Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Library, to ASH, to Professor Theresa Marteau of Cambridge University and to the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I am an ambassador.

It has been a privilege to listen to reflections across the House from those noble Lords who have helped steer the country along over recent years on this important legislative journey to help save lives and improve the nation’s health. I express my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for taking up the baton or the cudgels—I do not know which of those my noble friend thinks she has taken up.

My professional interest in helping people stop smoking began over 20 years ago when I became chair of Lambeth Primary Care Trust just across the river. Smoking was the main cause of preventable ill health and health inequalities, resulting in poor quality of life and premature mortality. The then Labour Government required local primary health services to provide support and advice to smokers wanting to quit, as well as prevention activities to stop youngsters taking up smoking, to tackle underage and counterfeit tobacco sales and to promote smoke-free environments to minimise the effects of second-hand smoke, as so eloquently described by the noble Baroness a few minutes ago. Over three years, smoking in Lambeth fell from 35% to 28%, with more than 9,000 smokers quitting and a decline in cancer and circulatory disease.

But my personal interest in stopping smoking, as for many others in this Chamber, dates to much longer ago than that, when as a child I sat in the back of our family car, travelling weekends up and down the M6 motorway between the Midlands and Lancashire to visit family. The car filled with my dad’s cigarette and sometimes pipe smoke. I loathed it, as did my younger sister. Neither of us has ever smoked, and we longed for our father to give up. He tried and tried, which in the 1970s seemed to consist of him eating a lot of Polo mints and other sweets, and it failed, no matter how hard he tried. He had started smoking when he was 12, picking up the ends of his older brother’s cigarettes and soon becoming a committed smoker. He died far too soon, in 1990, of lung cancer, and then my older sister also died of it, sadly, in 2018. So, as a result of both personal and professional experience, I cheer every development that prevents or reduces people’s use of tobacco and dependence on it.

The Bill provides the opportunity for a huge step forward, a big next step, seeking to prevent today’s children ever becoming smokers by making it illegal to sell them tobacco for the whole of their lives. Tobacco manufacturers and their supporters argue that this is a matter of civil liberties. They ask why today’s children should not be free to choose to smoke when they turn 18. The plain answer is that smoking is an addiction and the only free choice is that first cigarette, as I saw at first hand. Two out of three people who try one cigarette become daily smokers, and on average it takes 30 attempts to quit, which is why implementing this Bill has the potential to prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of serious illness and tens of thousands of premature deaths. Even this is not enough for the tobacco lobby, which likes to claim that the tax take from smoking is greater than the cost to the NHS. It conveniently ignores the huge cost of time off work, which far exceeds the income generated.

Moving now to vaping, I am delighted to see the provisions in the Bill to put the necessary regulations in place because while vapes may be helpful for smokers wanting to quit, they are harmful to non-smokers and, in particular, to children by introducing them to a world of nicotine and addiction. Some studies have suggested the possibility of vaping acting as a gateway to smoking, and while others have simply suggested correlation rather than causation, why would we want to take a chance on our children’s health?

As well as the well-established health concerns around vaping, there is the risk that some vapes can pose for people with severe allergies. Many people are not aware that vapes can cause a severe allergic reaction, but in 2019 a 16 year-old boy from Nottingham suffered potentially life-threatening lung failure after a suspected allergic reaction while vaping, in a case which doctors say highlights the potential dangers of young people using e-cigarettes. The evidence linking vape smoke and allergic reactions is still emerging, but we know that propylene glycol, one of the two ingredients in most e-liquids, is a known allergen. As we continue to learn more about the effects of vaping, it is vital that people have a clear understanding of the risks and that labelling law keeps up when it comes to highlighting allergens. I would be grateful if the Minister were willing to meet me and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation in the near future to discuss these concerns in greater depth.

