Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we cannot support these amendments, I am afraid.

I want to make a couple of comments on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The scenarios that he outlined would be against common sense and I really hope that, when the regulations come before us, they adhere to common sense and take account of the sorts of scenario that he suggested. I certainly think that, with the Bill as it stands, if the noble Lord had decided to give up smoking after the Bill—rather than before, as I understand he already has done—by being of age, in that I think he probably is over 18, he would be able, once the Bill becomes law, to go into a shop and buy vapes to help him give up smoking. So, I do not share his fears; let us put it that way.

I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the egregious nature of some of the advertising. In my own experience, in the high street of my local village, the whole window of one of the local shops is covered with advertisements for vapes, which are very clearly aimed at children: there is no question about it. Of course, the regulations must be carefully drafted to make sure of the objective we all share: making sure that adults who are of age and who wish to stop smoking can do so with the help of vapes.

I turn to the specific amendments in this group. In Amendments 160 to 166 and 173, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition on publishing and advertising. We do not believe that these products should be marketed to the general public; there are already provisions allowing them to be promoted as a cessation tool, which is what they are supposed to be in the first place, with a reasonable range of flavours correctly advertised.

Amendment 172 would require both a call for evidence and consultation before the introduction of marketing restrictions on vaping and heated tobacco products. These would delay the Bill—there is no question about it—and would, therefore, delay what the Bill is trying to do, which is combat the uptake of these products by young people. In any case, consulting with the manufacturers in this way may very well contravene Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which we debated last week.

Amendment 173A is not necessary, as we have already been assured both that consultation will take place and that the available evidence will be considered.

Finally, Amendment 174 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is not necessary because Clause 132(2) already states:

“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult”.


That should cover the noble Lord’s concern.

I have a question for the Minister about the consultation. This morning, I met a mother whose teenage daughter took up vaping at school and now cannot get off the habit. The mother did everything a good mother should do, because the child was quite upset about it; she was so hooked on nicotine that she could not give it up. She went to the GP. She went to the stop smoking services. She went to the pharmacist. She went to a drop-in. She then tried to buy 0% vapes but could not find them in any shop. Eventually, she persuaded a local shop to stock a small number of 0% nicotine vapes, so that the child could continue the behavioural habit without the nicotine—and without standing out from her peers, all of whom vaped behind the bike sheds, as far as I understand it.

It is important. It harks back to an amendment that we discussed last week about the NICE guidelines for stop vaping services. The Government need to make it clear that 0% vapes are and should be available as part of the cessation tools for people who do not just want to give up smoking tobacco but want to get off nicotine as well. That public health service—I do not call it an industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does—should be available to young people.

In the real world, they are vaping. We do not know how harmful it is to them, but I strongly suspect that it is. It is certainly highly addictive. It takes all their pocket money and who knows what else. Very often, they get their vapes from illicit sources, which brings them in contact with people they should not be in contact with. So I would like to know from the Minister whether the consultation will take that sort of thing into account.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I was right in believing that it was implicit in the noble Baroness’s remarks that she felt that 0% vapes should be an exception to the advertising rule.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Just to clarify, yes.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is helpful. These amendments once again bring us back to the issue of proportionality. The first thing to say, and I hope that no Member of the Committee will disagree with me, is that we have to be very careful when legislating on vapes and nicotine products, lest we inadvertently discourage their use by those who need them for smoking cessation purposes.

That leads to me to make a point similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Sending the message that there are harsh criminal penalties associated with advertising these products or having anything to do with the advertising process plays right into the false narrative, which a lot of people now believe, that vapes and nicotine products—but especially vapes—are as harmful to human health as tobacco smoking. Used irresponsibly, vapes can cause addiction to nicotine and, in that sense, are bad for you. However, when responsibly used as a means of quitting smoking, they are not bad for you. We should tread carefully when purporting to put them on a par with tobacco products and herbal smoking products, as the Bill does in Clauses 113 to 118.

There are 6 million tobacco smokers in this country whom the Government rightly want to help to quit. But those who go through that process know that it is not as easy as simply putting down the cigarette and walking away. Having a safer, accessible and—dare I say—pleasant alternative to turn to is often what makes it bearable for those suffering from cold turkey.

Vaping and nicotine products are those safer alternatives to smoking. They do not possess the same chemicals and tar found in tobacco, and the poisonous chemicals in tobacco smoke are absent. Despite this consensus, 53% of the public believe that vapes are just as bad, while 40% believe that nicotine causes most smoking-related cancer. What do the Government say to those people when they place equal bans on the advertising of tobacco, nicotine and vapes alike? I do not think that they convince them that one of those options is better.

