(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Rising
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 160 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I also speak to Amendment 173A in my name. I spoke at Second Reading about the infringement of personal liberty and not allowing individuals to take their own decision; I stand by that. My amendment would make it less difficult to vape than to smoke, but without increasing the risk to children.
The National Health Service website says that although vaping is not completely harmless,
“Nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking. It’s also one of the most effective tools for quitting smoking … The routines and rituals of smoking can be hard to stop, so vaping can help you gradually let go of these while immediately reducing the health risks of smoking cigarettes”.
I also quote Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England:
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer”.
Again, I suggest that, by making the purchase of vapes more difficult and reducing the number of shops that they can be brought from, the Government are not helping. Vaping does away with the danger of passive smoking. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake research into the potential effect of fewer smokers switching to vapes and nicotine products, or fewer consumers continuing to use these products instead of cigarettes as a result of these regulations, and of extending the provisions in Part 6 to such products.
The essential point here is that the Government should not proceed with their plans unless they have properly investigated the expected impacts of the Bill on those who are smoking and vaping. As I have already commented, vaping is safer than smoking and the Government’s policy should reflect that fact. Ministers should be required to consult the sector properly when assessing these impacts. We must not allow a situation where well-intentioned, if overbearing, government policy has the effect of worsening health outcomes for individuals.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 161 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and I am interested in the themes in Amendment 173A, about which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, because I think that an assessment of and research into the impact of any kinds of advertising and sponsorship restrictions is very important moving forward. The reason why I am concerned about any advertising restrictions is that people who currently smoke and are looking to switch to vape can do so only if they know what vapes are and understand the facts around relative harms, where these products can be purchased and so on. Imposing these restrictions as written in the Bill without consultation would have grave unintended consequences. At the very least, there must be clearly defined exemptions.
In this House there is constantly talk about the problem of misinformation. I agree that we do not want people to be making judgments about anything based on misinformation or factual inaccuracy. Yet the difference between vaping and smoking is not well understood. Public Health England and, indeed, Doctor Khan’s independent review concluded that vapes are 95% less harmful than tobacco, yet misperceptions about the harm of vaping have risen at the same time. In 2025, 56% of adults believe that vaping is more harmful than or equally harmful as cigarettes, compared with 33% in 2022. In other words, misinformation is creating ever more misperceptions every year. Opinium research from July 2025 found that 51% of all respondents believe that vapes are equally harmful as or more harmful than smoking, with 48% of current smokers believing that. Certainly, they do not know that vapes and other nicotine products have 99% less toxicants than cigarettes. Curtailing the opportunity to provide public information on the relative benefits of vaping, as this Bill threatens to do, would further exacerbate this lack of understanding.
My concern is that a lot of the discussion is driven by a small but very loud portion of lobbyists who are very concerned about youth vaping rates. Lobbying groups particularly push that issue, as has the public health industry. Actually, the percentage of young people who vape is dwarfed by adult vapers, many of whom, as we have heard, have switched to vaping from smoking for health reasons. That safer alternative could now be in jeopardy unless we allow advertising to make it clear that vaping is in fact a desirable, healthy option. By putting forward the argument that vaping is not desirable and just as dangerous as smoking, we risk doing public health a real disservice.
Even now, vaping products are allowed only very restricted advertising since the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations came into force in May 2016. Additional to these restrictions, I fear that clauses in the Bill go so far as to treat vaping products as though they are the same as tobacco products. That sends an implicit message that nicotine, tobacco, smoking cigarettes and vaping are all much of a muchness. That is one of the themes that I have been pursuing: we need to have a much more granular, nuanced approach. Prohibiting any form of marketing for vape or nicotine product manufacturers directly undermines the important role that marketing has to play in encouraging smokers to switch to vaping or other nicotine products.
Just to finish off, there seems to be a complete contradiction. On the NHS Better Health webpage, it says in big letters, “Vaping to quit smoking”. I want to know: is that not advertising? It contains a range of information and advice for people who smoke and are looking to quit—in fact, I read it when I was smoking and looking to quit. It includes the message that you are roughly twice as likely to quit smoking if you use a nicotine vape compared with other nicotine replacement products, like patches or gum.
I want to ensure that adult smokers like me have access to information. When I read that, I then had to go out and find out about vapes. I went to the local vape shop and had a bit of a seminar. I then went to talk to the local convenience store and looked at the range of vapes. Then, as a consequence, I took up vaping and eventually gave up smoking—which I would have thought the Government want. If I had not been able to see where those vapes were on sale and to see and read the advertising and the marketing, then I might have stayed a smoker. This is not about me but about all the other smokers who as yet do not understand that vaping is a safer option than smoking. They might as well find out about it. I would have hoped that the Government would be encouraging, not discouraging, them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak against all the amendments in this group. They all, in various ways, could restrict or delay action by the Government—action that is urgently needed.
On vaping, I know that the Advertising Standards Authority has expressed concern about product placement on websites such as TikTok. There are concerns and, given the new technology and new media around, further action may well need to be taken on vaping. But I will focus on nicotine pouches; I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some information on them.
I note that today, for example, Convenience Store magazine reports that Imperial Tobacco has launched new nicotine pouches
“with five flavour options—Sweet Mint, Cool Mint, Watermelon Ice, Juicy Peach and Berry Blast”.
They apparently have a “better mouthfeel” than previous versions and smaller, slimmer tins that will fit conveniently in your pocket. That does not really sound like a stop smoking aid, does it? You will see these nicotine pouches in convenience stores, as the site of that announcement suggests—colourful tins with colourful labels stacked conveniently right beside the chewing gum. But this is not just about the nature of the product or where it is stored. I invite noble Lords to have a look next time they catch the Tube, where they will almost certainly see adverts for nicotine pouches.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was saying that, if noble Lords travel home on the Tube tonight, they will see at the side of pretty much every escalator at least one advert for nicotine pouches. Theoretically, these are stop smoking aids, but what does the advert say? It is along the lines of “Make your journey more pleasant; enjoy these favours”. If you are quick and have great eyesight, you might read in the small print as the escalator goes past, “Meant for under-18s for smoking cessation”, but that is not the message presented by the advert. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government are planning immediate action on the advertising of nicotine pouches, because it is clearly a huge issue.
It goes further than advertising to promotion. I recently went through Manchester Piccadilly station, where some bouncy young people with very sharp haircuts, in matching sports and leisure wear—that is probably how I should refer to it—were handing out free samples of nicotine pouches, mostly to young people who matched their demographic. That is not appropriate behaviour; it is not good for public health. We need to crack down on this. I come back to the delays and barriers that these amendments would cause to the Government’s action on nicotine products and offer the strongest possible opposition to them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the amendments in this group, first, I do believe that vaping is safer than smoking. All the evidence is that it is safer, but it is of course not risk-free. Indeed, that was the position under the previous Government: in October 2023 it was stated quite clearly that vaping is safer than smoking but it is not risk-free. If you do not smoke, do not vape.
I am all in favour of the promotion of vaping as a cessation tool for smoking; I think that is permitted under the Bill, and the Minister will no doubt cover that in response. I think we do need some way of promoting vaping, certainly for those who smoke, so that they can give it up. But if, as appears to be the case, everybody regards vaping as powerful for the cessation of smoking but for no other reason, because it is not risk-free, we should not be permitting advertising except in the narrow compass of the promotion of vaping as a cessation tool. For me, that would be the most sensible position, so I am not in favour of the amendments in this group.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have my name to one of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, but I will start with the comment by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth that vaping is not risk-free. Well, what is risk-free? I shall go home in the car tonight, as it happens, since the noble Baroness inquired. Is that risk-free? Driving a motor car is certainly not risk-free. Nor is the Tube risk-free. That is why—I remember this from when I was deputy chairman—safety is our first priority. It is only by working terribly hard on safety that a railway actually comes close to being safe—but it is still not risk-free. Even on the escalators, one of our former colleagues, Lord Ribeiro—some noble Lords will remember him—blacked out, fell down, was taken to hospital and eventually retired from the House as a result of the injuries he sustained on the Tube network. So anything that is predicated on the idea that we in society can tolerate only something that is risk-free is frankly barmy. Life would come to an end if that were the case.
On these amendments, I would say: imagine you have a friend who breaks the habit of a lifetime, gives up smoking and adopts vaping. You want to send them a card to congratulate them on this move. We might all pass the card round the office and sign it and send them a card to congratulate them. There can be no such card. Anyone who in the course of business even designs such a card is committing an offence. Anyone who prints it is committing an offence. Any such card that says “Well done” could be held to look like it was promoting vaping: “Well done on giving up cigarettes and taking up vaping”. It could easily be found to be committing an offence. Anyone who publishes it is committing an offence. Anyone who sells it is committing an offence. That is for old-fashioned means of advertisement that are printed on paper. The measures are absolutely draconian. There is no commitment to consult. All I want to say is that the amendment in this group to which I put my name, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, is one that calls on the Government at least to consult.
To conclude, the Government are in a terrible state of mental confusion. They want the public to know about vapes. I want to repeat from my own experience something very similar to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said: it is not that easy to take up vaping. You need to know something about it; you need to know how the kit works and what it is you like. I was not quite as assiduous as her in reading the internet, going to the local vape shop and going to the convenience store as she did. I stumbled in a less systematic way through a similar sort of process until I found something that worked for me.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just to clarify for the noble Lord, everything that I was speaking about on flavours was about pouches, not vapes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon, but I will still make my point about what she said about flavours. She was not describing the flavours; she does not know what the flavours are. She never bought them or consumed them as far as I imagine. She is talking about the descriptors—the rather lurid descriptors—just as my amendment is saying. That is what the Government should focus on, rather than flavours, which is what the Bill refers to. That is a digression back to an earlier group.
