Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Kamall on the Front Bench. I have not taken part in these debates before, but I have to say that I find it quite disturbing that we should be making laws because perhaps we do not like walking down a street where people are puffing vapes. I do not, but there are lots of things I do not like that people do, and I am not going to ban them all—well, perhaps I would, actually, but I am not going to.

Similarly, if you cannot be hooked by passive vaping, as my noble friend Lord Kamall said, I am not quite sure why we are taking it so seriously. As I understand it, vaping is not addictive; nicotine is addictive, but vaping itself is a different matter. It also seems to me that we are legislating unnecessarily. I am afraid, to broaden the subject slightly, that this will lead to yet further influxes of cheap and nasty vapes, which may or may not be, as the noble Baroness just said, influenced by other matters.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me first turn to the opposition to Clause 138 standing part of the Bill, which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Clause 138 amends the Health Act 2006 to insert new provisions relating to vape-free places in England. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are also smoke-free.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about evidence. The fact is that evidence is developing, as the noble Lord himself rightly acknowledged, but we do know that while vapes are less harmful than smoking, there is a reason why the Chief Medical Officer says:

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


Vapes are not harm-free; there are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term health impacts of vaping. They produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potential toxicants, which poses health risks to children and medically vulnerable people in particular; for example, they can trigger asthma attacks. It is therefore important and right—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan—that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms. I should also say that evidence suggests that, in adolescence, the brain is more sensitive to the effects of nicotine, so there could be additional risks for young people compared to adults.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, many businesses and enclosed public places already have in place, on a voluntary basis, schemes to prohibit vape usage on their premises. We want to introduce legislative requirements to make it clear to the public where it is illegal to use vapes and to enable enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. I know that noble Lords understand the reasons for wanting to be clear about what is and is not legal, and this Bill and the provisions in it are very much part of that.

Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed, the main answer to all the questions today— I will continue to go through the various amendments—is that we will be consulting on making indoor settings that are subject to existing smoke-free legislation vape free. The consultation in this area and beyond is crucial, because we also plan to consult on making some outdoor places where children are present vape free—for example, children’s playgrounds, and the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about how we will recognise the difference between harms. I can assure him that this is an area we absolutely want to get right. We do want to ensure that adult smokers who are using vapes as quit aids are doing so in appropriate places, such that they do not return to smoking. That is exactly why we will consult before making regulations and carefully consider the responses to ensure the policy seeks the appropriate balance.

Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, would not be able to be made vape free. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her views on this. As I have already outlined, vapers pose potential risks to both users and non-users, especially indoors. We had a debate in an earlier group about the workability or otherwise of designating particular areas as able to police themselves. It is quite important to say to the Committee that the vast majority—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to these second-hand harms.

As discussed, this is a particular concern for medically vulnerable people whose conditions may not be in the least visible to the vaper, who I am sure does not wish to cause harm—for example, those with asthma. Additionally, people who wish to vape will still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings—for example, in the outdoor smoking areas of an over-18 nightclub. We have been very clear that we will not be consulting on including those outdoor areas in the scope of vape- free places.

Ultimately, the Bill grants powers to make places vape free and does not itself make any place vape free. The consultation will ask questions relating to areas that should become vape free, any necessary exemptions and any additional evidence on the second-hand harms of these products. Therefore, in our view there is no change needed to the primary legislation.

It is appropriate now to turn to Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would seek to limit the locations that can be designated as vape free. As I have already outlined, the current power allows us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time and ensures the Bill is future-proof. The noble Lord asked about the process. I can confirm as I have done previously that the power for vape-free places will be through an affirmative regulation. That will mean, as the noble Lord knows, a debate in both places. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about vape-free areas being specified in the Bill. I hope I have explained why that is not the case. It is particularly important as we talk about evolving evidence that we look to the future. That is why we will be consulting and why we will turn to regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned vape-free schools and asked whether that measure applies to children or adults. I can confirm that it is about the area rather than the people in it. So there are no limitations on people of a certain age; it is the area that would be designated.

I turn to Amendments 182 and 187 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to vape-free policies in schools and colleges in England that are made vape-free places. It is my view that these amendments are not necessary. As I have said, we have already made it clear that we will consult on making schools, sixth-form colleges and early years settings vape-free places. Public consultation will allow us to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders, including those who run education settings. Enforcement officers will have the power to issue on-the-spot fines or pursue convictions where they deem it necessary for the offence of using a vape in a vape-free place. However, we anticipate—this may be helpful to noble Lords—that there will continue to be a role for internal sanctions for pupils found vaping on the premises. Schools are already required to publish a behavioural policy.

In relation to education provisions for pupils on vaping, we have worked closely with the Department for Education to incorporate education on the risks of vaping and nicotine use in the recently updated relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance for schools and teachers; I am sure that the person referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will benefit from that in future.

