Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

13: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Ban on manufacture of high-strength oral nicotine products (1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength oral nicotine product. (2) In this section “high-strength oral nicotine product” means a nicotine product that—(a) is intended for oral use,(b) is not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and(c) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment bans the manufacture of nicotine pouches containing more than 20mg of nicotine.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom I am grateful. Together, these amendments seek to prohibit the manufacture, sale and supply of high-strength oral nicotine products—those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion—and empower HMRC officers to seize and detain such products before they reach consumers.

The reason for these probing amendments can be summarised by a BBC article in July which told the story of Finn, a 17 year-old who started using nicotine pouches after getting bored of vaping. What began as curiosity quickly became addiction. He described how he and his friends would use pouches so strong—some claiming to contain 150 milligrams of nicotine each—that they would vomit or become physically immobilised. At school, he hid them under his lip, until one day he turned “bright green” in class and had to run out of the room. His mouth, he said, was “shredded to bits”.

This is not an isolated case. Recent data suggests that use among 16 to 24 year-olds has risen sharply in recent years, a deeply worrying trend. These pouches come in bright tins, flavoured with mango ice or bubble gum, and are marketed as clean, safe, and discreet. In reality, some of these products are many times stronger than a cigarette and far more addictive. This is a form of nicotine ingestion which is socially acceptable and often unnoticeable. Children can and do consume these products, sometimes even in class.

The point is not that nicotine pouches have no legitimate role at all. For adult smokers trying to quit, properly regulated products can have a place as part of the harm reduction strategy and a pathway off smoking. Although the Minister knows that my classical, liberal views mean that I am generally against banning things I do not like, what we have at present is the sale of nicotine products that are so strong that dentists have reported that they can burn gums, cause lesions and even expose the roots of teeth.

For these reasons, more reputable manufacturers already limit their products to under 20 milligrams per pouch. They also want a market that encourages and rewards responsible production, and which acts against rogue operators flooding the market with dangerously high-strength pouches. These probing amendments suggest a possible, sensible and enforceable ceiling that would align with good industry practice and give clarity to both regulators and retailers.

However, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of these products is only part of the solution. Unless enforcement agencies have the statutory power to act, those prohibitions risk becoming little more than words on a page. That is why our amendment to Clause 88 proposes that HMRC officers should be explicitly empowered to seize and detain high-strength nicotine pouches, preventing them entering the market in the first place. I know that the Government have indicated that they recognise the need for action in this area; this amendment probes the Government on how they intend to address concerns over these high-nicotine products.

Do the Government think that we should rely on downstream enforcement after these products have already reached young people? That is my first question for the Minister. My second question is: do the Government agree with the sentiment of the amendment on the need to address this issue at the border, where these goods are entering the country in large quantities, especially by giving HMRC the clear legal authority to do so? Thirdly, do the Government see the need for immediate action, or will they require a series of future consultations? Finally—I know that I am asking a lot of questions—do the Government believe that it is more effective to have a firm and immediate statutory assurance in this Bill, in order both to allow these products to be controlled and to give enforcement agencies the clarity that they need to act?

These amendments can be seen an opportunity to protect people, in particular young people, before they become addicted instead of punishing them afterwards. It is about ensuring that, if these products are so dangerous, they should not be able simply to be bought over the counter or ordered online. I recognise that all tobacco products may to some extent be classified as dangerous—or, at the very least, as not good for you— but the products at which these probing amendments are aimed are particularly dangerous. I am, therefore, interested in the Minister’s answers; in the Government’s position on high-nicotine pouches; and in how the Government intend to address the concerns here, as exemplified by Finn’s story. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendments 13 to 15. I apologise for not adding my name to Amendments 139 and 140, but I strongly support them.

I added my name to this group of amendments because I did not know an awful lot about oral nicotine. I was talking to a group of university students about my strong dislike of vaping. They introduced me to the subject and told me—they were at several different universities—that many university students use vapes almost continuously for lots of different reasons.

