Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Thursday 30th October 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeTobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-II(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (30 Oct 2025)
Baroness Northover
“Transparency of tobacco sales data(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring every manufacturer and importer of tobacco products to publish, on a quarterly basis, data relating to the sale of tobacco products in England and Wales.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must in particular include provision requiring publication of—(a) the volume of sales of tobacco products, broken down by product type, brand and geographical region, and(b) such other information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of assessing tobacco consumption and its effects on public health.(3) Data published under regulations under this section must be made publicly available in a format accessible to public health authorities, local authorities, and other relevant bodies.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco companies to publish sales data, to improve transparency and support public health policy.
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.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 194, on a tobacco industry levy and new industry obligations, offers a vital and practical mechanism to make the Bill stronger, fairer and more effective in public health and social justice terms. I am sure there is not a Member present whose family has not been impacted by nicotine addiction, and my family is no exception. The Bill presents an important opportunity to redress the balance between corporate profits gained from selling products that by their very nature kill two-thirds of their users and the burdens placed on wider society that are felt by our health and care systems. Other amendments in this group are based on similar ways of addressing these wider problems and I welcome them. These are problems that, if not addressed, will persist long after the Bill is passed.
My amendment would quite simply make those who profit from harm contribute directly towards repairing it. The tobacco industry continues to generate vast profits from the products it sells and it has huge economic and human suffering costs. I acknowledge that accurate statistical data in these areas is complex, but it has been estimated that the four largest tobacco manufacturers made approximately £900 million in profits annually in the UK, according to one 2023 estimate. I well recognise that tobacco duties are a significant source of government revenue, raising an estimated £8.1 billion in 2025-26, which represents 0.7% of all government receipts and is equivalent to 0.3% of national income. However, this revenue goes towards general taxation.
The health impacts of smoking and nicotine are estimated to cost the UK economy billions of pounds annually, with estimates for England alone reaching up to £43.7 billion if the total societal costs are included and some £2.5 billion in direct service costs for the NHS. These figures are significant and productivity loss and health impacts have big societal impacts. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation a levy on companies’ profits derived from income from the manufacture or sale of tobacco products in the United Kingdom. The levy would apply annually and would be based on profits attributable to tobacco sales here. The funds raised would be paid to a dedicated ring-fenced account held by the Department of Health and Social Care. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, every penny collected would be used solely for the purposes of either smoking cessation services, public health campaigns focused on reducing tobacco harm or healthcare services to treat people living with smoking-related diseases.
It is worth stressing what this amendment would not do. It would not set the rate or the structure of the levy. I have left these details entirely for the Government to determine. The measure is not prescriptive; it would simply establish the legislative framework and would allow Ministers to design and introduce a fair and proportionate levy. It would give the Government flexibility to decide, for example, whether the levy should be assessed by company profits, by market share or by a combination of the two approaches. It would equally be left to the Treasury to investigate and decide, with Ministers, the best way to implement it. The principle of the amendment is the important point, and it is clear. The principle is that the tobacco companies, and not the general taxpayer, should contribute directly the greatest proportion of the cost of the harm that their products cause. It would align, as has been said on other amendments today, with the “polluter pays” model, which is endorsed by health experts across the field. The estimate is that £700 million could be generated annually to help transform smoking cessation services and public awareness campaigns, services that have been hit by cuts.
Although the level of smoking is reducing, some 13% of the UK population still smokes. This has significant impacts. For example, Imperial tobacco holds 40% of the UK market; that market is worth £30 billion annually. Meanwhile, on the other side, the NHS and the Treasury have to deal with the societal consequences of what tobacco does.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, I want to reflect for a moment on the extraordinary lengths to which tobacco companies will go to sell their products, including getting children addicted to nicotine. When I look at this Bill and the amendments to it, I see the extraordinary lengths to which government must then go in order to combat that.
Turning to the amendments in this group, we have heard three excellent speeches. I do not want to repeat any of the points made but wish to pick up one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It concerns the importance of the government side of this combat, if you like, between the tobacco companies and government. Put simply, the Government should have the data that is available so that they can hone their arguments in the continuing wrestle that we are seeing around this set of topics.
I very much support that amendment. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the “polluter pays” principle. Again, this seems practical to me; we heard the Minister refer to it as such at an earlier period, I believe. However, there are three terribly simple arguments, although I do not want to add to the detail. First, there is the principle that the polluter should pay for the damage. That is a very simple statement; it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, been used in other circumstances. There is very considerable damage, and it is very easily measured.
The second argument is to reduce the incentives for tobacco companies. As I have commented before, if only we could get the tobacco companies to use all their guile and manoeuvring to improve health rather than damage it. Perhaps there are things that government can learn from the way in which tobacco companies seek to influence the public.
The third argument is, of course, to support public health. Another good reason for this is to provide that money to support public health and at the same time the public purse. Finally, I note that tobacco companies probably come under the category of those with broad shoulders, so I ask the Minister whether we might expect to hear a line or two about this in the forthcoming Budget.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I stand with some trepidation on this one, but I will give it a go. I have some reservations about this series of amendments. On Amendment 12, I have a lot of sympathy with having more transparency as a general principle, but I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, how we would deal with having a dangerous precedent on the commercial confidentiality and sensitivities, for any company, and what can and cannot be revealed. Asking for information is one thing; mandating it is a whole different ball game. Many companies hold data close to themselves, as they are allowed to, because they are private entities. It is a legal thing to do and there are reasons, beyond malevolent ones, why that might occur.
I am particularly concerned about Amendments 192 and 194. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, tobacco companies already pay, or are responsible for, substantial duties that are collected. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the “polluter pays” principle—or, at least, it is quite complicated. It sounds virtuous, and in some instances I might well support it, but when I was reading these amendments I kept thinking, perhaps because of my left-wing, Marxist background, “Oh my God, this is a new form of legal wealth distribution by force”. It felt to me as though we were saying: “Forget economic growth. We’re just going take more from legal companies, but it’s all right because they are evil companies”.
In the words that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used about his more specific amendments on what the money should be used for, if I may put it that way, I recognised an argument that I came across from Cancer Research. It has been very helpful in its briefings on the Bill and, in many instances, I agree with what it is putting forward. But in this instance, it said:
“At a time when funding for public health initiatives is limited, this proposal raises money without directly costing the taxpayer. Given the current economic challenges, this presents an opportunity for the Government to act decisively, should it choose to seize it”.
I kept thinking of this as a way of avoiding crises in public health, or in the NHS, by simply not resolving what should be an adequate health service for everyone while turning to private companies instead and trying to compensate for that. That is a dangerous precedent. Private companies should not let the state off the hook for what it should be doing, because those public health services should be provided by the state, regardless.
The fact that there is an economic crisis at the moment cannot just be meted out to companies that we do not like. I realise that tobacco companies have for some time been treated as especially evil, malevolent and harmful, but if you enter other debates and read the briefings of lobbying groups on other issues, you will hear similar moralistic arguments used about sugary foods, junk food, alcohol, gambling and even fossil fuels. I read a fascinating paper the other day which basically said that fossil fuels were killing us all and should be closed down, and so on. That is the kind of language being used.
I therefore worry about setting a precedent for a moralised hierarchy of legislators deciding which are the evil companies, and who gets to decide that, with a punishment then meted out. I say this because, briefly, I was a bit disturbed the other day at some mention of a report by KPMG. The data in it was dismissed as being from a report produced for Philip Morris, the tobacco company, as if that somehow closed down any possibility of a discussion—that having said that, the report could be laughed off. The idea that all you have to do is say the name of a tobacco company, and then close down valuable information, is quite dangerous.
It thought that was particularly unfair on KPMG. I am not necessarily a great fan of the big four accountancy firms, but they certainly have reputations. To write them off as being in bed with the evil Philip Morris, so that we take no notice of what they do, seemed a little unfair. If that were the case, have the Government let KPMG know that this is their view of it—especially since KPMG is a supplier to the Government, as I understand it, focusing on Civil Service training and economic matters? KPMG might have a case to answer on those things, but it should not be written off as a company because it has done some work for Philip Morris.
Neither is it appropriate for our discussions to always assume that everything a tobacco company says or does is evil because of the nature of the product. The product is harmful and contributes to cancer in many people—I know that—but if this Government believe that the tobacco companies are so uniquely evil that they are killing the population, they should have the courage of their conviction, make them illegal and ban them, not take their taxes and have it all ways.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Normal service is probably about to be resumed. I am on a different page from her on this issue.
These amendments give me the opportunity to clarify my position on the Bill. I fear that my previous opposition to the age-escalator provision in the Bill, meaning that some adults will never be able to purchase tobacco legally, has been misrepresented by some as a general objection to any form of regulation or restriction on tobacco. I state clearly that that is not the case. That is why I support all amendments in this group—Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by my noble friend Lady Northover, Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell.
I come back to something the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said regarding the point made by my noble friend Lady Northover about data. If this was unique, some of those issues would need to be explored further, but this is not a first. For example, the water and energy companies have to give to the regulator investment details, asset details, investment plans and details of their costs and profits. This happens without commercial sensitivities going by the way. The amendments, particularly Amendments 192 and 194, generally represent a necessary and proportionate intervention to correct a profound fiscal and health imbalance, which is weighted too heavily in favour of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry in the UK operates with a near monopoly, as many noble Lords have said, on selling an addictive product. The market structure allows them to generate excessive profits. They extract nearly £900 million per year in profit, while contributing little in terms of corporate tax to the Exchequer.
Simultaneously, the societal costs of smoking are vast, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Russell identified, with the NHS bearing the immediate cost of approximately £1.8 billion per year. The current system places the entire tax burden on the consumer and the taxpayer, while the manufacturer enjoys excessive returns. That is not only a moral wrong but an economic failure that government has a duty to correct.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in support of the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, there is ample evidence of successful earlier levies, contrary to what the noble Baroness suggested. They include levies on landfill and soft drinks as well as provisions following Grenfell, as my noble friend said. In the gambling industry, there is also a very successful levy. Nor is it a unique matter to require companies to publish data, with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, correctly naming water and energy as two examples.
I can quite see why the Minister is attracted to the idea of the levy. In this hard-pressed time, we have hard-pressed taxpayers about to be even more hard pressed; they should not have to pay for the gap in public resources for public health. Nevertheless, there is a gap in the public health budget that needs to be filled—and this will fill it. I can therefore see why the Minister is attracted to it. There is also of course the incalculable harm that is caused by the industry—whether one calls it evil or not. As the noble Baroness mentioned, two-thirds of people who smoke will ultimately die from it—that to me can be characterised as evil. It certainly causes harm, and that harm needs to be dealt with.
So I strongly support this group of amendments. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Northover, and Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, concern publishing data. They seem eminently sensible. However, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment would provide a means of getting the polluter to pay. That is something we should seek to do because, as noble as the aims of this legislation are, there is a big gap in spending. I do not see why the taxpayer should have to pay for this, but I can quite see why the industry should; I hope, therefore, to hear from the Minister that that is going to happen.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of our Benches, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 12. I also support Amendment 148, of course, although my name is not on it yet; I have a bit of a track record on changing “may” to “must”, so I am very much in favour of that amendment.
As my noble friend said, the tobacco industry sits on a rich source of data that would help public health planners and practitioners to plan and deliver public health smoking cessation services in a granular way. That could help to reduce inequalities, so my noble friend’s Amendments 12 and 148 are no-brainers for the Government in the fight against health inequality, which I know they are in favour of winning. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, if you have the data, you have a powerful weapon; the industry uses it and the Government should have it.
The data would also shine a light on the massive profits of the tobacco companies, which saw the writing on the wall about the decline of tobacco smoking and shifted part of their business model to hooking young people and existing smokers into being addicted to their nicotine vaping products instead. They then surrounded them with brightly coloured packaging, attractive-sounding flavours and masses of expensive advertising. One has to wonder why they spend so much money on advertising and the attractive displays in my local village shops. Ah, yes—it must be because that enables them to hook people to their profitable products for life.
These profits are addressed in Amendment 192 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and in my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 194, which I also support. Both amendments propose a levy on the profits of tobacco companies. Tobacco and the nicotine it contains are uniquely harmful products, which is why they should be treated in this way. They are highly addictive for some people from their very first use, by the way; that is sometimes ignored. Tobacco kills more than 76,000 people in England every year—that is almost as many as were killed by Covid in just one year, in 2020—and the four manufacturers that are responsible for most of the UK’s tobacco sales make excessive profits that require regulation. It has been said that they make an estimated profit of £900 million a year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%; as my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, most manufacturers of other goods are quite satisfied with an average of 10%. Yet those companies currently pay very little corporation tax in the UK. The tobacco tax of £6.8 billion that they pay does not even scratch the surface of the harm they do; as has been pointed out, that tax is paid by the consumer and not by the producer.
In other areas of society, polluters are required to avoid and minimise pollution and to pay to clean it up. Tobacco companies make no effort to do either. In other monopoly situations, such as energy supply, the Government intervene, yet tobacco companies get away scot free, despite the fact that their products cost the NHS £1.82 billion annually and the ill health caused by them causes major suffering to individuals and families; they also have a major effect on productivity and the economy, costing society in England £43.7 billion a year.
Given this Government’s objectives on growth, I would have thought that a “polluter pays” tobacco levy would be very popular with them, as it is with the general public, 76% of whom support the policy. It could raise up to £700 million per year to fund vital smoking cessation and wider public health activities, as my noble friend Lord Russell suggests in his amendment. It could prevent industry manipulating prices to undermine the health aims of tobacco taxes. A levy would make tobacco less profitable in the UK and reduce industry incentives to lobby against government actions to achieve a smoke-free country. I know that they are very clever lobbyists. Although I trust that this Government will resist such lobbying, this would ensure that the cost burden of taxes is not shifted to consumers because a levy alongside a cap on manufacturer pricing would prevent manufacturers passing the costs on to consumers.
Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, alongside obesity caused by poor diet. Investing in the resources raised by the levy to help smokers quit, as in Amendment 194, will support the Government’s ambitions to halve the difference in healthy life expectancy and shift healthcare from treatment to prevention, an ambition outlined strongly in the Government’s 10-year health plan.
These amendments are very much in line with what the Government want. I hope that they will have the courage to accept them. The key principle is that the revenue to tackle the harms of tobacco should come from the industry, not the poor, addicted and often sick consumer, and the cost of the damage caused by tobacco should certainly not come from the taxpayer.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses common themes: the regulation of the tobacco industry, its profits and its reporting obligations. Collectively, these raise important questions about transparency, fairness, proportionality and the limits of state intervention.
Beginning with Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, these concern the provision and publication of information by tobacco manufacturers and importers. We recognise the intent behind these amendments: to improve the quality and availability of data so that public health policy can be better informed. Data, transparency and evidence-based policy-making are essential to an effective tobacco control strategy. However, would these amendments enable us to achieve that? Requiring every manufacturer and importer to publish detailed quarterly sales data broken down by product type, brand and region would give us more information, but how useful would it be? The Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already have access to significant data from HMRC such as market surveys and other reporting systems. The question usefully begged by this amendment is whether there are any gaps in that data that could usefully be filled.
This brings me to Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seeks to change Clause 95 so that the Secretary of State “must” rather than “may” make regulations requiring producers and importers to provide information about their products. I would like an answer to my earlier question before I jump one way or the other on that amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which she has tabled it. Having more data would certainly be useful, but we need to know exactly what data before we compel companies across the board to do one thing or another. It is generally better to provide Ministers with flexibility, allowing them to act where there is a clear and proportionate need, without imposing automatic or universal obligations on every business regardless of its size or nature.
Earl Russell (LD)
I appreciate the noble Earl’s point about duties versus levies. Might he be open to considering a percentage of duties being hypothecated for smoking cessation? Might that be a way of squaring the circle?
Earl Howe (Con)
It certainly could be—it sounds a very interesting way forward. I did not take it that the noble Earl was suggesting introducing a levy as a substitute for tobacco duty but as an addition to it, so, in the nature of things, if this were accepted, that is the mix we would get.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.
Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.
I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.
I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.
Moving on to Amendment 12—
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Houdini would be jealous of the way the Minister ingeniously escaped the trap I set for her earlier, as she tried to reconcile her previous position with what she is now saying. But does she accept that the amendment does not at all ask the Government to introduce a levy? It says:
“The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability”.
That would enable the Government, and indeed others, to look at some of the issues that the Minister has raised. The 2014 exercise she referred to consulted on a totally different levy, which would have been passed on to the consumer. The difference between the “polluter pays” principle as we propose it and the one that she proposes is that in the case we prefer, it would be the tobacco manufacturers that would pay, whereas relying on the duty, as the Minister seems to, means that the consumer pays.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree that Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, would require the Government to consult on introducing a tobacco industry levy, but, as a former Minister himself, he will be aware of the use of consultation. It remains the case that we believe that the most effective model of dealing with tobacco products is through increases in tobacco duty, so it would not be logical to accept an amendment that requires a consultation on something the Government do not wish to pursue. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Government to make regulations to introduce a tobacco industry levy.
Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to publish quarterly data relating to the sale of tobacco products across England and Wales. Similarly, Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require regulations made under Clause 95 to require the provision of certain information, including sales data from producers or importers of relevant products. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke in support of these amendments.
This is perhaps an opportunity to refer back to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I heard her concerns about what I said on day one. This is not a question of labelling an industry in any way, but we take very seriously our obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I and the Government are very sympathetic to attempts to increase and improve the transparency of the tobacco industry.
I certainly agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We know that deprived areas are more likely to have lower life expectancy and higher smoking rates. That is why we particularly need to press forward with this legislation. It is also why we routinely and proactively publish correspondence received from and sent to the tobacco industry, and have produced guidance for the Government on engagement with the tobacco industry, which protects health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry and encourages transparency in all interactions.
Lord Scriven (LD)
That is an important point. When will the consultation end? Will we have its results before we are asked to give this Bill its Third Reading?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will gladly come back to the points that the noble Lord has just made, if he will allow me. In the meantime, there is no doubt as to the intention and ambition of each of the amendments before us, but it is the Government’s view that they either are unnecessary, due to existing powers, or would risk introducing complexity and unintended consequences; they would not do the job that I know we all want them to do. Once again, I assure noble Lords that we remain committed to reducing smoking, to improving public health and to ensuring transparency around the tobacco industry’s activities.
In so doing—this is perhaps the overall point of this group—I can say that the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is 3 December 2025 on which we can set that date for the call for evidence to close. What I am trying to say to noble Lords is that that is very soon. In answer to the noble Lord’s concerns about how long these things might take—
Lord Scriven (LD)
My question to the Minister was slightly different. It was not about when the consultation will close. It was about whether we would have the results and the Government’s view before Third Reading. That is the critical question—not, “When will the consultation close?”
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord will be glad to know that I am reminded of what I should know already: matters in relation to the dates for Third Reading are matters for business managers. It will also depend on how much progress we make.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I ask for a brief clarification. Is the Minister claiming that Amendment 12 is not necessary because she will accept Amendment 148?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
No, that is not the case. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this group is about the polluter paying and responsibility across a wide range of areas. On Amendment 12, on the practice of disclosing sales data, it is already in place in the United States—full data to the Government and partial to public sources. It is also the practice in Canada, so there is precedent for that. It is not seen as an unreasonable burden, but it is a useful public health tool. It is important to know, for public health reasons, which I and others have outlined, where sales are high.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to growth. She might want to consider the economic and growth consequences of the ill-health costs to individuals, families and the NHS and the death that results for so many consumers of tobacco products, then factor that in when she is looking at growth in the United Kingdom. Tobacco kills, which she rightly referred to. I do not need to refer her to the cancer registries—that is self-evident. It is therefore appropriate that we address this. As a former student of Marx, as she identifies herself, she will be very familiar with the notion of exploitation, particularly of the poor and already disadvantaged, to which I have referred, and the difference at the moment in outcomes between groups in terms of equality.