I simply want to say that the Government are in a state of tremendous confusion. They want us to have the information, but they do not want us to have too much information. What they have is a regime that is astonishingly oppressive and amazingly draconian, and which really ought not to stand as it does.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly follow my noble friend’s comments. We are in danger, with an understandable zealotry to extinguish all types of access to all types of tobacco-related products, of missing the reality of the point that there are millions of people in this country who could be occasional smokers and/or smokers who, like my noble friend and like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, are keen to move from smoking cigarettes to other alternatives which are frankly better. It is often the perfect that becomes the enemy of the good; my recommendation is that the Government try to avoid that being the case.
The point here is that we should not have a zealotry-based attempt to ban something because an individual does not like it—a natural and understandable prejudice. The point must be about public health and giving people longer, happier lives and being practical about how to apply the laws to ensure that they function effectively. These amendments illustrate the opportunity for the Government to have a proper consultation to work out how they can ensure we do not end up, as my noble friend Lord Moylan might suggest, with an NHS-approved vape. It would be similar to those spectacles that you got on the NHS when I was a child; you could have either tortoiseshell or black. That strikes me as exactly what we will end up with in this scenario.
We should be proud of ourselves if we move to a regime where many people use vapes as a practical alternative to smoking and as a route to the ultimate cessation of smoking cigarettes. That should be the aim, and I am extremely concerned that, through the meticulousness and overfocus on a desire for perfection and completeness, we will end up causing the exact opposite effect and not increasing people’s health outcomes. Surely the Committee and the Minister would suggest that that should be the priority, and we need some common sense to prevail in this discussion.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we cannot support these amendments, I am afraid.
I want to make a couple of comments on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The scenarios that he outlined would be against common sense and I really hope that, when the regulations come before us, they adhere to common sense and take account of the sorts of scenario that he suggested. I certainly think that, with the Bill as it stands, if the noble Lord had decided to give up smoking after the Bill—rather than before, as I understand he already has done—by being of age, in that I think he probably is over 18, he would be able, once the Bill becomes law, to go into a shop and buy vapes to help him give up smoking. So, I do not share his fears; let us put it that way.
I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the egregious nature of some of the advertising. In my own experience, in the high street of my local village, the whole window of one of the local shops is covered with advertisements for vapes, which are very clearly aimed at children: there is no question about it. Of course, the regulations must be carefully drafted to make sure of the objective we all share: making sure that adults who are of age and who wish to stop smoking can do so with the help of vapes.
I turn to the specific amendments in this group. In Amendments 160 to 166 and 173, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition on publishing and advertising. We do not believe that these products should be marketed to the general public; there are already provisions allowing them to be promoted as a cessation tool, which is what they are supposed to be in the first place, with a reasonable range of flavours correctly advertised.
Amendment 172 would require both a call for evidence and consultation before the introduction of marketing restrictions on vaping and heated tobacco products. These would delay the Bill—there is no question about it—and would, therefore, delay what the Bill is trying to do, which is combat the uptake of these products by young people. In any case, consulting with the manufacturers in this way may very well contravene Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which we debated last week.
Amendment 173A is not necessary, as we have already been assured both that consultation will take place and that the available evidence will be considered.
Finally, Amendment 174 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is not necessary because Clause 132(2) already states:
“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult”.
That should cover the noble Lord’s concern.
I have a question for the Minister about the consultation. This morning, I met a mother whose teenage daughter took up vaping at school and now cannot get off the habit. The mother did everything a good mother should do, because the child was quite upset about it; she was so hooked on nicotine that she could not give it up. She went to the GP. She went to the stop smoking services. She went to the pharmacist. She went to a drop-in. She then tried to buy 0% vapes but could not find them in any shop. Eventually, she persuaded a local shop to stock a small number of 0% nicotine vapes, so that the child could continue the behavioural habit without the nicotine—and without standing out from her peers, all of whom vaped behind the bike sheds, as far as I understand it.
It is important. It harks back to an amendment that we discussed last week about the NICE guidelines for stop vaping services. The Government need to make it clear that 0% vapes are and should be available as part of the cessation tools for people who do not just want to give up smoking tobacco but want to get off nicotine as well. That public health service—I do not call it an industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does—should be available to young people.
In the real world, they are vaping. We do not know how harmful it is to them, but I strongly suspect that it is. It is certainly highly addictive. It takes all their pocket money and who knows what else. Very often, they get their vapes from illicit sources, which brings them in contact with people they should not be in contact with. So I would like to know from the Minister whether the consultation will take that sort of thing into account.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I hope I was right in believing that it was implicit in the noble Baroness’s remarks that she felt that 0% vapes should be an exception to the advertising rule.
Earl Howe (Con)
That is helpful. These amendments once again bring us back to the issue of proportionality. The first thing to say, and I hope that no Member of the Committee will disagree with me, is that we have to be very careful when legislating on vapes and nicotine products, lest we inadvertently discourage their use by those who need them for smoking cessation purposes.
That leads to me to make a point similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Sending the message that there are harsh criminal penalties associated with advertising these products or having anything to do with the advertising process plays right into the false narrative, which a lot of people now believe, that vapes and nicotine products—but especially vapes—are as harmful to human health as tobacco smoking. Used irresponsibly, vapes can cause addiction to nicotine and, in that sense, are bad for you. However, when responsibly used as a means of quitting smoking, they are not bad for you. We should tread carefully when purporting to put them on a par with tobacco products and herbal smoking products, as the Bill does in Clauses 113 to 118.
There are 6 million tobacco smokers in this country whom the Government rightly want to help to quit. But those who go through that process know that it is not as easy as simply putting down the cigarette and walking away. Having a safer, accessible and—dare I say—pleasant alternative to turn to is often what makes it bearable for those suffering from cold turkey.
Vaping and nicotine products are those safer alternatives to smoking. They do not possess the same chemicals and tar found in tobacco, and the poisonous chemicals in tobacco smoke are absent. Despite this consensus, 53% of the public believe that vapes are just as bad, while 40% believe that nicotine causes most smoking-related cancer. What do the Government say to those people when they place equal bans on the advertising of tobacco, nicotine and vapes alike? I do not think that they convince them that one of those options is better.
Amendment 173A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and Amendment 174 in my own name, would require the Secretary of State, before imposing a ban on the advertising of vapes and nicotine products or a ban on vape and nicotine companies acting as sponsors, to assess the impact of those bans on likely rates of smoking cessation and the impact on producers, retailers and, indeed, consumers. The free market has played a large part in the threefold reduction in smoking over the past 20 years through the natural growth of tobacco alternatives. The result is that we now have a vaping industry worth over £3 billion, a large part of it with standards and codes of practice, and a rapidly growing nicotine products industry.
I believe that we should welcome that, because it has facilitated the decline in smoking rates and, at the same time, contributed to the economy. I am the first to concede that there are bad-faith actors out there. No one on these Benches would argue against a ban on products or advertising targeted at children, but that is a very different thing from a ban on all advertisements of vaping and nicotine products in any circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for bringing forward these amendments. For the convenience of the Committee, I will speak to them as a group. I am also grateful for noble Lords’ contributions and reflections throughout.
The clauses within Part 6, to which these amendments refer, taken in their totality will ban advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. By doing this, it will bring all these products in line with tobacco. There has been—as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, helpfully made reference to—a significant growth in awareness of vaping promotion, with some 55% of all children aged 11 to 17 aware of promotion in shops in 2025, which is up from 37% in 2022. It is unacceptable that children are exposed to vape adverts on the side of buses and in shop windows as they make their way to school or elsewhere. It is also unacceptable that a family going out to watch football could be exposed to vape branding on the kits of players who should be role models to children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised nicotine pouches. There are currently few restrictions on the advertising of these products, and they are highly promoted in shops and on social media. As a demonstration of this, awareness of nicotine pouches has risen from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025.
I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about non-nicotine vapes. However, the reality is that non-nicotine vapes may be used as a gateway to nicotine vapes. In addition, nicotine could be manually added to the device. We have to take all that into account and, on that basis—to go directly to her question—we do not plan to include them in a consultation.
The noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Moylan, spoke about the banning of vaping and nicotine products being deliberately branded and advertised to children. That is of course a manifesto commitment. We are doing it, as I have said a number of times, to stop the next generation becoming addicted to nicotine.
We also know that there is strong support among the public for doing this. Measures to restrict vape advertising are supported by some 77% of adults in Great Britain, who are keen to see bans on the advertising and promotion of vapes, so we will not be consulting on the whole matter of advertising. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that addictive products of the nature she has described should never have been handed out for free. The Bill will address this by ensuring that free samples of these products cannot be given out to adults and children of any age.
The Government have already published a thorough impact assessment of the measures in the Bill, including the effect of the prohibition on the advertising and sponsorship of vaping and nicotine products. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the advertising ban aims to reduce the risk of young people being exposed to vape promotion and advertisements, not the ability of adults to buy vaping products.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howard—and I say this to all noble Lords—that we are committed to helping adult smokers to quit. That is best led by the appropriate health authority, such as the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was right to say, “If you don’t smoke, don’t vape”. We will return to this in a later group, but I can tell him that the Bill allows public health authorities to take certain steps to promote vapes as a means of smoking cessation. That is the right place for this to be.
