Cold comfort

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is done and dusted. Almost.

Today was scheduled to be the third and final day of the report stage in the House of Lords. Instead, matters were wrapped up shortly before 9.00pm on Tuesday. The Bill will now receive its third reading in the Lords on Monday (March 9), before returning to the Commons where amendments introduced by peers are expected to be rubber stamped by MPs. Royal assent will follow and barring an act of God the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 will become law next month.

It’s hard to find anything positive to say about legislation that will ban the sale of tobacco to all future generations of adults in the UK, but at least there was some small cheer when the Government blocked the latest attempt by anti-smoking peers (backed by ASH) to ban smoking in all new licensed pavement areas.

We’ve been through this several times (in 2020, 2021, and 2023) and there is no need for further legislation on that front because local authorities already have the power to make ‘no smoking’ mandatory before new pavement licenses are issued for places where people are eating and drinking, but that’s not enough for the likes of ASH and their friends in parliament who will undoubtedly revisit the issue at the first opportunity, so let’s enjoy this latest stay of execution.

That small ‘victory’ apart, the main outcomes following the report stage were, as expected, pretty dismal from our perspective. The most important, as I reported last week, was the failure of an amendment to replace the generational tobacco sales ban by raising the age of sale from 18 to 21. To be fair, we didn’t expect anything else, but the margin of defeat – by 246 votes to 78, a majority of 168 – told its own story.

As it happens, I slightly regret writing to peers asking them to support the amendment. I did it because, at the time of writing, it was the only alternative to a generational ban (the status quo was never an option, unfortunately), but I should have stuck to my firm belief that, since 18 is the age we are legally considered to be an adult, we should be treated like one – which means that as well as being permitted to vote, join the army, drive a car, and buy alcohol, we should be allowed to purchase any recreational nicotine product, including tobacco.

Nor will there be any concessions or exemptions for cigars which will be subject to the same age restrictions as cigarettes. I have mixed feelings about this because I accept the argument that cigars are in several respects different to cigarettes. The health risks are arguably less, and few people can afford to smoke them in any significant quantity so they are generally a luxury item consumed occasionally or only on special occasions. Then again, is it right to exempt a product that, by and large, is enjoyed predominantly by those who are better off?

Another issue that frustrated me was the seemingly universal acceptance by peers that secondhand smoke is harmful whether it’s indoors or outdoors. As it happens, I still believe the risk of harm from secondhand smoke indoors is exaggerated, even insignificant. Nevertheless, there is clearly a massive difference between the two but no-one was prepared to make this point.

There were a lot of technical amendments which I won’t go into, but one bone of contention among peers concerned e-cigarettes, especially the threat to restrict flavours and and bring indoor vaping into line with indoor smoking. Nothing was resolved, and these issues will go to consultation. The point though is this: the Tobacco and Vapes Bill gives government the power to introduce further regulations without having to return to parliament for approval. That is the real democratic deficit at work here but few parliamentarians want to address it.

Although opponents of the bill have, with one or two exceptions like the non-affiliated Claire Fox (Baroness Fox), mostly been Conservatives, the Tory party is as complicit as Labour in pushing the legislation through. As I mentioned last week, Earl Howe, the party’s deputy leader and health spokesman in the Lords, has made no secret of his support for the bill (albeit with a few minor tweaks), He was particularly enthusiastic about the generational ban, describing it as a “transformational change” whilst decrying the “civil liberties arguments”. The fact that he made no attempt to hide the collaboration between the two front benches in the Lords also spoke volumes.

No surprise there, of course, given it was Rishi Sunak, the former Conservative prime minister, who announced the generational ban as one of his flagship policies in the final year of his beleaguered administration. Likewise, and despite the efforts of a handful of Tory peers (and MPs) to push back on the legislation, you can’t get away from the fact that some of the most committed anti-smoking campaigners are Conservatives – from Bob Blackman in the Commons, to Lord Bethel and Lord Young of Cookham in the Lords.

Nevertheless, while tobacco control activists are claiming that the bill is a significant step towards a ‘smoke free’ (sic) country, they didn’t get everything they wanted. For example, successive UK governments (including this one) have still not imposed an additional levy on the tobacco companies because ministers know full well the cost will be passed on to the consumer, many of whom will turn to the black market rather than quit.

Furthermore, in what could be the most damaging outcome of all, tobacco control campaigners have managed to muddy the water so much when it comes to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco, it’s no wonder that consumers are confused about the relative risks. Safer nicotine products? Let’s restrict flavours, ban vaping in indoor public places, and introduce a vape tax! Talk about muddled thinking.

What I don’t accept, though, is the argument that, if you impose more regulations on vapes, and vaping, many vapers will return to smoking. Really? If you believe vaping is better for your health, and you enjoy vaping as much as (or more than) smoking, why would you quit and return to smoking? Even if your choice of vapes (including flavours) is restricted, and you are forced to stand outside with the smokers, that argument still doesn’t make much sense to me.

Anyway, we are where we are. I’ll finish by highlighting two comments that were made by peers during the second and final day of the report stage on Tuesday. The first, by Lord Johnson of Lainston, a Conservative peer, was arguably tongue-in-cheek but it highlighted an interesting inconsistency:

I should also add that the Green Party wants to legalise drugs: I think it made that announcement on the same day that it came down so heavily on cigars. I am not against that at all as a libertarian, but it seems inconsistent, to say the least, that under the Greens’ benign rule you will be able legally to take cocaine but not smoke a Cohiba. The future would not be in trusted hands at all, which is why we are looking for these reassurances. Can the Minister make a clear statement about this situation and put our minds at rest that Davidoff of London is not to be turned into a drugs den?

The second comment, this one in relation to e-cigarettes, came from Lord Moylan, another Conservative peer:

Finally, I will say something pre-emptively as the Minister may refer to it when she replies. The Minister wrote to me saying that evidence from Action on Smoking and Health in 2025 suggested that certain sorts of flavours appealed more to young people and other sorts more to older people. I will not read out the details, but that was the gist of what it said.

I dispute that this evidence is of any real value. First, it comes from Action on Smoking and Health, which is a ludicrous source for the Government to rely on from a statistical point of view. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned the other day, it is as if the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, had turned up at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government were relying on the London Cycling Campaign for the statistics that they would use on road traffic in London. These are highly biased, partisan organisations that produce statistics to order.

Secondly, even if you were so naive as to trust the evidence produced by Action on Smoking and Health, there is no indication in the letter that the Minister sent to me that this evidence distinguished between the flavour descriptor—as being sweet or whatever—and the flavour itself. That is quite useless from the point of view of the conversation that we had in Committee.

Given how often ‘evidence’ proffered by ASH is quoted by ministers, parliamentarians of all parties, and even vaping advocates, it was a consolation of sorts to hear a less gullible voice.

Unfortunately, when it comes to lobbying, far too many people are willing to overlook ASH’s record as a perennial and partisan protagonist in the smoking debate. Cold comfort, perhaps, but thank goodness there are still some people prepared to put them in their place.