A lot of my concerns are around the impact on young people. Growing up, I remember the TV adverts that showed all the damage that smoking would do to your lungs, with images such as the pouring out of a glass of tar, but I am not sure that young people necessarily understand the impact that vaping will have on them. I am concerned about the high levels of nicotine in these products, but I am also concerned about the potential for vaping to lead to addiction and cardiovascular issues such as increased blood pressure.

I have read the same report as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. It mentions young people talking about using vapes until they vomit. The report talks about a young man, Finn, using vapes and says that they immobilise the individual—especially when they use two or three in one go—which is not at all the intended consequence of them. Finn goes on to say:

“You feel this burning sensation against your gums, and then you get the hit”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, these products have impacts on oral health, including gum disease and gum recession. Vaping is also linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, such as oral, pancreatic and oesophageal cancers. It can also have, potentially, a negative effect on adolescent brain development.

My problem with these products is that they are so easy to hide. The fact that children in school are able to use these products should be cause for concern, because young people are talking about sweating, salivating and struggling to concentrate. These products that should not be anywhere around young people. There is also a lot of discussion about how they can be used as a gateway to vaping or smoking. There is a lot of debate around how vaping and smoking are meant to be helping each other, but I have concerns about that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

Returning to the issue of protecting young people, our commitment is to act swiftly and responsibly, which is why we have already launched the comprehensive call for evidence to better understand the available evidence. It would be extremely problematic if we were categoric at this stage and then found, in a very changing landscape, new potential harms that we would not be able to deal with in the appropriate way. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we are taking this exceptionally seriously and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; I welcome their thoughtful discussion and the important points that a number of them made. As I said earlier, this was a difficult group for me to put into words, in moving this amendment, because, as many noble Lords will know, I tend to take a classical, liberal perspective on many things and I do not like banning things.

The intention of the amendments in this group was to probe the Government on whether they believe that action to address these products, which have such high levels of nicotine that they lead to consumers vomiting, is required sooner rather than later; dentists also warn that these products physically burn gums, cause lesions and expose the roots of teeth. In probing the Government, the intention was to set clear, enforceable limits rather than pursuing an outright ban.

These probing amendments were aimed at achieving a balance between taking dangerous products off the market when they are easily obtained by young people and allowing properly regulated, lower-strength products to continue to help people come off smoking. However, one of the advantages of probing amendments is that you are able to test your argument and to hear other arguments—either those in favour, which reinforce your view, or those that challenge your view.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Finlay, for raising their concerns about pouches. That is an important point. We should understand whether the Government believe that nicotine pouches can play a role and that they are an effective pathway off smoking. Given that vaping is probably seen as the thing that the Government would promote most as a pathway off tobacco, that would be a very interesting conversation to have.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because she made some interesting points in sharing the evidence from, I believe, Cancer UK. She also posed some questions. What are we trying to achieve here? Are we trying to address the harms of tobacco or are we trying to tackle addiction? Should we be tackling addiction or harm? These are important points. What is more harmful? That seems to be the debate in this Room: we agree that tobacco is harmful, but how harmful is nicotine? That needs to come out a bit more, perhaps, as we debate the Bill more.

I am grateful to the Minister for answering directly some of the questions that I put to the Government. That was really important. Having listened to the Minister, and to the many noble Lords who challenged the intentions behind these probing amendments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

May I join the argument? The noble Earl is quite right: there is a synthetic nicotine product, which is manufactured chemically. So you can have nicotine that is not a tobacco product. However, as far as we know, most of the nicotine used in vapes is derived from tobacco.