Further to that, the NHS can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support. We have invested an additional £70 million in 2025-26 to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England to help people quit smoking, and we will continue to run targeted campaigns to help current smokers quit.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about an assessment of how the bans will impact businesses, smoking cessation services, et cetera. We will continue to monitor the impact of these changes following implementation.
With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Howard, will be able to withdraw Amendment 160.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Since the noble Baroness has said so clearly that the purpose of the advertising ban is to prevent information being communicated to children and young people, and that that was a manifesto commitment, why does the ban have to be drawn so widely? Clause 119 has a list of defences that can be advanced for those who are accused of breaching the various preceding clauses on advertising, but none of them says that it is a different matter if the communication is with adults. Is this not drawn far too widely to be justified by her laudable ambition?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord regards it as a laudable ambition. We will come to exemptions in the next group, and I look forward to doing so.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I, too, am slightly confused by this. I was reading something the other day from the DCMS, boasting about the creative industries, and one of the big and most profitable parts of the creative industries in this country is advertising and marketing. It is considered to be something we are proud of. Lots of products have age issues. If you are a cider producer, you have to advertise, but you do not want a six year-old drinking it. We have discussed things such as fizzy drinks, so I appreciate this. This appears to be a blanket catch-all. It does not seem to take up the ways we have learned, in the advertising and marketing world, how, in a society that has children in it at the same time as adults, you can have a sensible restriction on advertising sometimes without depriving everybody of the gain of the advert. NHS information, while useful, is not the same as marketing choice, giving people ideas of the options they might have with vapes, which are not all the same product.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. This kind of question also comes up in respect of other products: for example, the 9 pm watershed, in terms of the advertisement of high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt foods in order that that advertising is not affecting children and young people. So, this is a constant discussion: that is not a criticism but an observation, of course. What is interesting to me in respect of tobacco is that the evidence found that partial bans are not as effective as a comprehensive ban when it comes to the aim, ambition and intent to reduce tobacco consumption. Similar assumptions can clearly be drawn on vapes. I hope that helps in terms of clarifying the point I am making, even if it may not satisfy the noble Baroness, which I understand.
Lord Howard of Rising
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the offence for designers regarding a “reason to suspect” as an offence regarding the design of imagery that contains these kinds of products.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
In moving Amendment 161A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will speak to Amendments 168A and 170A in this group. My Amendment 168A seeks to permit the advertisement of vapes, heated tobacco and other nicotine products to adult smokers as a public health measure. We know that these products are less harmful than smoked tobacco, as I have already pointed out today, so it is important that adult smokers are provided with adequate information on these products. It would be a perverse outcome if this legislation resulted in less harmful products being made less accessible to adult smokers who currently use the more harmful smoked tobacco products. Will the Minister says what steps the Government will be taking to ensure that adult smokers are still able to access less harmful alternatives to smoked tobacco? I would be interested to know whether the Government will take this point on advertisement away for further consideration before Report.
Amendment 170A in my name would permit compliant retailers to communicate at point of sale to their legal-age and nicotine-consuming customers information about vapes, heated tobacco and other nicotine products, so that adult smokers are empowered with full information on the alternatives available for them to switch to.
Noble Lords may have seen reports in the press in October that the managing director of UK and Irish operations of British American Tobacco argued for allowing a very strict marketing framework targeted only to adults, which could make smokers aware of the alternatives and encourage them to switch. Surely, we want smokers who are currently using more harmful smoked tobacco products to switch to less harmful vaping and heated tobacco products, especially if they are unable to quit completely.
Can the Minister please confirm whether she has met British American Tobacco, or any other producer of vapes or heated tobacco, to discuss this issue? Does she agree that it is beneficial for the health of smokers to switch if they cannot quit? I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 171 in my name, which contains some echoes of Amendment 167 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support.
Noble Lords will not be surprised, I think, to hear that I fully support the restrictions on the marketing of vapes, nicotine pouches and other nicotine products. We urgently need to put an end to the relentless and irresponsible advertising to which we are currently subjected; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described this in our debate on the previous group. You cannot travel on the London Underground without seeing adverts for pouches saying things such as, “Hi, London. Your commute just got tastier”—not, noble Lords will note, “Hello, London smokers. Did you know that there are less harmful alternatives to smoking?”
This kind of indiscriminate marketing works to expose children to these products, which have been criticised by trading standards as mimicking sweets. As the Minister pointed out, awareness of nicotine pouches among under-18s has risen from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025. My amendment seeks to probe the Government on how they will ensure that public health authorities, NHS bodies and smoking cessation services can communicate effectively with smokers to make it clear that these products, while not risk-free, are significantly less harmful than smoking and can help smokers quit.
Such bodies have been impeded by the vaping industry. As we all know, vaping and addiction to nicotine is, in turn, leading to young people smoking, something that all of us, it seems, want to reduce. To put it bluntly, we have the wrong people using these products. Uptake among children, young people and never-smokers is far too high. Some 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping. Conversely, the people whom we most want to switch—they were addressed in our debate on the previous group: adult smokers—are not doing so. More than one-quarter of adults who currently smoke have never tried vaping, and misperceptions about harm are most acute among these smokers; the proportion who believe that vapes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes has increased. Had the vaping industry not promoted its wares to young people, we would not be in this situation.
This Bill currently makes provisions for public health bodies to promote these products but, of course, there are major challenges. The industry is responsible for the situation that we are in. I have heard from smoking cessation services that some online platforms make it practically impossible to promote vaping, even from bona fide health organisations; any post with a budget on these issues gets blocked and could have an impact on the Government’s messaging on this topic. Will the Minister explain how she feels this Bill will steer a proper course here, so that we put forward the public health benefits to which noble Lords referred in our debate on the previous group? In a similar way, different radio stations have different policies on vaping adverts, with some not allowing them at all even if it is clear that the public health messaging is from professional services. How will the Government steer through that?
As noble Lords indicated in our debate on the previous group, there clearly needs to be differentiation between commercial promotion and public health messaging if these vapes are to be used for what they were supposedly there to do in the first place. The problem here is that the vaping industry has not proved trustworthy, as children and young people are targeted. Many of the amendments here will simply allow more loopholes and are, therefore, likely to muddy the waters yet again.
We should not soften the approach that the Bill takes towards commercial companies. Just this year, we have seen heated tobacco advertising in supermarkets—Sainsbury’s and Morrisons—despite the Government telling them that this is currently illegal. If they are willing to flout the current law, why should we consider creating further loopholes for them to stretch in future? Once again, I will show an advert, which I have shown before, which is clearly not targeting smokers—if only it were. It says:
“Claim your free sample today”.
In tiny writing, it says that it is “not risk-free”. This is how loopholes have been exploited. That is what this Bill is seeking to address.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 168 and 170 in my name. At the end of the previous group, the Minister expressed a little gratified surprise that I thought the ambition of trying to end vaping by children was laudable. I am disappointed that she was surprised because I hoped that I had made it clear from the outset of my participation in this Bill that I entirely understand and support the Government’s wish to do everything possible to prevent the uptake of vaping and other nicotine products by children. My remarks were entirely about adults, as they will be on this group.
I do not wish to be impertinent, but I have a question for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who spoke of the vape industry as if it were a monolithic thing. There are several different characterisations of the vape industry, but the key one is that some of it is the work of respectable, accountable companies that are based in the UK and similar countries and conduct their affairs in one way, and some of it is the huge flood of vapes that have entered the market without proper regulation or control, I understand, although I do not know, very often produced by Chinese companies.
I ask the noble Baroness please to stop pointing at that piece of paper that nobody can actually see. Even if we were allowed to see it, we cannot read it at that distance.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is blue. Is there something wicked about blue?
There is a distinction between the one and the other. The truth is that respectable companies will comply with the law, as they do with the law on smoking advertising, and disreputable ones will find ways of getting around it, as so many currently do.
I return to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 168 addresses Clause 119, which, as I mentioned in the previous group, contains certain defences that can be used by those charged with offences laid out in the previous clauses, such as distributing or designing advertising. I propose that an additional defence be added to it that,
“it is, when in relation to the advertising of vaping products or nicotine products, in a location in which it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present is aged 18”.
This is an attempt to try to fit in with what the Minister said earlier about the aim of the Bill, that we are meant to be trying to address young people, which I agree with, and help ensure that they are not induced into taking up vaping and other nicotine-based products.
Amendment 170 would create an exemption, not by amending Clause 119 but by adding a new clause, for a specialist vaping retailer making communications online in an age-verified environment. We have robust age verification now as a result of the Online Safety Act. There are many sites, I believe, which you are required to verify your age to access. That is what Ofcom has increasingly rolled out under the provisions of that Act. It is perfectly possible to have age-verified sites and to ensure that people can access them only if they can demonstrate they are above a certain age. That is what this is trying to do. It is trying to create some sort of balance for those adults—those above the age of 18—who wish to have access to information about vaping in a way that ensures it does not get to children. On the basis of what the noble Baroness has said is her purpose, I really cannot see how she should object to this. I hope that Amendment 170 and possibly even Amendment 168 might find favour with her.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 167 and 171 in the names of my noble friend Lord Kamall and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. They seek a carve-out from the ban on advertising for smoking cessation purposes.