This is an important area. We are seeking to strengthen the Government’s arm, as is always the case when you move from “may” to “must”. We look forward to further discussions with the Minister on how best we do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
“Ban on manufacture of high-strength oral nicotine products (1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength oral nicotine product. (2) In this section “high-strength oral nicotine product” means a nicotine product that—(a) is intended for oral use,(b) is not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and(c) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment bans the manufacture of nicotine pouches containing more than 20mg of nicotine.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom I am grateful. Together, these amendments seek to prohibit the manufacture, sale and supply of high-strength oral nicotine products—those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion—and empower HMRC officers to seize and detain such products before they reach consumers.
The reason for these probing amendments can be summarised by a BBC article in July which told the story of Finn, a 17 year-old who started using nicotine pouches after getting bored of vaping. What began as curiosity quickly became addiction. He described how he and his friends would use pouches so strong—some claiming to contain 150 milligrams of nicotine each—that they would vomit or become physically immobilised. At school, he hid them under his lip, until one day he turned “bright green” in class and had to run out of the room. His mouth, he said, was “shredded to bits”.
This is not an isolated case. Recent data suggests that use among 16 to 24 year-olds has risen sharply in recent years, a deeply worrying trend. These pouches come in bright tins, flavoured with mango ice or bubble gum, and are marketed as clean, safe, and discreet. In reality, some of these products are many times stronger than a cigarette and far more addictive. This is a form of nicotine ingestion which is socially acceptable and often unnoticeable. Children can and do consume these products, sometimes even in class.
The point is not that nicotine pouches have no legitimate role at all. For adult smokers trying to quit, properly regulated products can have a place as part of the harm reduction strategy and a pathway off smoking. Although the Minister knows that my classical, liberal views mean that I am generally against banning things I do not like, what we have at present is the sale of nicotine products that are so strong that dentists have reported that they can burn gums, cause lesions and even expose the roots of teeth.
For these reasons, more reputable manufacturers already limit their products to under 20 milligrams per pouch. They also want a market that encourages and rewards responsible production, and which acts against rogue operators flooding the market with dangerously high-strength pouches. These probing amendments suggest a possible, sensible and enforceable ceiling that would align with good industry practice and give clarity to both regulators and retailers.
However, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of these products is only part of the solution. Unless enforcement agencies have the statutory power to act, those prohibitions risk becoming little more than words on a page. That is why our amendment to Clause 88 proposes that HMRC officers should be explicitly empowered to seize and detain high-strength nicotine pouches, preventing them entering the market in the first place. I know that the Government have indicated that they recognise the need for action in this area; this amendment probes the Government on how they intend to address concerns over these high-nicotine products.
Do the Government think that we should rely on downstream enforcement after these products have already reached young people? That is my first question for the Minister. My second question is: do the Government agree with the sentiment of the amendment on the need to address this issue at the border, where these goods are entering the country in large quantities, especially by giving HMRC the clear legal authority to do so? Thirdly, do the Government see the need for immediate action, or will they require a series of future consultations? Finally—I know that I am asking a lot of questions—do the Government believe that it is more effective to have a firm and immediate statutory assurance in this Bill, in order both to allow these products to be controlled and to give enforcement agencies the clarity that they need to act?
These amendments can be seen an opportunity to protect people, in particular young people, before they become addicted instead of punishing them afterwards. It is about ensuring that, if these products are so dangerous, they should not be able simply to be bought over the counter or ordered online. I recognise that all tobacco products may to some extent be classified as dangerous—or, at the very least, as not good for you— but the products at which these probing amendments are aimed are particularly dangerous. I am, therefore, interested in the Minister’s answers; in the Government’s position on high-nicotine pouches; and in how the Government intend to address the concerns here, as exemplified by Finn’s story. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendments 13 to 15. I apologise for not adding my name to Amendments 139 and 140, but I strongly support them.
I added my name to this group of amendments because I did not know an awful lot about oral nicotine. I was talking to a group of university students about my strong dislike of vaping. They introduced me to the subject and told me—they were at several different universities—that many university students use vapes almost continuously for lots of different reasons.
A lot of my concerns are around the impact on young people. Growing up, I remember the TV adverts that showed all the damage that smoking would do to your lungs, with images such as the pouring out of a glass of tar, but I am not sure that young people necessarily understand the impact that vaping will have on them. I am concerned about the high levels of nicotine in these products, but I am also concerned about the potential for vaping to lead to addiction and cardiovascular issues such as increased blood pressure.
I have read the same report as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. It mentions young people talking about using vapes until they vomit. The report talks about a young man, Finn, using vapes and says that they immobilise the individual—especially when they use two or three in one go—which is not at all the intended consequence of them. Finn goes on to say:
“You feel this burning sensation against your gums, and then you get the hit”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, these products have impacts on oral health, including gum disease and gum recession. Vaping is also linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, such as oral, pancreatic and oesophageal cancers. It can also have, potentially, a negative effect on adolescent brain development.
My problem with these products is that they are so easy to hide. The fact that children in school are able to use these products should be cause for concern, because young people are talking about sweating, salivating and struggling to concentrate. These products that should not be anywhere around young people. There is also a lot of discussion about how they can be used as a gateway to vaping or smoking. There is a lot of debate around how vaping and smoking are meant to be helping each other, but I have concerns about that as well.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. We know that nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is one of the most addictive substances there is, even in small quantities. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made the point that people use it for cessation of tobacco or cigarette smoking. That is true, but the dosage, even of 20 milligrams, is too high. High doses of nicotine cause serious diseases, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. But apart from that, in older people it causes higher risk of cardiovascular disease, not just by increasing heart rate and blood pressure but by making platelets stickier and leading to higher levels of fibrinogen, which increases the risk of forming a clot. This is a good amendment and there is no reason, to my mind, why the Minister should resist it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have made some interesting cases probing the issue of the high nicotine content of pouches. However, it is worth noting that Cancer Research does not support these amendments. It says that there may well be a need for a deeper dive into the evidence, but it stresses something that has been missed in some of the debates we have had so far, certainly at Second Reading: it is tobacco that is the cancer-causing ingredient in cigarettes.
Nicotine patches do not contain tobacco. Nicotine is addictive, but the overall evidence does not support a direct causal link between nicotine and cancer: it is not carcinogenic. That is what the scientific evidence seems to show, and it comes from anti-tobacco lobbying groups and people whom I would not necessarily usually cite. It is noted that nicotine products and pouches are being used as recreational products, but they are also helpful for smoking cessation.
We have to consider what we are doing with the Bill. The NHS itself calls nicotine “relatively harmless”, and, in his 2022 review, Dr Javed Khan said that
“the government must facilitate access to the various already available safer alternative nicotine products such as nicotine pouches”.
We therefore have to be careful about demonising these things, because it is not straightforward.
There is a danger throughout the Bill—it will come up in other groups—of a constant slippage between tobacco and nicotine. Sometimes that occurs through a discussion around addiction. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks about this—she talked about the problems of addiction on our first day in Committee—because the Bill is not necessarily tackling addiction; it is tackling harms. There is a danger that we get confused between that addiction, which, as I say, many people in the health professions do not see as a problem per se, and what we are targeting. I am worried that that slippage between nicotine and tobacco, between vapes and smoking cigarettes, leads to an unscientific mishmash of misinformation that, ironically, can damage public health.
In relation to young people using pouches until they vomit, young people use lots of things until they vomit. They can overuse a range of things, not helpfully, but it does not necessarily mean that the product itself is always the problem: sometimes, it can be youthful lack of restraint, which one might want to intervene in but not necessarily through the law.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support these amendments but also agree with my noble friend Lord Patel that there is probably no reason to have oral pouches at all. It is something that we could carefully consider deleting from our society. If you are trying to withdraw from tobacco, nicotine patches are just as effective as pouches and do not cause the problems that have been so readily described today. While the debate has been going on, I looked back, and it was 1950 when Sir Richard Doll proved the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It has therefore taken us 75 years to get to this point, with the Bill. There is sufficient evidence in relation to pouches for us not to decide that we need a 75-year prospective trial to show their damage.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment, and I have a question for those who have tabled it, which relates to proposed new subsection (2)(b), saying the product is
“not intended to be inhaled or chewed”.
I am afraid that as someone who has been looking at tobacco control measures for many years now, through legislation, I am slightly concerned that, as we get rid of one thing, the nicotine manufacturers will find another way of bringing in a substance that is, in effect, addictive, which is promoted to young people, and is a way to get them started on the inevitable chain of addiction that leads to promotion.
When we look at the evidence around nicotine, we see that, yes, it is highly addictive, but the other thing that happens with an addictive substance is that you become tolerant to the effect, to that boost. Therefore, the addict seeks higher and higher doses to get a greater and greater hit. In the long term, as my noble friend Lord Patel pointed out, it is not only blood pressure and so on; there is a problem with platelet stickiness. We do not know what this will do in the microvasculature in the brain in the long term, because these high-dose nicotine products have not been around long enough and we have not had enough brains that have come to post-mortems—I am sorry to put it so bluntly—of people who have been using them for a long time. The hit that they get is greater than they would get from smoking a cigarette.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to clarify how we make policy based on evidence if that evidence is unknown unknowns about what might possibly be the problem with something. It is absolutely the case that, where there is proof of harm, evidence is given and medical papers are produced. They have not been produced on this issue—I have looked—so it would be useful to see lots of peer-reviewed evidence that showed harm. To suggest that something could be a harm because we have not had long enough to find out whether it is a harm does not seem to be the basis of sensible evidence-based policy.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I completely take that criticism; it is a fair comment. However, we know the damage to the brain microvasculature from smoking over the long term and that these substances are highly addictive. We also know that when we previously took through tobacco control measures, we never anticipated vapes or pouches. The evidence therefore is that those producing nicotine products are very imaginative and creative, and there is concern about this being used as a gateway to further addictive products. That is why I question whether proposed new subsection (2)(b) is necessary or adds anything to Amendment 13, which otherwise should be strongly supported.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have a great sympathy for this group of amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. There should be a limit on the strength of nicotine products which are legally for sale. Some of those products are clearly, from what we have heard from other noble Lords, very dangerous to both physical and mental health. The evidence is emerging on that.
Limiting the strength of something is not a new idea. Strength limits and price controls have been put on various alcoholic drinks, such as white cider, which has been particularly responsible for problem drinking. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I am concerned about nicotine pouches and young people, because their packaging and flavours make them look like sweets, making them appear very attractive to children. I accept that only a small percentage of tobacco product users buy this form of tobacco product, but a high proportion of those users are young people.
There is not much evidence yet of the effectiveness of such pouches as a smoking quitting tool; they are nowhere near as effective as nicotine patches or vapes. Apparently, only about 3% of quitting efforts are based on them. In fact, you do not need a high concentration for these things to work; nicotine patches work for many users, and they are not particularly strong. However, there are clear dangers with these very strong products. Perhaps this is an area where we need further evidence, so can the Minister say whether it will be covered in the Government’s recent call for further evidence on measures in the Bill? Before we go forward to the next stage, perhaps we could get the results of that consultation.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these points and for bringing forward the amendments to Committee today. Listening to Finn’s story from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it is important that we always bear in mind that we are talking about real young people and children and the actual harms that can come to them.
Amendments 13, 14, 15, 139 and 140 seek to introduce a ban on manufacture, sale and possession with intent to supply high-strength oral nicotine products, specifically those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion. I say from the outset that we are sympathetic to noble Lords trying to define the correct and safe nicotine level of a nicotine pouch—we need to address that. As we have heard, unlike with nicotine vapes, there is currently no set nicotine limit for nicotine pouches, and nicotine strengths can be as high as 150 milligrams, with the harm that goes with that. There is also significant variation in these strengths internationally.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; I welcome their thoughtful discussion and the important points that a number of them made. As I said earlier, this was a difficult group for me to put into words, in moving this amendment, because, as many noble Lords will know, I tend to take a classical, liberal perspective on many things and I do not like banning things.
The intention of the amendments in this group was to probe the Government on whether they believe that action to address these products, which have such high levels of nicotine that they lead to consumers vomiting, is required sooner rather than later; dentists also warn that these products physically burn gums, cause lesions and expose the roots of teeth. In probing the Government, the intention was to set clear, enforceable limits rather than pursuing an outright ban.
These probing amendments were aimed at achieving a balance between taking dangerous products off the market when they are easily obtained by young people and allowing properly regulated, lower-strength products to continue to help people come off smoking. However, one of the advantages of probing amendments is that you are able to test your argument and to hear other arguments—either those in favour, which reinforce your view, or those that challenge your view.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Finlay, for raising their concerns about pouches. That is an important point. We should understand whether the Government believe that nicotine pouches can play a role and that they are an effective pathway off smoking. Given that vaping is probably seen as the thing that the Government would promote most as a pathway off tobacco, that would be a very interesting conversation to have.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because she made some interesting points in sharing the evidence from, I believe, Cancer UK. She also posed some questions. What are we trying to achieve here? Are we trying to address the harms of tobacco or are we trying to tackle addiction? Should we be tackling addiction or harm? These are important points. What is more harmful? That seems to be the debate in this Room: we agree that tobacco is harmful, but how harmful is nicotine? That needs to come out a bit more, perhaps, as we debate the Bill more.
I am grateful to the Minister for answering directly some of the questions that I put to the Government. That was really important. Having listened to the Minister, and to the many noble Lords who challenged the intentions behind these probing amendments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the reasoning for the minimum age prescribed in Clause 10, in the light of the Government’s intention to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is not able to be here to move this amendment. For me, this amendment falls in a slightly odd group. I thought that it would be in the first group; then I thought that it was going to be in the group before. It has ended up in this group. I shall talk briefly about this amendment; I will then speak on what this group is actually about, which is a different set of concerns.
The point of this amendment is to ask whether lowering the voting age to 16 would add a layer of complexity to the discussion around any age-gating that is happening in relation to either the generational smoking ban or the sale of vapes and so on. This issue obviously intersects with questions around autonomy, responsibility and any kind of consistency that we might have in relation to how we treat young people.
A lot of concerns have already been raised today, in our debate on the first group, about young people and whether they are mature enough—that is, the vulnerability of young people and so on—but, if 16 year-olds are deemed mature enough to vote and to influence laws that affect society, that strengthens the argument against denying them the right to make personal choices about a range of things; those things could include smoking, let alone vaping. Denying them such a right when they have the right to vote—which implies, we hope, a level of rational decision-making capacity—would seem to be contradictory. So this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is a probing one; it would be interesting to hear the Government’s response to it. There is a danger of there being confusion around age, and around whom we think we are protecting from harm, with this contradiction in terms of a different government policy on voting.
I will now talk about the amendments in this group that make a bit more sense to me. I am very supportive of, and put my name to, Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It looks at the issue of a ban on all vending machines and whether there can be some exemptions. I urge the Government to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to prevent the unintended consequences I believe there will be if the legislation carries on with this ban. Surely this law wants to ensure that safer alternatives to smoking are available, especially in environments where they might help people resist having a cigarette, such as hospitals and, in particular, mental health settings.
I am reluctant to push this too much because it is the noble Lord’s amendment, but I cannot work out how else I can speak to it. I ask the Minister whether there is a danger that we are imposing measures on tobacco and vaping—this follows on from what we have just been talking about—without clarity about the differing relative harms of each product. The ban on vaping machines talks to a conflation of products, which I am concerned about.
Vending machines containing vaping products have been used very successfully in mental health settings, providing patients who would otherwise be smoking with a route to giving up. Therefore, an exemption to the vending machine ban for healthcare settings—which, by the way, is supported by the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, which is a coalition of 27 health and mental health organisations and includes some of the major royal colleges—seems to be something of a no-brainer, as they say.
I started my professional life working in mental health and went on to work in education in psychiatric hospitals for a period. When you first start working with people with severe mental health conditions, who may be sectioned into hospitals, or those with terrible debilitating illnesses such as schizophrenia, the thing that you notice—I remember noticing this when I was young—is just how much they smoke. Chain-smoking is almost part of the condition. All of us who worked with the mentally ill were always concerned that not only were they suffering these terrible psychotic illnesses, but they were smoking so much. The irony was that you also knew that it was part of calming them down; that was how they were able to cope with the heavy medication, the psychosis and so on.
I am not making a case here for smoking cigarettes, because it is fantastic—is it not?—that we have found a substitute for smoking cigarettes for a group of people in society who are already suffering terrible mental health problems, which is vapes. We are therefore talking about a group of people who, by the way, are often locked up in hospitals, having access to those vapes. That is what the vending machines for vapes mean, and it is why, I think, so many people are very enthusiastic about this. There are a couple of amendments so I will just say quickly that that is why this amendment is really important.
I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 21 in this group in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on minimum pricing of vaping products. The noble Earl assures me that his £30 vape is ultimately cheaper than constantly restocking. He also says it is easier to use. I have two thoughts on that. First, £30 as a minimum price is rather an expensive upfront cost for the people whom we keep hearing that everybody cares about: poor people. Generally, the problem with poor people is that they have not got enough money. We should have a thriving economy where they can earn money through jobs.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 in this group.
There is merit in thinking about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which was so effectively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We send very confusing messages generally to young people in society about the age of responsibility. Voting has one age. We recently changed the marriage age. Other things are allowed or prohibited at the age of 16. There is a proposal that the voting age should be reduced to 16, as it has been already in either Scotland or Wales. These are very confusing messages about the age of responsibility. We should not carry on arbitrarily creating bans for young people without some coherence. The amendment tabled by my noble friend certainly brings that to the fore and should be used by the Government to encourage serious thought about this.
Turning to my own Amendment 18, I will take in with it the two amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, though glancingly only, as I have not prepared anything to say about them. I rope them in with mine as all three have in common that whenever one introduces a sweeping ban or a blunt instrument, there are cases where unintended consequences arise that should be addressed through some careful attention to what exceptions should be allowed. My amendment focuses on healthcare settings, particularly mental healthcare settings, which will include establishments where people are detained. They may be voluntarily detained, in a sense. I am familiar with these, for reasons which I do not need to go into, having had cause to visit such settings in the past. Even those who are voluntarily detained are gently voluntarily detained. Wandering outside the building is not encouraged, even for voluntary patients, and is not allowed for those who are detained under the Mental Health Act.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said, such people are very often smokers, and hospital settings are an appropriate place to encourage smoking cessation programmes. That is what many mental health settings actually do.
The essential point I want to make is that we are discussing vaping, and the Bill does not ban vaping. Around this Committee, we have an unclear mental attitude towards vaping. There are those who see it as something almost as bad as smoking, and there are others who see it as a positive solution—as it has been for me personally—for those who want to give up smoking. We need to realise that vaping has a very important place in smoking cessation—it is the Government’s policy to recognise that—and that there are places, such as institutions, where vending machines might be the only means by which people can have access to vape products, which would be beneficial as an alternative to smoking.
