My Lords, Amendments 18, 19, 127, 147, and 192 are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I declare my support for the spirit of her Amendment 126, although I am seeking to tackle the issue that she is addressing in a slightly different way. I declare an interest as president of the Charter Trading Standards Institute. However, these amendments are not CTSI amendments; they are very much my own.

I have tabled these amendments in a constructive spirit, as part of what I hope will be recognised as a good faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for handmade cigars within the Bill’s existing architecture. As I have previously said, I unequivocally support the Government’s objective of reducing youth smoking and protecting future generations from smoking-related harms. Nothing in this group of amendments seeks to undermine this. It is rather that the proposed amendments seek to ensure that, in pursuing that objective, we do so in a manner that is proportionate, evidence-based and fair to a small number of lawful, specialist businesses.

Handmade cigars are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced tobacco products. They are also fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small format cigars and cigarillos, all of which occupy a very different segment of the market. This distinction matters in market characteristics and, most importantly, in the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.

Handmade cigars are artisanal products. They are individually crafted, higher-value, relatively expensive, premium products. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult consumers. They are not impulse purchases. Of overriding importance is that handmade cigars are not inhaled, and they are consumed infrequently and not habitually. They are often associated with special occasions or celebratory moments, and are an important feature of the UK’s hospitality sector.

There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. The last time detailed UK data on cigar usage was collected, it was found that the overwhelming Majority of cigar smokers were over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Handmade cigars therefore occupy an entirely different segment of the market, in price, consumer profile and usage.

Their production is uniquely different, which brings me to our Amendments 127 and 147. Handmade cigars are low-volume, high-variety, artisanal products, manufactured in small batches, mostly by producers in Latin America and the Caribbean. There are over 1,300 individual product lines, almost all of which are packaged manually. Requiring bespoke standardised packaging specifically for a single market such as the United Kingdom is simply not practical or commercially viable.

As currently drafted, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to impose the standardised packaging regime to handmade cigars in the same manner as to mass-market cigarettes, et cetera. Such a measure ignores known risk profiles and market characteristics, and certainly does not represent sound evidence-based policy. The certain outcome of this is that handmade cigars would disappear from our market altogether, along with the long-standing specialist retailers whose businesses depend upon them and, of course, their employees.

These two amendments, therefore, would exempt handmade cigars from the retail packaging regime, accompanied by a tightly drawn statutory definition of what constitutes a handmade cigar. They recognise that the policy rationale for plain packaging in the context of high-volume, youth-sensitive products does not translate to artisanal, individually crafted cigars sold in specialist premises to adults. They acknowledge that imposing such measures on the handmade cigar sector is totally disproportionate when there is no evidence of youth uptake, no discernible public health gain, but the strong likelihood of catastrophic operational and economic burdens being placed on small, compliant, law-abiding businesses.

These facts would have become evident had there been a more comprehensive and focused impact assessment. The impact assessment produced by the department, which runs to 164 pages, makes just three mentions of cigars, with no quantification of the likely economic impact to businesses trading in these products, no small and micro-business assessment, and no discussion of alternatives.

In speaking to these amendments, I ask the Minister whether she can confirm that the Government’s response, which has been pending since January 2025, to the call for evidence to inform potential future regulation of standardised tobacco packaging will confirm that handmade cigars will retain their status quo, as exempted from the introduction of plain packaging.

I should add that I am not aware of any current surveillance or enforcement issues relating to the identification of handmade cigars, nor of any concerns regarding illicit trade in this category under the existing regulatory framework. Therefore, I do not see why the continuation of processes already in place would be an issue or require additional resources or training. I do agree that trading standards officers require clear and objective definitions that can be applied quickly during inspections; but that clarity already exists. Introducing plain packaging would not improve enforceability and may, in fact, complicate it. The proposed definition of a handmade cigar is not subjective; it is highly specific and technical. Trading standards and HMRC already distinguish between cigars, cigarillos, hand-rolling tobacco, pipe tobacco and cigarettes for excise and enforcement purposes. Those distinctions are routinely applied in relation to taxation, illicit trade investigations and packaging compliance. An exemption for handmade cigars would not, therefore, create a new product category. It would simply reference existing statutory definitions that officers already use.

I turn to Amendments 18 and 19, which relate to the display of tobacco products within specialist tobacconist premises. Parliament has previously determined that, subject to strict conditions, adult-only specialist tobacconist premises may display tobacco products in a controlled manner. Such displays must not be visible from outside, and access is restricted. The exemption has operated for many years without any evidence of it contributing to youth uptake. These two amendments simply ensure that the regulation-making powers in the Bill cannot inadvertently override that long-standing position. Again, this is a preservation measure, not an expansionary one.

Amendment 192 likewise concerns the current smoke-free treatment of specialist tobacconist premises. Under existing regulations, certain tightly defined premises benefit from a limited suspension of the general smoke-free requirements, subject to clear conditions, to allow for the sampling of handmade cigars. This amendment ensures that the delegated powers in the Bill cannot be used to remove that established position without explicit parliamentary scrutiny.

Taken together, these amendments are tightly targeted, proportionate and evidence-based. They are rooted in a simple proposition that good regulation should be proportionate to risk, that distinctions long recognised in law should not be erased without evidence and that, in pursuing public health objectives, we should remain attentive to regulatory fairness and common sense. I beg to move.