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.