In Part 6, which is about advertising, I cannot see any exemption for those services. It may be tucked away somewhere else in the Bill. My enquiries about this led me to believe that the qualification that you have to act in the course of business before the ban applies is an exemption for the health service, local government and any other public health agencies. I wonder whether that is good enough. Pharmacies are businesses, and many GP practices are limited companies. If I went into a pharmacy or to my medical centre and asked for help to give up smoking, it seems that they might commit an offence because they are a business. I think there is some merit in those two amendments, unless there is something somewhere else in the Bill that provides a specific exemption for smoking cessation services.
I have looked at the defence in Clause 199, “Advertising: defences”, and there is a defence, but it can be exercised only by somebody “in a relevant trade”—in other words, selling tobacco products, herbal smoking and the rest. If the only exemption is for business purposes, it seems to me that there are some grey areas. Surely there is a case for making it clear that we want these products to be promoted as smoking cessation services and people should not run the risk of getting caught by what I think is rather vague drafting of the Bill as it stands.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, much has been said on this. It might be worth noting—I appreciate this is the wrong place to note it—that the ultimate virtue in life and the bottom line of every single decision we make does not have to be public health. If you think that other things are important, it does not make you beyond the pale, evil or somebody who can be cast out of society. Public health is one of the balancing things we have to consider in society, but there is a range of things we need to discuss.
I say that because when we are talking about these exemptions, which I think are very sensible, moderate and proportionate, one of the things that is interesting is that the plethora of specialist vape shops—I appreciate that people in this Room might not be familiar with them—are full of geeky people who understand the wide variety of vapes that are available legally on the market in this country. They are not somewhere that young people hang out; I mean young in the sense of being under 18. They are often frequented by people who are interested in the different types of vaping you can choose to indulge in. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has made is that they are not places for children.
It is interesting that many of the people who work in those establishments see themselves as being in the smoking-cessation business; they actively see themselves that way. Many go on training courses in smoking cessation and are therefore almost zealots. So, in some ways, I would much rather buy my vapes from a convenience store than go into a vape shop, because they give you a lecture in all things related to vaping, very often to do with public health.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments relating to penalties around advertising. As is often the case with legislation—many of us on this side were Government Ministers, too—the catch-all is extremely complex and rather dangerous. I agree that trying to prosecute someone who “has reason to suspect” that an advertisement may have been created for some type of tobacco-related product seems wholly reasonable. I note that, on page 66, internet services are included, which effectively means that anyone who runs an internet company where there is any advert for some type of tobacco product that could be seen by someone in the UK will go to prison for two years. I do not know whether we want to let some of the great tech bros of the world know that they should start planning. The good news is that we are so overcrowded that it will take years before we process them. But this is the sort of legislation—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise for delaying the Committee. I was not having a cigar, as was suggested; I just got caught in the slow lane in the Lobby.
I shall come briefly to a conclusion. I ask the Minister for some clarification around the reality of how these proposals will be brought into play. I do not wish to speak on behalf of my fellow Peers but, clearly, there is a broad understanding across the Committee that we will end any form of advertising or promotion, except in specialist areas. I was pleased to see, and am grateful for, the carve-outs for specialist tobacconists, but we must ensure that these are proportionate and realistic; I assume that it is not the Government’s intention to impose a two-year prison sentence on someone who inadvertently passes on an advert for tobacco products or whatever it may be.
The “Internet services” clause needs serious consideration because, like all these laws that try to catch the provider, be it the telephone company, the internet service provider or whatever, from my experience, having sat where the Minister is, they are largely impractical. It is better to think practically about what these service providers can do, what sort of expectations we should be holding them to and how they can practically try to minimise the proliferation of adverts for tobacco products.
My final question to the Minister is, how can I receive my information as a legitimate enjoyer of an occasional cigar? How will I be given information online, which is how many people purchase their tobacco products perfectly legally? The Minister said that she is not looking to take action retrospectively on people who now enjoy a legal pastime but to bring in a smoke-free generation, but how will that conflict with my rights? How will I receive information? Can I receive the information that I want to receive in a way that enables me to distinguish easily between products, which requires some type of brand point, online, by email or through the websites of the suppliers? How is that going to work in practice? It is all very well to say that we do not want to have advertising. The reality is that it is perfectly reasonable for me to receive good information. I am sure that the Committee would want to make sure that that was safely delivered and appropriate rather than using the wrong type of legislation and a catch-all or a sledgehammer in order to try to crack this nut.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will address just two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who powerfully and clearly introduced it as a probing amendment to the Government while very handily timing her intervention to remind me that it is in this group and that I have attached my name to it. I thank the noble Baroness for that.
We might say that there are different sides in this Committee, but everyone has agreed that adult smokers need to be able to get the information they need that this is an effective way to stop smoking. That is what this amendment does, and I do not think I need to say anymore on that.
I want to address briefly Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about restrictions on brand sharing. It is important to highlight why this amendment should not be part of the Bill. The process of brand stretching or brand sharing is something that we have seen the tobacco companies doing a great deal of. Mysteriously, expensive leather jackets, fancy sunglasses or even stationery suddenly start to bear various branding aspects—I will get to what those aspects are in a second—that just happen to echo that of a certain form of cigarettes. Governments very often find themselves playing a whack-a-mole game: if you try to ban this, then something slightly different appears and so on.
I particularly want to highlight the guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control because this amendment very clearly goes against what that says. It notes that there needs to be an effective ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. I think it is worth quoting this because it highlights the ways in which the WHO is trying to catch everything because it has to try to catch everything:
“Promotional effects, both direct and indirect, may be brought about by the use of words, designs, images, sounds and colours, including brand names … or schemes of colours associated with tobacco products, manufacturers or importers, or by the use of a part or parts of words, designs, images and colours”.
The Government need all the powers they can possibly have to stop the merchants of death sneaking round into little gaps in the legislation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 171 in this group, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. My noble friend has highlighted many egregious examples of the sort of advertising that the Bill needs to avoid through careful drafting. Her suggestion is explicit that advertising must not appeal to children, non-smokers or indeed anyone for whom these products are not intended, while ensuring that their core purpose as smoking cessation products is not impeded.
Amendment 171 would tighten up the wording of the Bill to achieve the Government’s intention. It would also future-proof it. We debated, on Amendments 195 and 196 from my noble friend Lord Russell, the need for reviews in the future, to give everyone the confidence that the Government will at least keep pace with—or preferably get ahead of—developments. We should include in those reviews any clever advertising and marketing intended to get round the Bill, as well as product development and emerging evidence of harms. Frankly, if the industry does not like it, it has only itself to blame because of its blatant and highly successful campaign to lure children to use its products.
On Amendment 161A, from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of “reason to suspect”—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I was saying, on Amendment 161A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of,
“or has reason to suspect”,
in Clause 114(1)(b), we believe this phrase is commonly used and therefore there is no need to remove it.
On Amendment 161B on possible disparities between penalties in different devolved nations, we look forward to the Minister’s response. Although consistency is usually desirable, there may be unintended consequences, which the Minister knows about, because different situations prevail in different parts of the country.
We support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in his Amendment 167 because it is important that vapes can be promoted as a cessation tool. However, as I understand it, the Bill prohibits the advertising of vapes by businesses only, which means that public health organisations, GPs and hospitals treating patients suffering from smoking-related diseases could promote them as a quitting aid. As I understand it, the prohibition does not cover products licensed as medicines, so they can continue to be promoted.
Having said all that, I hope that the Minister can assure us that clear guidance compatible with the Bill’s intentions will be provided by the Advertising Standards Authority so as not to hinder public health settings while preventing commercial advertising, which has had such an egregious effect on the level of awareness of these products among children, who do not need them to quit smoking.
With Amendment 168, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would allow vapes to be promoted in what we might call adults-only places. Leaving aside the fact that, as we know, many younger people slip into these places, promotion there would give the impression that these products are for recreational use, which is not their purpose. Anyone going to a nightclub who is trying to quit smoking but fears they may be tempted to have a cigarette when they have had a few drinks and their resistance is lowered would certainly equip themselves with their vapes before going out.
We do not think Amendment 168A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is necessary as the Bill already allows public health authorities to promote heated tobacco and other things as quitting aids.
Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raises an interesting issue that we think could be explored. There may be a case for some limited arrangements for display or promotion by specialist retailers, but this should be done very carefully to avoid ensnaring young people inappropriately. I think the Bill allows specialist vape shops to operate, and they could display material provided by public health authorities.
Amendment 170 is not necessary as there is no prohibition in the Bill of specialist retailers putting information on their website.
Regarding Amendment 170A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I think about my local corner shop, which has illuminated signs inside and a shop window plastered with enticing advertisements for sweet-flavoured vapes. I hope the Minister will resist this very broad exemption.
Finally, we think that Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on brand sharing is far too broad and would, in the end, apply to all brand sharing. I know from my work on food advertising how widely brand logos, colours and images can be recognised by the public. Who does not know that burgers and chips are being sold when they see the golden arches of McDonald’s, or that chocolate bars are being advertised when they see the colour purple and the words Dairy Milk? You need to be very careful when regulating brands, so I hope the Minister will resist that one, too.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in this group of amendments we have seen a logical continuation of our debate on the previous group, since in their various ways these amendments pose the question of what are the appropriate constraints to place around products that are of considerably less concern in a health context than tobacco products. We are back in the realm of deciding what is proportionate and how to secure better clarity and consistency in the operation of the Bill’s advertising and design provisions.