I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and his intention in Amendment 183, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke. I agree that it is important that patients receiving care in a mental health setting have access to appropriate smoking cessation tools; that is particularly true given that smoking rates among those with a long-term mental health condition are far higher than in the general population. As I have mentioned previously, in England, we are considering making inside hospitals—but not outside them—smoke-free. I appreciate and am alive to the fact that there are particular considerations in the case of mental health facilities, but I assure noble Lords that we are keen to get things right in this area and are going to follow the evidence. We want to ensure that vapes can continue to be accessible as an effective quitting aid for adult smokers; noble Lords have made strong and important points about this. As outlined, we believe that the details of any exemptions are best explored through the consultation process, although we understand the intention behind the amendment.

I hope that this provides reassurance and understanding to noble Lords that the settings that will be in scope of the vape-free policy will be fully considered by consultation and then considered under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Robathan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, anything I say will probably have been said before, so fortuitously I shall not speak for long, which will please the Government Whips.

On both sides there have been some outstanding speeches over both days, and we can all appreciate that this is hugely complex. People very often tend to speak from their own position, and I have spoken to several older Peers who wanted to be able to die in their own time, so they would support the Bill. I have had innumerable emails and letters from both sides, and I thank the people who sent them. Some were very informative; the majority were opposed to the Bill.

I understand the dilemma. I am already 74 and, should I be terminally ill and suffering, I would wish to be able to take my own opportunity to die—I would probably need to find some poison; of course, that may not work for a handicapped or disabled person who can no longer take a drug—but this does not mean that I support the Bill.

For me, there are two big issues. First, for some reason, society strives far too hard to keep very ill, dying people alive. We shall die, and we must all accept that. As a Christian, I have absolutely no idea if there is an afterlife—perhaps the Bishops might fill me in later—but I do know that I shall die. I hope I can die cleanly and without pain.

Part of the problem is Harold Shipman, over a quarter of a century ago. He was a murderous doctor, and he has prevented what used to be actually quite common: namely, that doctors would increase morphine for very sick, dying patients, which led to their relatively simple and relatively comfortable death—I emphasise “relatively”. The idea that you could prosecute a doctor for assisting an imminent death seems to me rather foolish, but apparently it happens.

We should educate everybody better to understand that death happens and we cannot always cling to life. The Covid experience, where the entire economy and our children’s future was sacrificed because this nasty disease was killing people, most of whom were in their late 70s or more likely over 80, is surely an example of how we should be aware that people will die and that we should accept that.

The second major issue against the Bill relates to coercion. That coercion may be unintended, and an old person can see that continuing life will reduce the prospect of the inheritance of their children. Indeed, the children might easily not wish the elderly parent to die, but the parent might decide that that was best for them. Some 30-odd years ago, I was a new MP, and the Major Government introduced a scheme where people entering care would have to sell their houses to pay for that care—I think I have got that right. This, of course, remains a big issue for Governments. I recall a queue of people coming to my advice session who would say, “But our mother wants us to inherit her house”. I pointed out to them that people save for old age—and I was still re-elected, by the way. However, it is only one small step beyond that to hint, encourage, or push a decaying relative to go for assisted suicide to avoid care home bills.

The Bill is seriously flawed. As many have said, this is an extraordinary change to our law. It changes the general attitude to death and, indeed, to doctors. It changes one of the basic tenets of our society. Suicide was a criminal act until 1961, which was in my lifetime. Now, we are going to change it in my lifetime by allowing assisted suicide—and it is assisting suicide. This will destroy the Hippocratic oath and the maxim, “first, do no harm”. It is being brought forward without the proper consideration that it should certainly have. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have pointed out huge weaknesses, especially regarding lack of proper regulation and scrutiny. I therefore cannot support the Bill, although I can see the merit of allowing suffering people to die more peacefully.

Coronavirus: UK Deaths

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Robathan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what initial assessment they have made of the number of deaths in the United Kingdom from coronavirus compared to other countries, and of whether the policy of lockdowns in 2020 was effective.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, estimates of excess mortality from the Office for National Statistics show that, between January 2020 and July 2022, the UK’s cumulative overall mortality rate was 3.1% higher than expected. Using this measure of excess mortality, the UK was ranked 15th highest out of 29 European nations examined by the ONS. Research funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research estimates that national lockdowns saved more than 470,000 lives in the UK in the first few months of the pandemic.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I welcome the noble Baroness to her position. She may not remember, but I did ask the same question of the last Government. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is not answering the question, because he has an encyclopaedic personal knowledge of this—and I would like to welcome him to his position as well. I will pick up the noble Baroness on what she has just said, because it appears that the Swedish model had a lower death rate than the UK model. We know the impact on the economy, on mental health and particularly on children’s education that the lockdowns had, and the important thing, as the noble Baroness will know, is to not make the same mistakes again. So could she please examine this more carefully and come forward with an initial assessment on whether lockdowns, on a cost-benefit analysis, were worth having?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind welcome and I hear his disappointment that it is not my noble friend Lord Vallance—who will be extremely flattered—answering. On the matter of lockdowns, I start by paying tribute to the British public; it was they who rallied to ensure that lockdowns could save lives. Before Oral Questions, I met with the Chief Medical Officer to discuss the very point that the noble Lord has raised. I say to the House that, when looking at other countries, it is very important to consider the complexity of comparison; it is just not possible to draw direct comparisons. But what I can say is that we are of course waiting for the Covid inquiry, which will shine a light on a number of the matters that the noble Lord has raised.