Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Young of Cookham

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 148, in my name, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide sales data by geographical area. Before the Minister says that there is already such a power, let me refer to Amendment 148, which seeks to change “may” to “must” for the requirement to make regulations and to publish data.

Tobacco companies collect rich data tracking the sales of their products which currently exist only to serve commercial purposes. Modelling from Cancer Research UK shows that those living in the most affluent areas of the UK should be smoke free this year, whereas those in the least affluent will not achieve that until after 2050—25 years later. That inequality has devastating consequences. Hence, there are nearly twice as many cancer cases caused by smoking in the poorest areas in England compared to the wealthiest.

Data collected by companies on sales and distributions could be used to inform public health. They could also give insights into different pricing strategies that companies use and would therefore complement a “polluter pays” levy, which I know many people rightly support. The data would also have value in setting up a new licensing system, helping local government understand the pattern of sales in its communities and make judgments about whether availability was appropriate. Trading standards would also benefit, using insights to support enforcement activity and improve the intelligence that local authorities have to assess local problems with any illicit sales and to identify upticks in illicit tobacco use.

Action on Smoking and Health, in its written evidence on the Bill, also flagged the issue of cigarillos, saying that surveys have

“recently identified that cigarillos are increasing in use among young people. With timely access to industry sales data public health agencies and researchers could have identified this trend far more quickly. These products have fewer restrictions on them than other tobacco products, something that will be addressed via the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, but lack of knowledge has inhibited swift public health response”.

Industry data have been shrouded in secrecy—what a surprise. Thank goodness that Professor Sir Richard Doll had the cancer registries to demonstrate the causal link between smoking and cancer. Since public health academics started analysing industry profits, they publish only very limited data. Mandated publication of sales data would ensure that this industry, which sells a product that kills two-thirds of long-term users, is appropriately regulated and monitored given the harms it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I want to speak to Amendment 192, which proposes the introduction of a levy on tobacco manufacturers.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. That principle was introduced by previous Conservative Governments; the landfill levy was introduced in 1996 and the soft drinks levy in 2018. After the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Government, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his conclusions. He wrote:

“Introduce a ‘polluter pays’ industry levy on profits from cigarette sales, which can directly fund the full range of comprehensive measures to help us reach smokefree 2030 and make smoking obsolete. This is my preferred option … A tobacco ‘polluter pays’ levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied as a percentage of these profits”.


It would not impact on the CPI or the cost to the consumer, and it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022, Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He said about that amendment:

“This new Clause … would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 287-88.]


That is precisely what Amendment 192 proposes.

Responding to the amendment, the Minister, speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench on behalf of her party, said:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


She was as good as her word: she supported the amendment, along with the Leader of her party and the Chief Whip, and the amendment was carried, later to be overturned in another place. I was therefore surprised that the noble Baroness did not add her name to this amendment when I tabled it, and I look forward to her compelling speech in its favour.

Amendment 192 would require the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. Tobacco is a uniquely addictive and lethal consumer product, and this creates a perfect storm for consumers. The tobacco industry in this country continues to be in good health, unlike its customers, and companies continue to make significant profits: an estimated £900 million per year in the UK alone, with average profit margins of around 50% compared to 10% for manufacturing margins.

There are various estimated costs to society of smoking. That from ASH is £43.7 billion a year—perhaps the Government could share their own estimate—and it is the taxpayer who picks up the tab: costs to the NHS, costs to social care, lost productivity to our economy, and higher welfare bills. A “polluter pays” levy ensures that those who can and should pay, do, and implementing it would raise up to £700 million a year.

So how would it work? The Treasury consulted on a levy in 2014 and did not proceed, but what is proposed now is quite different and, crucially, it would not allow the industry to pass costs on to the consumer and would have no impact on the RPI.

The levy model proposed by the APPG on Smoking and Health would introduce a price cap on tobacco similar to what we do with utilities. That would limit the prices to manufacturing costs plus, say, a 10% profit margin. This would be in line with other consumer products and more than generous for an industry responsible for such high levels of harm. The Government would then introduce a new levy on the industry, to be paid for from its profits.

A consultation would allow this model to be “tested and shaped”, providing a much-needed boost to public finances. The public too share our support for this proposal, with 76% of adults in England in favour of a “polluter pays” levy.

I note that the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this same subject proposes to put the proceeds into

“a dedicated fund held by the Department of Health and Social Care”.

I have not included such hypothecation in my own amendment, but I fully support what he seeks to do. Some £700 million a year could be used to support 2 million more smokers to quit just in this Parliament and accelerate progress towards a smoke-free future. It is likely that funds would be left over, which could be used for other public health activities, helping the Government achieve their mission of reducing the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.

