Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, nobody in this House would ever dispute the virtues of creating a smoke-free generation and protecting public health, but the reality is that legislation, if we want it to be effective, has to be both practical and enforceable, and it is there that I have real difficulties with this Bill. In the short time I have, I will touch on just one area: the undue burden that is now going to be placed on local councils. We are going to create laws that are ultimately unenforceable and will inadvertently encourage illicit trading and limit our personal freedoms.

On enforcement, we know that trading standards, the police and licensing teams right across the UK are already under-resourced and overstretched. The notion that we can somehow police every corner shop in Britain—all 50,000 of them—and regulate every e-commerce website and cross-border shipment is farcical. Even if we accept the premise of this Bill, which I do not, the Government have yet to properly explain how they plan to adequately enforce it. I might add that the previous Bill, put forward by the Conservative Party, was little better on that point.

We know that when Governments seek to overregulate or ban products outright, if people want those products and are used to getting them, the demand is not eliminated simply by passing an Act. Instead, over- regulation pushes the trade underground, resulting in illicit trades and dangerous counterfeit products entering the market that pose even greater risks to public health than the blueberry vape that somebody wants to buy over the counter at their local convenience store. Who is going to fund the additional staff and resourcing that trading standards teams will require to enforce the clauses of this proposed legislation?

The pressure this Bill will place on local authorities concerns me, because the Government have failed to understand that our councils are already overstretched, thin on the ground and struggling with limited resources. The Bill requires councils to become the front line—the very coalface enforcers of a sprawling new licensing regime for tobacco and vaping products. Anybody with any experience of local authority licensing will tell you that councils are already struggling to cope with existing alcohol licensing. Due to funding and recruitment issues, not to mention severe backlogs in our magistrates’ courts, they are already unable to achieve this.

Do the Government realise that this legislation will require councils to monitor shops, issue licences, carry out inspections, support businesses with training, resolve disputes and take legal action against offenders? If the answer to that is yes, will the Minister explain to the House where this army of enforcement and licensing officers is going to come from and where the funding is? For years, as we have already heard from a previous speaker, the trading standards sector has been making the case that more needs to be done to encourage recruitment and training of new officers. After all, trading standards are currently responsible for enforcing over 300 laws. Given the new burdens placed on trading standards by this Bill, I would like to see the Government commit to investing in the training of qualified trading standards officers through a new and dedicated apprenticeship fund. We must not set up our councils to fail, as we are doing. In the interests of protecting local authorities and strengthening our trading standards teams, I will be seeking to amend the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.

I further fear that the Bill is a grave attack on personal freedom and liberty. Sadly, it represents another step in the creep of the nanny state. As it stands, the Bill erodes personal freedoms, makes life harder for small business owners and places undue burdens on local councils, all without addressing the root cause of vaping and tobacco use. If the Government are serious about creating a smoke-free generation, they should note that education and support work carried out by public health is the way forward, not prohibition.

Finally, is it really the Government’s intention to ignore the ancient principle of equality under the law? For if left unamended, the Bill will result in individuals born just a day apart having permanently different rights. I believe that the duty of Parliament, and indeed of this House, is to preserve equality under the law, and therefore I cannot support this.