Baroness Walmsley (LD)

My Lords, despite the comments of the previous two speakers, I will speak to Amendment 199, the purpose of which is simple: to make every future and renewed pavement licence issued by local authorities smoke-free. Your Lordships will recall that pavement licences first appeared during the pandemic, when indoor hospitality was restricted. They gave cafés, pubs and restaurants a lifeline. It seemed obvious that these spaces should follow the same rules as indoors: no smoking. The LGA supported this, saying that “it 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”. It welcomed this national policy because it stopped the stupid situation of allowing people to smoke in a pub pavement area on one side of the road but not on the other if a local authority boundary ran down the middle of the road and they had different policies. Since then, pavement licences have become a permanent fixture. However, after some lobbying from some parts of the hospitality industry, the requirement for smoke-free was removed without proper consultation of health authorities. In 2021, this House supported an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, noting the missed opportunity to make all licences smoke-free. Amendment 199 seeks to honour that vote and ensure that this health-protecting measure is applied consistently. There is currently a requirement for some seating to be smoke-free, but the distinction means very little when you talk about a very small bit of pavement. More than 10 councils have made smoke-free a condition of obtaining a pavement licence, including Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Northumberland County Council and Durham—not outstandingly liberal authorities, as far as I can tell. Feedback shows that customers and businesses welcome the change. In Liverpool, a survey of premises found that 74% of those asked expressed support for the scheme, including many smokers. Councils also aim to reduce cigarette litter with this initiative, which would make outdoor seating areas cleaner, more welcoming environments. Second-hand smoke is harmful at any level. It worsens asthma and other respiratory conditions, and contributes to heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Smoke-free spaces are also popular with the public. Polling from ASH shows that 59% of people support banning smoking in outdoor areas of pubs, cafés and restaurants; indeed, 40% said that they would be more likely to visit these venues if smoking were banned outside. That is more than double the number of people who say that they would go less often, debunking the idea that smoke-free means customer-free. Making outdoor areas smoke-free is not only sensible but what the public want. I regret that this issue is not covered by the recent consultation on smoke-free places. It is a shame that the Government felt that they were not able to include hospitality in that consultation at all and that they fell into this false narrative that smoke-free is somehow an economic threat to hospitality. Less than 12% of the population smoke, so the financial viability of the hospitality industry is clearly not dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco, including outdoors. Indoor smoke-free legislation was a far more drastic intervention, and we heard many of these arguments from those opposed then. However, a survey in 2012 of nearly 5,000 pub customers reported that more than one in five visited the pub more often than before smoke-free legislation. I do hope that the Minister will, in future, consider looking at the pilots for smoke-free pavement licences to assess the economic relationship between the hospitality sector and smoking. As prevalence continues to fall, we must be at a tipping point soon, where these spaces will naturally become smoke-free. This brings me to Amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the potential impact any restrictions will have on hospitality, but in any case, the Government would consult on any use of smoke-free powers as they are doing currently. Moving on, I welcome Amendment 194A from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There is no doubt that the public are keen to see more places where smoking and vaping are prohibited. However, this policy must be pursued not merely to cater to the things that people dislike, but also to ensure that it is addressing matters that are harmful to the public. Clearly, reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke passes that test. While the evidence of exposure to second-hand vapour remains unclear, I think we can agree that reducing any possible risks around children must be prioritised, following careful consultation. In that respect, I do not support Amendments 194 and 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would remove these powers altogether. However, there is a challenge in all of this. Given the high level of public misunderstanding about the difference in harms between vaping and smoking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said—and she is quite right —how do we ensure that in creating vape-free places we do not exacerbate those misconceptions? I talked to a young man the other day who asked me, “What are you doing in the House of Lords?” I explained about this Bill, and he said, “Oh, all my friends vape”. He said, “I think it is just as harmful as smoking, isn’t it?” QED. Of course it is not. I welcome the commitment in the published consultation to treat vaping differently from smoking where it is providing support to smokers to quit. I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that score. Will the Minister say more about how this policy will be communicated to improve public understanding that vaping is less harmful than smoking? How will any exemptions to indoor vaping regulations be used to best effect to encourage more smokers to see vaping as quitting aids? It is disappointing to see only council-run playgrounds included in the ban on smoking in playgrounds. Why should children playing in settings not run by councils not be similarly protected? There are also other places, such as transport hubs, where the public and workers are regularly exposed to other people’s smoke, so are the Government planning to commit to look at these too? Amendment 192A from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is very interesting, but we do not think actors should have to smoke at work. I think it was pointed out in Committee that there are alternative products that can depict smoking for artistic purposes; in particular, I believe that the National Theatre has such a device. If it is good enough for that theatre, it is good enough for me. Moreover, Wales does not have this exemption in place, and it has not harmed Welsh theatres. We do not think that Amendment 193 is appropriate either: most venues are vape- free anyway, and the law is just really catching up. On Amendments 197 and 198, I do not think that heated tobacco should have special exemptions at all. Only 1% of the population use it and it is not recommended by NICE for cessation. However, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister about heated tobacco devices, because I have had a letter expressing some concern that the law is not terribly clear. The advertising offence in the Bill applies to any advert, “whose purpose or effect is to promote … a tobacco product”. So can the Minister confirm that heated tobacco devices—not just sticks—will be caught under this definition, as advertisement of the device might constitute promotion of the tobacco product? I see that in Clause 132 the Government explicitly take the power to extend provisions in Part 6 to tobacco- related devices. I understand that this is to future-proof the advertising restrictions against any innovation in this space, as we know the tobacco industry is likely to use any loopholes. I ask the Minister: why are heated tobacco devices explicitly included in Clause 132? Is it because of the difficulties they have had recently with two big supermarkets advertising heated tobacco products? Is it just the devices they are advertising, or are they simply breaking the law about advertising the tobacco sticks themselves? A little clarification would be most welcome if the Minister could provide it, please.