Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Crisp Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, and good to hear that the Swan at Olney is still thriving, despite the tobacco ban.

It is very good to see this Bill and to see that it is supported so strongly in the Commons, by all sides. One thing that strikes me strongly about this debate is how public opinion has changed, and the noble Lord just gave a very good example of that. Some of that change has happened in response to some of the actions taken—for example, we have seen change coming from the banning of cigarette smoking in public places—but it seems to have been continuing since. We have had a number of strong quotations from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others about how public opinion will support radical action in this area—much more radical than perhaps we would expect.

With this in mind, I want to mention two areas which I would be particularly interested in seeing taken forward. The first is the “polluter pays” levy, first mentioned in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and later by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and no doubt by others as well. This is an important way of making progress here. It is worth remembering that the tobacco companies make their profits at the expense of others. Duty raises about £7 billion a year on UK sales, but the costs to the public sector for dealing with the consequences of smoking are estimated to be about £16.5 billion a year, and lost productivity adds a further £20 billion or so.

Those figures are suspiciously round, but, nevertheless, they show that, even more than the tax that comes in, there is a very large cost to clearing up the mess left behind by tobacco and the trail, if you like, of pain and misery caused by the tobacco industry. It is an expensive habit for society, as well as for individuals. I would certainly want to see amendments being moved in that area and I would support them.

In passing, it is important that those of us in favour do not dismiss the very practical arguments that have been made by Peers from different sides of the House. There are some real practical issues here that need to be dealt with, such as those concerning age, which have been talked about—how we check age and so on—or about the black market. Happily, we will have time in Committee to debate those. I hope we will also debate other options, including what would happen by 2040, which is, I think, the WHO date for the prohibition of tobacco products. We should be looking at the consequences and the implications of that as well.

The second area I want to raise is the whole issue around vaping. It seems that while to some extent the management of smoking tobacco is being controlled and we are moving forward, the whole area of vaping is out of control—and not just vaping but the adding of nicotine to sweets and other ways of attracting children. This seems too far out of control, and I am not sure that the Bill goes far enough on how that needs to be handled. I would like to see that coming back in Committee, and I would be interested in discussing it.

I recognise the point made by the Minister and others that vapes can help people give up smoking, and that most public health specialists assess them as significantly safer than smoking. However, as the Chief Medical Officer has said, it is a very low bar for vapes to be safer than smoking. His advice, which I think one has to follow, is:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.


It is utterly unacceptable to market vapes to children.

To finish on a slightly lighter note, it has been interesting to hear in this debate how cunning the tobacco companies are. They have shown themselves to be extremely agile—cunning is perhaps a better word —at getting around regulations and provisions, and designing new products to get customers of all ages addicted. What would it be like if this great wealth of enterprise and determination were put to the development of something that enhanced, rather than damaged, society? It is such a waste of all that talent and energy to use it to damage people’s lives.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Crisp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

I turn finally to Amendment 192, which was introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and is supported by my noble friend Lord Rennard. We are all very much on the same page. We have slightly different ways of doing it, but I look forward to working with the noble Lord—and, I hope, the Minister —on taking these matters forward prior to Report.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, I want to reflect for a moment on the extraordinary lengths to which tobacco companies will go to sell their products, including getting children addicted to nicotine. When I look at this Bill and the amendments to it, I see the extraordinary lengths to which government must then go in order to combat that.

Turning to the amendments in this group, we have heard three excellent speeches. I do not want to repeat any of the points made but wish to pick up one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It concerns the importance of the government side of this combat, if you like, between the tobacco companies and government. Put simply, the Government should have the data that is available so that they can hone their arguments in the continuing wrestle that we are seeing around this set of topics.

I very much support that amendment. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the “polluter pays” principle. Again, this seems practical to me; we heard the Minister refer to it as such at an earlier period, I believe. However, there are three terribly simple arguments, although I do not want to add to the detail. First, there is the principle that the polluter should pay for the damage. That is a very simple statement; it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, been used in other circumstances. There is very considerable damage, and it is very easily measured.

The second argument is to reduce the incentives for tobacco companies. As I have commented before, if only we could get the tobacco companies to use all their guile and manoeuvring to improve health rather than damage it. Perhaps there are things that government can learn from the way in which tobacco companies seek to influence the public.

