Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 171 in my name, which contains some echoes of Amendment 167 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support.

Noble Lords will not be surprised, I think, to hear that I fully support the restrictions on the marketing of vapes, nicotine pouches and other nicotine products. We urgently need to put an end to the relentless and irresponsible advertising to which we are currently subjected; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described this in our debate on the previous group. You cannot travel on the London Underground without seeing adverts for pouches saying things such as, “Hi, London. Your commute just got tastier”—not, noble Lords will note, “Hello, London smokers. Did you know that there are less harmful alternatives to smoking?”

This kind of indiscriminate marketing works to expose children to these products, which have been criticised by trading standards as mimicking sweets. As the Minister pointed out, awareness of nicotine pouches among under-18s has risen from 38% in 2024 to 43% in 2025. My amendment seeks to probe the Government on how they will ensure that public health authorities, NHS bodies and smoking cessation services can communicate effectively with smokers to make it clear that these products, while not risk-free, are significantly less harmful than smoking and can help smokers quit.

Such bodies have been impeded by the vaping industry. As we all know, vaping and addiction to nicotine is, in turn, leading to young people smoking, something that all of us, it seems, want to reduce. To put it bluntly, we have the wrong people using these products. Uptake among children, young people and never-smokers is far too high. Some 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping. Conversely, the people whom we most want to switch—they were addressed in our debate on the previous group: adult smokers—are not doing so. More than one-quarter of adults who currently smoke have never tried vaping, and misperceptions about harm are most acute among these smokers; the proportion who believe that vapes are as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes has increased. Had the vaping industry not promoted its wares to young people, we would not be in this situation.

This Bill currently makes provisions for public health bodies to promote these products but, of course, there are major challenges. The industry is responsible for the situation that we are in. I have heard from smoking cessation services that some online platforms make it practically impossible to promote vaping, even from bona fide health organisations; any post with a budget on these issues gets blocked and could have an impact on the Government’s messaging on this topic. Will the Minister explain how she feels this Bill will steer a proper course here, so that we put forward the public health benefits to which noble Lords referred in our debate on the previous group? In a similar way, different radio stations have different policies on vaping adverts, with some not allowing them at all even if it is clear that the public health messaging is from professional services. How will the Government steer through that?

As noble Lords indicated in our debate on the previous group, there clearly needs to be differentiation between commercial promotion and public health messaging if these vapes are to be used for what they were supposedly there to do in the first place. The problem here is that the vaping industry has not proved trustworthy, as children and young people are targeted. Many of the amendments here will simply allow more loopholes and are, therefore, likely to muddy the waters yet again.

We should not soften the approach that the Bill takes towards commercial companies. Just this year, we have seen heated tobacco advertising in supermarkets—Sainsbury’s and Morrisons—despite the Government telling them that this is currently illegal. If they are willing to flout the current law, why should we consider creating further loopholes for them to stretch in future? Once again, I will show an advert, which I have shown before, which is clearly not targeting smokers—if only it were. It says:

“Claim your free sample today”.


In tiny writing, it says that it is “not risk-free”. This is how loopholes have been exploited. That is what this Bill is seeking to address.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 168 and 170 in my name. At the end of the previous group, the Minister expressed a little gratified surprise that I thought the ambition of trying to end vaping by children was laudable. I am disappointed that she was surprised because I hoped that I had made it clear from the outset of my participation in this Bill that I entirely understand and support the Government’s wish to do everything possible to prevent the uptake of vaping and other nicotine products by children. My remarks were entirely about adults, as they will be on this group.

I do not wish to be impertinent, but I have a question for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who spoke of the vape industry as if it were a monolithic thing. There are several different characterisations of the vape industry, but the key one is that some of it is the work of respectable, accountable companies that are based in the UK and similar countries and conduct their affairs in one way, and some of it is the huge flood of vapes that have entered the market without proper regulation or control, I understand, although I do not know, very often produced by Chinese companies.