Amendment 173A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and Amendment 174 in my own name, would require the Secretary of State, before imposing a ban on the advertising of vapes and nicotine products or a ban on vape and nicotine companies acting as sponsors, to assess the impact of those bans on likely rates of smoking cessation and the impact on producers, retailers and, indeed, consumers. The free market has played a large part in the threefold reduction in smoking over the past 20 years through the natural growth of tobacco alternatives. The result is that we now have a vaping industry worth over £3 billion, a large part of it with standards and codes of practice, and a rapidly growing nicotine products industry.

I believe that we should welcome that, because it has facilitated the decline in smoking rates and, at the same time, contributed to the economy. I am the first to concede that there are bad-faith actors out there. No one on these Benches would argue against a ban on products or advertising targeted at children, but that is a very different thing from a ban on all advertisements of vaping and nicotine products in any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will address just two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who powerfully and clearly introduced it as a probing amendment to the Government while very handily timing her intervention to remind me that it is in this group and that I have attached my name to it. I thank the noble Baroness for that.

We might say that there are different sides in this Committee, but everyone has agreed that adult smokers need to be able to get the information they need that this is an effective way to stop smoking. That is what this amendment does, and I do not think I need to say anymore on that.

I want to address briefly Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which is about restrictions on brand sharing. It is important to highlight why this amendment should not be part of the Bill. The process of brand stretching or brand sharing is something that we have seen the tobacco companies doing a great deal of. Mysteriously, expensive leather jackets, fancy sunglasses or even stationery suddenly start to bear various branding aspects—I will get to what those aspects are in a second—that just happen to echo that of a certain form of cigarettes. Governments very often find themselves playing a whack-a-mole game: if you try to ban this, then something slightly different appears and so on.

I particularly want to highlight the guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control because this amendment very clearly goes against what that says. It notes that there needs to be an effective ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. I think it is worth quoting this because it highlights the ways in which the WHO is trying to catch everything because it has to try to catch everything:

“Promotional effects, both direct and indirect, may be brought about by the use of words, designs, images, sounds and colours, including brand names … or schemes of colours associated with tobacco products, manufacturers or importers, or by the use of a part or parts of words, designs, images and colours”.


The Government need all the powers they can possibly have to stop the merchants of death sneaking round into little gaps in the legislation.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 171 in this group, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. My noble friend has highlighted many egregious examples of the sort of advertising that the Bill needs to avoid through careful drafting. Her suggestion is explicit that advertising must not appeal to children, non-smokers or indeed anyone for whom these products are not intended, while ensuring that their core purpose as smoking cessation products is not impeded.

Amendment 171 would tighten up the wording of the Bill to achieve the Government’s intention. It would also future-proof it. We debated, on Amendments 195 and 196 from my noble friend Lord Russell, the need for reviews in the future, to give everyone the confidence that the Government will at least keep pace with—or preferably get ahead of—developments. We should include in those reviews any clever advertising and marketing intended to get round the Bill, as well as product development and emerging evidence of harms. Frankly, if the industry does not like it, it has only itself to blame because of its blatant and highly successful campaign to lure children to use its products.

On Amendment 161A, from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of “reason to suspect”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as I was saying, on Amendment 161A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of,

“or has reason to suspect”,

in Clause 114(1)(b), we believe this phrase is commonly used and therefore there is no need to remove it.

On Amendment 161B on possible disparities between penalties in different devolved nations, we look forward to the Minister’s response. Although consistency is usually desirable, there may be unintended consequences, which the Minister knows about, because different situations prevail in different parts of the country.

We support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in his Amendment 167 because it is important that vapes can be promoted as a cessation tool. However, as I understand it, the Bill prohibits the advertising of vapes by businesses only, which means that public health organisations, GPs and hospitals treating patients suffering from smoking-related diseases could promote them as a quitting aid. As I understand it, the prohibition does not cover products licensed as medicines, so they can continue to be promoted.

Having said all that, I hope that the Minister can assure us that clear guidance compatible with the Bill’s intentions will be provided by the Advertising Standards Authority so as not to hinder public health settings while preventing commercial advertising, which has had such an egregious effect on the level of awareness of these products among children, who do not need them to quit smoking.

With Amendment 168, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would allow vapes to be promoted in what we might call adults-only places. Leaving aside the fact that, as we know, many younger people slip into these places, promotion there would give the impression that these products are for recreational use, which is not their purpose. Anyone going to a nightclub who is trying to quit smoking but fears they may be tempted to have a cigarette when they have had a few drinks and their resistance is lowered would certainly equip themselves with their vapes before going out.

We do not think Amendment 168A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is necessary as the Bill already allows public health authorities to promote heated tobacco and other things as quitting aids.

Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raises an interesting issue that we think could be explored. There may be a case for some limited arrangements for display or promotion by specialist retailers, but this should be done very carefully to avoid ensnaring young people inappropriately. I think the Bill allows specialist vape shops to operate, and they could display material provided by public health authorities.

Amendment 170 is not necessary as there is no prohibition in the Bill of specialist retailers putting information on their website.

Regarding Amendment 170A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I think about my local corner shop, which has illuminated signs inside and a shop window plastered with enticing advertisements for sweet-flavoured vapes. I hope the Minister will resist this very broad exemption.

Finally, we think that Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on brand sharing is far too broad and would, in the end, apply to all brand sharing. I know from my work on food advertising how widely brand logos, colours and images can be recognised by the public. Who does not know that burgers and chips are being sold when they see the golden arches of McDonald’s, or that chocolate bars are being advertised when they see the colour purple and the words Dairy Milk? You need to be very careful when regulating brands, so I hope the Minister will resist that one, too.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments we have seen a logical continuation of our debate on the previous group, since in their various ways these amendments pose the question of what are the appropriate constraints to place around products that are of considerably less concern in a health context than tobacco products. We are back in the realm of deciding what is proportionate and how to secure better clarity and consistency in the operation of the Bill’s advertising and design provisions.

Although he has not been here to speak to it, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s Amendment 161A struck me as a point worth raising. It would protect designers and creative professionals from being criminally liable based on mere suspicion or indirect association because it would work to raise the threshold of proof of intent. One could imagine that in some cases it could be difficult to prove that someone designing an advertisement had reason to suspect that it would be published. In any event, is it right that someone who has been asked by their employer to design a vape advertisement should be criminalised because they know or believe it may be used in some context? I am afraid that the word “draconian” comes to mind.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 161B a very similar thought came to mind. Are the Government really saying that the offence of designing an advertisement for a vape merits a prison sentence? There are mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment. How should the sentencing provisions in this part of the Bill be read alongside the provisions of the Government’s Sentencing Bill? What is the overall message? The Sentencing Bill will require almost all sentences of less than 12 months to be suspended. On the one hand, the Government are creating imprisonable offences, and on the other, they are saying that people should not actually go to prison, even if they are sentenced to it. At the very least, the Minister needs to explain to the Committee why the sentence on summary conviction is to be different in Scotland than in Northern Ireland, which might have been a point my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would have made.

Turning to my Amendment 167 and the very well worded amendment, if I may say so, from the Liberal Democrats, the underlying purpose of each is the same, which is to urge the Government to regulate, rather than ban, vape advertisements so that in narrow clinical contexts, such as smoking cessation clinics, they can be deployed for public health purposes. Amendment 168A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising has a very similar purpose.

In Amendment 169 I am asking the Government to consider a further exemption for advertisements located discretely in specialist vaping shops. Why not allow that? As my noble friend Lord Moylan has asked in his Amendment 170, why prohibit such specialist shops providing information online subject to suitable age-gating checks? That in turn raises a further question from my noble friend in his Amendment 168. In adult-only environments, why should displaying an advertisement for a vaping product be against the law given that, as we need to keep reminding ourselves, vapes are and will remain legally available for purchase by anyone aged 18 or over? Why are the Government treating vape advertising in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising? What is the justification? Amendment 170A from my noble friend Lord Howard asks that question in a different form. Why should we not allow factual product information to be provided at point of sale in an age-restricted area in suitably licensed premises?

Finally, Amendment 172A from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would prevent overreach. It would ensure that brand restrictions target only genuine attempts to promote nicotine or tobacco, not completely unrelated products such as clothing or other merchandise. I think my noble friend has identified an issue that requires clarification from the Government, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendments just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, particularly Amendments 175 and 179. I start from the point of view that the powers to extend smoke-free places in England, were Amendment 175 to pass, would be less than the powers in the devolved nations. As smoking prevalence continues to fall, there will clearly be an ongoing open discussion that appraises the evidence on smoke-free extensions and how best to protect public health and workers’ rights.

In August 2024, the Government indicated—well, apparently it was leaked—that they were going to extend these powers when bringing back the Bill. There was then a backlash, the Government U-turned and said that the consultation would focus only on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. That is disappointing, but we do not want to close down the opportunities and options for the future that would be available from this Bill.

Think about some of the other places that might be high-priority areas in the future, such as beaches. Very often, we experience big problems with litter and there are lots of small children on beaches. People have an expectation of fresh air there; that is one of the reasons why they go to the seaside. There are other places where exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke is particularly high. One example is transport hubs, but we can all think of other places where there are real issues and where we might want to keep the possibility of further extension open.