My amendment, and I think those of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, are intended to probe this issue, to ask the Government whether they recognise that a general ban on vaping machines might have unintended consequences, and to test whether they are willing to listen to arguments and representations about where exceptions might be appropriate.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 21, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name in support of it. The amendment would establish a £30 minimum retail price for vaping products. This vital proposal is a means of addressing the mounting environmental crisis from disposable vapes, which are still so cheap that they are used as a one-time product. It is also an effective means of ensuring that these products are out of the range of pocket money prices and are kept out of the hands of our young people.
I support the use of vapes as a smoking cessation aid, and my amendment is in no way intended to stop that purpose. Vaping is a good and proven means of smoking cessation. However, big tobacco has been allowed a free hand to move beyond smoking cessation towards a new business model, and it has free rein to create a whole new generation of young people who are now addicted to vaping products and are future customers, supplying it with profits.
While we support the aim of smoking cessation, big tobacco must not be allowed to continue to put vaping products into the hands of young people. Vaping has exploded in popularity with children and teens across the UK, and these products are deliberately targeted and marketed towards them. In 2025, around 1.1 million 11 to 17 year-olds—20% of young people in this age group—admitted to having tried vapes, with approximately 400,000 currently using vapes and 160,000 vaping on a daily basis.
Alarmingly, nearly one in 10 secondary school pupils are now regular or occasional vapers, a figure that has almost doubled since 2018. Children as young as eight have been found to be using vapes in school, and one-quarter of 11 to 15 year-olds have experimented with these products. Anyone with a teenage child will know the true scale of the problem, and I suspect that the true scale is larger than the statistics bear out.
The aim of the Bill is to create a smoke-free generation. We support that, but the Bill could and should go further by creating a nicotine-free generation. The epidemic of vape use has been fuelled by disposable vapes. They are brightly coloured, child focused, flavoured and available for less than the cost of a sandwich. Marketing and pocket money prices put nicotine firmly within the reach of our children. Despite sales law prohibiting sales to 18 year-olds, the truth is that you can go to any corner store and probably get one.
Vaping can act as a gateway to smoking. Studies have shown that teens who vape are 22 times more likely to take up cigarettes and 33% of vaping teens move on to smoking, compared to just 1.5% of non-vapers. Who said big tobacco could have carte blanche to an ever-growing number of nicotine addicts—new generations for new profits?
Turning to the environmental impacts, the numbers are staggering. Before the supposed ban, 8 million single-use vapes were discarded every week—13 devices every second—resulting in 260 million devices being thrown away annually. Each vape contains plastics and lithium. It has been estimated that, collectively, the lithium lost each year could be enough to power 5,000 electric vehicles. The scale of the waste is enough to fill 22 football pitches. The real consequences are big, with over 1,200 fires at waste sites and bin lorries catching fire. Lithium batteries are dangerous. The plastic and toxic materials spend hundreds of years in our landfill sites, leaching into the environment and polluting our soils and waterways. I do not believe that any device should be made where it is not possible to remove and recycle the battery.
Defra has plans, and those introduced to ban disposable vapes have helped, but they do not go far enough, and the problem has not gone away. Cheap products continue to be bought and used on an ad hoc basis. With a quick look online or a trip to my corner store, I can still get a perfectly compliant vape for £4.99. They are fully compliant, but they will be used once and then discarded. They create waste that we do not need to create.
If we are serious about our environmental responsibilities—the Government are very much championing the circular economy; I welcome and support them in that—we need to take further steps. My view is that minimum pricing is the best way to do that. If we have a higher price for these products, we get better quality products that last longer. The batteries will have longer cycling times, and they will be used regularly by their users.
I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made. However, the figures I have seen show that although there is a £30 entry point—which is not much more than a packet of fags—if you refill a vape with liquid the saving can be up to £750 a year. I have another associated amendment that seeks to ban pods. This is not about making vaping more expensive. It will save regular vapers considerable amounts of money; it will give them a better product; and they will be able to vape knowing they are not destroying the planet and environment needlessly.
Price controls are the only effective means of keeping these products out of teenage hands. The truth is that the regulatory systems do not work—they are not enforced and they never will be—and our children will continue to vape. I do not see another way of doing this. I will be honest that £30 was plucked out of the air; I am happy to reduce that amount. A good quality vape probably costs £20 to £25. It could be that the Government will work with me on that, and we can look at setting a lower figure. I do not want to ban entry into this market, but that kind of price range is where it needs to be. It could be that this price has a free bottle of liquid, or something else, to go with it.
I want the Government to look at this seriously. If this Government are serious about the circular economy and about making sure that these vapes do not end up in our children’s hands, they really need to consider these things and take them seriously. I stand ready to work with the Government between now and Report. This is a serious amendment, and I would like the Government to make progress on these matters.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I ask for some clarification? There seems to be a contradiction between the idea, on the one hand, that these products save you money in the long run and, on the other, that they price young people out of the market. I cannot see how something that saves you money in the long run prices you out of the market at the same time. I leave that to the noble Earl.
We are discussing a ban on advertising, but I have never actually heard of these products. It is only by virtue of my membership of the House of Lords—which is a restricted market—that I have come to hear about it. From what she said, that is also the case for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Earl made a very good advertisement for these products as money-saving devices. Where do I get hold of them?
Earl Russell (LD)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. My first amendment would introduce a greater price point for entry into the market, but my second amendment is about banning little, plastic, pre-filled pods that have to go into supposedly reusable vapes and for which the manufacturers charge a premium. I would get rid of that, so that people could use a bottle to refill the vape. You would have a slightly more expensive base unit, but the daily running of that unit would be cheaper. Therefore, the savings generate over time. That is the fundamental proposition that I am putting forward.
The noble Lord makes a valid point about advertising. The better option is not to use the word “advertising” but to use the phrase “health education”. There is not enough knowledge about these products, and it would be good if people had better options to choose from.
I will also comment, very briefly, on the other amendments, which I forgot to discuss earlier. I have sympathy for Amendment 17A and for Amendment 18, which is in the names of noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These are important issues for people who are in mental health institutions or other institutions, where they are not free fully to leave or to get access to vaping products. It would be a mistake to restrict their ability to access those products.
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.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The point of vape vending machines in a lot of nightclubs and late-night premises—of which I hear tales and know nothing—is that, when people are out and about, very often they recreationally smoke. That is how a lot of young people start smoking: they have a cigarette with a drink. The idea therefore is that people should at least have the option of vaping. Young people are actually lobbying for this. I know how keen everyone is on giving young people what they want. That is the deal.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The noble Baroness destroys her own argument by saying that nightclubs are premises where young people go for recreation and then saying that they might use the vaping machines and start vaping. The last thing we want is for young people, who do not want to smoke, to start vaping because they are in a recreational atmosphere where other people are vaping and there is an opportunity for them to join in. I repeat the point that I see vaping as a smoking-cessation tool, not a recreational exercise.
Finally, while I am normally on the same page as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this, I find his argument—that we need to fix a price that is so high that it is out of the reach of young people with pocket money, but so low that we do not penalise those in poor communities where smoking is prevalent—to be an impossible circle to square. He indicated some flexibility, but flexibility does not solve the problem, because the easier we make it for the smoking communities to start vaping, the easier it is for young people. I am not sure that price control is an area that is going to solve the problem, but I accept the environmental consequences that he spoke so fluently about.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to the amendments from my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Russell and I laid Amendment 21 to probe the issue of the affordability of vapes for young people. Currently, the evidence of the number of young people below the legal age of 18 accessing vapes indicates that they are currently affordable. Not all young people are getting them on the black market, because about half of them state in surveys that they get them from a shop. This certainly raises the question of why retailers are selling vapes to young people without proof of age.
It also raises the role of price. Minimum pricing is a mechanism that has been used for public health reasons to increase the price of alcohol and decrease the amount that people buy. Why do we not take the same approach for vapes? Besides, as I understand it, if the price of vapes is seen as a barrier to quitting, a patient can have them prescribed to them by a doctor. Is that true? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.
We want to use this Bill to protect the use of vapes as an effective tool for quitting smoking. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I do not think there is any contradiction between that and wanting to protect young people from taking up vaping, especially as it sometimes leads to smoking tobacco as well.
We are aware that a vape liquid excise duty will come in next October, which will increase the price of vapes. A smoker who wants to use vapes as a quitting tool will not be deterred from buying vapes if they continue to be cheaper than cigarettes because clearly they can afford cigarettes, so of course they can also afford vapes. Can the Minister reassure us that the concurrent increase in the tax on tobacco will maintain that gap and keep tobacco more expensive than vapes? Do the Government have any granular research on the effect of the price of these products as a deterrent?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson. The amendment raises the broad question of how, as a society, we wish to define adulthood. From that point of view, I think the amendment is a useful one. Clause 10, like much of our statute book, assumes that 18 marks the threshold of adulthood—the age at which one may also contract, serve on a jury or purchase regulated products. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Moylan argued, proposals to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds invite us to reconsider that assumption. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We have in Clause 12 a proposed measure that would outlaw any vending machine that dispenses vapes or nicotine products to a paying customer. The question that my noble friend and the noble Baroness have posed is whether the Government are prepared to consider any exceptions to this hard and fast prohibition. Is there not a strong case for saying that, in a smoking cessation clinic where there are adult clinical staff guiding patients through a structured programme, or in a mental health unit where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated? In those clinical environments, vapes and nicotine products are not promoted for casual use. They have a utility, and their utility lies as a means of harm reduction under clinical supervision. Let us just remind ourselves that patients admitted to mental health settings, or being treated in one, are much more likely to be smokers than other members of the general population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, drew attention to that. For obvious reasons, there is a deep reluctance within mental health units to permit smoking on the premises. Access to vapes, on the other hand, is a far less contentious issue, I suggest.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say why the Bill makes no provision for exceptions, even narrow ones, to the ban on vending machines. I am not contesting the proposal to ban such machines in the majority of settings, but vapes are not the same as tobacco. I have been approached by one vending machine operator that supplies machines to adult-only venues such as clubs. It asked the same question in its briefing sheet. Why is it that, in a place where anyone entering has been vetted as being an adult, they are being denied access to a vending machine? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment on that.
Amendment 21 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises a rather different question. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. The goal that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are aiming at is of course a worthy one. However, I have three problems with what they are proposing. First, if one makes vaping too expensive, law-abiding citizens who wish to quit smoking will be deterred from doing so. That is surely a risk. Secondly, smokers who may be less concerned about the lawfulness of the products that they buy will be steered towards unregulated products and/or the black market. I suggest that, under this proposal, that is simply bound to happen. Thirdly, any minimum pricing arrangement will act as a dampener on competition, and hence a dampener on innovation. A good example of such innovation is the age-gating technology that my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke about in our previous Committee session—technology built into a product or its packaging that prevents underage use. Approaches of that kind should be explored before we ever consider blunt instruments such as statutory price controls.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, which would prohibit the provision of free tobacco or vaping products through the course of business. Again, I completely understand and respect the motivation behind that proposal, but we should ask some questions about it. In the case of tobacco products, I am absolutely on the same wavelength as the noble Baronesses; at the same time, it would be helpful to know how much of a problem this now is.
First, is it not already illegal? If not, and if free samples of cigarettes, say, are being supplied by the manufacturers or importers to wholesalers or retailers, that sounds like an expensive exercise, bearing in mind the need for them to account to HMRC for the relevant tobacco duty, which I do not think they can avoid. What can the Minister tell us about that?
Secondly, on free samples of vapes, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I venture to say that different considerations apply to vapes compared to tobacco. My noble friend Lord Moylan was absolutely right: vapes are not in the same league of harm as tobacco products. They are also a smoking cessation tool. I would be the first to agree that free vapes should not be handed out to children. That is a given—
Baroness Northover (LD)
The advert I have here says that the samples they are giving out are actually derived from tobacco. Even though it says, “No smoke, no vape and no tobacco”, the advert states that the samples are derived from tobacco. My reference is therefore to tobacco products—that is the link there—but I also emphasise the point about nicotine.
Earl Howe (Con)
If it is a tobacco product, I take the point, but I thought that the noble Baroness was also arguing about handing out free vapes. Making it illegal for a shopkeeper to supply an adult with a regulated vaping product as a free sample feels very much like an unreasonable restraint of trade. If someone enters a shop to buy cigarettes—let us say he is a smoker—and the shopkeeper offers him a free vape, what exactly is wrong with that, as long as the regulations are adhered to? Do we really want to criminalise that kind of free supply? I am afraid that I am not convinced.
The Bill already imposes a series of significant new obligations and compliance costs on legitimate businesses. The restrictions contained in Clauses 13 to 15 alone are substantial and will likely require many retailers to make complex and costly adjustments. To introduce further constraints and prohibitions, as well as a substantial potential liability, however well-intentioned, has to be thought about very carefully before we go down that path.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if the nicotine contained in the vapes is not extracted from tobacco, where is it coming from?
Earl Howe (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord, with his compendious knowledge, can enlighten us on that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments exploring the part of the Bill that relates to the sale of vaping products. I will make a general point to start with, which may be helpful as it has come up a number of times in the debate. It is true to say that vapes are less harmful than smoking because they do not contain tobacco and have fewer harmful chemicals. However, because there is a nicotine content and there are unknown long-term harms, there is a risk of harm and addiction that comes with vaping. That is particularly acute for adolescents whose brains are still developing.
There is a careful balance to be struck in taking action against youth vaping, by which I mean children and young people, while ensuring that vapes absolutely remain accessible to adults who are seeking to quit. Noble Lords will have heard me refer before to the Chief Medical Officer, who is clear that if you smoke, vaping will be a better option; but if you do not smoke, do not vape. It could not be clearer.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s response. However, she said that my amendment would make vaping significantly more expensive than smoking but I want to fundamentally challenge that. That is not the case. The £25 would be a one-time deal; after that, you would save every time you refilled your vape. You would just spend £25 once in your lifetime. That is not making vaping more expensive than smoking in any way at all.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the clarification that the noble Earl has made. If that is the case, though, I have to say that that would send a complex pricing message to people, and we are not seeking to add complexity to where we are going. I am not sure I agree with the analysis but I am happy to look at the point that he is making.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the noble Earl that we are already acting to pick up the point that he rightly raised and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was keen to emphasise, which is to ensure that vapes are not sold for pocket-money prices. Indeed, the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty from 1 October 2026. That will set out a single flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres on all vaping liquids, and it will be accompanied by a simultaneous one-off increase in the rate for tobacco duties.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points about the environmental damage done by vapes. I will be pleased to hear and respond to the debate in the next group about single-use vaping.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about vapes being prescribed as a quit aid. We have a world-first scheme here, Swap to Stop, to help adults to ditch cigarettes as part of a 12-week programme of support, as I highlighted earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would prohibit businesses from providing free samples of tobacco and vaping products. The noble Baroness said herself that Clause 15 already bans the free distribution of any product or coupon that has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers, and that includes free samples. It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could have been legally handed out for free, and I am glad to say that the Bill closes that loophole. Clause 15 also states that products cannot be sold at a substantial discount, which will ensure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point where the price is no longer such a relevant factor for a prospective purchaser. So the noble Baroness is quite right to seek to close that loophole, and I am grateful to her for raising the issue, but I can confirm that the Bill already achieves her intention.
Earl Howe (Con)
To pick up on that, I ask the Minister to clarify the issue that was left slightly in the air earlier about the derivation of nicotine. While nicotine can be synthetically produced, it is derived from tobacco, but the point made by definition in the Bill is that a vaping product is a distinct product from a tobacco product. So the advertisement seen by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which I agree is highly regrettable, may be accurate in saying that the product is derived from tobacco but is not a tobacco product. Is that correct?
Baroness Northover (LD)
Can I comment on that? It has been very instructive to learn all about this subject. I could see a discussion occurring between the noble Earl and his noble friend but most nicotine is, in fact, derived from tobacco. This fits with what the advert I have here says, which is that the product advertised is derived from tobacco but does not contain tobacco leaf. Whether it is misleading for it to say, “No tobacco”, is another matter, but, clearly, dancing on the head of a pin is not very helpful here.
Earl Howe (Con)
I respectfully disagree. It is helpful to dance on the head of a pin if we can distinguish “tobacco” from “tobacco product” and, again, distinguish a tobacco product from a vaping product. The Bill does that.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I disagree that we can necessarily distinguish between nicotine and a tobacco product, given that most nicotine products are derived from tobacco and are, therefore, tobacco products. However, the key thing here is that nicotine is being targeted at children, who often then graduate to smoking cigarettes. So you have not only an addiction but a potential route into the problem that we have worked on together for many years: reducing smoking, especially among the young, for all the reasons we know about.
Lord Patel (CB)
May I join the argument? The noble Earl is quite right: there is a synthetic nicotine product, which is manufactured chemically. So you can have nicotine that is not a tobacco product. However, as far as we know, most of the nicotine used in vapes is derived from tobacco.
By the way, I want to come back, slightly tongue-in-cheek, on the noble Earl’s question about where it comes from. Of course, I was hoping that he would say, “From tomatoes, potatoes, nightshade and some other plants”, from which you can also get small amounts of nicotine.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I fear to tread here—I will be brief. The Bill distinguishes between tobacco products, nicotine products and vaping products. They are separate products. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: vapes are not risk-free, although they are less harmful than smoking. They do not involve burning tobacco, which releases tar and carbon monoxide. However, I must say, having heard the range of debate, I feel that it would be very helpful for me to write to noble Lords with further clarity on these points.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I look forward to doing so.
I turn to Amendment 16, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It seeks to probe the reasoning behind the age of sale for vapes and nicotine products set out in Clause 10, as well as why this differs from the proposed new voting age. The Bill restates the existing age of sale of 18 for nicotine vaping products; it also extends this restriction on the age of sale to nicotine products and non-nicotine vaping products, to which no age restrictions currently apply.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the age of sale for these products and the voting age serve completely different purposes. The age of sale for vaping and nicotine products aims to prevent children and young people becoming addicted to harmful products at a very young age. The risks of harm and addiction from vaping and nicotine products are, as I mentioned earlier, particularly acute for adolescents, whose brains are still developing, so an age of sale of 18 is proportionate to the risks posed.
The age of sale of 18 is indeed distinct from extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. In the latter case, which we have yet to debate in the House and the other place, extending the right to vote allows them to have a say in shaping their future and engaging in our democracy. We are looking at completely different criteria. The Government have set out their plans to bring forward their legislation on electoral reform, and I am sure noble Lords look forward to debating those proposals in due course. For all these reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I probe a little on the noble Baroness’s response to my Amendment 18? On the one hand, she seemed to take a hard and unrelenting line on vending machines, particularly in enclosed mental health premises. On the other, the noble Baroness said towards the end that she was still working on it, and I wondered to what extent one could look for hope. I am sure the noble Baroness said that she was still working on these issues. I appreciate that she has consulted the National Health Service, but I think she probably means NHS England, a vast organisation at some distance removed from patient contact. In fact, it has no patient contact at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that representations have been made by a certain number of mental health trusts on just this issue. Their views need to be considered, because they are very much closer to real life. May we hope that the Minister will come back at a later stage with something that modifies the severity and comprehensiveness of the ban that is, as she says, in a Bill that we are here to change?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to check exactly what I said but, to be clear, we are not continuing discussions about vapes in hospital and mental health settings, in respect of vending machines. As I said, that is in the Bill. I hope I was making the point that discussions are continuing in respect of vape-free places, and that will be a matter for regulations. I assure the noble Lord that NHS England was in full consultation with the relevant parts of the services. It does provide services and it is the right organisation. As the noble Lord knows, we are bringing NHSE into the department in any case in the future. I am sure he will welcome that, as I certainly do.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I thank the variety of noble Lords who spoke. There has been some clarity: it might not be clarity that I am happy with, but we heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say that his aspiration is a nicotine-free generation, not just a tobacco-free one. There has been some confusion about the conflation of tobacco and nicotine. The Bill, at least, makes a distinction between those things. It is possible that the Minister—and every other Lord who wanted to get rid of that distinction—wants to challenge the nature of the very core of the Bill, but I assure them that the Bill makes that distinction. If that is not true, it would be interesting to hear what has happened there.