For all these reasons, I am delighted to support the passage of the Bill.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

I want to say a brief word about filters because I support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Filters of any kind are of no benefit whatever. In fact, as the noble Baroness said, they are all a fraud—one of many fraudulent devices that originate from the tobacco industry as it tries to hide the evil it does. They make people feel that smoking with a filter is somehow safer. It is not. One manufacturer of filters, Greenbutts, has run a large lobbying campaign to get rival products banned. All filters should be banned. None of them do any good. They all mislead smokers, who think that they reduce harm. We should ban them all and not allow any one company to benefit from people who smoke tobacco.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 141 and 143, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

This Bill is a world-leading piece of public health legislation. It is comprehensive in the powers it takes to regulate tobacco products; flexible; and, we hope, future-proof. This subject is dear to my heart because my father died of lung cancer, having been a lifelong smoker since he started at the age of 12; my older sister died at 67, also of lung cancer. So smoking has had a profound effect on my family, as it has for so many across the Committee.

The flagship policy of raising the age of sale every year is, as we know, projected to reduce smoking rates among 14 to 30 year-olds to zero by 2050. That is an extraordinary achievement in our sights. However, there is a real risk that the Bill’s very success may lead to the perception that the job is done. We must not be complacent. Instead, we should ensure that we use the powers in this Bill to continue pressing every lever available in the fight against tobacco. I just mention that my father told me that, when he was 12, he was not looking at packets of cigarettes but was being offered single cigarettes.

One such opportunity for us lies in the introduction of health warnings on individual cigarettes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others have recommended in these amendments. As the noble Lord outlined, this measure has already been implemented in Canada; it represents a practical and, potentially, powerful next step. As the noble Lord said, we know that the design of cigarettes affects how they are perceived; and that this can act as a form of marketing. Research shows that slim or thin cigarettes tend to be more appealing to women, while using white paper for cigarettes implies cleanliness and purity. Studies have also shown that the little golden ribbon that marks the start of the filter means that a cigarette is perceived as being more attractive, of a higher quality and better tasting than those without.

Evidence from Canada, which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, has shown that cigarettes without health warnings are perceived as less harmful than those carrying them. Dissuasive—a word I have only recently learned—cigarettes help, therefore, to align consumer perception more closely with the reality of the serious harms caused by smoking. Alongside printed warnings, it may also be worth exploring whether changes in cigarette colour and removing that little gold band could enhance this further.

I anticipate that my noble friend the Minister may say that the powers to introduce dissuasive cigarettes already exist in the Bill; and that a specific amendment is therefore unnecessary. I accept that point. However, I know that noble Lords are keen to hear more from the Government about how the range of powers in this Bill may be used in future; this feels like a fruitful area. A mechanism for outlining this could be publishing a five-year tobacco strategy, setting out how and when the Government intend to use the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and what targets are being set for future smoking prevalence. This will provide welcome clarity and vision, although I understand that my noble friend the Minister has already ruled out publicly publishing a strategy.

New data on smoking prevalence are due to be published tomorrow. I hope that they bring the good news that smoking rates continue to fall. Let us be clear, however, that this does not happen by chance: continued progress requires vigilance, ambition and creativity.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I have never smoked. Having said that, I was for some 15 years in marketing and advertising. I do not think that the proposal here is at all practical. Cigarettes are very narrow so to read something in six-point type—which is what we are talking about—will be difficult and will have next to no effect at all. We have proper health warnings on the pack itself. We should concentrate on those and do more work on how well they are being communicated; that may take us further forward. Amendments 141 and 143 are, frankly, for the birds.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

There is apparently a further consequence arising from Part 1 of the Bill. Under the generational ban, would a theatre employee purchasing cigarettes on behalf of an actor, perhaps to be used as a stage prop, be committing an offence if the actor was born on or after 1 January 2009? That is a genuine operational concern that will be raised by theatres, film studios and producers, and I think we owe it to them to clarify that question.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a very careful and, as I am sure we will hear from the Minister, well-thought-out exemption from the operation of the Health Act 2006. There is no evidence of any abuse of sampling rooms, and we have heard from my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Johnson of the importance to the economy that these tasting and sampling rooms provide. There is no justification for this puritanical amendment and I strongly oppose it.

[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.