Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Lord Strathcarron and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the explanation for the amendments has been well made. I have added my name to a number of amendments, including Amendments 149 and 151 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would exclude vapes and nicotine products from prohibitions regarding advertising, and he has explained why.

It is genuinely shocking how many misconceptions there are about vaping and smoking among the public. There is a real job of communication that the Government have an obligation to do. If 50% of adults now believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, that is not a good thing. If only 30% believe vaping is less harmful, that is not positive.

Conflicting messaging about vaping can discourage smokers from switching to lower-risk products and therefore widen health inequalities—all the things we keep talking about. Misrepresentation is a real problem and I think we have got to tackle it. Banning advertising would reinforce the false perception that vaping is just as harmful as smoking.

As we are coming to the end, I will make my final declaration. As somebody who smoked 40 cigarettes every day for 40 years—can you imagine?—I want to put on record in Hansard that I am grateful to the vaping industry, and particularly to flavoured vapes, because I stopped smoking as a consequence of flavoured vapes. That is what I thought that everybody wanted us smokers to do, only to find that vaping and smoking are being treated as though they are almost the same. I am very keen that we do not do anything that will make vaping less visible or erase it from the public square.

The Government have sort of acknowledged that by allowing public authorities to run mass media campaigns encouraging adults who smoke to “Swap to Stop”. Dare I suggest that official public health adverts, even if they go on TikTok, might be a little bit dry and less appealing than seeing some adverts for vapes in a nightclub? Tens of thousands of people gather for a night out at hospitality venues, so that seems to be something that the Government would want to encourage. Although I know that the amendments do not make the Government do anything, I suggest that it would be very positive if, in venues where you have thousands of adult smokers, they saw adverts for less harmful alternatives to smoking. That is a clever way to encourage switch-and-quit.

That is one of the reasons why I have added my name to Amendment 168 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby. The emphasis on adverts for vapes and products that do not contain tobacco is well made. It is also important for us to consider the hospitality sector; that has been explained very well. Hospitality venues rely on marketing and sponsorship as part of their income. As I say, it would be a public service, rather than doing anything damaging, to allow them to carry on.

Many of us are worried about the fatal damage that the Bill will do to the retail sector. It seems ridiculous that another industry could be put in jeopardy by the Bill; that would not be good for the Government’s growth strategy. When UKHospitality stresses that the industry has

“absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs”,

we should listen. When the CEO of Whitbread, one of the largest hospitality operators in the country, says that the hospitality industry

“finds itself on the receiving end of a series of government interventions which together will significantly hold back our ability to contribute to growth”,

we should listen. We could, rather carelessly, be in a situation where we do not take that into consideration when we bring in some of these advertising restrictions. These amendments are proportionate; they suggest that we should hold back a little and at least organise a consultation.

Another industry that the Bill imperils is the design industry. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 152, which would exempt designers from having committed an offence if they had “reason to suspect” that a design or imagery contains these kinds of products. The problem for designers is that they may be criminalised for designing something that includes products that the Bill is trying to eradicate from the public space. That is a serious attack on artistic freedom. This amendment should be incorporated into the Bill. I do not think that anyone intended for the Bill to criminalise designers—but this is a Bill that will do all sorts of things that were not intended. These amendments are very moderate and allow the Government to hold back the tide of that.

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and of other noble Lords, because it seems so reasonable. Surely there is no harm done if the advertisement is in a licensed premises; is not visible, except from inside the venue; is not for a tobacco product; mentions a smoke- or vape-free area; and is age-restricted to adults only. I cannot see what there is to object to, unless we are saying that the age restrictions do not work—in which case, why are we pressing ahead with a generational ban in the first place? Do we really want to get into this overreaching, overregulated situation where the compulsory cure is worse than the voluntary disease—one entered into willingly and knowingly by consenting adults?

I particularly support subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. It asks for further investigation into the effects on the hospitality industry, which is already suffering the devastating consequences of other policies. It would be good to hear what losing these marketing revenue streams will mean for those who have to run a business to make a profit in order to employ people, especially bearing in mind that recent policies have cost nearly 100,000 jobs and are responsible for nearly 50% of all job losses.