My final point is about how filters circumvent the tobacco flavour restrictions with flavour capsules. I went on Amazon a few minutes ago and found

“Bulk 1000 Flavoured Crushball Capsules for Cigarette Infusion (10 Flavours Available)”.

This gets around flavoured tobacco, which was banned in 2020. However, as I have said, it is still possible to buy blue ice menthol-flavoured capsules. They do not seem to be subject to the existing restrictions, so a ban on filters would deal with that. In any case, perhaps the Minister can explain what she proposes to do about this obvious ban on the restriction on selling flavours to go with cigarettes.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments, it is clear that the very word “filter” is the most misleading of epithets. It leads many people to believe they make smoking safer. I would take a lot of convincing that people are not led to believe it is safer by the use of that very misleading epithet. It is not the point that filters do not make smoking more dangerous—incidentally, some of the early filters actually contained asbestos, so there were certainly some at an early stage that did make smoking much more dangerous. Leaving that on one side, the whole point is that people are misled into believing that smoking with filters is safer. That is the reason for Amendment 33.

There is a logic to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I find compelling. The fact that we can do something in relation to the environment as well as to health is not a reason for not acting; it is a reason for acting. The suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the state has no role here or only a qualified role and should not be entering this area, I find staggering. There is every reason we should be doing so in my humble opinion. Therefore, I strongly support Amendments 33 and 34.

On Amendments 141 and 143 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, there is unimpeachable logic in putting a warning on something if you are trying to deter people from using it. I do not think it is sufficient that it is on packets; there are many people who will have a single cigarette proposed to them. They will see the warning there, and there will be publicity given to that warning. It is not just the warning on the cigarettes; the fact the Government are doing that will mean it is more widely known.

There is a great logic, and I urge the Minister to be bold. It is not sufficient that we are having this generational ban, important though that is. There is a reason for moving more quickly and forcefully in relation to the amendments, and an unimpeachable logic to trying to iron out the position on filters, which are indeed a giant fraud.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell and Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard. I will also rehearse arguments in favour of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested there is some confusion about why people might want to ban filters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that a ban is about both public health and environmental considerations.

It has been clearly shown that filters of all kinds have no health benefits whatever. Indeed, I maintain that they are actively harmful to health, but I will come to that later. They are also very costly to public authorities and bad for wildlife and the environment. Filters have been called, by a Back-Bench Member of the government party,

“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/25; col. 1043.]

because they were formerly advertised—when cigarette advertising was still allowed—as being safer and less harmful to health than cigarettes without filters. This lie has had a long tail because even now only 25% of people understand that they have no health benefits.

As a result of the false perception that the filter—because of its very name as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Bourne—removes some of the tar and other harmful tobacco chemicals, evidence shows that smokers of filtered cigarettes inhale deeper and more frequently. Proof that filters were invented to deceive is the fact that they were deliberately made from a white substance which turns brown when heated, adding to the illusion that they were removing some of the harmful elements from the tobacco smoke. This was deliberately to mislead the smoker.

Filters of all kinds are bad for the environment. The plastic ones in particular contain thousands of toxic substances, including microplastics and nanoplastics. They take up to 10 years to break down in the environment, releasing all these microplastics as well as the 7,000 toxic chemicals from the on average five millimetres of tobacco that remains attached to each butt. These are washed into our soils and water systems and damage marine life, other wildlife and our drinking water.

Microplastics are ubiquitous. They have been found from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. They cause cancer, including colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast and lung cancers, and the levels of them found in human brains—causing who knows what effects—have increased by 50% since 2016, according to pathologists. Even the so-called biodegradable ones contain microplastics in the glue and in any case take a very long time to break down. I deliberately put one in my compost heap, and it was still there a year later. In any case, they, too, always have some tobacco attached. They have zero health benefit and lead to a false sense of security.

The environmental damage is also very costly. We all pay to clean them up when they are discarded through littering; as has been said, local authorities spend £40 million every year, money paid by taxpayers—you and I—which could be better spent on public health and other services. Some 86% of the public and even most smokers believe that manufacturers should switch to fully biodegradable filters rather than plastic ones, but, frankly, I think that is not enough to fix the problem, for the reasons I have outlined.

The killer fact, to coin a phrase, is that there is a strong epidemiological link between the rise in the prevalence of cigarettes containing filters and the proportionate rise of a kind of cancer called adenocarcinoma, while other lung cancers have fallen along with the reduced prevalence of smoking overall. A paper by Min-Ae Song et al published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in America in 2017 analysed 3,284 citations in scientific literature and internal tobacco company documents and concluded thus:

“The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban”.


Indeed, such a link had originally been suggested by the surgeon-general as far back as 2014. Therefore, I am inclined to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but at the very least I hope the Government will accept Amendment 34 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell.

On Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard, I hope the Minister will see the sense of consulting on this. Not every cigarette smoked by a child or a young person or an adult smoker comes immediately out of a packet bearing health warnings. Many children, when they start illicit smoking, share a packet among themselves and many never get to see the packet at all. That is why the principle, already accepted by successive Governments, that a health warning on the packet should accompany tobacco-containing products should apply to individual products and not just the packaging. I am aware that the Government plan to make sure that there is an insert in each packet signposting smokers to cessation services and products. This is a welcome positive measure to accompany the deterrent measures of health warnings, but it is not enough. I am sure the first thing many will do is throw away the insert and never read it, as people sometimes do with pills. They cannot throw away the paper that wraps the cigarette. That is why it would be the most effective place to put the warnings.

If you believe that the health warnings on packages work and deter, how much more effective would it be to reinforce that message every time a cigarette is removed from them? A consultation and a review of the evidence of the ban in other countries would be a good idea, and I recommend it to the Minister.