I ask the noble Baroness please to stop pointing at that piece of paper that nobody can actually see. Even if we were allowed to see it, we cannot read it at that distance.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

You can see the colour.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is blue. Is there something wicked about blue?

There is a distinction between the one and the other. The truth is that respectable companies will comply with the law, as they do with the law on smoking advertising, and disreputable ones will find ways of getting around it, as so many currently do.

I return to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 168 addresses Clause 119, which, as I mentioned in the previous group, contains certain defences that can be used by those charged with offences laid out in the previous clauses, such as distributing or designing advertising. I propose that an additional defence be added to it that,

“it is, when in relation to the advertising of vaping products or nicotine products, in a location in which it would be reasonable to expect that everyone present is aged 18”.

This is an attempt to try to fit in with what the Minister said earlier about the aim of the Bill, that we are meant to be trying to address young people, which I agree with, and help ensure that they are not induced into taking up vaping and other nicotine-based products.

Amendment 170 would create an exemption, not by amending Clause 119 but by adding a new clause, for a specialist vaping retailer making communications online in an age-verified environment. We have robust age verification now as a result of the Online Safety Act. There are many sites, I believe, which you are required to verify your age to access. That is what Ofcom has increasingly rolled out under the provisions of that Act. It is perfectly possible to have age-verified sites and to ensure that people can access them only if they can demonstrate they are above a certain age. That is what this is trying to do. It is trying to create some sort of balance for those adults—those above the age of 18—who wish to have access to information about vaping in a way that ensures it does not get to children. On the basis of what the noble Baroness has said is her purpose, I really cannot see how she should object to this. I hope that Amendment 170 and possibly even Amendment 168 might find favour with her.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to change the detail of exemptions and powers on smoke-free places. I am grateful both for the debate and the amendments, which raise a number of issues.

I start with the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lady Ramsey on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who tabled it. It seeks to remove the existing exemption that allows individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist. This amendment was also spoken to, although in a different way, by the noble Lords, Lord Johnson, Lord Murray and Lord Strathcarron. Tobacco is, as I have said, a uniquely harmful product. I sympathise with the aims of the amendment and agree with the intention. However, specialist tobacconists, as we have heard in the debate, are currently exempt because of the specialist nature of their trade. These businesses make up a very small percentage of the market in the UK.

I can assure my noble friend Lady Ramsey that there are a number of restrictions to the current exemption. For example, the sampling area is legally required to be enclosed, clearly signed and appropriately ventilated to prevent smoke spreading to non-smoking areas. Other tobacco products such as cigarettes cannot be sampled. I was interested to hear the example that my noble friend Lady Ramsey brought before the Committee. I know she will understand that I cannot comment on very specific circumstances, but this may or may not be a matter for enforcement. I am sure that my noble friend will look into that further.

It is important that the Bill balances the public health aims within it while ensuring that small and medium-sized businesses are not unnecessarily financially impacted. Ultimately, given our ambition to prevent future generations taking up smoking, we anticipate, as we have said in previous groups, that in the long term specialist tobacconists will have to pivot their business models. Given this, we expect the exemption currently in place, which we are not seeking to change, to be used less and less over time. I give the assurance that we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure there is not a targeting of young people or an exploitation of the exemption. Of course, as this exemption is in regulations, it is possible to review this in the future, if required.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked about impact assessments. Any further impact assessments that are required will be prepared in advance of any legislation which is the normal process where there could be economic impacts. The impact assessments will be reviewed by the regulatory policy committee—again, in accordance with normal practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have indicated that they oppose Clause 136 standing part of the Bill. The clause recasts an existing regulation-making power that was found in the Health Act 2006. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting performers in England to smoke during a performance. The intention of the clause is to provide simplification and offer greater consistency with the Bill’s other provision. In practice, it is our assessment that this will not make a real difference, which I know is of concern to the noble Earl.