Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

I suggest to the Minister that we need a nuanced approach here, not a blanket approach. I very much hope that she will take on board the points that noble Lords have raised in this important debate.

[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 (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.