Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the issue of theatres. This is one of those peculiar issues where “Why on earth would you do this?” is a good question. What is the problem with the present circumstances? It reminds me of the previous group. This could compromise artistic freedom for no good reason. In the previous group, I suddenly envisaged advertising and product designers being rounded up and facing two years in prison at some point. It speaks to the dangers of the state being drunk on power. It is state overreach, where it gets carried away with itself, saying, “We are righteous, on a good cause, on a mission. We are very zealous”, and suddenly all sorts of important norms get thrown out of the window.

I know that the Minister personally is very reasonable, but sometimes legislation gets carried away with itself. I suggest that this legislation needs a fine-toothed comb run through it to get rid of these disproportionate, perhaps unintended, consequences. Once that happens, it encourages others to table amendments that make a virtue of such state overreach. I completely support the previous speech, and I am opposed to Amendment 180, which is a huge hammer to deal with a very small issue that is not even a problem but somehow gets lumped in with everything else.

I am also opposed to Amendment 186, which would introduce the notion that:

“Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited”.


I remind the Committee that hospitality is absolutely under the cosh. We spend a lot of time worrying about the fate of the high street. I am involved in lots of discussions at the moment about fragmenting communities: people not going out and about and socialising. We worked hard as a society—we had to—to get people back socialising with each other after the terrible lockdown period, and even now, hospitality is finding it hard to recover.

There are all sorts of economic reasons for that, so it seems ludicrous to say that pavement licences—for sitting out, enjoying yourself, meeting your friends and so on—will be granted by local authorities only if smoking is prohibited. Individual establishments might decide to prohibit smoking; that is up to them. They are entirely free to do so, and people who smoke will not go to them. Or, if there is seating outside, a pavement licence can be granted so that in some of the space you are allowed to smoke or vape. In other words, grown-ups negotiate their way round this. I, for one, enjoy that we have found café society in coming out on to pavements, and it is really misanthropic and mean-spirited to try to stamp on that in any way. I therefore completely oppose Amendment 186. It is in the spirit of the relentless, never-ending attempt at banning, regulating and stopping.

I also think that it is a terrible insult to local authorities’ autonomy to tell them what to do in this way. It seems both ridiculously petty-minded and authoritarian at the same time. The evidence is there, and there is a notion around the dangers of smoking outside; this point relates to the previous group. I remind the Committee that Cancer Research UK says, in relation to passive smoking and smoking outside, that

“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.

If you take an approach where the state decides that the public square is its own, and the state imagines that it can sanitise it of all kinds of things it does not want the public to do—that is not a free society, by the way—then, ironically, there can be unintended consequences. You push people into the anti-social home, in some ways, where, if you are a smoker, you will smoke. You might as well let them outside—but, of course, some people here do not want that either.

As I have said, unless you have the courage to make smoking a criminal offence, you have to have a certain sense of proportion and allow smoking outside in some instances. In my case, that is outside cafés if the establishment allows you to.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I obviously support my noble friend Lord Howe’s amendment. However, I would like to make some remarks in opposition to Amendment 180; the principal points have already been covered by my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Johnson, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

A proposer of this amendment—the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey—outlined an experience of hers, based in a hotel. It suggested that she has perhaps confused an outdoor smoking area with a sampling room; as we have heard, there are only 25 sampling rooms. It behoves the Committee to look at the regulation this amendment seeks to revoke. It is carefully drafted and was signed in 2007 by the then Health Minister, who had brought in the Health Act 2006. The way in which the regulation works—it certainly repays careful attention—is that its first phrase reads:

“The shop of a specialist tobacconist that is being used by persons who are sampling cigars and pipe tobacco is not smoke-free for the duration of that sampling if”—


I will pause there to unpack the various conditions that have to be met in order to smoke in a sampling room. First, it has to be in a specialist tobacconist. Secondly, it has to be used by a person who is sampling cigars or pipe tobacco. Cigars, I might add, are specified in the regulation to have “the same meaning” as that in the Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003, the same regulation which specifically defines specialist tobacconist.

It is not an option for any old tobacconist—or, indeed, any old public house—to set up a sampling room. That cannot be done in accordance with the regulations. The effect of the exemption is to disapply the smoke-free ban in the 2006 Act from those premises for the duration of the sampling. For the rest of the time, the ban still applies; it is not a general smoking room as existed in, perhaps, working men’s clubs prior to the ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.