Although he has not been here to speak to it, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s Amendment 161A struck me as a point worth raising. It would protect designers and creative professionals from being criminally liable based on mere suspicion or indirect association because it would work to raise the threshold of proof of intent. One could imagine that in some cases it could be difficult to prove that someone designing an advertisement had reason to suspect that it would be published. In any event, is it right that someone who has been asked by their employer to design a vape advertisement should be criminalised because they know or believe it may be used in some context? I am afraid that the word “draconian” comes to mind.
On my noble friend’s Amendment 161B a very similar thought came to mind. Are the Government really saying that the offence of designing an advertisement for a vape merits a prison sentence? There are mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment. How should the sentencing provisions in this part of the Bill be read alongside the provisions of the Government’s Sentencing Bill? What is the overall message? The Sentencing Bill will require almost all sentences of less than 12 months to be suspended. On the one hand, the Government are creating imprisonable offences, and on the other, they are saying that people should not actually go to prison, even if they are sentenced to it. At the very least, the Minister needs to explain to the Committee why the sentence on summary conviction is to be different in Scotland than in Northern Ireland, which might have been a point my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would have made.
Turning to my Amendment 167 and the very well worded amendment, if I may say so, from the Liberal Democrats, the underlying purpose of each is the same, which is to urge the Government to regulate, rather than ban, vape advertisements so that in narrow clinical contexts, such as smoking cessation clinics, they can be deployed for public health purposes. Amendment 168A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising has a very similar purpose.
In Amendment 169 I am asking the Government to consider a further exemption for advertisements located discretely in specialist vaping shops. Why not allow that? As my noble friend Lord Moylan has asked in his Amendment 170, why prohibit such specialist shops providing information online subject to suitable age-gating checks? That in turn raises a further question from my noble friend in his Amendment 168. In adult-only environments, why should displaying an advertisement for a vaping product be against the law given that, as we need to keep reminding ourselves, vapes are and will remain legally available for purchase by anyone aged 18 or over? Why are the Government treating vape advertising in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising? What is the justification? Amendment 170A from my noble friend Lord Howard asks that question in a different form. Why should we not allow factual product information to be provided at point of sale in an age-restricted area in suitably licensed premises?
Finally, Amendment 172A from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would prevent overreach. It would ensure that brand restrictions target only genuine attempts to promote nicotine or tobacco, not completely unrelated products such as clothing or other merchandise. I think my noble friend has identified an issue that requires clarification from the Government, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward this group of amendments, which reference Part 6 provisions, and for the contributions that have been made.
I will start with Amendments 161A and 161B, which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. The current drafting of Clause 114 makes it an offence, when acting in the course of business, to design an advert that would promote a relevant product and be published in the UK. If an organisation knows or has reason to suspect their advert has a promotional purpose or effect and will be published in the UK, it has committed an offence by designing the advert.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the inclusion of “has reason to suspect” is deliberate, not least because it mirrors the approach taken in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. This wording is designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those who are involved in the design of ads cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance where it is clear from the evidence that they had reason to suspect what they were designing an advert for. I hope the noble Earl will understand that we will, therefore, not seek to weaken existing legislation or allow any uncertainty that could be exploited.
I turn to Amendment 161B. I sympathise with the intention to align penalties across the UK but, of course, it is important that we respect Scotland has a separate criminal justice system. There are maximum penalties for this type of offence; they are fixed in line with the criminal justice system in each jurisdiction. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I turn to Amendment 172A, which was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. It seeks to restrict the scope of the offence of brand sharing. Brand sharing, also known as brand stretching, is a form of indirect advertising and should be seen as such, not least because it promotes the use of a service or product by putting its branding on other products or services or vice versa. The clause is drafted in a manner that already limits the offence that could be created under this power to cases where the purpose or effect is to promote a relevant product. Brand sharing, as defined in the Bill, would be unlikely to capture the types of case about which the noble Lord is concerned in his amendment; it is our view, therefore, that this amendment, as it stands, would introduce unnecessary complexity.
I turn to Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The Bill as drafted takes decisive action to ban the advertising and sponsorship of all vapes and nicotine products, delivering on our clear manifesto commitment to stop vapes being advertised to children—something on which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke. The ban is essential to creating what we seek: a strong, consistent regulatory environment; and to provide clarity for businesses and enforcement bodies. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that guidance will be produced on advertising.
This Bill already includes defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I have said in our debates on earlier groups, we are not considering any other exemptions for adult-only spaces, not least because of the risk of loopholes; these were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. However, I take this opportunity to correct a statement that was made in the other place: this prohibition will apply to all advertisements for relevant products, not just those for specific products. In practice, this means that anyone acting in the course of business could commit an offence if they promote a relevant product, whether that is a generic product, a category of products or a specific branded product.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think the noble Baroness has addressed Amendment 170. Does she therefore not share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which was, as I understood it, that my Amendment 170 is unnecessary because there is nothing in the Bill that prohibits specialist vape retailers communicating on the internet? I would like clarity on that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Of course; I am going to come on to the point about online advertising.
Amendments 167 and 169, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, Amendment 168A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and Amendment 171, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all seek to create exemptions to allow for the promotion of products for the purposes of smoking cessation—something that was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Young. As I mentioned on the previous group, I repeat the assurance to noble Lords that the Bill as drafted will allow certain public authorities to continue to take steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking. This is a matter that I will come back to on Report.
The offences in Part 6 apply only to those acting in the course of business. For example, following the passage of the Bill, local stop smoking services will still be able to take steps to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised an important question about GPs and pharmacists having such a facility. I assure him that we will be further reviewing whether the Bill provides the necessary approach considering the points that he made.
I also mention something relevant to an earlier group—I may be stepping a little outside of things here, but I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular, making this point. The advertisement offences will not prevent a retailer offering verbal smoking cessation services to their customers. While I am sympathetic to the intention to ensure that vapes remain accessible and visible to adult smokers, there are already strict rules in place for nicotine vape advertising. Under current legislation, it is illegal to advertise nicotine-containing vapes on television, radio, most online platforms and in newspapers and magazines. Companies are not allowed to market a vape as a smoking cessation product or to make medicinal claims about products unless these have been authorised as a medicinal product by the MHRA. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, we believe that promoting smoking cessation is best led by the appropriate health authorities, including the NHS, which can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support.
I should be clear that all tobacco products are harmful to health, including heated tobacco, which contains tobacco and generates aerosols with carcinogens. The department therefore does not recommend the use of heated tobacco products to quit smoking.
I turn to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me for interrupting, but I did not quite follow. Where in the Bill is the reference to the ability to place an advertisement for a product that is authorised as a medicinal product, where it also happens to be a vaping product? I do not know where that is to be found in legislation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to come back to the noble Lord and be precise about that while I am going through the rest. If I do not get the opportunity to do so, I will of course write.
I turn to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 170A from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I am sympathetic to the intention of ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make a purchase. This was spoken to by not only the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, Amendment 170 is not necessary because retailers, as I have said, will continue to be able to provide the necessary factual information about products to enable purchases. Amendment 170A is also not necessary because the Bill does not prohibit businesses displaying the categories of information that this amendment refers to, as long as the information is not promotional.
The noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Moylan, referred to online providers. The Bill builds on existing legislation and effectively bans all advertising of relevant products, including online. On the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we expect enforcement bodies to take a proportionate approach, as they currently do with the advertising of tobacco products.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked about government engagement. We will continue to engage with independent vaping associations and other vaping businesses, but I remind him and the Committee, as I said probably on day one, that the UK Government are committed to Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which means the protection of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. So I have not met and will not meet British American Tobacco.
I will need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and will be glad to do so. I hope this will allow the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to withdraw Amendment 161A.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 176 and 177.
Amendment 175
Lord Kamall
(a) an NHS property or hospital,(b) a public playground,(c) a provider of early years education, or(d) a school.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to only hospitals, children’s playgrounds, providers of early years education and schools in England.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 175 and 179 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe propose restricting the Secretary of State’s power to designate smoke-free places to a clearly defined and limited set of locations: NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, and providers of early years education and schools. As it stands, Clause 135 gives the Secretary of State extraordinarily wide powers to add new areas and designations to the list of smoke-free places: in effect, to designate almost any space or area regarded as open to the public smoke-free by regulation. While well intentioned, it is a sweeping power that merits careful scrutiny.
Therefore, the purpose of these probing amendments is to seek to understand how the Government intend to use this sweeping power and whether they will act responsibly in exercising it. The four categories proposed—NHS property or hospitals, public playgrounds, early years providers and schools— are all spaces where there is a clear public health argument for restrictions and, indeed, support for these restrictions. They are environments that the Government have consistently said they wish to protect. However, the Government intend to designate additional places through delegated powers. Therefore, we are probing the Government on the level of discussion, scrutiny and accountability for any such changes. Will this be by way of the negative procedure, draft affirmative procedure or made affirmative procedure? We hope that the Government, in seeking to augment or change this list, will return to Parliament and make the case openly, thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State’s power in this area is clearly defined, appropriately limited and exercised with the scrutiny and responsibility that Parliament expects.