Also, medical scientific discussion on this makes the distinction very clearly and endlessly, particularly, by the way, by oncologists. Those who work with people who have developed cancers from smoking are very enthusiastically promoting nicotine products. As I understood it—as I was assured at Second Reading by the Government and noticed in other communications —we should not be fearful that vaping was a target of prohibition from the Bill. But the more the conversation goes on, and the more it is treated the same, then that is the direction of travel. I would still argue that when one says that the evidence is not in on whether something is helpful, it is not a scientific way of approaching it. The evidence is not in on a wide range of things that are happening in the world. It is evidence that we base evidence-based policies on, not the lack of it.
In the discussion on young people, we ended up discussing whether we are protecting children in a variety of the amendments, through to 20 and 30-somethings in a nightclub who should not be let near a vending machine with vapes in it. My point was not that they would be recreationally vaping because they would be having a good time and therefore it was very dangerous. Although, I have to say that having a good time in a nightclub is not yet, I think, illegal. Having a drink and a cigarette outside a nightclub is, as yet, not illegal—although it might well be by the end of the Bill. The point about vaping was that young people having a good time will often have a social cigarette, and the vaping vending machine might encourage them to do something less harmful. That was my point, rather than me trying to get them all vaping or forcing them to vape.
The conflation of children and young adults needs to be sorted out. In that sense, although I am sure I did not do remotely as good a job of moving Amendment 16 as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have, we need to be clear that voting in elections is not a technical matter; it is philosophically about saying that someone is an autonomous adult. Therefore, we have a conflict in who we consider children and adults when it comes to health.
I finish by saying I am genuinely, totally disappointed by the attitude to mental health provision and vending machines. Many mental health charities are concerned about this. The age-gating issue is not an issue in mental health hospitals. This idea that there will be hordes of children wandering around accessing vapes from a vending machine—it just seems cruel and inhumane. I do not understand why that exception would not be made. It is true that mental health charities and family groups have suggested that having the odd vending machine in a hospital where people are restricted from leaving would be helpful. It would be kind and compassionate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell
“Prohibition on the manufacture, supply and sale of pre-filled single-use vaping pods(1) A person must not manufacture, supply, or offer for sale any pre-filled nicotine pod intended and designated for use in a vaping product.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “pre-filled nicotine pod” means a sealed cartridge that—(a) contains a nicotine-containing liquid,(b) is not intended to be refilled or reused, and(c) is designed for single use and disposal once the liquid is exhausted.(3) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to—(a) manufacturers, importers and retailers, and(b) both physical and online sales and supply.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prohibits the manufacture of reusable vapes which contained pre-filled nicotine pods.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group on single-use vape products, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley for their support for my Amendment 22, which seeks to prohibit the manufacture, supply and sale of pre-filled single-use vape pods. For those who do not understand, these are the sealed plastic cartridges that contain nicotine liquid and which are often discarded once they are empty. They are a pre-filled pod that is plugged into a vape, from which all the nicotine is discharged and it is then thrown away. At first glance, this might seem like a small regulatory change, but it is quite important to our environmental sustainability and to the circular economy. These are key principles which the Government are promoting through the work of their own task force.
Single-use vape products are part of the disposable culture of the nicotine world. They are also the key means that big tobacco uses to extract exorbitant profits from their vaping products, profits that have been estimated to be up to 37.1% for vaping products, compared to margins of 8.5% for tobacco products. It is the use of pods that drives these excessive margins. Each tiny cartridge contains plastic, metal and residual nicotine liquid—a trio that makes them almost impossible to recycle effectively, even if somebody was minded to do so. Therefore, each year, millions of these pods end up in landfill or littered on our pavements and in our parks and rivers. They contain materials from lithium to plastic fragments, and they can leak harmful substances into the environment, damaging our ecosystems. Keep Britain Tidy has noted that discarded vapes and waste associated with vaping are one of the fastest-growing forms of street litter.
I believe that they should be banned. There are a number of vapes on the market which are refillable from a bottle. This creates a captive market and excess profits for tobacco companies. It is the state that is left to deal with the rubbish and the environmental damage.
As I said, this amendment relates to the one I spoke to in the previous group—the two go together. If as a vaper you use liquid, you are saving yourself considerable amounts of money. Some people estimate that, depending on the type of vape used, that could be up to £750 per year.
This is a sensible thing to do. It goes along with Amendment 21 and fits with the Government’s desire to have a circular economy. This is not about attacking vapers—this would make it cheaper for those who vape regularly. It would also be better for the environment. I really do not see why the Government do not do this. These products exist. This would not put a particular strain on the manufacturers of vapes; all it would do is stop them getting excess profits and causing unnecessary environmental damage.
This is obviously part of a broad sweep of matters being considered by the Circular Economy Taskforce. Is the Minister in a position today, or perhaps at a later stage in the Bill, to update us on where the task force is in relation to pods and vaping and, more generally, on disposable vapes?
I would like progress on this issue. I do not think that the process we have now is sustainable. I think we need change and I stand ready to work with the Minister and anybody else, from any party, who wants to take action on these matters.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Vaping, as a mechanism for smoking cessation, is now recommended by NICE as the first-line quit method. It has been endorsed by the NHS and it has formed the backbone of the Government-funded and the already discussed and, indeed, boasted about Swap2stop scheme for local authorities. Vaping is very much part of government policy, it seems to me.
Vaping has enabled millions of UK smokers to quit over the last five years. The way that that has happened and that single-use vapes revolutionised smoking cessation was through being easy and cheap enough to swap to quit. Inevitably, with such a revolutionary success story in innovation on the horizon, what did the Government do? They banned them.
As I explained at Second Reading, the ban on single-use vapes, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained very well in relation to his amendment, was brought in for environmentalist, green reasons. That is fair enough, but health did not even come into the ban on single-use vapes; it was not even discussed. I think that that shows that although, in some of the discussions, it is as though, whatever the freedom or civil liberty considerations, the most important thing is always public health, suddenly, there are things where public health is given secondary consideration to a different set of political priorities.
I am therefore opposed to Amendment 22. Even though we have now banned single-use vapes, the amendment intends to ban the reusable vapes that are on the market and actually being sold. The amendment is interesting because it is at least honest—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been honest throughout the day—because, in the heading of his amendment, the word “prohibition” is used. Absolutely. Noble Lords might be delighted to know, because my own person experience might fuel these prohibitionists, that I objected to the ban on single-use vapes. Now, of course, because we are no longer able to buy them, I use reuseable vapes, but, guess what, I use them as disposable. Because nobody really thought beforehand what the point of this ban was. Despite huge inconvenience to manufactures—and just to clarify, not all manufacturers of vapes are tobacco manufacturers—all sorts of independent of vape makers have had to completely redesign everything; it has completely disrupted a successful, innovative product that was a brilliant smoking cessation tool. We have gone through this big law change, and not very much has happened.
This brings me to my amendment, which suggests that the single-use vape ban, which was brought in as a piece of legislation, should be assessed before we discuss what we are doing with the Bill in relation to vaping. It is vital that the ban on single-use vapes is subject to a comprehensive impact assessment as to its impact on public health and any effects that the ban has had on public health. According to the figures, 17% of people are purchasing illegal single-use vapes that are still being sold on the black market where I live, and in other places too. Some people have now given up on those vapes, because they saw all the kerfuffle about single-use vapes, and reverted to smoking.
So it is imperative for the Government, before the Bill is passed, to review the outcome of the single-use vape ban, as proposed by my Amendment 145. It happened and I do not think it has made the kind of difference that the Government anticipated—but nobody ever talks about it any more. If you go into a corner shop or whatever to buy a vape, you will see similar-looking products that are reusable, but many people use them as if they were disposable—and even I think that that was not quite what the Government had in mind, so they should at least consider the outcome.
Earl Russell (LD)
I did not want to speak to the noble Baroness’s amendment before she had spoken to it but, now she has, I will briefly respond. I have no problem with her overriding concern that there should be a review of the ban on disposable vapes. Information is important. Obviously, the regulations were done by Defra, so I do not quite know where we are with that.
I will make two further points. The first is in relation to Swap to Stop; it is really important that the Government continue to fund that programme and that people are given proper, long-term vapes, because that is what they need.
With respect to the noble Baroness, I think she is the exception. On the one hand, we have had the ban on disposable vapes, but the problem is that there has not been that much change, as she says. I think we need to go further and move to proper, reusable vapes that cost slightly more but are a one-time purchase that give consumers long-term value. The trouble is that we have not gone that far; this has been a bit of a fudge. If we had a clearer distinction between what was once a one-time, disposable product and what we need to move towards, which is a long-term, reusable product that you would save money from by not needing pods and things like that, we would end up in a clearer and better place.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is good at advertising the product that he is promoting. If anyone is interested in doing PR on anything, this is your man.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As my noble friend said, it seeks to prohibit pre-filled single-use vaping pods, mainly for environmental reasons. These things have been the tobacco industry’s response to—indeed, its pre-emption of—the ban on single-use vapes that was introduced in June this year. Single-use vapes were such an effective entry point into vaping for young people and such a terrible blight on the environment.
These liquid pods are single-use vapes by another name. Just because you have to insert the pod does not mean that this is a multi-use product. They are cheap and available and have turned out to be just as bad for the environment as the single-use ones were, for all the reasons outlined by my noble friend. Indeed, they have introduced a new litter problem, which is that the removable sticker from the liquid container is appearing everywhere, stuck on to waste bins and pavement furniture after people have peeled them off to insert the pods. Local authorities have to spend time removing those, as well as the discarded vapes. They are just as much of a litter hazard as their predecessors were. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why they should not be treated in the same way as the original single-use vapes.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the industry has only itself to blame for the ban on single-use vapes, because it used them, via its egregious marketing, to attract young people to addictive nicotine products. So the Government were quite right to ban them.
The problem with Amendment 145 is that single-use vapes were immediately replaced by the devices we are talking about in this group. There is no point reviewing the effect of the ban on the original single-use vapes alone, because they are all mixed up with the emergence of these products at pretty much the same time. A review would only cause a delay to the introduction, by this Bill, of measures to reduce youth smoking and vaping and to assist smokers to quit—which is an objective to which everybody who I have heard speak so far is committed.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I had prepared a whole speech opposing Amendment 145, but I have now abandoned it, because the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made my points for me.
Before I make some observations on that, I take this opportunity to say that, on the first day in Committee, I spoke to an amendment in the first group, but I had to leave before my noble friend the Minister responded. Therefore, I take this opportunity to apologise to the Committee and to my noble friend the Minister for that discourtesy.
The reason I am now slightly perplexed about the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that her amendment purports to seek a report and an extra process before the regulations on content and flavour can be introduced. However, as we heard from the noble Baroness, we already know the effects of the ban on single-use vapes: as was widely predicted, trying to ban those products had very limited success in attaining the Government’s environmental and health goals. As has already been said, we can plainly see how the ban has failed every time we walk down our high streets and see very similar products available—I suspect that most people who use vapes cannot tell the difference between them. I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the report, review and consultation that she seeks have already been answered by what we can see every time we go to the supermarket.
I wonder why, in her view, it will be necessary to hold up the regulations in the way that is proposed. Surely, given the extent of the apparent consensus among Members in Committee that we would like to see youth vaping greatly reduced because of the harm it brings, we would want to see regulations not held up unnecessarily. Obviously, we want the Government to proceed carefully and introduce legislation that will be effective and reach its objectives efficiently, but we have to get on with it and not introduce delays and barriers where they are not necessary. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I can clarify that she has answered her own query in a way. My concern is that lawmaking—and bans—should not be rushed through without any cost-benefit analysis. That is what happened with the ban on single-use vapes. Many of us knew—and warned—what would happen without a review or process, but nobody took any notice.
The consequence of that ban was a huge amount of disruption for retailers, corner shops and people who work in the retail business, who had to completely empty their shelves and bring in new products. Product designers had to be brought in. That was a complete faff for absolutely nothing—for rushed lawmaking and a rushed ban—which happens all the time. I am simply suggesting that we should have a cost-benefit analysis, maybe retrospectively, of what has happened, before we bring in more bans of more products without thinking through what the consequences might be. It is a probing amendment, you might say.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, shines a spotlight on a fascinating question: when is a reusable vape not a reusable vape? The ban on single-use vapes came into force on 1 June this year, as we have heard. Single-use or disposable vapes are clearly defined in the guidance: they are vapes which are not designed or not intended to be reused. For all the reasons given by the noble Earl, especially the environmental reasons, that ban is soundly based. A reusable vape is one that possesses two key features: it must have a battery which can be recharged and the e-liquid container—that is, the cartridge or the pod—can be either refilled or replaced with a separately sold item, which is where the amendment comes in.
The regulation explicitly states that a device is not refillable or reusable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. In other words, the law at present tries to capture in the definition of a disposable vape all devices that look and function like a disposable vape. So far, I hope, so clear, but as we have heard from the noble Earl, this leads on the ground to some grey areas of interpretation. A vaping device may be packaged in such a way as to claim that it is intended to work with replaceable pods—and hence that it should be classed as refillable and reusable. In practice, however, that claim can sometimes be a fiction. If, in reality, the replacement pods are not readily available for purchase separately, the device is at risk of falling foul of the legal description of a reusable vape. Enforcement authorities will also check whether the battery is genuinely rechargeable and whether a replaceable heating coil is genuinely replaceable.
More and more reports suggest that in some shops, replacement pods are either not available at all or are in very short supply. Furthermore, so-called reusable devices are priced similarly to the former disposable vapes. The net effect is that the user is tacitly encouraged to throw away the entire device, including the battery and the pod, once they have finished using it. Functionally, the supposed reusable vape has become a disposable vape.
The question therefore is: is there a need to change the definition of what counts as a disposable vape? The noble Earl suggests in his amendment that part of the answer is to ban pre-filled single-use vaping pods. The problem with that suggestion is that some vaping devices properly classified as reusable devices genuinely depend on the supply of replacement single-use pods and are thereby genuinely reusable. Banning all single-use pods would mean removing those types of reusable vaping devices from the market, a step which, on the face of things, appears rather severe.
What, therefore, is to be done? If it is true that many devices currently on the market technically tick the box of being refillable or reusable but in practice behave like disposables, how are we to address that loophole? Is the answer to reframe the regulations, or does the answer lie in intelligent enforcement by local authorities and trading standards? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.
That point links neatly to the second amendment in this group, Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which I think makes a sensible and pragmatic case, pace the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to whom I listened very carefully. In introducing further regulations in this area, we would be well advised to take stock of the prohibitions that have already been introduced and examine their impact in practice. The single-use vape ban that came into force on 1 June provides us with an opportunity to do that. We will no doubt debate at later stages the regulation-making powers designed to control flavours, and so on. I align myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in wanting to tread cautiously, reflecting on how the single-use ban came in as quickly as it did and whether some unintended consequences have ensued from it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the debate on this group of amendments. I will start with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to ban all “pre-filled single-use vaping pods”.
We understand the concerns being raised about the environmental harms of single-use products. The ban that was introduced by Defra came into force on 1 June, which was not so long ago. Under that ban, vapes must be rechargeable and refillable, while any coil must be replaceable. A vape is not considered refillable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. Pre-filled pods that can be replaced are therefore not captured, to the points raised by a number of noble Lords, as the ban focuses on tackling the greatest environmental harms. Those are posed by batteries and the surrounding elements contained in the vapes. I acknowledge that vaping creates waste; that is true when users fill up a tank or pod themselves using refill bottles, as the noble Earl described, as well as when pre-filled pods are used.
However, to minimise the environmental impact, since April 2024 it has been compulsory for all businesses selling vapes and vape products, including pods, to provide their customers with a recycling bin and to arrange for these products to be collected by a verified recycling service. I hope that makes a helpful contribution in answering the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Since this obligation came into force, some 10,500 vape takeback bins have been introduced into stores. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and will consider the environmental impact of any new vaping regulations brought in using the powers in this Bill.
I hear the concerns about the appeal of single-use pods to children. The Bill contains powers to regulate vape devices. Importantly, we have recently launched a call for evidence that seeks information on the role that different sizes, shapes and features of devices play in the appeal of vaping to young audiences. As part of that, we would welcome evidence on any types of vaping device that particularly appeal to children. I assure the Committee that we will use the evidence to inform future proposals on potential restrictions to devices.
Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to place additional requirements on the Secretary of State before regulations can be made on contents and flavour. I note that part of these requirements involves evaluating the impacts of the ban on single-use vapes, which came into force on 1 June. Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and a post-implementation review will be undertaken in line with statutory obligations.
Turning to the impact of future restrictions on contents and flavour, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for smokers seeking to quit. We will therefore consider the scope of restrictions very carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking rates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for her contribution on this group.
As I said, to support all this, the call for evidence was launched on 8 October. It includes questions about the role of flavours, their contents and the associated risks. I assure noble Lords that before any restrictions are introduced on contents and flavours, we will conduct an impact assessment. We will also undertake a consultation on our policy proposals, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. I hope that this response allows noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment and the other amendment in this group. It has been an interesting group. I also thank the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. He speaks absolute truth: the reality for most people is that, if you have a legal vape with a pod in it and you are minded to not use it as a one-time product but to replace the pod, most shops do not sell them. You cannot get them, they are not available, and the reality is that big tobacco is skirting these regulations and selling only the vapes, not the pods—and, even if you buy the pod, they cost almost the same as buying a new vape.
I recognise the need to review the regulations, which are very recent, and I welcome the fact that Defra is monitoring that, but the real trouble here is that the regulations did not go far enough and there is no clear blue water. They are neither fish nor fowl. It is too easy to skirt these regulations. You just stick a charging point on, stick a pod in it, and you have met the requirements of the regulations, but the reality is that you are still selling a product that is extremely cheap, is used once and thrown away. These matters need further thought.
I asked the Minister whether she could update us on the work of the circular task force. Perhaps that is something we could do before Report. I am happy for that to be done in writing, but more needs to be done. I recognise the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for more evidence; the Minister has given some reassurance on that. However, I do not support holding up the Bill while we wait for that evidence. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
(a) retailers of relevant products or their representatives, and(b) any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe are probing the Government, in one way or another, on the question of consultation. What we seek to do is quite simple in many ways: to recognise that the impact of the Bill is not just on big tobacco, as many noble Lords have said; it will impact some vaping companies, not all of which are big tobacco. It is really important that we make that distinction. Some tobacco companies have vaping divisions. In fact, I have asked tobacco companies: when these Bills go through, what will you do and where will you diversify? It is very interesting to hear some of their answers, which I would be happy to share at some other stage.
