Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Northover

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Baroness Northover

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to present these draft regulations to the Committee. This instrument amends existing regulations that relate to the immigration consequences for someone who is designated or sanctioned under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which I shall call the sanctions Act. If noble Lords will indulge me, I will first set out some background to sanctions, in particular the immigration sanctions, also known as travel bans, with which these regulations are concerned.

The UK is bound by travel bans imposed by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council and can impose its own travel bans under the sanctions Act. In the vast majority of cases, travel bans are imposed on individuals who are outside the UK and have no connection with it. A travel ban has an effect on a person’s immigration status; subject to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention of 1951, they cannot enter or remain here.

The 2020 regulations provide a mechanism for a person who is lawfully in the UK to make a human rights or protection claim before a travel ban made under the sanctions Act impacts their immigration status. They are then exempt from the effect of the travel ban while the claim is considered and refusal of such a claim gives rise to an in-country right of appeal before the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.

Where a person is not subject to a travel ban but is making a human rights or protection claim under the Immigration Rules, they benefit from a similar protection. However, in contrast to the exemption provided to sanctioned persons, they cannot leave the UK or the common travel area and return simply on the basis of a claim lodged before their departure. We are therefore now in the perverse situation where someone subject to a travel ban benefits from more generous protections than someone who is not.

I turn to the purpose of these regulations, which is to align the approach and correct this anomaly. The Government have considered how to address this and concluded that it is right that, when a travel ban is imposed under the sanctions Act, people lawfully in the UK are exempt from its effect while their human rights or protection claim is considered.

However, when a sanctioned person leaves the UK, that exemption should end. Any action taken in respect of the person’s immigration status will be in accordance with our international obligations. These regulations therefore ensure consistency across the immigration system and that the effectiveness of our domestic sanctions regime is not compromised. I commend this instrument to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation and for the Explanatory Memorandum. It is clearly important that the two processes—whether or not someone is eligible to have their immigration status accepted and whether or not they are subject to a sanction—should be kept separate. Can the Minister tell us whether there have already been any cases where these have become entangled? Why was this not picked up when the sanctions legislation went through the House? I recall our debates on that and do not remember this being flagged, although I remember that we had to sort out quite a number of inadvertent challenges in that legislation.

The Home Office states that this draft SI would “address a discrepancy” whereby provisions designed to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations, which the noble Lord has laid out, put people subject to an immigration sanction “in a better position” than people making human rights or protection claims under existing immigration rules. Once more, as with the other SIs this afternoon, that is a very interesting use of language: a discrepancy being in effect a mistake.

Again, I express my sympathy with officials, because of course these things happen. When departments have to shift away from their main aims at the same time as unscrambling legislation from our EU membership over 40 years, it is not surprising that this happens. I express sympathy with the officials who have had to deal with it, as I and the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, did in debates on the previous SIs.

I note that we have four officials here, who otherwise could be working on more substantial matters. I ask again, as I did in the previous debate: if we need such an SI to be processed with the manpower that we have here, how many more would we have to deal with if we removed the amount of secondary legislation that the Government propose and then had to sort out all the discrepancies that might creep in as a result? Given that 40 years would have to be unscrambled in the space of about a year, does he not think that that is rather unwise? There is nothing about leaving the EU which necessitates that, regardless of what his colleague implied. The Minister may have in his notes that same line as the rebuttal.

Leaving the EU is one thing but chucking out babies with bathwater when you do not intend to is clearly another. It happens so easily, as we can see from all these SIs this afternoon—all these discrepancies. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. This particular SI seems straightforward and we support it, but I look forward to his wider response.