Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I still remember well the berating I got from my local pub landlord the Sunday after I voted to ban smoking in public places, back in 2006—it was going to be the end of the pub. I am delighted to say that, 20 years on, while Graham is sadly no longer with us, the Swan Inn, in Olney, in Buckinghamshire, continues to thrive. I support this Bill in principle as a progressive step to reduce smoking in the United Kingdom, but it is far from perfect.

On the face of it, smoking, and specifically smoking tobacco, has done untold damage. The health of the general public has suffered as a result of the well-documented effects of regular smoking. Smoking is also a driver of social and economic inequality. Smokers earn on average around 7% less than non-smokers. This should not surprise noble Lords—if you take more time off work due to the inevitable ill-health effects, spend more of your disposable income on tobacco, and develop a dependency on a drug such as nicotine, that is going to impact your earnings over time. Across a range of metrics, there is a higher prevalence of smoking among the less well off.

I can see why this Government have kept with the previous Government’s ambition to phase out smoking. If there were no adverse reactions to the Bill, it would mean the average individual smoker recouping the £2,300 annual amount spent on buying tobacco, and further millions reclaimed across the UK from smoking-related productivity loss, as well as from the costs of care for those who have contracted smoking-related illnesses. But not everything is as black and white as the Government are suggesting, and this Bill is not a silver bullet.

There is already a thriving black market for tobacco in the UK and that prohibition will only increase the problem. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the Government will do alongside the Bill to prevent the explosion of this black market.

As has been well documented, smoking rates are already falling across the UK through a number of policy interventions, including education, smoking support and awareness campaigns on tobacco alternatives. Interventions such as these are proving to be successful. Has the Minister weighed up their merits against the possible implications of this Bill?

Today, I want to briefly flag up three areas where I believe a Bill strengthened with appropriate amendments could make a significant difference. The first area I would like to see strengthened is the banning of single-use vapes. Ahead of this Bill, Defra has released new guidance outlining what can be considered a reusable product. However, the intent does not appear to have been put on a statutory footing to ensure its consistent and effective application. Without this, regulations can be bent—for example, with superficial recharging and refilling. While some batteries may be recharged through a USB port, the vapes still use non- disposable mesh coils like traditional disposable vapes; therefore, once the coil is burnt out, the device must be disposed of in the same manner as a single-use vape. All I am asking is that the Minister looks carefully at the legislation to ensure that the banning of single-use vapes, which I support, is not in practice easy to circumvent.

Interestingly, of all the people to follow I get to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, where we agree in principle but not in conclusion. The second area is a ban on the use of plastic filters in cigarettes. While she is quite right that banning plastic filters will do absolutely nothing for public health, it will make a great deal of difference to the environment. Although our figures may differ slightly, it is estimated that 27 billion cigarette butts are littered or dropped across the country each year, which equates to approximately 120 tonnes of cigarette-related waste discarded on streets daily, at an estimated clear-up cost of £40 million a year, with many of them inevitably ending up flushed into our waterways, rivers and seas. In fact, cigarette butts account for 66% of all littered items in the UK.

One cigarette butt left to soak in water for 96 hours will release enough toxins to kill half of the saltwater or freshwater fish that are exposed to it. Some 40% of chemicals contained in cigarette butt leachate have been found to be either toxic or very toxic to marine life, and take up to 12 years to degrade. There is even a chance that the slow degradation of these plastic butts is contributing to the rise in microplastics found in the human body.

Companies have demonstrated that it is easy to make the switch in production from plastic to paper that would be required to accommodate this change in the law. For example, it has been six years since McDonald’s made the decision to switch to paper straws. However, unlike paper straws, biodegradable filters will make no discernible difference to the user experience, which explains why polling suggests that this measure is supported by 86% of UK adults. This really is a no-brainer, with massive public support.

However, as has been said, in response to the amendment proposed in the other place by Dame Caroline Dinenage—somebody who I have great respect for—the Government dismissed the proposal as greenwashing. Switching to paper filters is not simply greenwashing but a move that will make a tangible difference to the environment. I hope the Government will reflect on their earlier decision and support the move.