This is a measured, fair and practical proposal. It would protect the consumer, prevent industry manipulation, provide much-needed funding for the Treasury, and ensure that those who profit from an addictive and lethal product made a proper contribution to repairing the damage it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28, which concerns free samples of tobacco and vaping products. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her support.

Although I understand that Clause 15 will take action on this issue, it is such an important matter and such a significant gap in current regulation that I wish to address it directly with my amendment. The promotion of tobacco and vaping products through the distribution of free samples is wholly unacceptable. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, with which I was involved, explicitly banned that practice for tobacco. It is exactly what I saw in Africa when I was a DfID Minister, with primary age children given cigarettes as the tobacco industry saw its market decline in the West and sought to addict children in other parts of the world. If vapes were really only used for smoking cessation, why would they be so clearly targeted at children, as we have heard?

Since vapes have come on to the market, there have been multiple reports of such products being handed out to young people to get them addicted to nicotine. It is the route that my nephew, to whom I referred on Monday, and his friends, who are now unable to kick the smoking habit, arrived at cigarette smoking—via colourful vapes. It would be useful to publish the sales data, and we will see whether we have some useful data on potential upticks among children smoking as a result of vapes.

Public health campaigners have long called for the closing of the loophole that allows vapes to be given to children as part of a promotional activity. As far back as 2010, the Guardian reported that a 17 year-old had been given a free sample of BAT’s vape brand, without being told that it contained nicotine or being asked for age verification. Such promotions are often carried out by third-party marketeers at festivals, train stations and in city centres, with young, vibrant staff enticing people with their free products—but with limited explanation of the risks. Trading standards can do nothing about this, as vapes are not currently covered by existing restrictions.

My amendment came as a result of sitting on the Tube on 7 May this year and looking up and seeing the advert for Zyn that I am holding up. I know we are not supposed to use props, but this makes the point. Zyn, it says, is a “flavour you feel”. “No smoke, no vapour, no tobacco” is what that advert says in large type. Sounds benign, does it not? However, there is an asterisk to very small print that says it is derived from tobacco. Then there are the flavours: chilli guava, icy blackcurrant, citrus, black cherry, cool mint. Then it says, “Claim your free sample today”, with a double asterisk to another tiny warning and a minute warning underneath saying that it is not risk free—an understatement—that it contains nicotine, which is addictive, and that it should only be used by adults who would otherwise continue to smoke or use nicotine. Oh yes, just look at this advert. Do they put those warnings in bold colours and letters? Oh no, they do not. So do not tell me that this is not targeted at young people.

I was so angry to see that and that is why my amendment came forward. How can anyone justify seeking to draw children and young people in with an advert like that and sleep soundly at night? It is welcome that this Bill will finally address this issue, but it has taken an unacceptably long time to reach this point. The industry is, as ever, using all sorts of arguments to water this down, and we should not buy that. Young people who have never smoked should not be using vapes, as my noble friend Lord Russell has just said. Yet, 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping and 160,000 children at least vape daily.

I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the following. First, will the Bill be robust enough to capture any future innovations the industry might devise? We have seen time and again how the tobacco industry exploits loopholes and adapts products to evade regulation. It is essential this practice of giving out free samples to hook young people on to addictive products ends with this Bill. Secondly, could the Minister comment on the timeframe and the reasoning behind it? I note that no further regulations are required but that the measure will come into force six months after Royal Assent. Is there any possibility that we could bring this forward? We have already waited five years for this change. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about time slipping on this. This is one of the most insidious forms of marketing, and we should crack down on it as swiftly as possible.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments. Amendment 16 is about age. My noble friend Lord Moylan said that young people are sensible. I agree with that. I think it follows from that that they are sensible enough to understand that Parliament may have prescribed different age limits for different activities, so I do not find that argument wholly conclusive but, on a more conciliatory note, I agree with what my noble friend said about Clause 12.

“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a vape vending machine … is available for use”.


However, there is no provision for any exceptions.

My noble friend made a case for those mental health hospitals that have vending machines that enable patients to remain smoke free. Is it the case that, when the Bill becomes an Act, they will have to take those vape machines out and go through the whole process of licensing to be able continue to sell vaping products? Is it the case that, under Clause 16(3)

“The Secretary of State may by regulations create exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (1) or (2)”.


Is that the “get out of jail” card we need to solve the problem my noble friend rightly drew attention to?

My noble friend also touched on Amendment 17A, which relates to vaping machines in non-age-gated premises. The explanatory statement says that the amendment

“would permit the sale of vapes and other nicotine products through vending machines in only those premises that are already restricted to adults only”.