The other amendments in the group address in different ways the question of how far-reaching the Secretary of State’s powers under Clause 135 ought to be and what safeguards should accompany them. Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which proposes that the Secretary of State can act only where there is evidence that smoking in a given place is causing harm to non-smokers, is a reasonable and proportionate test, but this evidential safeguard should be in addition to, not instead of, clear and meaningful parliamentary oversight. Amendment 177 from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is welcome, since it seeks to ensure that Ministers are not handed sweeping authority to alter well-established rights, such as the ability to smoke in open, uncovered hospitality venues, without the explicit oversight or approval of Parliament. This also appears to be a sensible and proportionate check to ensure that government powers are exercised within a clear and democratically accountable framework and, when combined with Amendment 176 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would ensure that any extension of bans is justified by evidence.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendments just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, particularly Amendments 175 and 179. I start from the point of view that the powers to extend smoke-free places in England, were Amendment 175 to pass, would be less than the powers in the devolved nations. As smoking prevalence continues to fall, there will clearly be an ongoing open discussion that appraises the evidence on smoke-free extensions and how best to protect public health and workers’ rights.
In August 2024, the Government indicated—well, apparently it was leaked—that they were going to extend these powers when bringing back the Bill. There was then a backlash, the Government U-turned and said that the consultation would focus only on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. That is disappointing, but we do not want to close down the opportunities and options for the future that would be available from this Bill.
Think about some of the other places that might be high-priority areas in the future, such as beaches. Very often, we experience big problems with litter and there are lots of small children on beaches. People have an expectation of fresh air there; that is one of the reasons why they go to the seaside. There are other places where exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke is particularly high. One example is transport hubs, but we can all think of other places where there are real issues and where we might want to keep the possibility of further extension open.
Finally, our medical understanding of the impacts of so-called passive smoking and second-hand cigarette smoke is growing and increasing all the time, and heading in only one direction. I note, for example, that just in the last week a major veterinary provider told pet owners to be aware of the impacts of passive cigarette smoke and vaping on pets. Our understanding of the impacts in this kind of area just keeps growing and growing, so we should not close down the possibilities in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 176. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, his Amendment 178 does something very similar. As I have often said, policy should be based on evidence, so this amendment seeks to tease out exactly what evidence the Government plan to use when designating a new area as smoke-free.
The Government have already said that their consultation on further smoke-free areas will focus on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. It is fairly clear that areas in and close to schools should be smoke-free, in the same way that local authorities now have powers to prevent the opening of new fast-food outlets near schools because of the health dangers of much of their sales.
However, some playgrounds are very large and it is possible that a parent waiting on a bench for a child, well away from the play equipment, may want to smoke a cigarette—if they are of legal age, of course. Although it would set a bad example, it would be hard to understand the level of risk to the children playing; it would depend how far away they are. As for hospitals, many of them have already designated their grounds as smoke-free, although it has been hard to enforce. Many of us will have seen people smoking outside St Thomas’ Hospital, underneath the “No smoking” sign. Many hospitals have distinct outdoor smoking shelters. The matter is complicated, which is why my amendment probes the Government on the criteria they will use.
On the other hand, Amendments 175 and 179 seek to specify in the Bill the areas that can be designated as smoke-free. This could restrict the Government from acting in other areas in future. Obviously, we want the same rules in all parts of the UK, to save confusion. There are several reasons why the Government should not be limited in this way, and they must bear in mind the different circumstances that prevail in different areas. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, there are many children on beaches, and discarded cigarettes are a real litter problem, according to coastal local authorities. As she said, transport hubs may also come into focus, because of the crowded conditions in many of them, especially at certain times of the day such as rush hour. We think the Government need flexibility on this issue. Indeed, somebody might be more affected by second-hand smoke in a transport hub than at the far side of a very large playground, which is why I would like to see an evidence test.
We do not support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as the Government may want to restrict smoking in uncovered hospitality areas in the future. However, if they do so they will have to explain the reasons why, and we could debate it then. The fact is that the prohibition on smoking in indoor hospitality venues has proved very popular with customers and landlords alike and has certainly not had a damaging effect on footfall or expansion of the sector. The same might apply to uncovered hospitality areas in the future, if they are considered for the ban.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, all the amendments in this group seek to limit the powers in the Bill to make additional places smoke-free in England. On Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we know that passive smoking, whether indoors or outdoors, poses a risk to health. The rule of thumb is: if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. This is particularly important for children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.
However, despite these well-known and very well-evidenced harms, trying to ascribe specific harms to locations is somewhat challenging, as this debate shows. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, in a large children’s play area it is difficult to evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke has caused a specific harm in a specific place. I can assure noble Lords that we are extremely mindful of this. Therefore, the test referred to in the amendment is overly restrictive, technically very difficult to do and not necessary, given the extensive evidence of harm to vulnerable people. It would also likely lead to a scenario in which we are unable to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harms of second-hand smoke.
Similarly, on Amendment 178, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as I mentioned, we know the harms of passive smoking. There is strong indirect evidence but, as I said, it can be difficult to demonstrate this evidence in specific locations. Again, this restrictive test would prevent areas where there are harms of second-hand smoke to children and medically vulnerable people from becoming smoke-free. Furthermore, as this amendment would apply in England only, it would leave England with more restrictive smoke-free provisions than the devolved nations.
Amendments 175 and 179 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. As we have made clear but I would like to reiterate, in England we plan to consult on extending smoke-free places as and when. In the first instance, it would be to the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, children’s playgrounds and healthcare settings. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that all proposed smoke-free locations will be subject to consultation both now and into the future and that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will be guided by public health advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly observed that the powers within the Bill allow us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time, particularly where there is evidence of clear harms to children and vulnerable people.
On Amendment 177 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, we have made it very clear—I am glad to take the opportunity to do so again, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that outdoor hospitality settings will not be in scope of the consultation on smoke-free places. We fully recognise the balance that is needed to protect the most vulnerable as well as ensure that businesses are not financially impacted. We are confident that we have the balance right in deciding the places, which I have already outlined, on which we plan to consult.
However, the powers in the Bill, as has been observed, allow for additional places to be designated smoke-free in the future, subject to further consultation and parliamentary debate. The landscape may change significantly on tobacco legislation, as it has done over the years. Evidence and attitudes may also shift, again as we have seen over the years, so it is sensible to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed and can respond to evolving evidence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the wide range of noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. These are clearly intended as probing amendments, at this stage, to understand—as the Minister herself agreed—these wide sweeping powers to designate additional spaces as smoke-free. We are grateful because we were concerned about the level of scrutiny there would be. The Minister assured us that there will be consultation and that any changes will be by regulation following the affirmative procedure. We are very grateful for that and that perhaps answers some of the probing amendments that we have in future groups. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the notice to debate whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill has been tabled as a probe. From my reading of Clause 136, it alters a long-standing regulatory regime set out in the Health Act 2006. Under that Act, Ministers have a regulation-making power to exempt performers and performances from the smoking ban, where doing so is justified by the artistic integrity of the performance. That provision, in effect, creates a presumption of legality that empowers producers, directors and performers to make a reasoned judgment about whether smoking is intrinsic to the artistic content of the work.
Clause 136 turns that structure on its head. Instead of a power to permit smoking for artistic reasons, it substitutes a power only to create a defence to the criminal offence in Section 7(2) of the 2006 Act. That offence is clear. It says:
“A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence”.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 180 in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, to which I have added my name. Amendment 180 would remove the sampling exemption to smoke-free legislation that currently allows cigar lounges to operate.
This exemption has created a loophole that accommodates smoking indoors in a public place—something that we rightly consigned to history in 2007. The 2007 statutory instrument carved out an exemption for specialist tobacconists, allowing for the sampling of products within the premises. The justification offered then was that cigars, being a niche and luxury product, required a try-before-you-buy approach.
Yet what I see today bears little resemblance to the spirit of that exemption. These venues are no longer retail premises merely offering brief product sampling; they are fully-fledged cigar lounges. They are described by no less an authority than the Daily Telegraph as:
“The last place you can smoke indoors in the UK”
and
“a network of hangouts where smoking is not just permitted, but encouraged”.
That is surely not what Parliament intended.
In some of these lounges, food and drink are served as cigar smoke fills enclosed spaces. Some noble Lords may be enthusiastic supporters of what one nearby cigar lounge’s website describes in the following terms:
“Nestled in a quiet corner of the city lies … a haven for those who seek solace in the timeless ritual of cigar smoking. Step through our doors and be transported to a world of refined tranquility, where every detail is crafted to enchant the senses and soothe the soul”.
Note the absence of any reference to sampling, by the way.
What about those who work in these environments—staff being exposed to second-hand smoke on every shift? I saw the reality of this at first hand just a couple of months ago at a friend’s birthday party in a smart London hotel. As the guests, including myself, wandered from room to room and from snacks and dancing to drink, we were amazed to see that one of our options was a cigar lounge. Although this was indeed an option for us—one that I obviously chose to skip, given my father’s untimely death from lung cancer—it was not an option for the staff, who were working in all parts of the hotel.
The smell of that cigar smoke took me back to my childhood and teens before my father died at 66. He usually smoked cigarettes and a pipe—it was Cut Golden Bar, if any noble Lords are old enough to remember the cheaper brands of tobacco. He would smoke a cigar, purchased as a present or as a treat for himself, once a year at Christmas. I remember the smell of that smoke in the room. I had no idea—I do not know whether he did—of the harm it was doing to his two daughters, who now suffer from asthma.
