Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Lord Kamall and Baroness Walmsley

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell and Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard. I will also rehearse arguments in favour of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested there is some confusion about why people might want to ban filters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that a ban is about both public health and environmental considerations.

It has been clearly shown that filters of all kinds have no health benefits whatever. Indeed, I maintain that they are actively harmful to health, but I will come to that later. They are also very costly to public authorities and bad for wildlife and the environment. Filters have been called, by a Back-Bench Member of the government party,

“the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/25; col. 1043.]

because they were formerly advertised—when cigarette advertising was still allowed—as being safer and less harmful to health than cigarettes without filters. This lie has had a long tail because even now only 25% of people understand that they have no health benefits.

As a result of the false perception that the filter—because of its very name as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Bourne—removes some of the tar and other harmful tobacco chemicals, evidence shows that smokers of filtered cigarettes inhale deeper and more frequently. Proof that filters were invented to deceive is the fact that they were deliberately made from a white substance which turns brown when heated, adding to the illusion that they were removing some of the harmful elements from the tobacco smoke. This was deliberately to mislead the smoker.

Filters of all kinds are bad for the environment. The plastic ones in particular contain thousands of toxic substances, including microplastics and nanoplastics. They take up to 10 years to break down in the environment, releasing all these microplastics as well as the 7,000 toxic chemicals from the on average five millimetres of tobacco that remains attached to each butt. These are washed into our soils and water systems and damage marine life, other wildlife and our drinking water.

Microplastics are ubiquitous. They have been found from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. They cause cancer, including colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast and lung cancers, and the levels of them found in human brains—causing who knows what effects—have increased by 50% since 2016, according to pathologists. Even the so-called biodegradable ones contain microplastics in the glue and in any case take a very long time to break down. I deliberately put one in my compost heap, and it was still there a year later. In any case, they, too, always have some tobacco attached. They have zero health benefit and lead to a false sense of security.

The environmental damage is also very costly. We all pay to clean them up when they are discarded through littering; as has been said, local authorities spend £40 million every year, money paid by taxpayers—you and I—which could be better spent on public health and other services. Some 86% of the public and even most smokers believe that manufacturers should switch to fully biodegradable filters rather than plastic ones, but, frankly, I think that is not enough to fix the problem, for the reasons I have outlined.

The killer fact, to coin a phrase, is that there is a strong epidemiological link between the rise in the prevalence of cigarettes containing filters and the proportionate rise of a kind of cancer called adenocarcinoma, while other lung cancers have fallen along with the reduced prevalence of smoking overall. A paper by Min-Ae Song et al published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in America in 2017 analysed 3,284 citations in scientific literature and internal tobacco company documents and concluded thus:

“The analysis strongly suggests that filter ventilation has contributed to the rise in lung adenocarcinomas among smokers. Thus, the FDA should consider regulating its use, up to and including a ban”.


Indeed, such a link had originally been suggested by the surgeon-general as far back as 2014. Therefore, I am inclined to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but at the very least I hope the Government will accept Amendment 34 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell.

On Amendments 141 and 143 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rennard, I hope the Minister will see the sense of consulting on this. Not every cigarette smoked by a child or a young person or an adult smoker comes immediately out of a packet bearing health warnings. Many children, when they start illicit smoking, share a packet among themselves and many never get to see the packet at all. That is why the principle, already accepted by successive Governments, that a health warning on the packet should accompany tobacco-containing products should apply to individual products and not just the packaging. I am aware that the Government plan to make sure that there is an insert in each packet signposting smokers to cessation services and products. This is a welcome positive measure to accompany the deterrent measures of health warnings, but it is not enough. I am sure the first thing many will do is throw away the insert and never read it, as people sometimes do with pills. They cannot throw away the paper that wraps the cigarette. That is why it would be the most effective place to put the warnings.

If you believe that the health warnings on packages work and deter, how much more effective would it be to reinforce that message every time a cigarette is removed from them? A consultation and a review of the evidence of the ban in other countries would be a good idea, and I recommend it to the Minister.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the amendments in their names.