I wonder what those premises are, because younger people can go into pubs and clubs. What are these age-gated premises? I can think of nightclubs and the Chambers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but it would be helpful to hear in slightly more detail exactly what these exemptions might be.

I am cautious about any exemptions, because I see vaping products as a smoking-cessation tool. Allowing vaping products to be made available in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or wherever, tends more towards the recreational use of vaping, which I think we all want to downplay. I give way to the noble Baroness, who will explain what these age-gated premises are.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Young of Cookham

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. Obstructions on the pavement are an issue not just for those with a visual impairment but for a wide variety of other users of the pavement. He rightly calls for a better balance between the needs of business on the one hand and the needs of pedestrians on the other, and he deserves a sympathetic response from the Minister.

Amendment 258, in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would introduce the requirement for all pavement licences to be smoke-free and so to contribute to the Government’s worthy ambition to make England smoke-free by 2030—an ambition we are currently on track to miss by nine years, according to Cancer Research UK. The House has previously expressed strong support for such a measure. Under the current pavement licensing rules, councils have two options on pavement smoking: to implement the national condition to make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted, or to go further and make 100% smoke-free seating a condition of licences at local level.

I have previously welcomed the current requirement, secured only after pressure from Members in both Houses who objected to the original proposal, which had no provision for non-smokers. But, although where we are is better than what the Government originally proposed, it does not go far enough.

When this amendment was debated in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe defended the current arrangement, stating that

“it is important to allow local areas to make the decisions that are right for them”.—[Official Report, 22/5/23; col. 661.]

I note in passing that, when I asked for that flexibility this morning on planning fees, my noble friend robustly rejected it. Although I understand the principle behind this position, in practice it places a significant burden on councils, which must provide reasonable justification for introducing a smoke-free condition on a case-by-case basis.

This is the point made by local councillors from the London Tobacco Alliance, who this week have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, calling on the Government to introduce a national 100% smoke-free pavement licence condition. This would reduce the amount of bureaucracy faced by councils and help to protect non-smokers, especially children and of course those who work in the hospitality industry, from toxic tobacco smoke.

This amendment is also supported by the Local Government Association, the cross-party national membership body for local authorities, which has said that 100% smoke-free pavement licensing

“sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces”.

Under the current system, implementation of smoke-free conditions is highly inconsistent across the country, meaning that non-smokers, children and hospitality staff will continue to be exposed to second-hand smoke. That is why Dr Javed Khan OBE’s independent review of Smokefree 2030 policies, commissioned by DHSC and published last year, recommended that smoking be prohibited on all premises, indoors and out, where food or drink is served, as well as a ban on smoking in all outdoor areas where children are present.

This recommendation has strong public support, with two-thirds of the public polled in 2022 saying they wanted smoking banned in the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafés. Fewer than one in five opposed a ban. This was a large sample of more than 10,000 people, carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health. Some councils are doing what the public want, with 10 councils in England introducing 100% smoke-free requirements. The experience of these councils shows that smoke-free seating has proved popular with the public, leading to high levels of compliance, and has not been shown to cause a decrease in revenue.

When South Tyneside Council surveyed opinion on 100% smoke-free seating among local café proprietors, it did not receive a single objection. A number of proprietors were very supportive of the more consistent approach, which is easier to comply with and requires little or no enforcement. The director of public health in South Tyneside said:

“Creating and supporting smokefree environments benefits individuals, the wider community and businesses—supporting those trying to quit the habit, promoting positive role modelling for children and young people, and reducing the harm from second-hand smoke”.


This amendment is an opportunity to implement Dr Khan’s recommendations and take a small but important step forward towards a smoke-free 2030. I hope that my noble friend, who took a keen interest in preventative medicine when he was a Health Minister, feels able to support this modest but popular amendment. If, by any chance, the dreaded word “resist” is at the top of his folder, can he say whether primary legislation is required if, in the future, the House wants to revisit this issue if we do not achieve this progressive measure this evening?

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I express support from these Benches for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which he put very cogently. Pavement licences were introduced in the pandemic but have become a feature of our high streets, so we must make sure that approaches are inclusive, addressing the needs of those with disabilities or those, for example, with children in pushchairs.

I put my name to Amendment 258 and I am pleased to be speaking in support of it. It is led by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who made the usual very strong case. It is disappointing to see that the Government have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to make all pavement licences smoke-free, as recommended—as we have just heard—in last year’s Khan review of tobacco policies. This is despite the clear majority of adults in England supporting a smoking ban in outdoor seating areas of restaurants, pubs and cafés. In areas such as Manchester, where 100% smoke-free pavement licences have been implemented, they have had great success and have been very popular among businesses and those using these facilities.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Northover and Lord Young of Cookham

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

Amendment 18 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. We all want to get the hospitality sector moving again. I remind noble Lords that over 85% of people do not smoke. There is a public health issue here, but there is also the issue of making pubs and restaurants appealing to the vast majority of people. The UK hospitality sector will not recover if we cannot make it an enjoyable experience for the majority of its clients—that includes all those non-smokers and their children—as well as safe and enjoyable for the staff who may already be worried about returning to work.