During the campaign for the smoking ban, trade unions and the hospitality industry made one of the strongest arguments for change: all workers have the right to a safe workplace free of second-hand smoke. Does that principle not equally apply to those working in cigar lounges? We are seeing new lounges open, too. In Sheffield, for example, a new lounge opened earlier this year despite strong objections from the public health team at Sheffield City Council. The team noted that the venue was within 400 metres of a school and that smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the city. It warned that such a venue risked normalising tobacco use for young people, undermining the council’s public health objectives, yet the lounge opened regardless.
The health harms of cigars are clear. Even when not inhaling, cigar and pipe smokers are at increased risk of cancer of the mouth, oesophagus, throat, voice box and lungs. There is no safe form of tobacco. I strongly support the Bill taking action on all tobacco products and look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments regarding indoor smoking in these establishments.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the first day of this Committee, there was wide agreement that this Bill was about public health in general and about preventing young people starting to smoke in particular. Amendment 180, against which I shall speak, addresses neither of these objectives. As we have heard, the amendment is based on the oft-repeated shibboleth that all tobacco is dangerous, but that is as nonsensical and unscientific as saying that all water is drinkable. Neither proposition stands up to even the most basic inquiry: with water, it all depends on where it comes from, and, with tobacco, it all depends on what it is done with.
I am sure that, after reading Hansard on day four of this Committee, the noble Lords who were not here and who support this amendment will have learned that the tobacco used in handmade cigars is a totally different product to the tobacco used in mass-produced cigarettes. It is smoked by a much more elderly cohort of users and is handmade as an artisanal product by cottage industries in friendly, foreign-aid-supported Caribbean countries, which are, in turn, the very opposite of what most people refer to as the tobacco industry. They will also have learned that cigars are not inhaled, are not addictive and are smoked only occasionally at best; and that, as such, there is absolutely no evidence at all that handmade cigars pose any danger to public health. In fact, it is quite the opposite if we refer to the US health studies already mentioned in Committee, there being no UK equivalent.
Turning to the second objective of this Bill—to discourage young people from starting to smoke—again, there is absolutely no evidence, either statistical, anecdotal or commonsensical, that young people take up smoking cigarettes after smoking a cigar. So one is left wondering: what is the point of this amendment?
I turn now to its specifics, bearing in mind the call for proportionality here. There are only 25 sampling rooms in the UK. Access to them is usually by appointment and they are certainly open only to the tobacconist’s cigar aficionado customers; under no circumstances are they open to the general public. I know of only one of these places. It is on the roof of a shop that has a tin roof in case it rains but is otherwise open on all four sides; I have heard that others have powerful extractor fans, which is the norm. I cannot see any possible danger to the consenting adults sampling cigars in these circumstances or to anyone passing by, by which time the smoke will have long since disappeared into the greater good.
Sampling cigars is very different to sampling, say, a piece of cheese or a piece of chocolate. A cigar takes half an hour to smoke, and it changes throughout that half hour; therefore, it is necessary for the whole cigar to be smoked. That is in the tobacconist’s interest because, at the end of the sample smoke, the customer may well buy a box of 25 cigars, which could cost, on average, about £750. Methinks that noble Lords supporting this amendment are not familiar with what they hope to ban.
On day four of this Committee, in referring to the question of a health threat from smoking cigars, many noble Lords from all Benches—or, like me, from none—emphasised the need for evidence before legislation and pointed out that, in this case, there is none. Many argued that, ergo, cigars should continue to be exempted from it. Many also referred to the lack of any impact assessment and so to the unintentional, possibly terminal, damage that would be done to the related retail and hospitality sectors. Whether intentionally or unintentionally—it is not clear—this amendment hits right at the heart of these sectors for no evidential benefit. In the absence of any evidence that there is a problem that needs legislation—and in the spirit of, “If no harm’s being done, let us live and let live”—I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is quite simply not needed.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of the first amendment, proposed by my noble friends, and against the second amendment: Amendment 180.
On actors and their ability to smoke on set, in my view, this is something that needs further refining. I ask the Minister to go back slightly on the previous amendments discussed, but intertwined with those is this question: what is an offence and what is not an offence? If I were to be playing myself, as I may be now, would I be able to light a cigar in an authentic fashion in order to prove that point? Where are we talking about these regulations being relevant and effective? How far do the regulations intend to go when people are posting on social media, which is a far cry from the adverts of the 1970s promoting the joys of smoking? If they put themselves on social media smoking a cigar and talking about its delights, is that advertising the genre, as the Minister said it was? Would that be a criminal offence? If that is the case, we are going to find ourselves in extreme difficulty, aside from the absurd attacks on our liberty.
I am afraid that I will also speak very firmly against Amendment 180, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath. She made a strong case for how she saw these processes, but the reality is that this is an exemption temporarily used by premises to enable people to sample tobacco. The idea that this is something that somehow Parliament should be focusing on is a little bizarre when there is so much going on in the world. The anti-smoking lobby has found somebody somewhere somehow smoking a cigar, and the entire machine has focused its gaze, like the great Eye of Sauron, on this activity that is, at worst, fringe and, at best, quite relevant in ensuring that people can legitimately engage in the trade and sale of occasional cigar smoking, which we have established has no factual health consequences at all, regardless of the desire of many who want to see the end of smoking and a smoke-free generation. I disagree with that fundamentally but can see the point of it; this is contradictory to that point. It is important that, as legislators, we understand the facts and take a fact-based approach to the way we legislate.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the issue of theatres. This is one of those peculiar issues where “Why on earth would you do this?” is a good question. What is the problem with the present circumstances? It reminds me of the previous group. This could compromise artistic freedom for no good reason. In the previous group, I suddenly envisaged advertising and product designers being rounded up and facing two years in prison at some point. It speaks to the dangers of the state being drunk on power. It is state overreach, where it gets carried away with itself, saying, “We are righteous, on a good cause, on a mission. We are very zealous”, and suddenly all sorts of important norms get thrown out of the window.
I know that the Minister personally is very reasonable, but sometimes legislation gets carried away with itself. I suggest that this legislation needs a fine-toothed comb run through it to get rid of these disproportionate, perhaps unintended, consequences. Once that happens, it encourages others to table amendments that make a virtue of such state overreach. I completely support the previous speech, and I am opposed to Amendment 180, which is a huge hammer to deal with a very small issue that is not even a problem but somehow gets lumped in with everything else.
I am also opposed to Amendment 186, which would introduce the notion that:
“Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited”.
I remind the Committee that hospitality is absolutely under the cosh. We spend a lot of time worrying about the fate of the high street. I am involved in lots of discussions at the moment about fragmenting communities: people not going out and about and socialising. We worked hard as a society—we had to—to get people back socialising with each other after the terrible lockdown period, and even now, hospitality is finding it hard to recover.
There are all sorts of economic reasons for that, so it seems ludicrous to say that pavement licences—for sitting out, enjoying yourself, meeting your friends and so on—will be granted by local authorities only if smoking is prohibited. Individual establishments might decide to prohibit smoking; that is up to them. They are entirely free to do so, and people who smoke will not go to them. Or, if there is seating outside, a pavement licence can be granted so that in some of the space you are allowed to smoke or vape. In other words, grown-ups negotiate their way round this. I, for one, enjoy that we have found café society in coming out on to pavements, and it is really misanthropic and mean-spirited to try to stamp on that in any way. I therefore completely oppose Amendment 186. It is in the spirit of the relentless, never-ending attempt at banning, regulating and stopping.
I also think that it is a terrible insult to local authorities’ autonomy to tell them what to do in this way. It seems both ridiculously petty-minded and authoritarian at the same time. The evidence is there, and there is a notion around the dangers of smoking outside; this point relates to the previous group. I remind the Committee that Cancer Research UK says, in relation to passive smoking and smoking outside, that
“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.
If you take an approach where the state decides that the public square is its own, and the state imagines that it can sanitise it of all kinds of things it does not want the public to do—that is not a free society, by the way—then, ironically, there can be unintended consequences. You push people into the anti-social home, in some ways, where, if you are a smoker, you will smoke. You might as well let them outside—but, of course, some people here do not want that either.
As I have said, unless you have the courage to make smoking a criminal offence, you have to have a certain sense of proportion and allow smoking outside in some instances. In my case, that is outside cafés if the establishment allows you to.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I obviously support my noble friend Lord Howe’s amendment. However, I would like to make some remarks in opposition to Amendment 180; the principal points have already been covered by my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Johnson, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
A proposer of this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey—outlined an experience of hers, based in a hotel. It suggested that she has perhaps confused an outdoor smoking area with a sampling room; as we have heard, there are only 25 sampling rooms. It behoves the Committee to look at the regulation this amendment seeks to revoke. It is carefully drafted and was signed in 2007 by the then Health Minister, who had brought in the Health Act 2006. The way in which the regulation works—it certainly repays careful attention—is that its first phrase reads:
“The shop of a specialist tobacconist that is being used by persons who are sampling cigars and pipe tobacco is not smoke-free for the duration of that sampling if”—
I will pause there to unpack the various conditions that have to be met in order to smoke in a sampling room. First, it has to be in a specialist tobacconist. Secondly, it has to be used by a person who is sampling cigars or pipe tobacco. Cigars, I might add, are specified in the regulation to have “the same meaning” as that in the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003, the same regulation which specifically defines specialist tobacconist.