The other thing we need to understand is that this will impact retailers, some of which are specialists and some of which sell other products but this is part of their income stream. We want to make sure that we get the balance right.
What we really want is to understand the nature of the consultation. Which voices with experience are being listened to? Which retailers are being listened to? On manufacturers, I want to be slightly careful, because I have had some conversations since these amendments were laid. In fact, I have been told by some people that we should not ask the manufacturers, particularly big tobacco, for their views. I have also been told that some companies do not want to be consulted, because that would be seen to be diluting the result of that consultation. Given that these are probing amendments, I will be a little careful about which manufacturers should be consulted and which should not.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am pleased to see this group of excellent amendments. They have been so well explained and motivated that I do not need to add very much more.
I support them for a couple of reasons. In my dealings with different groups of people who represent convenience stores—shopkeepers—they have made it clear that they do not feel that they have been consulted at all. Ironically, the quotes always come from the British Retail Consortium. I have nothing against the British Retail Consortium—it has said some interesting things on the Bill—but shopkeepers feel that there are specific issues that are not being picked up, particularly around convenience stores.
Convenience stores are often a community asset; they are part of the community. I know that the Government understand this, because they are bringing in a new law—although I do not know whether it is necessary—to protect retail workers from assault. As I pointed out in the debate on that Bill, I hope that we already have a law protecting retail workers from assault, but it would be a double whammy if we have two. This indicates that the Government care about retail workers. Part of the motivation for that was the increase in assaults and violence. However, people from those different organisations have contacted me because of my Second Reading speech, where I made similar points. They have pointed out that they are most worried about the age verification that will come with the generational smoking ban and the economic hit that will come from the regulations that will come in with this Bill. These are some of their big fears.
When we talk about cost-benefit analysis and really weigh up what matters, we keep saying, “Health, health”, or “Public health, public health”, but let me tell you that, if you are running a small convenience store, a different thing can affect your health, and that is worrying that you will go under because of new laws and changes. So consultation with the wider group is very important.
I also want to back up the point about the peculiar position on manufacturers. We have constantly heard about everything being big tobacco, which I know is an easy way to close down a debate. I do not actually think that it would be wrong to talk to those manufacturers, but there are lots of manufacturers involved in lots of different products that will be affected by this Bill. We cannot just write them all off as “big tobacco”. Having that nuance is something on which I hope the Minister and the Government will listen.
The most important amendment of all, though, is Amendment 150 because it stresses that this consultation is not to be just a box-ticking exercise. It would insert the words,
“and take into consideration the views of”—
words that the Minister should welcome, because a consultation must listen properly. You must take into consideration the views of the people you are consulting and not have just a box-ticking exercise. I would like a broader range of organisations to be consulted; I would also like the Minister and the Government to listen to them when they are consulted.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I understand it, following the Royal Assent of this Bill, there will be more consultations on many of the regulations the Government plan to bring forward. The call for evidence, which was published on 8 October, is already seeking evidence on some of the more technical aspects of the Bill.
I point out to those who tabled these amendments that the UK Government are a signatory to Article 5.3 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which aims to protect health policy-making from tobacco industry influence. That is why I think that there should be no further mandation for consultation with those who have a vested interest in producing or selling tobacco products, as long as we keep an eye on small retailers. As far as the bulk of their sales of products containing tobacco—I choose the way I express it very carefully—are concerned, there will be a small impact because only a one-year cohort at a time, which is a relatively small amount, will be prevented from being sold these products. As I said on our previous day in Committee, that will give small retailers plenty of time to adjust their sales models. We will deal with things such as age verification, as well as other issues that may cause small retailers concern, in our debates on other groups; we must do that rigorously.
I point out that there is nothing to stop tobacco companies responding to past and current government consultations on proposed regulations, but, of course, all respondents are required under the WHO convention to be transparent about their direct or indirect industry links. This is appropriate given their commercial conflicts of interest, which are sometimes in direct conflict with the Government’s public health objective to eliminate smoking over a generation.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amendments 26, 27, 31, 56, 111, 150 to 153 and 213 seek to ensure that the views of consumers, businesses and retailers are captured as part of the consultations on the licensing scheme and the display regulations, as well as before Part 5 of the Bill comes into force.
Let me start by saying I strongly agree with the intention behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. When it comes to consulting on the regulations, of course we must ensure that those who will be impacted are able to contribute their views. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her constructive comments on the need to do that and on the way we will go forward.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for her response. With these probing amendments, we were trying to make sure that the consultation was as wide as possible. We completely understand the WHO requirements, but we sometimes worry about some of the more specialist cigar manufacturers, which are not big tobacco but much smaller specialist organisations.
I seek some clarity from the Government at this point. Are they saying that the WHO guidelines mean that they cannot speak to these small, specialist manufacturers? We understand not consulting the big Philip Morris Internationals of this world, and others, but is it the Government’s understanding that they cannot speak to the small specialist cigar manufacturers because WHO guidelines preclude them from doing so? Or are they saying that they can speak to those small manufacturers?
Clarification on that from the Minister would be welcome. Is she able to give an answer, or shall I witter on a bit and hope that the officials can give her an answer in that time? I will do that; I am trying to be helpful. That clarity is essential. I am not asking that they call in the likes of the big firms, such as BAT and Philip Morris, every time they want to do a consultation; we know what their business models are. This really is about the small specialist manufacturers who feel that they are excluded and lumped in with big tobacco all the time. Their demographic is very different. It is an ageing demographic; perhaps literally a dying demographic —who knows?
The newspaper that came to see me told me that its readership was not consulted even though their trade associations claimed that everything was fine. Therefore, we need to understand those nuances. In my experience, I have seen some trade associations claiming to represent a wider membership than they do. They are not the ones who are damaged.
I welcome the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s response. I had a conversation with the Minister only yesterday about a particular organisation not feeling that it had been consulted. Immediately, she said, “Let’s meet with that organisation”, so I recognise the sentiment. However, I would like that clarification now if it is available.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We require all those with links, direct or otherwise, to the tobacco industry to disclose them when answering consultations. I hope that is the clarification that the noble Lord requires.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Just to understand, they can be consulted—that sounds reasonable; I do not think anyone would say otherwise. It is important that they do not hide where they are from.
If there are organisations that have written to me about this in the past and I have had conversations with them, I am sure that the Minister will be open to having conversations where appropriate. With those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am at the mercy of the Committee, but we have some more time and the ability to go on until 5.15 pm. If noble Lords agree, we have one more group to do to get to the target. Shall we continue?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mott is not here to move Amendment 29 and has obviously not sent a substitute to speak on his behalf. What is the procedure from here?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I suggest that the Committee adjourns.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
No, it was clearly advertised that the amendment was part of the target, so I suggest that it is not moved.
Clause 16: Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in England without a licence
National Curriculum: Religious Education
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, schools are required to promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of their pupils. They can do this within lessons on religious education and in other teaching. Schools are required to promote fundamental British values, including encouraging mutual understanding, respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The curriculum and assessment review has considered RE in its work and its final report will be published this autumn.
Lord Rook (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the Answer. My sons were privileged to go to Rutlish School, a diverse state comprehensive in south-west London with no religious affiliation. They received excellent religious education—in fact, it was compulsory until GCSE—that enhanced the community cohesion in a very diverse setting and, most importantly, equipped pupils for the world in which they now live. Currently, 95% of teachers say that high-quality religious education is more important than ever, yet Ofsted reports that, in far too many schools, the delivery of RE is either poor quality or not fit for purpose. At a time when our country and communities need far greater social cohesion, will His Majesty’s Government ensure that religious education is properly prioritised in the new national curriculum, so that our young people can continue to develop and flourish within our multireligious and multi-ethnic world?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his enormous interest in this important subject. I reassure him that the Government note the findings of the Ofsted subject report and are committed to ensuring high-quality provision of religious education. To support teachers and help ensure high standards and consistency of teaching, we have funded Oak National Academy to develop a full suite of high-quality RE resources. We also welcome the work of the Religious Education Council to assist curriculum developers by publishing its national content standard for RE in England. I can only emphasise my comments; I cannot pre-empt the findings of the curriculum and assessment review, but we look forward with enormous interest to the conclusions of this work.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say when the school curriculum will include the contribution of minority ethnic communities—for example, to World Wars I and II, to rebuilding Britain after World War II and to the NHS, which is a contemporary contribution? Some 18% of doctors are Muslim.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can only repeat that I cannot be specific about the content of the curriculum after the finding of the review, but all the matters that the noble Baroness raises around inclusion, respect and recognising achievements in the areas that she mentioned are critical. We look forward to the result of the findings and the debates that will continue as a consequence.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, mutual understanding must mean the end of antisemitism in schools. Six months ago, Bridget Phillipson warned that antisemitism in schools is now a national emergency, but incidents continue to rise. When will the Government take decisive action to end this scourge, which endures across classrooms and playgrounds?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Earl puts his finger on one of the most sensitive issues in education at the moment. I reassure noble Lords that we are absolutely committed to making improvements in this area. Hate crime, discrimination and racism have no place in Britain, particularly not in our schools. I am delighted that we have committed £7 million to tackling antisemitism in schools, £3 million of which has been spent already. We are launching an innovation fund to look at new initiatives, which will open some time towards the end of November.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the 2015 High Court Fox judgment made it clear that non-religious world views such as humanism must be treated on an equal footing with major world religions in religious education. What steps will the Government take to ensure that this principle is embedded in any future national curriculum?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We have had several conversations on this, and I can only repeat the comments that were made. It is fundamental that we have a full range of views, right across the spectrum, and that they have equal respect within the curriculum. I look forward to taking these issues forward. They have been part of many discussions we have had recently, not least on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The noble Baroness raises important points that need to be addressed.
Lord Raval (Lab)
My Lords, one in three secondary schools now teaches little or no religious education, even though, as we have just heard, incidents against faith groups have doubled in the past year. Does the Minister not agree that it is high time we invested in the one subject that can nurture faith literacy and the ability to disagree well?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is a very wide-ranging subject, and students also need to be taught to have critical appreciation of what they read in the media, for example. We need to make sure that every aspect of the curriculum picks up on the points my noble friends have raised, but there are other aspects in schools such as restorative practice, resilience, and nurturing and supporting young people wherever they are, as well as the subjects that are taught through the curriculum. We are going through a very difficult time, and we owe it to all our young people to make sure they get the support and subject input they need.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Second Church Estates Commissioner confirm recently in another place that the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Truro review, which I wrote several years ago at the invitation of the then Foreign Secretary. I have to say that that came as a pleasant surprise to me. In view of the significant and egregious growth in international violations of freedom of religion or belief in the intervening years, does the Minister agree with me that we need to ensure a high level of religious literacy among our young people and that professionally delivered RE is critical to that end?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I must confess that I do not know the Truro report in detail, but I am happy to look at it. The right reverend Prelate raises very important points. The positive thing is that religious education, while not compulsory, is still a very popular subject at GCSE and A-level. We need to make sure that it is promoted and that there is a real understanding of its relevance and importance in today’s climate.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, the national security strategy and the strategic defence review both talk of the need to build societal resilience in an age of hybrid attacks. I understand that the national resilience Bill, which is to come before the House, deals exclusively with regulation in the world of cyber. Does any revision of the national education curriculum not allow a golden opportunity for the introduction of resilience education and training of our youth, along the lines of what happens in Finland and Sweden? My first command experience was as a six year-old milk monitor, and I found that this gave me certain skills that were very valuable in later life.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will not recount the experience of some of our milk monitors in our school. The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. Of course, the curriculum is important, but as I mentioned before, skills such as helping young people move towards a position of resilience, fostering good relationships, and restorative practice are crucial and need to go along with a broad curriculum to help young people move forward.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that over 75% of the world’s population profess to have some kind of religion, does the Minister agree with me that the confidence of the teachers delivering this curriculum is as important as the curriculum itself in making sure that our children are educated properly? What work are the Government doing to make sure that teachers have the confidence and the training to deliver this curriculum properly?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This is a critical issue. To be honest, the Ofsted review has highlighted some failings in this area, which I know will have been the subject of representations to the curriculum review. Teacher training is absolutely at the top of our agenda, and this whole area comes under the heading “need to develop”.
Public and Private Sector Productivity Trends
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s productivity trends across both public and private sectors.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in the decade from 2010, the UK economy saw the lowest productivity growth since the Napoleonic Wars, which led to the lowest growth in living standards ever recorded. This Government also inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 7.2% below pre-pandemic levels. Reversing that poor productivity performance is the number one mission of this Government. As part of our growth strategy, we have set out measures to increase productivity, including reforms to planning and skills, record levels of investment in R&D, new investment in transport connectivity, a modern industrial strategy and a 10-year infrastructure strategy.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Low productivity has indeed been a running sore for almost 20 years now. Frankly, there are no real signs of progress, which is why the OBR is poised to downgrade its trend forecast and leave the Chancellor with an even deeper black hole. We need a major reset, so is it not time to set up an office for productivity alongside the Office for Budget Responsibility if we want to achieve per capita growth and fiscal discipline? This would be an office with experts with first-hand industry experience delivering on productivity, including how to lead, manage, train, set targets, and reward and incentivise our workers in public and private sectors.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and suggestion. On the progress that has been made, he will know that the drivers of productivity are fundamental and deep-seated challenges that exist in our economy, that they are long-standing, and that obviously we cannot come in, click our fingers and improve that productivity performance—it will take time. For example, investment is one of the most important drivers of productivity. That requires changes to our planning system and the planning Bill is still going through this House, so of course it is going to take time. As I say, the productivity performance that we inherited from the previous Government has been too weak. Austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget have left deep scars on the British economy that are still being felt today, but those past mistakes do not need to determine our future. That is why, as part of our growth strategy, we have set out measures to increase productivity in the British economy.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, would the Minister consider looking at how the figures are compiled? Personally, I think that the contribution from the services sector is underplayed and undervalued in the calculation of productivity. Would the Minister also recognise the contribution from the 13 leading business representative bodies—indeed, pretty much every business in the UK—that the Employment Rights Bill will reduce productivity and growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s first point, I am very aware of some issues around the data, and I believe the ONS has been reviewing it along the lines he suggests. On the Employment Rights Bill, he will know that labour supply is also a fundamental component of driving productivity, and that a more motivated and more secure workforce is a more productive workforce. I hope he will take that into account.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we hear this week that only 11% of UK SMEs say they use technology to a great extent to automate or streamline operations. Do the Government understand that the slow pace of adoption of new technology by SMEs—many of which have not even adopted first-generation technology—lies at the heart of our productivity problem, which is why it remains incomprehensible that the Government keep adding burdens on SMEs? I know the Minister cannot tell us what is in the Budget, but can he at least tell the House that he recognises the problem?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I absolutely recognise the problem and I agree with 90% of what the noble Baroness said. The only part I disagreed with was when she criticised the Government. I agree: digital adoption and AI adoption will be central to solving the productivity problem. SMEs are vital to that. It is why digital adoption was a key part of our small business strategy. I hope we can work together on this important issue.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the period from 1970 to 1990 was a time of rapidly increasing productivity, of rapidly increasing Japanese investment in particular, and of great reduction in trade union restrictive practices, which the Japanese would not put up with. What lessons does he draw from that for today?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his insight from that period. He is absolutely right. It was a time of high productivity; it is a shame that the second Conservative Government after that did not maintain it. We now have to deal with the inheritance from that Government. He is right to say that private sector investment is a key driver of productivity, so the lesson I draw from that period is that we have to encourage greater levels of private sector investment. Under the previous Government, private sector investment fell to the lowest in the whole G7. We have so far welcomed £120 billion in private investment and a further £150 billion during the US state visit last month alone.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we are very good at telling other people what to do? Is it not time that we started having a look at our practices and productivity to see whether we can run Parliament and the Commons much more effectively than we are at the moment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to say that that may be a question for someone other than me.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that, with 52% of the adult population having numeracy levels at or below those of a primary school leaver, low numeracy acts on a drag on the UK economy, leading to a critical skills gap and, ultimately, limiting productivity. Does he agree that unless we address low numeracy, as we have addressed core reading skills, we will struggle to achieve the economic growth that is at the core of his Government’s ambitions?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I agree. Fundamental skills are vital to improving our productivity. Labour quality is a key driver of productivity. The skills agenda is vital to that. That is why we recently set out measures to tackle that in the skills White Paper. I hope the measures she speaks about will also be looked at carefully.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree on skills, but a large part of the productivity problem in the UK has been in the public sector. This is hardly surprising, since the Government awarded huge public sector pay rises last year without a direct productivity link. Civil service numbers have also increased. Low productivity and growing headcount are not a happy state of affairs. How does the Minister plan to improve that rather dispiriting situation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct to say that public sector productivity is a major issue. I know that it is something she cares about deeply. Obviously, she will be aware that the Government inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 7.2% below pre-pandemic levels; that is obviously and clearly unacceptable. She said that pay rises were awarded without any link to productivity. That is factually incorrect. At the spending review, the Government established a programme of public sector service reform to drive greater productivity. Every department has committed to at least 5% savings and efficiencies over the spending review period, with the Office for Value for Money working closely with departments to agree bespoke targets. This will result in savings and efficiencies equivalent to nearly £14 billion a year by 2028-29, and public sector productivity has already risen by 1.5% since the election.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in 1964 the then Labour Government sought to separate the Treasury into two pieces: one to look after the short-term fiscal tax-raising element and one to look at economic development. The same tension exists today. Can the Minister tell your Lordships how the Treasury is balancing them? At the moment, it looks as if short-term fiscal concerns are outweighing long-term economic needs.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord. I do not think that there is any tension between economic stability and economic growth. As I say, under the Liz Truss mini-Budget we saw the damage that grotesque economic instability did to business confidence and business investment in this country. Maintaining stability—that starts with stability in the public finances—is why our fiscal rules are so important to our growth mission. Stability is the precondition for economic growth in this country, so the two go very much hand in hand.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, would the Government agree that, because we have a low-wage economy, we also have a low-investment economy? That is shown in the fact that 80% of all the transactions carried out by our banks, which were formerly owned by us, are in buying and selling private property, not in investing in new businesses and the kind of investment that the Government are now calling for.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not quite sure what the question was. I do not think that I agree with noble Lord’s diagnosis.
Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they intend to publish about the proposals they have received for a third runway at Heathrow Airport before announcing any major decisions.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Heathrow expansion will support UK competitiveness and economic growth. In June, the Secretary of State invited proposals; several were received, and two remain under active consideration. My department will decide on a single scheme by the end of November to inform the Airports National Policy Statement review, which was launched on 20 October. Proposals will not be published by the department, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s letter of 30 June to potential promoters, though some have independently released details of their schemes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Heathrow expansion is an absolutely enormous project, and there has been remarkably little public engagement. Before deciding between the two remaining bidders, will the Government agree that they should engage in public consultation, particularly on the costs that will flow through to passengers as a result of the regulatory structure, so that they are aware?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The launch of the Airports National Policy Statement review on 22 October is one of the significant steps that the Government are taking to support the expansion of Heathrow. The review has begun before final scheme selection to allow early policy and analytical work. Public consultation will, of course, take place. Round tables with key stakeholders will be held during the review and consultation phases. The further DCO process afterwards will include statutory consultation and public examination.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given the significant congestion already around Heathrow Airport and the impact on local communities, will the Government be making improved public transport access a condition of any plans for Heathrow expansion, in particular for southern and western rail links?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that, on Monday evening in this House, we discussed the Statement made in another place on Heathrow. She is right—I said so then, and I will say so again—that the public transport links to and from Heathrow must be a critical feature of any proposals put forward by any promoter. There are, as she mentions, schemes for southern and western access. The Elizabeth Line has significantly improved connectivity to the airport since it opened, and we await promoters’ proposals for public transport links to the airport.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, at the same time as considering proposals for Heathrow, would the Minister, using his huge talents, give his full support to the Mayor of Doncaster, Ros Jones, for the reopening of Doncaster Airport, which is vital for regional economic growth in Yorkshire and the Humber?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend raises a point that has been raised here before. The Government have put themselves out, as they should, to support the reopening of Doncaster Airport, and of course we will support the Mayor of Doncaster in the aspiration to have better connectivity for that part of Yorkshire.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the debate over Heathrow expansion, which I strongly support—and I draw attention to my entry in the register about working in the aviation industry, albeit not at Heathrow—is often couched in terms of passenger flights. In terms of the Government’s decision-making, what consideration are they giving to the fact that more than £200 billion-worth of trade goes through Heathrow, including a majority of trade in some very important sectors, such as our world-leading pharmaceutical industry?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
A number of noble Lords are re-running the debate we had on Monday evening. The noble Lord is right that 72% of UK air freight by value goes through Heathrow because it is the only hub airport in Britain, and that is why the Government are so keen to expand it. The noble Lord is right that the value of air freight to international trade to and from Britain is an important issue in considering the expansion of the airport.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, can I just challenge this issue of air freight? High-value air freight takes up very little capacity in the holds of aircraft. In fact, we could double the high value, and scarcely no one would notice. Will the Minister confirm that the majority of air freight by bulk and by weight is fish, followed by books, with medicines coming up third? In fact, the Scottish farming industry would do much better if, instead of hubbing all its fish and Scottish passengers down to London, BA ran direct flights from Edinburgh to New York, the route which is most useful for fish.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I had a feeling that fish and books would come up again because they came up on Monday. Of course, value and size are two different things. The point of an international hub airport—of which I should continue to say we have only one and we will have only one, which is Heathrow—is international connectivity around the globe. Expanding an international hub airport should mean more connectivity to more places, and that will enable more fish and books and salmon to be sent all around the globe.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the assessment of the two remaining bids for the third runway, will my noble friend take into account the additional carbon footprint of the additional planes, the concrete and steel that go into the construction and any other transport that is needed to service the passengers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the carbon footprint of building a third runway and operating the airport is significant. The Government have made it clear that any proposed scheme must meet four clear tests, of which aligning with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero, is one. He is also aware, I think, that the construction industry is moving forward with more carbon-friendly methods of construction, and I think it reasonable that the Government and the country expect a successful scheme to be carbon friendly, if not carbon-neutral, in construction.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, lest there be any doubt, I was here for the beginning of this Question—I was on the Steps. I am sure my noble friend recalls the plans for expansion at Stansted Airport, which extended over more than a decade, 20-odd years ago. They did not, in the end, come to anything of any significance, but there was a lot of collateral damage in the form of compulsory purchases and other acquisition of land that then had to be fed back into the system, and many people suffered as a consequence. Can he reassure us that, when whatever plan is brought forward for expansion at Heathrow, if it is, it will attempt not to put people in that situation again?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point. The history of airport expansion in Britain is not particularly happy, and a number of proposals have taken a very long time. Indeed, the previous Government’s ANPS did not go anywhere. This Government are determined to make progress in these areas. My noble friend is right that the long-term uncertainty of failing to progress with plans leaves many people uncomfortable or worse. The Government are determined to make progress and have set themselves targets in getting to the DCO and building this thing so that people can be uncertain for as little time as possible and the certainty is as great as possible thereafter.
Lord Bird (CB)
Will the Minister say whether it is possible for the Government to buy my ex-wife’s house, which is right near the runway? It is absolutely appalling when you go down there. If the Government are going to make billions and billions of pounds for the UK, then perhaps they should be spending some of that money on improving the lives of people who live under the flight paths, because they are going to be adding an enormous amount of worry and concern to people living down there.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that it would be unusual for a Minister to commit from the Dispatch Box to buying somebody’s property, but the noble Lord’s more serious point is about noise commitments. Any scheme that comes forward should meet the Government’s four clear tests, of which one is that it is consistent with our noise commitments. I would expect promoters not only to meet the Government’s commitments about noise but look at the effect on properties immediately adjacent to the runway that they propose to build.
El Fasher
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the situation in El Fasher in Sudan.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, on Monday, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement calling on the RSF to protect civilians and facilitate unimpeded humanitarian access into El Fasher. As she made clear, the RSF leadership are accountable for these crimes. UK Special Representative Richard Crowder and his team in Addis have been in touch with the RSF and their political alliance, Tasis, as well as the Sudan Armed Forces, to urge restraint, the protection of civilians and acting in accordance with international humanitarian law. We are mobilising £23 million of existing UK aid to support the delivery of life-saving food and health assistance in northern Darfur, as well as support to those facing sexual violence.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe. Famine alone has killed half a million children, and 10 million people are starving. That is more than in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza, Mali and South Sudan combined. Some 9 million people have been internally displaced, 3.5 million have fled the country as refugees and thousands of civilians have been murdered just this week. The UK is the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan. What more can His Majesty’s Government do to mobilise the international community, get aid in, protect civilians, press for a ceasefire and enforce an arms embargo? Why do we hardly ever discuss this issue? This House and the other place should be raising this, day in and day out, until this carnage is brought to an end.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my friend the noble Lord for that question and for his constant advocacy of this important subject. He has brought it to our notice before, and I agree entirely with his view that we have not spent enough time on it in the past. Let me set out where we are now. As he rightly says, we are the penholder at the UN Security Council and we have consistently advocated for a ceasefire, the protection of civilians and unhindered humanitarian access. Those have been our strategic commitments throughout. There will be an urgent UN Security Council meeting today, Thursday 30 October, called by the UK as penholder, and this was only agreed overnight. That is, as it were, breaking news, and I am pleased to report it to your Lordships’ House.
In November 2024, the UK and Sierra Leone prepared a UN Security Council resolution addressing the protection and humanitarian crisis in Darfur. This was vetoed by Russia, despite support from every other Security Council member. The UK welcomes the efforts of the Quad—the USA, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE—in seeking a resolution to the conflict in Sudan. The Quad statement issued on 12 September is a significant development. We stand ready to support the Quad’s effort.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the UAE is probably the only country able to exert significant leverage on the RSF, given the level of its support for them and the fact that it is the repository for most of the wealth of many of the RSF’s leaders. The UAE does not seem inclined to pursue an end to the fighting in Sudan, but would it be possible at least to get it to pressure the RSF to allow sufficient humanitarian aid and medical care into Darfur to the people who need it? Otherwise, the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding there will only worsen.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that important question. The Government’s view is clear: external support to the SAF and the RSF only fuels the conflict. We continue to emphasise to all parties the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict. We ask all those with influence over the warring parties—including the members of the Quad, of which the UAE is one—to bring them to the negotiating table to seek a political resolution. I may say more about this if noble Lords ask me about it, but the most important thing is humanitarian access.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, more than 5% of the population in Sudan are Christian. Since the start of the civil war in Sudan, there have been reports of both the RSF and the SAF targeting the Christian population. What engagement have the UK Government had with other Governments in the region to help to support and protect their Christian populations?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are very concerned about religious violence in Sudan, and indeed anywhere else in the world, and we certainly have sought to engage with the RSF on this. As the noble Lord knows, this conflict has a long history. I visited Sudan myself many years ago.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, Darfur has been a horrific conflict for decades and, as the noble Lord rightly said, we have not talked about it enough. However, a massacre based on rape, pillage and ethnic cleansing if El Fasher fell has been widely predicted for months. It is now happening, but all we are doing is passing resolutions and engaging in discussions. What are we actually going to do to protect civilians? What action will the Government take—or what is the point of being the penholder?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. As I said, we too have been urging action for the duration of this conflict, and we are very pleased with the efforts of the Quad. The most important priority, as set out in the Quad statement, is that we must have humanitarian access. The problem is not funds; the problem is access.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the horrific images are finally pushing through into our media, and they should be an absolute wake-up call for this place and the other place. It has been a long time coming, as other noble Lords have said. For years, Christians have been slain and displaced, and women subjected to sexual violence of the worst kind. Given that we are the penholder at the UN, will the Minister confirm that, as a first step, His Majesty’s Government will press for a ceasefire and protection for the civilians in El Fasher?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I am happy to confirm that we will continue to press for a ceasefire, support the Quad and, through our role at the UN, promote the priorities that I have set out. I should say that the reports of mass atrocities caused by the RSF in El Fasher are deeply alarming, and we do not in any way underestimate the seriousness of what is going on.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the elections have been postponed. Women leaders and women candidates are already preparing for office. Sudan has a 35% quota for women but, while all this is happening, women are being maimed or violently threatened and are not being allowed to stand and be open about that. What is the penholder doing to ensure that we have women candidates, that women can win and that women will be part of the peace process—otherwise, there will be no stability at all in Sudan and other areas?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I entirely agree with her view that women must play a full role in the transition that we look forward to in Sudan, although it may be some time coming. On conflict-related sexual violence, which my noble friend refers to, noble Lords will know that we have been dedicating a lot of effort to that issue. We are currently designing a dedicated women and girls programme on gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence, which assures a strategic approach to gender mainstreaming, and we have new humanitarian programmes that will provide dedicated resources to women-led organisations. I should say to my noble friend that we are also concerned about reports of sexual violence against men and boys in the area.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Security Council resolution for the protection of civilians was passed in June 2024. On its anniversary, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, what enforcement measures—which it is the duty of us as penholder to put forward—there were to enforce the Security Council resolution. Her answer to me on 17 July was:
“I often find myself asking what the point is of many of these declarations and resolutions in these situations”.—[Official Report, 17/07/25; col. 2000.]
Further to my noble friend’s question, what is the point of being a penholder in the Security Council if we are not actually implementing measures to enforce resolutions for the protection of civilians that the Security Council itself has passed?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have already said that there is a meeting of the UN Security Council today to discuss this further. I understand the frustration that he expresses. The biggest problem now is humanitarian access. Until we make progress on that, with the help of the warring militias, we will make very little progress on the wider ceasefire.
Sentencing Bill
Thursday 30th October 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.
Asylum Seekers: MoD Housing
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, both military sites proposed to house asylum seekers have significant local consequences. Cameron barracks in Inverness is close to the city centre, and local communities there are rightly concerned about the lack of consultation with them about such a major proposal. Crowborough army training camp in East Sussex is used by a large number of cadet forces, who will now be deprived of its use. Of course, if the Government truly wanted to clear the asylum backlog and close more asylum hotels, they would ban asylum claims from migrants entering the country illegally and deport them. Can the Minister say why the Government would prefer to move asylum seekers to sensitive sites—which have just as large an impact on local communities—rather than take real action to solve the problem?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question. The local authorities in both areas were informed two weeks ago, and we are continuing to ensure that we discuss the arrangements to date with the police, the National Health Service and local councils in each area. The Government are trying to do what I hope the noble Lord wishes the Government to do, which is to put a deterrent in place. The individuals who will be going to these sites in a phased, operational way, over a period of time, will have arrived, been processed and been put into those sites pending asylum decisions being taken. That is a real deterrent to people: it is not about going to a hotel or into the community—they are going to a very firm site where action can be taken. It is our ambition to reduce the number of hotels, and we have reduced the number from 400 at its peak to 200 now. It is our ambition to stop the crossings that are leading to these pressures in the first place. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on both matters.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rise simply to ask the Minister whether contracts will be issued for looking after these two sites, and whether the lessons learned from Napier and Wethersfield will be transferred to the actions that are now taking place in those two sites. It is all very well to simply emergency-open new sites, but not if they are going to be managed inappropriately. The substantial changes that were made in Wethersfield should be transferred, and that knowledge transferred onwards. Also, what is the timescale of those contracts? When are they due to start and end? I draw attention to my interest in the register in the RAMP organisation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have had around 1,000 learning points from discussions with a range of agencies over the use of previous sites. I know the noble Lord has visited, and that has been very helpful. Members of this House, and others, can visit and examine the conditions in the proposed new sites by arrangement with the Home Office. We are anticipating that the sites will start to be used from around the end of November, subject to discussions with local authorities et cetera. The plan is for around 12 months’ use. We are looking at phasing in entrance to the sites at around 30 people a day, to a maximum of 600 in Scotland and 300 in East Sussex. I hope that we will have robust management information in place to ensure that those learning points are put in place and are managed in a proper and effective way.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. The MoD training estate is oversubscribed; indeed, that is one of the biggest factors when it comes to trying to train the Army Reserve. While I commend to the Minister the announcement in the SDR that the reserve and cadets will be expanded, this will place even greater pressure on the MoD’s training estate. Crowborough training area is a vital estate used not just by cadets but by the reserve and the regular Army. I simply ask the Minister to be very careful about the selection of sites that we choose. It is not just about the accommodation; it is the second-order impact on the estate.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid and important point, and certainly one to reflect on. It is extremely important that we encourage and continue that training and support, as the noble Lord has identified. Government policy is designed to do that. He will note that my noble friend Lord Coaker, the Defence Minister, is on the Bench today. He is very much apprised of the issues raised, and we will work in close quarters to ensure that the objectives outlined by the noble Lord are achieved.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, what plans do the Government have for looking after the children who continue to come into this country? In the past they have been kept in completely unsatisfactory hotels, and many have vanished without trace.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that there will be no children in the two sites that are before the House in this Urgent Question today. She makes a valid point: a number of children have gone missing. We inherited that—it is not a political point; we just inherited that position. We are putting some urgency into trying to track down those children. We have put in place revised arrangements, particularly with the Kent local authority, to ensure that it is engaged very strongly in the initial arrival point. Children should not be damaged because, for whatever reason, their parents, guardians or relatives have arrived in the United Kingdom.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I urge the Minister and the Government to have the guts to stick to this plan to use the barracks in the short term, and not to be terrorised out of it by immigration pressure groups, one of which said yesterday that this would further traumatise people who have suffered enough. I stayed in the Cameron barracks and the Crowborough barracks in the late 1970s, and they were pretty okay then. I am sure they are much more luxurious now. I read that £1.3 million may be spent on refurbishing Cameron barracks in Inverness. Can I get the Minister’s assurance that if any money is spent, it will be used for essential fire and safety measures, and not in creating individual private bedrooms with en suite facilities? If barrack-room accommodation is good enough for our single male soldiers, it should be good enough for illegal asylum seekers as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and hope he enjoyed his time at both barracks and found it convivial, as far as possible given the service it presumably had at that time. We are trying to ensure that this is a temporary measure. Ultimately, the purpose of all this is to ensure that we process people very quickly, eventually with off-site decision-making, and that we then disperse or remove those individuals when asylum decisions are taken. I will look into the £1.3 million that the noble Lord mentioned and give him a formal response by letter. Please rest assured that the purpose of this is to provide temporary accommodation to reduce hotel numbers, and ultimately to help us on the path to reduce them to zero.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister just acknowledged that speedy determination of asylum claims is essential to addressing this problem. You obviously need less accommodation if people can be moved on when they have no asylum claim, and moved to other countries speedily. That will have a greater deterrent effect on those who want to come here. What is the current backlog of asylum claims? What are the Government doing to ensure more speedy determination of those claims?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful that the noble Lord has put his finger on a point that the Government have also put their finger on. The current initial claim for decision-making on outstanding asylum decisions is around 91,000. In the last three months alone, the number of people awaiting that initial decision has fallen by 19,000, or 17%. That is because we have taken decisions to put extra staff into that area to speed up asylum applications, and we are looking at using that newfangled thing, AI, to try to improve speedy applications and understanding of those applications. It is absolutely right that we get those application numbers down. The number of people awaiting a decision is down by 24% over the period of the previous Government.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, when I was standing in the shoes of the Minister, answering questions about our plans to put asylum seekers in military accommodation, noble Lords will recall the waves of opprobrium received from the Labour Benches, and in particular the Labour Front Bench. I welcome the Government’s change of heart. There is nothing quite like the joy of a sinner who repenteth. As an officer cadet, I too stayed in Cameron barracks. It is largely barrack-room accommodation. The previous Government were the subject of litigation in relation to the use of Penally and Napier barracks. The courts found that the accommodation was unsuitable on human rights grounds because it was not individual accommodation. How do the Government propose to address that issue in relation to their new plans?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
When the noble Lord stood in my shoes there were 400 hotels being used, and there are now 200. There was also a higher backlog of asylum accommodation, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to, because he put his faith in a Rwanda scheme that removed nobody. When he was in my shoes, he failed miserably in dealing with an issue that his shoes put in place in the first place.
Let us put that to one side. He has asked a perfectly legitimate question. We want to ensure that we are not subject to legal challenge, and it is important we do that. That decision, ultimately, is not for us to determine. We want to make sure that we provide accommodation that is of an acceptable standard, but a standard that, as I have mentioned to the House, is temporary. This is so that we can end both asylum accommodation and, in the long term, this type of accommodation. In doing so, we can stop small boat crossings happening in the first place.
Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock
That this House regrets that under the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 (SI 2025/409), the new routes for applications for planning permission for Crown developments of national importance will disregard accepted democratic processes and will be determined by the Planning Inspectorate and not local planning authorities.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I tabled a regret Motion on this statutory instrument well before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now making its way through your Lordships’ House, had even had its Second Reading. Many of the issues I am still concerned with in this order have been debated during the progress of the Bill.
However, I make no apology for once again making the case for community involvement in developments that affect their locality. The Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 fundamentally alters the planning landscape in England. While this instrument appears to be merely procedural, it is in fact a key mechanism for cementing a significant power grab that threatens local accountability and transparency.
The SI we are debating is one of three other statutory instruments that implement the new routes for Crown development, which, to be fair to the Government, were introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. During the debate on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, I argued that there had to be community involvement in planning applications, in particular those on behalf of the Crown. Unfortunately, what this statutory instrument does is put central expediency over local democracy and due process in regard to Crown planning applications.
To give a bit of an example, the central purpose of this route for Crown development is to allow government departments—the “appropriate authority”—to apply directly to the Secretary of State for planning permission, bypassing the local planning authority entirely. The rationale provided by the department is that
“Government departments have faced challenges securing planning permission”
through the local planning authority route. This has resulted in delayed decisions for
“nationally important planned projects such as prisons or defence facilities”.
My argument is simple: challenges are the bedrock of a vibrant democracy and, in particular for planning, a vibrant local democracy. When a local planning authority scrutinises a development, it is ensuring that the project is in line with community needs and environmental standards, as well as the national need. By shifting the power of determination from local authority to the Planning Inspectorate, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, the local checks and balances are being sacrificed for the sake of speed of decision.
One of the most startling issues I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI is that there has been no public consultation on the instrument. The department claims this is due to the “technical nature” of the SI. Yet this technical instrument results in a major policy shift, affecting potentially every community in England.