The third argument is, of course, to support public health. Another good reason for this is to provide that money to support public health and at the same time the public purse. Finally, I note that tobacco companies probably come under the category of those with broad shoulders, so I ask the Minister whether we might expect to hear a line or two about this in the forthcoming Budget.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I stand with some trepidation on this one, but I will give it a go. I have some reservations about this series of amendments. On Amendment 12, I have a lot of sympathy with having more transparency as a general principle, but I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, how we would deal with having a dangerous precedent on the commercial confidentiality and sensitivities, for any company, and what can and cannot be revealed. Asking for information is one thing; mandating it is a whole different ball game. Many companies hold data close to themselves, as they are allowed to, because they are private entities. It is a legal thing to do and there are reasons, beyond malevolent ones, why that might occur.

I am particularly concerned about Amendments 192 and 194. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, tobacco companies already pay, or are responsible for, substantial duties that are collected. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the “polluter pays” principle—or, at least, it is quite complicated. It sounds virtuous, and in some instances I might well support it, but when I was reading these amendments I kept thinking, perhaps because of my left-wing, Marxist background, “Oh my God, this is a new form of legal wealth distribution by force”. It felt to me as though we were saying: “Forget economic growth. We’re just going take more from legal companies, but it’s all right because they are evil companies”.

In the words that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used about his more specific amendments on what the money should be used for, if I may put it that way, I recognised an argument that I came across from Cancer Research. It has been very helpful in its briefings on the Bill and, in many instances, I agree with what it is putting forward. But in this instance, it said:

“At a time when funding for public health initiatives is limited, this proposal raises money without directly costing the taxpayer. Given the current economic challenges, this presents an opportunity for the Government to act decisively, should it choose to seize it”.


I kept thinking of this as a way of avoiding crises in public health, or in the NHS, by simply not resolving what should be an adequate health service for everyone while turning to private companies instead and trying to compensate for that. That is a dangerous precedent. Private companies should not let the state off the hook for what it should be doing, because those public health services should be provided by the state, regardless.

The fact that there is an economic crisis at the moment cannot just be meted out to companies that we do not like. I realise that tobacco companies have for some time been treated as especially evil, malevolent and harmful, but if you enter other debates and read the briefings of lobbying groups on other issues, you will hear similar moralistic arguments used about sugary foods, junk food, alcohol, gambling and even fossil fuels. I read a fascinating paper the other day which basically said that fossil fuels were killing us all and should be closed down, and so on. That is the kind of language being used.

I therefore worry about setting a precedent for a moralised hierarchy of legislators deciding which are the evil companies, and who gets to decide that, with a punishment then meted out. I say this because, briefly, I was a bit disturbed the other day at some mention of a report by KPMG. The data in it was dismissed as being from a report produced for Philip Morris, the tobacco company, as if that somehow closed down any possibility of a discussion—that having said that, the report could be laughed off. The idea that all you have to do is say the name of a tobacco company, and then close down valuable information, is quite dangerous.

It thought that was particularly unfair on KPMG. I am not necessarily a great fan of the big four accountancy firms, but they certainly have reputations. To write them off as being in bed with the evil Philip Morris, so that we take no notice of what they do, seemed a little unfair. If that were the case, have the Government let KPMG know that this is their view of it—especially since KPMG is a supplier to the Government, as I understand it, focusing on Civil Service training and economic matters? KPMG might have a case to answer on those things, but it should not be written off as a company because it has done some work for Philip Morris.

Neither is it appropriate for our discussions to always assume that everything a tobacco company says or does is evil because of the nature of the product. The product is harmful and contributes to cancer in many people—I know that—but if this Government believe that the tobacco companies are so uniquely evil that they are killing the population, they should have the courage of their conviction, make them illegal and ban them, not take their taxes and have it all ways.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Crisp Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 34, which I support in principle, but I am interested to hear the Government’s response to the points about practicality, apart from anything else. There is a real issue here. Fundamentally, people are pointing to a very real issue that needs to be tackled, either through the approach in Amendment 33 or a variation on Amendment 34. I am interested to hear how the Government think they should tackle it.

I am picking up on one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made when she was talking about whether the intention is about littering or health. I have no objection to joined-up government, and it is a good thing to be doing that. I will speak later today on the Planning Bill urging planning to take account of health; health should also take account of environmental impacts of things in this way.

To conclude, I have one question with three parts for the Minister. Do she and the Government recognise and accept that filters have no positive impact on health and—as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said—possibly have a negative impact with people breathing in harder? Does the Minister accept that most people who smoke do not know that filters have no impact and, indeed, think that they may be saving themselves to some extent? The third part is: if the Government believe those things, it seems to be something they should be tackling in some way within their tobacco plans and I am not aware that they are. I leave those questions with the Minister.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments, first on Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I was the first Health Minister to propose the health warning on cigarettes back in 1980. Those 45 years seem quite a long time to wait, and we have been pipped at the post by Canada, but I hope that this is a suggestion that will find favour. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that the font would be very small; on the other hand, it would be very close to the eye, so fairly easy to read.