Finally, our medical understanding of the impacts of so-called passive smoking and second-hand cigarette smoke is growing and increasing all the time, and heading in only one direction. I note, for example, that just in the last week a major veterinary provider told pet owners to be aware of the impacts of passive cigarette smoke and vaping on pets. Our understanding of the impacts in this kind of area just keeps growing and growing, so we should not close down the possibilities in the Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 176. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, his Amendment 178 does something very similar. As I have often said, policy should be based on evidence, so this amendment seeks to tease out exactly what evidence the Government plan to use when designating a new area as smoke-free.

The Government have already said that their consultation on further smoke-free areas will focus on schools, playgrounds and hospitals. It is fairly clear that areas in and close to schools should be smoke-free, in the same way that local authorities now have powers to prevent the opening of new fast-food outlets near schools because of the health dangers of much of their sales.

However, some playgrounds are very large and it is possible that a parent waiting on a bench for a child, well away from the play equipment, may want to smoke a cigarette—if they are of legal age, of course. Although it would set a bad example, it would be hard to understand the level of risk to the children playing; it would depend how far away they are. As for hospitals, many of them have already designated their grounds as smoke-free, although it has been hard to enforce. Many of us will have seen people smoking outside St Thomas’ Hospital, underneath the “No smoking” sign. Many hospitals have distinct outdoor smoking shelters. The matter is complicated, which is why my amendment probes the Government on the criteria they will use.

On the other hand, Amendments 175 and 179 seek to specify in the Bill the areas that can be designated as smoke-free. This could restrict the Government from acting in other areas in future. Obviously, we want the same rules in all parts of the UK, to save confusion. There are several reasons why the Government should not be limited in this way, and they must bear in mind the different circumstances that prevail in different areas. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, there are many children on beaches, and discarded cigarettes are a real litter problem, according to coastal local authorities. As she said, transport hubs may also come into focus, because of the crowded conditions in many of them, especially at certain times of the day such as rush hour. We think the Government need flexibility on this issue. Indeed, somebody might be more affected by second-hand smoke in a transport hub than at the far side of a very large playground, which is why I would like to see an evidence test.

We do not support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as the Government may want to restrict smoking in uncovered hospitality areas in the future. However, if they do so they will have to explain the reasons why, and we could debate it then. The fact is that the prohibition on smoking in indoor hospitality venues has proved very popular with customers and landlords alike and has certainly not had a damaging effect on footfall or expansion of the sector. The same might apply to uncovered hospitality areas in the future, if they are considered for the ban.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, all the amendments in this group seek to limit the powers in the Bill to make additional places smoke-free in England. On Amendment 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we know that passive smoking, whether indoors or outdoors, poses a risk to health. The rule of thumb is: if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are inhaling it. This is particularly important for children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

However, despite these well-known and very well-evidenced harms, trying to ascribe specific harms to locations is somewhat challenging, as this debate shows. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, in a large children’s play area it is difficult to evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke has caused a specific harm in a specific place. I can assure noble Lords that we are extremely mindful of this. Therefore, the test referred to in the amendment is overly restrictive, technically very difficult to do and not necessary, given the extensive evidence of harm to vulnerable people. It would also likely lead to a scenario in which we are unable to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harms of second-hand smoke.

Similarly, on Amendment 178, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as I mentioned, we know the harms of passive smoking. There is strong indirect evidence but, as I said, it can be difficult to demonstrate this evidence in specific locations. Again, this restrictive test would prevent areas where there are harms of second-hand smoke to children and medically vulnerable people from becoming smoke-free. Furthermore, as this amendment would apply in England only, it would leave England with more restrictive smoke-free provisions than the devolved nations. 

Amendments 175 and 179 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. As we have made clear but I would like to reiterate, in England we plan to consult on extending smoke-free places as and when. In the first instance, it would be to the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, children’s playgrounds and healthcare settings. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that all proposed smoke-free locations will be subject to consultation both now and into the future and that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will be guided by public health advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly observed that the powers within the Bill allow us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time, particularly where there is evidence of clear harms to children and vulnerable people.

On Amendment 177 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, we have made it very clear—I am glad to take the opportunity to do so again, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that outdoor hospitality settings will not be in scope of the consultation on smoke-free places. We fully recognise the balance that is needed to protect the most vulnerable as well as ensure that businesses are not financially impacted. We are confident that we have the balance right in deciding the places, which I have already outlined, on which we plan to consult.

However, the powers in the Bill, as has been observed, allow for additional places to be designated smoke-free in the future, subject to further consultation and parliamentary debate. The landscape may change significantly on tobacco legislation, as it has done over the years. Evidence and attitudes may also shift, again as we have seen over the years, so it is sensible to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed and can respond to evolving evidence. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.