By the way, I want to come back, slightly tongue-in-cheek, on the noble Earl’s question about where it comes from. Of course, I was hoping that he would say, “From tomatoes, potatoes, nightshade and some other plants”, from which you can also get small amounts of nicotine.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I fear to tread here—I will be brief. The Bill distinguishes between tobacco products, nicotine products and vaping products. They are separate products. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: vapes are not risk-free, although they are less harmful than smoking. They do not involve burning tobacco, which releases tar and carbon monoxide. However, I must say, having heard the range of debate, I feel that it would be very helpful for me to write to noble Lords with further clarity on these points.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kamall]

26: Clause 13, page 7, line 12, leave out from first “consult” to end and insert “and take into consideration the view of—
(a) retailers of relevant products or their representatives, and(b) any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe are probing the Government, in one way or another, on the question of consultation. What we seek to do is quite simple in many ways: to recognise that the impact of the Bill is not just on big tobacco, as many noble Lords have said; it will impact some vaping companies, not all of which are big tobacco. It is really important that we make that distinction. Some tobacco companies have vaping divisions. In fact, I have asked tobacco companies: when these Bills go through, what will you do and where will you diversify? It is very interesting to hear some of their answers, which I would be happy to share at some other stage.

The other thing we need to understand is that this will impact retailers, some of which are specialists and some of which sell other products but this is part of their income stream. We want to make sure that we get the balance right.



What we really want is to understand the nature of the consultation. Which voices with experience are being listened to? Which retailers are being listened to? On manufacturers, I want to be slightly careful, because I have had some conversations since these amendments were laid. In fact, I have been told by some people that we should not ask the manufacturers, particularly big tobacco, for their views. I have also been told that some companies do not want to be consulted, because that would be seen to be diluting the result of that consultation. Given that these are probing amendments, I will be a little careful about which manufacturers should be consulted and which should not.

--- Later in debate ---

I confirm that we have already started this engagement. On licensing and some of the Part 5 powers, such as registration and product requirements, we have launched a call for evidence. Those with evidence to share can contribute now and we will consider their feedback prior to consulting on specific proposals. We will publish a consultation on our proposals for display regulations shortly. With those comments, I hope that I have given the reassurance sought and that the noble Lord therefore feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for her response. With these probing amendments, we were trying to make sure that the consultation was as wide as possible. We completely understand the WHO requirements, but we sometimes worry about some of the more specialist cigar manufacturers, which are not big tobacco but much smaller specialist organisations.

I seek some clarity from the Government at this point. Are they saying that the WHO guidelines mean that they cannot speak to these small, specialist manufacturers? We understand not consulting the big Philip Morris Internationals of this world, and others, but is it the Government’s understanding that they cannot speak to the small specialist cigar manufacturers because WHO guidelines preclude them from doing so? Or are they saying that they can speak to those small manufacturers?

Clarification on that from the Minister would be welcome. Is she able to give an answer, or shall I witter on a bit and hope that the officials can give her an answer in that time? I will do that; I am trying to be helpful. That clarity is essential. I am not asking that they call in the likes of the big firms, such as BAT and Philip Morris, every time they want to do a consultation; we know what their business models are. This really is about the small specialist manufacturers who feel that they are excluded and lumped in with big tobacco all the time. Their demographic is very different. It is an ageing demographic; perhaps literally a dying demographic —who knows?

The newspaper that came to see me told me that its readership was not consulted even though their trade associations claimed that everything was fine. Therefore, we need to understand those nuances. In my experience, I have seen some trade associations claiming to represent a wider membership than they do. They are not the ones who are damaged.

I welcome the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s response. I had a conversation with the Minister only yesterday about a particular organisation not feeling that it had been consulted. Immediately, she said, “Let’s meet with that organisation”, so I recognise the sentiment. However, I would like that clarification now if it is available.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We require all those with links, direct or otherwise, to the tobacco industry to disclose them when answering consultations. I hope that is the clarification that the noble Lord requires.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Just to understand, they can be consulted—that sounds reasonable; I do not think anyone would say otherwise. It is important that they do not hide where they are from.

If there are organisations that have written to me about this in the past and I have had conversations with them, I am sure that the Minister will be open to having conversations where appropriate. With those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am at the mercy of the Committee, but we have some more time and the ability to go on until 5.15 pm. If noble Lords agree, we have one more group to do to get to the target. Shall we continue?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mott is not here to move Amendment 29 and has obviously not sent a substitute to speak on his behalf. What is the procedure from here?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I suggest that the Committee adjourns.