While the statutory instrument sets out procedures for standard Crown development, the legislative package also covers urgent Crown development. For this, the department has indicated that the need for community engagement will be assessed on a case by case basis, meaning that the Secretary of State appears to have it almost entirely in their discretion whether local engagement is needed at all. If they have this discretion, obviously it puts in peril the public’s right to engage with nationally important projects that could drastically alter their neighbourhood.
The entire system hinges on the concept of a development being defined as “of national importance”. The statutory instrument uses the words “Crown development”. So can the Minister provide an explanation of what is defined as Crown development? Is it any development, whatever size is applied for, that takes place on Crown land?
Article 5 of the instrument allows for the Secretary of State to direct that information related to an application can also be defined as “sensitive information”. If the Secretary of State deems that information relates to national security or security measures and its public disclosure would be contrary to the national interest, the provisions requiring public disclosure will not apply. I can accept that sometimes this is the case. However, in the modern world, nothing is secret and nothing stays away from the public gaze. While sensitive projects may require limited disclosure, this provision actually provides a broad mechanism for withholding crucial information from the public under the umbrella of national interest.
The Government propose that this package of reforms will bring benefits to the public sector, enabling faster planning decisions and potential cost savings to capital programmes—but at what cost? This statutory instrument and the supporting ones undermine the very principles of local planning. They centralise power, sidestep public consultation, rely on vague criteria and restrict transparency. We are being asked to accept an instrument that accelerates government projects by silencing local voices.
I urge the Minister to consider the long-term impact on local governance and planning democracy, as I have done throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to consider enabling communities to have their voice heard before the process is concluded. You can guarantee that local voices will be raised at some point. How much better that those voices are heard during deliberations on a planning application on Crown land, and not after the deal is done? I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. We on this side of the House believe in local democracy. It is why I proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure local democracy where there are valid planning grounds, and why I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on ensuring affirmative procedures for delegated planning powers was passed.
However, there is a need for balance. Today, we are seeing a government programme for the early release of prisoners. While this is, in large part, due to a failure to manage the prison population and deport foreign-born criminals, the lack of prison capacity is a factor. Importantly, the lack of prison space hampers prison rehabilitation—a matter that I know the Prisons Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is much vexed about. As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist raised last night, the huge impact that the delays to and additional costs of the UK nuclear programme is having on the cost of energy is a major issue for struggling families and industry. It is therefore right to have a balanced approach.
Section 109 of the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act added two new sections to the Town and Country Planning Act, creating new routes for Crown development. These provisions allow for an appropriate authority to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permissions, rather than the local planning authority. The intention behind this change was clear: to prevent delay or obstruction to vital national development, such as prisons.
As I have said, we are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but these powers are proportionate and balanced. It is our understanding that the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 concerns development applications on Crown land that are deemed to be of national importance. The instrument sets out the procedure for such Crown development applications, including applications for planning permissions and approval for reserved matters. Crown development refers to applications made by the Crown bodies for development of national importance.
As so often in matters like these, the key issue is balance between local voice and national need, and between the principle of localism and the imperative to deliver key national infrastructure efficiently. We stand by the intentions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which expands local voices in the round, taking them seriously by strengthening the role of local plans, creating new opportunities for communities to shape development in their areas and ensuring that decision-making is rooted closer to the people it affects. The Act sought to make planning more transparent, more accountable and more responsive to local priorities. It was never about sidelining local democracy but about creating a system capable of delivering both local consent and national progress.
The provisions on Crown development sit within that broader context. They are not a retreat from localism but a recognition that, on occasion, public interest requires a more streamlined route for developments of genuine national importance. As ever, the challenge is to strike the right balance, to protect local accountability while ensuring that the machinery of state can deliver where delay would carry a wider national cost. That principle underpins this instrument and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act itself. It is right that we reaffirm it today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps it is due to the many hours we have spent in the Chamber debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, just said.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this debate, and I thank her and the noble Lord for their contributions. I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the noble Baroness’s regret Motion on the agenda, as she herself had requested—through her Amendment 87E to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—a streamlined planning process for asylum processing sites. However, she has explained that her regret Motion was tabled before we started debating that Bill.
In May, we brought forward the regulations subject to this debate, along with a wider suite of regulations to bring both Crown development and urgent Crown development routes into force. These are the Crown development route for developments that are considered of national importance and the urgent Crown development route for a nationally important development that is needed as a matter of urgency. Some noble Lords in attendance today will remember when we debated these regulations earlier this year. As I said then, these routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure that the state directly delivers; for instance, new defence facilities, prisons and border control—issues that we debated in this House a very short time ago and which are essential for the effective running of this country.
Recent experience, including the response to Covid, exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, was not fit for purpose. In fact, it had never been used. Further, government departments have historically struggled to secure local planning permission for some nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for her full and detailed response to my concerns. Unfortunately, the fundamentals remain. The Minister is quite right to say that the local planning authority will be involved in all the notifications and that voices and comments and so on can be heard, but in the end, the decision is taken over there and not where it should be, in the locality. That has always been my concern, as the Minister will know.
The balance has tipped too far in favour of government planning applications on Crown land, rather than trying to speed up processes which still engage local people fully. Having said that—–
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has spent many hours in this Chamber debating what we are doing elsewhere in the planning system to speed up decision-making. While I understand her great championing of community engagement in planning, we are trying to get the balance right here.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I accept that wholly. The Minister has always responded positively to the queries I have raised; it is just that we disagree on the balance.
I shall continue challenging because I think that is always needed. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Protection of Children Codes of Practice
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
That this House regrets that the draft Protection of Children Codes of Practice for search services does not fully deliver the level of protection for children envisaged by the Online Safety Act 2023 due to regulatory gaps, accessibility challenges, and the consultation process failing adequately to address feedback from civil society organisations and victims’ groups.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is a regret Motion, and one of my regrets today is that we are debating it so long after it was tabled back in May this year. The Online Safety Act 2023 was born from tireless campaigning over a long period, and when I look around the Chamber, I see a number of those who were heavily engaged on that Act. The clear parliamentary intent was to create a safer digital environment. This House passed landmark legislation with the clear ambition to compel online platforms to take proportional measures to safeguard children from accessing or being exposed to harmful and inappropriate content and behaviour.
One of the key questions today, which many have continued to raise since I first put down the regret Motion, is: does the implementation of the Act match that ambition? The children’s codes of practice were intended to translate Parliament’s intent into practical reality; yet following scrutiny by the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee, extensive feedback from civil society organisations and analysis of emerging online harms, it is clear that in their current form these codes present significant shortcomings, hence this regret Motion. For example, the Molly Rose Foundation, founded following the death of 14 year-old Molly Russell, is deeply dismayed by the lack of ambition in these codes and states explicitly that it does not have confidence that the Online Safety Act will prevent a repeat of Molly’s death.
The Online Safety Act explicitly mandates that a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults. It demands that services are safe by design, yet the codes recommend only a limited number of measures that do little to address the fundamental design features and functionalities that facilitate or exacerbate harm to children. Specifically, the codes fail to address the harmful design features that platforms have embedded in their business models, features that prioritise engagement and monetisation over safety. These include scroll mechanisms that trap children in continuous content consumption, push notifications that constantly pull them back to platforms, loot boxes that exploit addictive behaviours, and algorithmic amplification that prioritises content designed to maximise engagement rather than well-being.
Ofcom will require platforms only to reduce the frequency with which children are shown certain forms of harmful content, such as dangerous stunts, rather than demanding they stop recommending it altogether. Several platforms have persuaded the regulator that content moderation is not technically feasible, leading Ofcom to require only “proportionate alternatives” such as preventing access to group chats where primary priority content has been identified, which the Molly Rose Foundation anticipates is highly likely to be gamed by the industry. Measures that could have helped, such as enabling children to provide feedback on algorithmic recommendations, appear to have been watered down and are now effectively left to the platform’s discretion.
The codes fail adequately to require safety by design or to require companies to take specific actions to address high-risk functionalities such as live streaming, despite Ofcom highlighting them in its register of risks. Civil society organisations such as Internet Matters have expressed disappointment that key recommendations on parental controls were not included as specific duties. There is a notable lack of reference to media literacy, which is essential for equipping families to support children’s safety. Concerns surrounding complex issues such as child-on-child harms were raised in consultation, yet these recommendations were not taken forward. The fundamental problem regarding pornography is not just access, but that the pornography itself is extreme, depicting acts that could not be legally published in offline formats such as DVDs. The regulator’s proposed measures for recommender systems are seen as having misdiagnosed the core problem, focusing narrowly on demotion of illegal content rather than addressing the amplification of lawful but cumulatively harmful content.
The second key issue is the failure of process. It is a matter of great concern that civil society organisations and victims’ groups felt that they were not listened to during consultation. These groups draw on the lived and often traumatic experience of victims and survivors, and they report that fundamental issues that they flagged remain unaddressed. There is a suggestion that Ofcom may have given greater weight to industry concerns than to the voices of safety advocates. Ofcom has explicitly confirmed that it has made no quantitative assessment or modelling of the societal costs and impacts of harmful online content. The quantified financial costs to businesses of compliance are given disproportionate weight compared to the immense potential impact of harm on individuals and the wider economic and societal costs.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate, and I agree with almost everything he has just said.
I applaud the enormous work that Ofcom has put into creating and implementing the children’s codes. I am pleased to hear that they have already led to a huge reduction in children online accidentally stumbling on pornography and other harmful materials. However, I fear, as the noble Lord has just said, that the rules-based nature of the codes specifies narrow recommended measures rather than incentivising desired outcomes and encouraging the platforms to implement mitigations to children’s harms which go beyond these codes. This is particularly the case with live-streaming, which, according to Ofcom’s own finding, is a risky functionality. The regulator’s register of risk says that live-streaming can be a risk for several kinds of harm to children; it specifies the real-time sharing of suicide and self-harm content.
When Dame Melanie Dawes came before the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, she said that Ofcom had implemented mitigations to live streaming for under 18s. The measures stopped them from using likes, switches off screen capture and prohibits comments on their feeds. This has the beneficial effect of stopping any adult who might consider grooming a child from interacting and encouraging the child user to take further action. However, it still exposes children to potential harms from adult predators. Surely, the best option would be to stop children from using the functionality, or at least introduce some age-appropriate design that limits usage to 16 to 18 year-olds. I know that Ofcom regards such a ban, or even age-appropriate design, as being too punitive for a service that is used by under 18 year-olds, but it would achieve the aim of the Online Safety Act, which is to protect children from harm.
In addition, I would ask the regulator to address established pathways to harm that end in live streams, even if they do not begin there, in particular the specific threat profile of “com groups”, where children are identified and contacted via other functionalities and then moved to live streams, where they are often coerced into horrific actions. These and other upstream measures will protect children from these harms. It may be a good idea to look at introducing time delays between an account being set up and being allowed to start a live stream. Some services, such as LiveMe, have already banned children from live-streaming on their apps. My additional fear is that, even when services go beyond the thresholds set out in the Act, there is no rollback provision to stop them reneging on such beneficial actions.
My other area of concern is the use of VPNs by children, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, just raised. A huge rise in their use was reported when the codes were first introduced. Internet Matters estimated that, of the under-18s, one in 10 was using VPNs. The fear was that they were going on to VPNs to access harmful content, which the codes had prevented them reaching. Ofcom has said that it is uncertain why there is a big increase in use. Many children claim that they need the VPN because the internet connection at their school is bad and it is a way of improving access to the internet. I wonder why, if this is the case, the rise in VPN use should coincide with the introduction of the children’s code. If there had been a problem with school connections, surely that issue would have been raised prior to the code’s adoption.
The Children’s Commissioner, in her August report, called for the Government to
“explore options to ensure children aren’t able to use VPNs to avoid the age assurance process”.
This could be achieved by
“amending the Online Safety Act to bring in an additional provision which would require VPN providers in the UK to put in place Highly Effective Age Assurance … and prevent them from accessing pornographic sites”.
Can the Minister tell the House whether any such measures are being considered?
At the very least, there should be an education programme for parents who, in many cases, enhance the policing of their children’s use of VPNs by understanding their possible misuses. For instance, when they are asked to pay for children’s access to the VPN app, they should interrogate the need for this access. Surely general advice for safety protection could be given to parents, as happens with parental control of video games.
I know that Ofcom is carrying out research into why children are using VPNs. It is a welcome step, but I must ask why this was not anticipated and research carried out earlier. I am pleased with the greatly improved safety environment for children introduced with these codes, but the internet is a dangerous place. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that it is a safe place for our children in all its functionalities.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble, Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this regret Motion. He gave a tour de force of all the reasons why we should regret that these codes are not more ambitious. I too wholeheartedly support the Online Safety Act and, once again, it is a privilege to be with the tech team across the aisles that has worked on this legislation for a very long time. I do not in any way want to diminish the substantial work that Ofcom has done on this. It is a ground-breaking piece of legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. There is a huge amount of work to implement it and I would not want in any way to slow down that implementation. I regret, however, that these codes are not more ambitious.
My remarks will, very briefly, focus on the first group of concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, focused on: insufficient protections and the lack of ambition in them. I will specifically focus on whether these codes really allow for age-appropriate experiences. Any parent or grandparent knows that what is appropriate for a 13 year-old is very different from what is appropriate for a 17 year-old. Yet, sadly, although Ofcom recognises that user-to-user services should
“consider children in different age groups”,
there is little or no guidance on what they should actually consider. As we are learning, unless those things are specified in detail, the safe harbour provision just means that the user-to-user services do not really need to do it at all. As a result, it is highly unlikely that these codes will produce user-to-user services that are age appropriate for 13 year-olds relative to 17 year-olds. Even more fundamentally, they will not address the millions of under-13s using social media platforms that even those providers themselves admit are only appropriate for 13 year-olds and above.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this regret Motion. I am very familiar with it because, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I was part of the team scrutinising it when it came in front of us. I welcome the Minister to her post. This is one of her early baptisms in the world of online safety and it will be the precursor, I suspect, to many more. I suspect that she will be on a fairly steep learning curve, and I wish her well.
Many people have spoken about the perception that many of us have that we thought we were being very explicit about our hopes and ambitions for the Online Safety Bill as it went through Parliament—with, in particular, a huge amount of time in this House. If she has not yet been able to, I suggest that the Minister could benefit from sitting down over a suitable libation with the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscounts, Lord Camrose and Lord Colville, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Kidron, and others to understand what we thought we were being very clear about in terms of Parliament’s expectations when this Act passed and what we are now experiencing in terms of its enactment. That would be really helpful in understanding where we are coming from when we repeatedly raise some of these issues. That really comes under the heading of an insufficiency of ambition and of clarity of understanding about what it was that we thought we were being very clear about.
There is a failure of process in certain areas. I will not go into great detail, but the fact that smaller, high-risk sites are, to a large extent, excluded is madness. It is exactly on some of those smaller, high-risk sites where you have incidents of people being encouraged to self-harm, of people being encouraged to end their lives and of radicalisation. That is going on in plain sight. At the moment, Ofcom does not appear to feel that it has enough resources to do anything about it. I am also not sure that it feels it is entirely clear, under the auspices of the Act, whether this should indeed be a priority for it.
There are also structural flaws: the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the safe harbour. There are three key questions that I will pose to the Minister— I do not expect her to be able to give a magic answer at the Dispatch Box—to really focus on trying to get an understanding of what is going on and some answers. I am sure she will be asked some of these questions in the future.
The first is: does Ofcom have sufficient resources and knowledge at its disposal to do what we very clearly intended it to do in the Act? Given the evidence at the moment of what it is able to do, I am not sure the resources are adequate. If the resources are adequate, they are not being tactically and strategically deployed in the best way to achieve what we were trying to do.
The second point was referred to briefly. We tried very hard, during the passage of the Act, to try to find a place for parents to go. If, under the terms of the Act, they are meant to go to the platform with which they have a problem—perhaps their child was harmed or, God forbid, even died—and the platform is unable to satisfy them and give them an adequate response, they have nowhere to go. We talked about that at length during the passage of the Act, and it is still the case. I do not think, in all conscience, that is adequate or appropriate. I encourage the Government to look carefully at that and how it might be mitigated. Talking to people such as Ian Russell and the Molly Rose Foundation would be a very good way of understanding what those families, who are not getting an adequate response, are going through and will continue to go through.
The third area is the level of scrutiny that the Act is undergoing. We fought in vain to encourage the then Government to agree to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise the Online Safety Act on a continuing basis; to establish a dialogue with Ofcom in a direct and relatively open way, but also for it to be possible to do it, if needs be, more discreetly, away from the limelight and publicity; to try to understand some of the issues and problems that Ofcom may be having; and to see how we can help, rather than being slightly outside it, as it is currently constructed. I do not feel comfortable being critical of Ofcom without necessarily being in full receipt of the facts and understanding what is really going on inside. I think all those of us involved in the passage of the Act would like to help Ofcom do its job, not castigate it for not doing what we think it should have done. Trying to see whether there is a way in which we can have a more regular dialogue between Parliament and Ofcom, for each to understand where the other is coming from and to be better informed, would be a good step forward.
The day before yesterday, in our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we had yet another statutory instrument on online safety, in this case from the Home Office. Again, I am afraid it was slightly disappointing news. This statutory instrument has a particularly catchy title. It is called the Online Safety (CSEA Content Reporting by Regulated User-to-User Service Providers) (Revocation) Regulations. For those at the Dispatch Box, it is Statutory Instrument 2025 No. 1066, like the Battle of Hastings. In this case, an online portal to enable all reports of child sexual exploitation and abuse to be aggregated in one place was meant to go live, I think, next month. For reasons probably to do with poor design and project planning, it will not go live. It is effectively having to be rebuilt and will hopefully go online, if it works, at some point in the spring. We will publish our report and noble Lords will be able to read it and see that the committee was not exactly happy. In this case, the Home Office provided an inadequate Explanatory Memorandum and has agreed to go back and do a better job. I can see the chair of our committee sitting behind the Minister; he will be well aware of that.
In conclusion, I think the status quo is untenable. Until and unless the group of us who were particularly closely involved in the passage of the Act are more confident that the victims who are suffering in the online world, particularly children, are better protected—until we feel that their concerns and experiences are being responded to more robustly, succinctly and accurately—we will continue to keep on raising this issue again and again.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I apologise: I came to listen to this debate from the steps of the throne, but the more I listened, the more I thought I would make a very short contribution. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Motion. The noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, and others in the House, will know that, as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I and others have introduced a number of amendments that are relevant to our debate today. One would raise the age of access to social media for children from 13 to 15. Another would prohibit the use of VPNs by children. A third would ban the use of smartphones in schools during the school day.
The Department for Education and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in their rejection of our proposed amendments in Committee, cited as reasons for waiting the lack of convincing evidence and the fact that these codes were going to be implemented, and said it was premature to act. I hope there is some way of making sure that the noble Baroness is briefed on today’s debate, because I think she might feel, if she listened to some of the comments around the House, somewhat less reassured. She would also have been less reassured if she had been present earlier this week at the round table we hosted, across parties and with Cross-Bench support, which took evidence from medical experts including the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, academic experts and safeguarding experts. What we heard was deeply troubling.