It is not an option for any old tobacconist—or, indeed, any old public house—to set up a sampling room. That cannot be done in accordance with the regulations. The effect of the exemption is to disapply the smoke-free ban in the 2006 Act from those premises for the duration of the sampling. For the rest of the time, the ban still applies; it is not a general smoking room as existed in, perhaps, working men’s clubs prior to the ban.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I wish to correct a potential misapprehension in the description of my view of Amendment 180. The “cigar-tasting tasting experience” at this particular hotel is described as:
“Explore the finest traditions of handmade cigars and sample an exceptional collection”.
Availability is “all year round” and the pictures, as I saw for myself, are entirely indoors.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Baroness will agree, the sales-people who run these sampling rooms are entitled to market their goods. What she just read out is clearly marketing puff—to coin a phrase. I do not think it suggests any abuse of the regulation and it certainly does not amount to evidence justifying the amendment that she seeks to advance.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 186 in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her support. This amendment would ensure that all pavement licences granted by local authorities are required to be smoke-free. Some noble Lords will remember that this House voted in support of this issue previously, but I will briefly cover the background for those who are less familiar with it.
Pavement licences were introduced during the pandemic when mixing inside was prohibited. They allowed hospitality venues to expand their seating outside at a time of great difficulty. We worked across parties to ensure that these outside spaces, as an extension of inside, should, like the interior areas, be smoke-free to protect the public, including children, and staff. We secured that, despite the familiar refrain that hospitality would go to the wall and so on. Then the industry indeed got to the Minister and the DCLG and, without consulting the Department of Health, this was ended. It is such a familiar story.
Meanwhile, outside areas proved very popular and became permanent fixtures in 2021. At that time, the House voted in favour of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, regretting that smoke-free pavement licences had not been adopted by the Government. This amendment honours that vote.
When pavement licences were first introduced, there was a requirement that some seating in the designated area was smoke-free. However, unless outside spaces are vast—we do not expect that on a pavement—having smoking and non-smoking tables next to each other means that everyone experiences second-hand smoke exposure due to drift.
The LGA backed our campaign to make all these areas smoke-free. Some councils decided that they would make the spaces being smoke-free a requirement of pavement licences, which was perfectly acceptable within the regulations, such that there was no requirement to have a smoking section. So far, 11 councils have introduced 100% smoke-free conditions in pavement seating. This includes cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. Evidence from these local authorities shows that the scheme is popular with customers and businesses alike, protecting public health without having adverse economic impacts.
There is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is an irritant for people struggling with asthma or other lung conditions, and associated health effects from second-hand smoke include stroke, lung cancer and heart disease. I hope that hospitality settings are included in the consultation for smoke-free extensions for the Bill. Polling shows that 40% of people said that they would be more likely to visit pubs and restaurants if smoking was banned in outdoor seating areas.
Hospitality is an important sector of our economy, but the notion that it is somehow economically dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco and allowing smoking in outside spaces requires further examination of the evidence. These arguments were made when public places were made smoke-free in the first place. Now, few people could contemplate pubs and restaurants once more being full of cigarette smoke. All the same arguments were made about banning smoking in public places and that places would go under—not so. In fact, the debate helped encourage people to give up, as opposed to smoking more at home. Making pavement licences smoke-free, which has proved such a success in many areas, feels like a step in the right direction.
I will comment on other amendments in this group. Amendment 180, regarding cigar lounges, points to an interesting case. Where we make exceptions and create loopholes, they have the potential to be exploited. Following the powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, it seems that there has been a very liberal interpretation of the notion of “sampling” that goes beyond what Parliament intended in the 2000s. She pointed to the real health consequences of cigar smoking and the potential risk to staff. I point noble Lords to what the NIH—the National Institutes of Health—and the National Cancer Institute say on this:
“Yes. Cigar smoke … contains toxic and cancer-causing chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and nonsmokers. Cigar smoke is possibly more toxic than cigarette smoke … there is more … tar in cigars than in cigarettes”.
They say that there is no safe use. There are higher rates of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and lung disease than among those who do not smoke, and similar levels of oral cancer and cancer of the oesophagus as for cigarette smokers. Anybody can look this up for themselves; I suggest that, in terms of there being “no risk”, noble Lords should do so. We should do nothing to create loopholes in this Bill, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have challenged the proposition that Clause 136 stand part of the Bill. I listened with great interest to the discussion on why they wanted to probe smoking for artistic purposes. Of course, it used to be the case that smoking was a mainstay in films—I think of Humphrey Bogart smoking a cigarette in “Casablanca”, looking very cool with Ingrid Bergman melting before him. I would welcome hearing from the Minister what the Government plan to do in relation to this, because it came across as something that was very cool. We also do not want non-smoking actors to be led into a smoking habit. We hear about instances of that, where actors were not addicted but became addicted as a result of their roles. I know that the National Theatre has a smoke-free policy and that there are alternatives to smoking tobacco that can be used to portray it.
We know also that the depictions of smoking and vaping in the media increase the chance that young people will take up the habit, regardless of whether it is a positive or negative depiction. I realise that noble Lords are simply probing to elucidate what the Government are planning, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, but I also hope that the Minister is sympathetic to my Amendment 186. I also look forward to what she says in relation to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to change the detail of exemptions and powers on smoke-free places. I am grateful both for the debate and the amendments, which raise a number of issues.
I start with the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lady Ramsey on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who tabled it. It seeks to remove the existing exemption that allows individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist. This amendment was also spoken to, although in a different way, by the noble Lords, Lord Johnson, Lord Murray and Lord Strathcarron. Tobacco is, as I have said, a uniquely harmful product. I sympathise with the aims of the amendment and agree with the intention. However, specialist tobacconists, as we have heard in the debate, are currently exempt because of the specialist nature of their trade. These businesses make up a very small percentage of the market in the UK.
I can assure my noble friend Lady Ramsey that there are a number of restrictions to the current exemption. For example, the sampling area is legally required to be enclosed, clearly signed and appropriately ventilated to prevent smoke spreading to non-smoking areas. Other tobacco products such as cigarettes cannot be sampled. I was interested to hear the example that my noble friend Lady Ramsey brought before the Committee. I know she will understand that I cannot comment on very specific circumstances, but this may or may not be a matter for enforcement. I am sure that my noble friend will look into that further.
It is important that the Bill balances the public health aims within it while ensuring that small and medium-sized businesses are not unnecessarily financially impacted. Ultimately, given our ambition to prevent future generations taking up smoking, we anticipate, as we have said in previous groups, that in the long term specialist tobacconists will have to pivot their business models. Given this, we expect the exemption currently in place, which we are not seeking to change, to be used less and less over time. I give the assurance that we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure there is not a targeting of young people or an exploitation of the exemption. Of course, as this exemption is in regulations, it is possible to review this in the future, if required.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked about impact assessments. Any further impact assessments that are required will be prepared in advance of any legislation which is the normal process where there could be economic impacts. The impact assessments will be reviewed by the regulatory policy committee—again, in accordance with normal practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have indicated that they oppose Clause 136 standing part of the Bill. The clause recasts an existing regulation-making power that was found in the Health Act 2006. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting performers in England to smoke during a performance. The intention of the clause is to provide simplification and offer greater consistency with the Bill’s other provision. In practice, it is our assessment that this will not make a real difference, which I know is of concern to the noble Earl.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin, I am afraid, by briefly taking issue with the intent behind Amendment 180. I was grateful for the Minister’s comments on that. In the Bill, we have an incremental measure designed to bring successive generations into adulthood without cigarettes, while not imposing restrictions on those who have been smoking their entire lives. That nuance is a large reason why a blanket ban on smoking would have been considered unfair.
The unfairness of a blanket ban is also one reason we still have cigar lounges. Cigars, which, over time, evolved into a cultural practice for many people, have, up to now, been understood to hold a special position in legislation. That was reflected in the establishment of cigar lounges and their continued exemption from other general bans on indoor smoking.
There is a further reason for that. There comes a point where considerations of personal freedom and choice and the interests of small businesses, as the Minister said, take precedence over considerations of harm to health. I know that harm to health is important, but there are other considerations in this context as well, which is the reason why I keep emphasising the need for proportionality in the Bill.
Equally, I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 186. Its scope goes beyond the extended scope of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was entirely right to mention the state of the hospitality sector at the present time: it is under acute pressure.
Of course, I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but, again as we have debated in the past, there is a need to distinguish evidence of harm from evidence of nuisance. Some people, if they are sitting outside and the person at the next table is smoking, might regard that as a bit of a nuisance. But the watchword surely must be that policy should be founded on evidence. We need to have solid evidence of real harm arising from passive smoking in the open air. That is simply to state the position of these Benches.
Finally, on Clause 136, I was very grateful for the Minister’s response and look forward to her letter on this. I am still in some difficulty, which I hope she will take account of in her letter. The current regime—which I remember, having taken the Bill through when in Opposition—was carefully framed in the 2006 Act and has operated effectively for nearly two decades. It has allowed a tightly controlled exemption where artistic integrity justifies it. I think it has done so without any evidence of harm, abuse or increased smoking prevalence.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say. Of course, I will reflect on what she has said today. In the meantime, I shall not press my opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, clearly, we have failed to reach the target in this session. I just want to reassure noble Lords that provision has been made for an additional session. The timing of that will be discussed in and conveyed through the usual channels.