When talking about her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “filter” is a misnomer. I am not sure where trading standards are on this, because it filters absolutely nothing; there are no health benefits at all. I have listened to the debate about banning just plastic filters. I went to a meeting last month of the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health addressed by Dr Boots. He made the point that all filters are bad for the environment; there is no such thing as a totally biodegradable alternative to filters. As has been said before, 75% of smokers litter their butts. Dr Boots also made the point—one which we have just heard, and it worth emphasising—that the presence of a filter on a cigarette gave the impression to 75% of smokers that it was safer, and they therefore inhaled more deeply and did more damage to themselves than if the filter had not been there.

My final point is about how filters circumvent the tobacco flavour restrictions with flavour capsules. I went on Amazon a few minutes ago and found

“Bulk 1000 Flavoured Crushball Capsules for Cigarette Infusion (10 Flavours Available)”.

This gets around flavoured tobacco, which was banned in 2020. However, as I have said, it is still possible to buy blue ice menthol-flavoured capsules. They do not seem to be subject to the existing restrictions, so a ban on filters would deal with that. In any case, perhaps the Minister can explain what she proposes to do about this obvious ban on the restriction on selling flavours to go with cigarettes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for all of the contributions on this much debated set of amendments. I understand the concerns that have been raised.

I begin with Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Let me turn first to the health arguments that have been put forward. We know that cigarette filters have historically been marketed incorrectly as making smoking safer, and that smokers perceive cigarettes with a filter as being more enjoyable and of lower risk. These points were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Patel, Lord Bourne and Lord Crisp. However, as with all regulations—I know that noble Lords will understand this—it is important that any measures are based on evidence, are fully considered and do not create unintended consequences. Obviously, that will be a theme throughout the Bill, particularly as we discuss these groups of amendments.

We acknowledge that there is some limited evidence on the health harms of filters, but we are not currently aware of any clear evidence—that is what is not in place—to show that a ban on filters would lead to a reduction in smoking rates; of course, that is the focus of this Bill. When it comes to encouraging existing smokers to quit—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly highlighted this area—we are prioritising investing in local stop smoking services, delivering smoking cessation campaigns, delivering access to nicotine replacement therapy and introducing positive, quit-themed pack inserts. I was glad to hear support for such measures from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On that point, I want to refer to effectiveness, particularly as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made the point that such inserts might simply be discarded. The modelling suggests that, in terms of increased effectiveness because of themed pack inserts, there would be 150,000 additional attempts at quitting. Over two years, this would result in 30,000 successful quitting scenarios, which would reduce the incidence of smoking—exactly what we are focusing on.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the concern that filters allow for flavoured crushballs to be added. I hope that it is helpful for me to say to your Lordships’ Committee that this Bill gives the Government the power to regulate flavoured tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as well as any product that is intended to be used to impart flavour; this could include flavoured accessories, such as filters.

I turn now to the environmental concerns raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley. It is the case that cigarette butts are the most littered item in the UK. They are a blight on our streets and our communities. They take a long time to degrade, and they leach toxic compounds into the environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the role of local authorities and the pressure on them because of this littering; again, I certainly take her point. Local authorities have a range of powers to tackle littering, including fixed-penalty notices for some £500. I also see the challenge that the littering of cigarette butts presents to local authorities.

However, ultimately, the most effective thing we can do to tackle tobacco litter as well as protect people’s health is, clearly, to reduce the prevalence of smoking. It is worth referring to the powers available to Defra, which would enable the Government to limit the damage to the environment caused by filters. Although we do not plan to take action in the short term, I assure noble Lords that we will certainly continue to monitor the evidence and keep this under review.

On Amendment 34, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence at present that banning plastic filters will lead to better environmental outcomes, although I absolutely understand the wish for this. Evidence suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable or plastic-free, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, can still take a very long time to degrade in the natural environment and leach harmful chemicals. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. We are therefore concerned that a ban on plastic filters could have unintended consequences and undermine attempts to reduce littering, if people incorrectly believe that plastic-free filters somehow do not damage the environment.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

Before the Minister moves on, can I ask a question that I asked earlier? If she recognises that 75% of smokers think that filters reduce the risk—indeed, they may increase it—does she not think the Government should be doing something to counter that belief, perhaps more actively than they are doing at the moment?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

Before the Minister rises, I welcome the response to this amendment, but the point is that most people still litter their fag butts in any case and believe that they are already biodegradable, so I press the Government to take further action in this area.