Illicit tobacco enforcement across Cheshire and Merseyside has intensified over the past year, with councils reporting significant seizures of illegal tobacco and vaping products alongside expanded stop-smoking support for residents. While national attention has focused on the proposed Tobacco and Vapes Bill, official correspondence from local authorities shows that much of the practical work to tackle smoking-related harm is already taking place through intelligence-led enforcement and public health services.
In 2025, public health leaders across Cheshire and Merseyside highlighted enforcement activity as part of a wider effort to reduce smoking rates and prevent future generations from taking up the habit. At the same time, councils responding to journalistic enquiries have set out detailed figures on seizures, investigations and support services, offering an idea of how local action is being delivered on the ground. What emerges from these responses is a picture of active but measured enforcement, combined with sustained investment in smoking cessation, rather than a reliance on legislation alone.
Illicit tobacco enforcement is intelligence-led
Councils across the region have confirmed that enforcement activity targeting illegal tobacco and vapes is intelligence-led, rather than based on routine inspections.This means visits to premises are triggered by specific information, complaints from the public or prior intelligence, rather than blanket checks across retail areas. Cheshire West and Chester Council reported that it has recently used closure powers against five premises due to persistent sales of illegal vapes and tobacco. In addition, Trading Standards officers worked alongside Cheshire Police to visit eight businesses as part of Operation Crossbow, seizing 21,060 cigarettes, 5.6kg of tobacco and 122 illicit vapes.
Comparable data was provided by Lancashire County Council, which confirmed that 57,000 packs of illicit tobacco and 27,000 illicit vapes were confiscated during the same period. These seizures took place across 162 premises, with 300 seizures recorded in total. Of those premises, 64 had been associated with previous seizures, although the council noted that business ownership may have changed. The emphasis on intelligence-led enforcement is intended to focus resources where illegal activity is most likely to occur, while avoiding unnecessary disruption to compliant retailers.
Seizures do not automatically lead to prosecutions
While seizure figures are striking, council correspondence shows that enforcement activity does not automatically translate into legal penalties. Lancashire County Council confirmed that no fixed penalty notices were issued directly by the authority in relation to the 300 seizures referenced. Instead, eight cases are currently subject to ongoing investigations, with nine prosecutions recorded over the past 12 months.
This distinction is important for understanding what enforcement statistics represent. Seizures can serve multiple purposes: removing illegal products from circulation, disrupting supply chains, gathering intelligence and deterring further offences. Prosecutions are pursued where evidential thresholds are met and where it is proportionate to do so. As a result, headline seizure numbers should not be interpreted as a direct proxy for the number of court cases or penalties issued. Instead, they reflect the scale of intervention, not necessarily the scale of punishment.
Councils decline to comment on the Bill itself
In response to requests for interviews on the Tobacco & Vapes Bill, some councils have made clear that they are not commenting on the legislation prior to its passage. Cheshire West and Chester Council stated that it is not offering interviews or discussing the Bill before it becomes law, instead providing written information on enforcement activity and public health services currently in place.
This approach reflects a common position among local authorities, which often avoid political commentary on legislation still progressing through Parliament. Rather than engaging in debate on future policy, councils have focused on outlining what they are already doing within existing powers. The result is a separation between national legislative debate and local operational delivery, with councils emphasising enforcement, compliance and support services rather than political positioning.
Frontline enforcement carries risks for officers
Council correspondence also sheds light on the realities faced by enforcement officers. Lancashire County Council confirmed that Trading Standards officers have experienced abuse and hostile behaviour during some enforcement visits in the past. As a result, enforcement activity is now often carried out in partnership with the police to reduce the risk to staff.
At the same time, the council stated that it does not hold information indicating that councillors themselves have been subject to abuse in connection with illicit tobacco enforcement. This distinction highlights that the risks associated with enforcement are primarily borne by frontline officers rather than elected members. These details provide important context for understanding how enforcement activity is conducted and why partnership working with police forces is increasingly common.
Smoking cessation support runs alongside enforcement
Alongside enforcement, councils have emphasised the availability of smoking cessation services designed to help residents quit smoking. Cheshire West and Chester Council highlighted its Go Smokefree, Brio service, delivered in partnership with Brio Leisure. The programme allows residents to self-refer and access 12 weeks of free Nicotine Replacement Therapy, alongside unlimited behavioural support. One-to-one sessions are available across 18 venues in the borough.
Public health leaders across Cheshire and Merseyside have consistently linked enforcement against illicit products with wider efforts to reduce smoking prevalence and associated health inequalities. By removing illegal products from circulation while expanding access to cessation support, councils aim to address both supply and demand. As one clear takeaway from the correspondence shows, enforcement alone is not presented as a solution, but as part of a broader public health strategy.
Understanding the financial scale of illicit trade
Lancashire County Council also clarified how the financial value of seized products is calculated. The estimated street value of confiscated tobacco and vapes, cited as £100,000 in Lancashire County alone, is based on illicit market pricing, not legitimate retail prices. This figure represents the potential revenue of the illegal market rather than losses to lawful retailers or consumers.
Providing this clarification helps prevent misinterpretation of enforcement data and reinforces the importance of transparency when discussing figures that can appear headline-grabbing without context.
A clear picture of local action
Taken together, the press release and council responses present a consistent picture: local authorities are already acting, using existing powers to disrupt illegal tobacco and vape sales, while expanding access to stop-smoking services. Enforcement is intelligence-led, geographically recorded and focused on high-risk premises. Prosecutions are selective and proportionate. Public health support is ongoing and accessible. And while councils may refrain from commenting on legislation still before Parliament, their operational role is clearly defined. “Seizure figures show activity, but the detail shows how carefully that activity is targeted.”
Coordinated and cautious enforcement
Official correspondence from councils across Cheshire and Merseyside confirms that illicit tobacco and vape enforcement is substantial, coordinated and cautious, rather than indiscriminate. Seizures are significant, but prosecutions are limited and evidence-based. Enforcement is paired with smoking cessation support, it is not treated as a standalone solution.
While debate over the Tobacco and Vapes Bill continues at a national level, local authorities are already exercising their powers to protect public health and disrupt illegal trade. The data provided shows that the story of tobacco control in the region is not only about future legislation, but about what councils are doing now, quietly, methodically and within the limits of existing law.