The Bill proposes that restaurants and pubs should be able to use outside spaces for their customers to spill out into. People are safer from Covid-19 in the fresh air than inside buildings and, given the restrictions on numbers inside, this enables more customers to be catered for. The Government seek to balance economic with public health needs. Thus, in effect, the footprint of the pub or restaurant is expanded outside. We have already debated how these new needs and demands must be balanced with other considerations—the vital need to be inclusive, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and others so passionately put it.

Amendment 18 specifies that pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited in such spaces. It is a simple and straightforward proposition. We all worked together, across all parties and none, on banning smoking in public places. That was transformative for public health, for the prevention of illness through second-hand smoke, for those working in these environments, and for the benefit of families and pregnant women. It is now widely accepted as a benefit and few people seek to turn back the clock.

However, under this Bill, the footprint of pubs and restaurants will, as I said, extend outside. If such an extension, for which there are good reasons, is to be granted, then these newly defined public places must also be smoke free for all the same public health and other reasons that the interiors of pubs and restaurants are smoke free.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, who shared Second Reading with the Minister, has contributed significantly over many years as we have sought to combat smoking. I hope that both Ministers know that the words that they might have been given to reply to this amendment to the effect that local authorities “can” take such action is a world away from a provision saying that they “must” take such action. As the noble Earl will remember, prior to the introduction of smoke-free enclosed public places in the Health Act 2006 the hospitality trade did not support legislation that was simply local. It wanted a level playing field, provided by national legislation that covered all hospitality venues. That is why we need national action and “must” not “can”.

I first noticed this issue when I saw a petition organised to try to persuade the City of London and Westminster City Council to do this. A number of local businesses support it, but the council has not agreed, and therefore no progress is being made. As soon as I flagged this issue up at Second Reading, only one week ago, with ASH’s help and to my delight but not to my surprise, I secured support from every Bench in this House, as represented by the amendment. I am delighted to say that we also have the support of a former Secretary of State for Heath, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

In the space of a week, we have also secured support for this amendment from the 10 local authorities that make up Greater Manchester, including the cities of Manchester and Salford, and from Liverpool and Newcastle, Oxfordshire County Council, and the Local Government Association itself. I am extremely grateful to them all in their clear concern for the pubs, restaurants and citizens in their area. This needs to be national.

The Government have said that they want to achieve a smoke-free England by 2030. There is a danger in this Bill of things going backwards and not forwards. For those who think that the urgent measures taken in the Bill should not be impeded, such as perhaps the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, I remind noble Lords of the numbers: 85% of people do not smoke. If we are to encourage them back to using pubs and restaurants, let us make it easy for proprietors to implement this measure, so that they can make their establishments as attractive as possible.

I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see the case and has already heard the strength of feeling on this issue in the House. We banned smoking in interior public places, and that ban must be sustained as we redefine in the Bill what public places are. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I put my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment to indicate cross-party support, and I now add a brief footnote to her excellent speech.

Winding up the Second Reading debate last Monday, my noble friend Lord Howe said, in connection with another section of the Bill:

“The Government are clear that workers should not be forced into an unsafe workplace and that the health and safety of workers should not be put at risk.”—[Official Report, 6/7/20; col. 970.]


One of the principal reasons for the Health Act 2006, which banned smoking in pubs, was to protect employees from the health risks of passive smoking, as well as from the irritation and smell of the smoke. Under the Bill, employees of pubs will have to deliver drinks and collect glasses from the pavements, and they should be entitled to continue to work in a smoke-free atmosphere, as set out in the Health Act 2006.

In response to the case made last week by the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Howe said that

“the local authority can impose locally-set conditions on licences … that … can include restricting smoking in areas not designated for smokers.”—[Official Report, 6/7/20; col. 971.]

I do not believe that this is good enough. When Parliament considered banning smoking in pubs, it rejected the policy of leaving it to local discretion. It was to be a clear, national public health policy, and so should this be. As the noble Baroness said, the Local Government Association does not want local discretion. Doing that would blunt the public health message and lead to uncertainty among customers. From the industry’s point of view, it is right that there should be a level playing field.

I urge my noble friend to think again and give a positive response, otherwise I fear that, for the first time since I joined your Lordships’ House, I may be obliged to vote against my party on Report.