Puberty-suppressing Hormones

Debate between Lord Kamall and Baroness Walmsley

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the right honourable Secretary of State for the careful and sensitive way in which he delivered the Statement in the other place. In line with my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State in the other place, from these Benches we welcome the Government’s announcement. Whatever your politics, most people believe that one of the first duties of any Government is to protect their citizens, especially our children.

As the Secretary of State said, there has been too much heat, and perhaps toxicity, around the issue of services for children experiencing gender dysphoria, so I welcome the tone with which His Majesty’s Government have approached this issue—less heat, more light—and that they continue to take an evidence-based but compassionate approach. I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for leading the review on gender services for children. The Cass review highlighted the importance of putting scientific evidence above ideology and laid out the fact that we simply do not know enough about the long-term impacts of puberty blockers on children. That is why my right honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Louth and Horncastle, when Secretary of State, banned the routine prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, and later extended that ban to private clinics.

We welcome the decision of the Government to follow the recommendations of the independent Commission on Human Medicines to extend the banning order until a safe prescribing environment can be established for these medicines. This is a common-sense approach, and allows time for more evidence to be examined to consider the holistic and long-term impacts of puberty blockers on children. The Secretary of State announced the clinical trials to gather evidence but, given understandable concerns about the risks of any clinical trial, can the Minister reassure your Lordships that these trials will have robust safeguards to ensure the well-being and safety of any children taking part, while recognising the importance of having these trials in the first place?

The Secretary of State in the other place also spoke about alternatives to puberty blockers for children suffering from gender dysphoria. As someone who takes an interest in social prescribing, I welcome the Government’s recognition that medication is not always the best solution, so will the Minister share details of some of the alternatives to puberty blockers that will be offered to children?

Finally, noble Lords will be concerned that, despite the lack of evidence, puberty blockers were prescribed to children with gender dysphoria when their safety could not be guaranteed. What steps are the Government and the NHS taking to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again and that future decisions are led by evidence? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s Statement. I have often said that there are many ways of being human. Growing up can often be a very trying time for teenagers. How much more difficult, then, for those young people with gender distress who are struggling with finding out who they are while being different from their peers, and all without adequate support? It is high time that proper services were put in place for young people struggling alone with these issues. Their families too need help to support them at this difficult time. For too long, children and young people who are struggling with their gender identity have been badly let down by a low standard of care, exceptionally long waiting lists, even by the standard of mental health waiting lists, and an increasingly toxic debate.

We always want to see policy based on the evidence. With any medical treatment, especially for children and young people, the most important thing is to follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is crucial that these sorts of decisions are made by expert clinicians, based on the best possible evidence. It is also important that the results of the consultation and the advice of the Commission on Human Medicines are made public.

Some might wonder why the treatment is deemed not safe for gender dysphoria patients but safe enough for children with early-onset puberty. More transparency might clear up the confusion and give more confidence to patients and their families. However, the Secretary of State himself admits that he does not know what effect the sudden withdrawal of this treatment for young people already embarked on a course of puberty blockers will have. These are the young people with the most urgent need for other types of care in the current situation, so what clinical advice have the Government taken about the effect of withdrawing these drugs on the physical and mental state of young sufferers of gender incongruence already on the drugs, and what physical and psychological support will be offered to them?

In the current circumstances, plans for a clinical trial are welcome, but we would like to know the criteria for those eligible to participate. What assessment have the Government made of the recent Council of Europe report, which raises the ethical and rights implications of offering participation in the trial to only a small group of patients? If the only way to continue access to these drugs is through participation in the clinical trial, whose scope, length and start date have yet to be announced, this lays the Government open to accusations of coercion and breaches of human rights.

We welcome the plans for additional treatment centres in Manchester and Bristol as well as London, but can the Minister say why they will not be up and running for two years? Is it lack of funding, lack of premises or lack of sufficient therapists with the appropriate specialist training? This is a very sensitive area, so the wrong people could do more harm than good. If that is the reason, is there a plan for training up more qualified therapists in time for the opening of the regional treatment centres? I very much look forward to the Minister’s replies to these questions.