The Minister may be aware that there are a number of ongoing campaigns about aspects of this and the way in which social media has led to tragic deaths of children. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to Ian Russell and his daughter Molly, but Esther Ghey, mother of Brianna Ghey, and Ellen Roome, mother of Jools, also lost their children tragically as a result of their involvement with social media. This is an opportunity for the Government to be on the right side of history. All the evidence seems to be going in one direction and one direction only in terms of harm to children. If there is ever a time to adopt the precautionary principle, surely this is it.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, began with an apology and I must do the same, because I did not leave my office soon enough and I missed the first few paragraphs of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to whom I personally apologise, and I apologise to the House in general for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, I am the chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but I speak today in an entirely personal capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has actually left very little to say—so I will say very little. I certainly agreed with the important points he highlighted and went into in some detail. The gaps remaining in those codes are a genuine concern. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ofcom have pointed to the fact that they are simply the first iteration. That may well be the case, but both will need to ensure that any shortcomings that emerge are addressed at the earliest opportunity, and I hope it may be possible for my noble friend, whom I welcome to her post on the Front Bench, to offer an assurance that the necessary legislative changes that result from the shortcomings will be implemented as a matter of priority. Anything else would be entirely inappropriate, and indeed perhaps even unforgivable.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, not much we debate in your Lordships’ House unites us so thoroughly as our shared recognition that children must be protected from harmful online content and behaviours. I am delighted that we are as one when it comes to the importance of shielding young people from extreme pornography, content promoting self-harm or suicide, or other serious risks.
This makes it all the more important to scrutinise how the Government and Ofcom have chosen to implement these protections. The role of the draft codes of practice, laid in April this year and brought into effect in July, is to translate Parliament’s intentions into practical rules for service providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, set out so clearly, there are some serious concerns about whether these codes are achieving their stated objectives, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this important Motion to the House today and for giving us the chance to air our views.
There is some evidence that the codes are being applied in a way that risks overreach and unintended consequences. Some platforms, such as X and Reddit, in attempting to comply, blocked wide-ranging content, including parliamentary debates on grooming gangs and posts relating to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Several experts have warned that such overapplication risks stifling legitimate public debate. It has even been suggested that some platforms deliberately overapply some rules as a way to influence government towards weakening them.
The Act was always designed to respect freedom of expression—political and otherwise—while protecting internet users, especially children, from harm. The Government’s own guidance confirms this, but clearly the practical effect has not always to date reflected that intent.
There also exist concerns about the complexity and accessibility of the codes. Platforms, parents and of course children themselves in some instances may struggle to understand what duties are required and how to enforce them. The guidance is hundreds of pages long and, while Ofcom has issued advice on risk assessments and age-verification measures, there is a real danger that the practical realities of compliance, particularly for smaller providers, leave gaps in protection. Complexity should not become a barrier to the very protections these codes are meant to provide.
We have also been discussing the iterative approach taken by Ofcom. Presenting the codes as a first step, to be refined over time, is in principle essential, for two reasons. The first is that, as we know, this is a pioneering piece of legislation and we must remain open to adapting it. The second is that I am afraid that the people we are up against are inventive users of fast-moving technology.
However, the iterative approach is also clearly creating uncertainty. Civil society organisations have reported that their concerns were not fully addressed during consultation. Children face immediate risks and it is imperative that the Government ensure that these gaps are closed without delay. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cited the statistic that a young life aged between 10 and 19 is lost to suicide every week where technology has been a factor. The codes should not act or be viewed as a ceiling for safety standards. Rather, they must set a floor for safety standards and be subject to firm and measurable enforcement.
Enforcement and proportionality are, of course, critical. The Act grants Ofcom significant powers, including fines, criminal liability and restrictions on financial and commercial arrangements. Yet there are practical challenges to ensuring that these powers are applied in a proportionate and evidence-based way. The critical challenge facing the Government as they operate the Act’s machinery is to protect children while avoiding excessive interference with legitimate content and adult access to lawful material.
All that said, we on these Benches do have questions over the Government’s handling of these codes. Our purpose is to challenge the Government to deliver children’s online safety effectively and proportionately. While I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her the very best for her very important role, particularly in this respect, I ask her for some greater clarity, if she is able to provide it, on three strands of Ofcom’s work. First, how will Ofcom monitor implementation by platforms? Secondly, how will it ensure that civil society is genuinely incorporated, and of course that consultees recognise that they have been listened to? Thirdly, how will it address current gaps in coverage without delay?
I am delighted to be participating in this important debate and to have the opportunity to seek these assurances from the Government. We must see rapid action to ensure that the codes protect children in practice, do not inadvertently suppress legitimate debate, and are accessible and enforceable in the real world. I support the scrutiny behind this regret Motion and hope that, when the Minister rises, she will provide answers that reassure us all that the protection of children online is being delivered with both effectiveness and proportionality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating the debate. I absolutely acknowledge the huge expertise in the Room today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his suggestion of further discussions with individual Members.
I found reading the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report an excellent basis for this discussion. That committee plays a very important role, as do other committees, such as the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The role of ongoing scrutiny by all these bodies is absolutely essential. On the matter of the specific committee that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, it would be for the House to decide whether that would be set up to monitor this legislation and the codes.
As others have mentioned, we are working closely with Ofcom to monitor the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act. While the early signs are encouraging, the true test will be whether adults and children are having a safer online experience. Ofcom has put in place a robust monitoring and evaluation program, tracking changes firms are making in response to regulation, gathering data from the supervised services and commissioning research to measure impact. Some of that research has been mentioned in the course of the debate. It is quite extensive and provides a lot of information to civil society organisations, Members of this House and others.
What binds us together is the determination to do everything we need to do to keep children safe online, as built on the evidence. That is a priority. The previous Secretary of State, in issuing his statement of strategic priorities, made it clear that the first priority was safety by design. That builds on the safety by design measures within the codes, such as the safer design of algorithms to filter out harmful content from children’s feeds. On 25 July, Ofcom published its statement, setting out what it proposes to do in consequence of that statement of strategic priorities. Under the Act, it must publish further annual reviews of what action it has taken as a result of the statement of strategic priorities, including on safety by design.
We have taken action to strengthen the regulatory framework by making further offences priority offences under the Online Safety Act, reflecting the most serious and prevalent illegal content and online activity—for example, laying an SI to make cyberflashing, encouraging self-harm and the sharing of intimate images without consent priority offences under the Act.
Others have mentioned the importance of basing our decisions on good evidence of what is happening. Recognising that further research was required to improve the evidence base, the Government have commissioned a feasibility study to explore the impact of smartphones and social media use on children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the point about evidence, I am absolutely not an expert in this but the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, definitely is. I think it would be a very good use of the Minister’s time to meet with her. She described a situation where the research that is being done is at a population level, where changes and attribution will be difficult to discern. I understood the noble Baroness to be making the case that—I do not want to misrepresent her—what clinicians are seeing has a lot of parallels with her review of the Tavistock. On the one hand, you wait for great population-level surveys, but you need to act on what is being seen. It is important that the Government look at both.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion. I would be very happy to speak with the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and leverage her experience in drawing up the right models of evidence-gathering and research.
To come back to the core of some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others were making about the implementation of the Act through the codes, Ofcom has met the 18-month statutory timeline that was set by Parliament to finalise the guidance and codes of practice relating to illegal harms and the protection of children. The illegal content safety duties came into force in March this year, meaning that all companies in scope will need to protect all users, including children, from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. On 24 April this year, Ofcom submitted to the Secretary of State the final draft protection codes of conduct. That regime came into force on 25 July, following parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and add my welcome to her to the Front Bench: you cannot have enough south Londoners on the Front Bench. I also thank her very much for the serious and comprehensive way in which she answered many of the points raised—and, indeed, some of the points that we did not raise—during the debate.
There is an essential issue running all the way through most of the speeches, which is this question of oversight and scrutiny. I very much hope the Minister will take a leaf out of her predecessor’s book—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I am glad to see is also on the Benches today—in engaging with those Members across the House who have strong views about online safety, who helped take the Bill through, and who genuinely want to see Ofcom succeed in regulating social media platforms. It is not just about formal engagement through the SLSC or other mechanisms, valuable though that is; it is important that we get to grips with a lot of the new information in what she had to say, which I thought was extremely helpful.
Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, we live in an increasingly interconnected world, where crime knows no borders. International co-operation should be promoting justice and we should be helping to try to keep the public safe. That is really important to do. Accordingly, the instrument I bring before your Lordships’ House today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition co-operation. The order was welcomed in the House of Commons earlier this month, where all sides of the House were able to support it. I welcome the chance today to probe some issues, following the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
I start by explaining a bit more about what these changes mean. The order amends the designation under the Extradition Act of three states: Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. I will take each in turn, starting with Chile. Chile’s designation is required as it recently acceded to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, something that the UK has been a long-standing supporter of. In the light of this change, it is appropriate and necessary that Chile’s designation be amended from a Part 2, category B territory to a Part 2, category A territory. That change means, in effect, that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining co-operations to reflect the underlying international legal framework that is now in place.
It is worth reflecting that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience. It is a recognition of Chile’s commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition agreements. It will enhance the efficiency of judicial co-operation, reduce unnecessary delays and ensure justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly.
I turn to Hong Kong and its de-designation. As Members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020. This move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities—legislation which was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and the rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition co-operation with Hong Kong. The order before your Lordships’ House today formalises this reality, removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Act, thereby aligning its status with that of other non-treaty jurisdictions.
I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation, because this goes to the nub of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has brought before the House today. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong. It does not create any new powers for government. It does not change any powers of the UK courts to consider extradition requests.
I am aware, obviously, of concerns raised regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese Government who sought refuge in the United Kingdom. I assure your Lordships that we take our responsibilities towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. This de-designation is a necessary step to accurately reflect the international legal position in domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process and safeguards the rights of those Hong Kongers in the UK who fled political repression. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on that explanation. My point is that it does not change where we are.
Finally, I turn to Zimbabwe, which the order de-designates. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a Part 2, category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, which is a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpins co-operation among Commonwealth nations. However, as Members will know, Zimbabwe withdrew formally from the Commonwealth in 2003. As such, the legal foundation for its designation under the Act has since ceased to exist. De-designation now, therefore, is not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic position, but rather a necessary legal correction, given that the current designation is incompatible with the UK’s domestic legal framework and international obligations.
Zimbabwe’s continued designation, if I can be frank with the House, was an oversight which has spanned multiple Governments, and which we are today putting right with this order. More broadly, the issue highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under Part 2, despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being in force. I therefore confirm to the House that measures have now been put in place to strengthen co-ordination between policy, legal and operational teams to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner, which it did not in the case of Zimbabwe.
To conclude, extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not escape justice by crossing borders. This order ensures that our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I look forward to listening to the noble Baroness, but at this time I commend the order to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Brinton
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Order makes changes to the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong at a time when a fair trial can no longer be guaranteed in Hong Kong due to the National Security Law; further regrets that the Government did not carry out a full consultation, preventing those who will be affected from expressing their views; and in the light of the special responsibilities of the United Kingdom to Hong Kong, calls on the Government to set out robust protections to ensure that no Hong Kongers are extradited for politically motivated purposes.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss this statutory instrument and my concerns, which are outlined in my amendment to the Motion before your Lordships’ House. As it makes clear, my concerns extend to only one of the three countries specified in the SI—Hong Kong—because of its specific and different status.
The reason for my concerns is that most of the Hong Kongers in the UK are holders of a British national (overseas) passport—an arrangement made after the UK’s 100-year lease of Hong Kong expired in 1997. The UK Government then made BNO arrangements for the people of Hong Kong to confirm the special status and relationship they had for over a century, when they were ruled by the British and felt British. Most importantly, these days they feel that they have a stronger tie to the UK than to China.
In 1997, many Hong Kongers felt that they were being deserted by the UK Government. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, my former colleague Lord Ashdown and many others said that we must, as a nation, recognise our responsibilities. In the House of Lords we continue to hold successive Governments to this standard.
We are told that the SI in front of us aims to correct an irregularity in relation to the arrangements for extraditing a Hong Konger at the request of China, which have been in place since 2020. As the Minister outlined, Hong Kong is designated under category 2 in Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires prima facie evidence to the UK judicial system. In the past, Hong Kong was designated under the UK-Hong Kong extradition treaty of 1997. However, this was suspended in 2020 following the imposition by China of national security legislation containing provisions that, as the Minister said, were incompatible with the treaty. I will put it more bluntly: a fair trial in Hong Kong can no longer be guaranteed.
China’s treatment of those who disagree with it remains completely incompatible with that treaty. Protesters are repeatedly imprisoned, and prisoners who are British, such as Jimmy Lai, are treated very badly and not to a standard that our extradition processes would ever want to support. That is why Hong Kong was given a blanket “no extradition” in 1997.
The Minister says—and I hear him—that there are protections under the new proposals in this SI to look at cases on a case-by-case basis. This means that the Chinese Government could try to call for the extradition of Hong Kongers who may have both British and Chinese nationality.
The other point in relation to Hong Kongers living in the UK is that, in the last few years, there have been many reports to the police of China’s inappropriate behaviour through its agents in the UK. This includes mainland Chinese students physically attacking Hong Kongers in the streets; Hong Kongers having to move house because of threats from China; and Hong Kongers not using social media because China will use that to harass and intimidate them. This is the behaviour of a country that might try to submit extradition demands purely to get at Hong Kongers with BNO passports whom it might wish to pressure further.
I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose 34th report, published on 11 September, quoted Hugo Keith KC stating that
“it looks like the government is seeking to reverse, through a sleight of hand, the practical consequences of suspending the [UK-Hong Kong] treaty”.
In that same report, the Government responded by saying that much of that reporting is false. I am grateful for the Minister explaining earlier why he believes that to be the case, but there has been no direct explanation to our Hong Konger community here in the UK. Those people need to understand why China might not behave in the way that I have outlined and why the change in designation will give them the full protection that they need.
As I understand it, the argument runs that protection is there for extradition on a case-by-case basis, but how can that protect targeted individuals if the application itself is spurious? Once commenced, a request for extradition would cause significant anxiety to the individual concerned and their family, both here and in Hong Kong, not to mention incurring legal costs, none of which would have happened under the blanket refusal that we had before. Is it worth moving to this case-by-case basis when Foreign Office Ministers repeatedly call out China for its egregious treatment of those who disagree with it—not just Hong Kong?
In paragraph 10 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, the Home Office noted that this brings Hong Kong into line with other non-treaty partners under the Extradition Act 2003. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how many other countries with non-treaty partners have residents with British or British national (overseas) passports, because of our historic responsibility for them for well over 100 years?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. While we on this side do not believe a regret amendment is necessary, I thank her for bringing to light the plight of Hong Kongers. As has already been mentioned, the case of Jimmy Lai ever serves as a reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be curtailed.
The removal of Zimbabwe from the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 is certainly not controversial. It unfortunately left the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such has not been party to the London scheme for extradition in the Commonwealth since that date. As the Minister has already quite correctly mentioned, the fact that Zimbabwe has not since been de-designated represents nothing more than an oversight, and it is right that the Government are correcting that. Similarly, it is welcome that the Government are designating Chile in this order, following their accession to the 1957 extradition convention.
The final change—the change targeted in the Liberal Democrats’ regret amendment—is the removal of Hong Kong from Article 2 of the 2003 order. This reflects the fact that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020 following the national security law and the crackdown on pro-democracy activists by the authoritarian communist regime in China. Since the treaty is suspended, there is currently no formal framework for extradition between the UK and Hong Kong, and that is right: we should not be under an obligation to extradite anyone to a state with the kind of repressive laws we now see in place in Hong Kong. The removal of the designation does not represent any change in our policy, therefore; it simply formalises the position that there is now no extradition treaty in force between the UK and Hong Kong. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the rights of Hong Kongers must be protected, but I do not believe this draft order will do anything to detriment them. They will not be at any more risk of extradition than before.
I have one question for the Minister. Give that Hong Kong will now be treated the same as all other non-treaty states under the Extradition Act, requests will be made and assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments in his opening remarks, but I ask again: can the Government absolutely assure the House that they will not co-operate with the authorities in Hong Kong regarding the extradition of Hong Kongers, so that we are never complicit in the subjugation of Hong Kongers by the Chinese Communist Party?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the very broad support that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given for the order. Essentially, the speakers today have agreed that the measures regarding Zimbabwe and Chile are necessary, right and proper; the only queries we have had relate to Hong Kong, so I will park Chile and Zimbabwe and concentrate precisely on Hong Kong in winding up.
I hope I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a very clear assurance in my opening remarks, but, for the avoidance of doubt, this instrument does not place any new obligations on the UK Government to seek extradition from these countries or, indeed, to accept extradition from them, particularly in relation to Hong Kong. It also does not change any of the powers available to the UK courts to consider any extradition request on its individual merits; it does not impact on the power of UK judges to bar extradition; and, particularly in relation to Hong Kong, it does not revive the suspended treaty, and nor does it create any new powers. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, recognised, it formally recognises the suspension by removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act 2003.
On the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I cannot guarantee that no extradition will ever take place, for the reasons we have said, but it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and will not be automatic. We remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting those who have sought refuge here; importantly, no individual will be extradited where there is a risk of persecution. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
The British national (overseas) route for Hong Kongers is a historic and moral commitment. Those with BNO status and their eligible family members can apply to come to the UK. Since that route has opened, close to 225,000 visas have been granted to Hong Kongers.
I hope that today’s debate and the comments I have made give reassurance. If I may, I will take away the detailed questions the noble Baroness has asked, but I hope that that is a general reassurance. I will also look at what we can do over and above this debate to ensure that we give notice of the impact of all three orders, so that that is widely known by those who may be impacted, and that some reassurance is given.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, very much for describing things so well. Notwithstanding all the assurances the Minister is giving, is there not still a danger that the People’s Republic of China can put pressure on the UK Government for extraditions, through trade diplomacy or elsewhere, and that we have no way of knowing or checking what the evidence is?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have said, we are regularising the situation with the legislation before the House today. The position is that there can be case-by-case basis issues, but I have been very clear that the UK Government will act against persecution and that we recognise the rights of Hong Kongers, including in the United Kingdom, to enjoy and live a fruitful and free life without persecution.
I hope that that gives the noble Baroness assurance, but she will understand that, obviously, I cannot give a complete 100% assurance on all occasions, because there may be cases where extradition for both parties is the right thing to do. It is on a case-by-case basis, not an automatic decision, and it will be dealt with on a judicial basis as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has asked me again whether I will meet with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Alton—to whom I again send my best wishes for a speedy recovery—and I will happily do that and meet with a small representative group. If I personally cannot do it, I will make sure that another Minister in the department does so, because we have the immigration Bill, the Crime and Policing Bill and several others in November. If there is a need for a speedy meeting, we will arrange for a Minister in the Home Office to meet with the noble Baroness.
With those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her regret amendment and that the House will agree the order, which I believe is sensible and proportionate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all the speakers. I thank the Minister for repeating the strong, hard processes that he believes are in place to protect Hong Kongers. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for agreeing that Hong Kongers need very specific protection, and for the question on whether the UK would entertain or support an application from China for extradition; the Minister’s response on that was also helpful. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for talking about indirect influence on the Government, which continues to remain a concern for us—as I am sure it is for the Minister as well—so I am grateful for his response.
The reason I tabled the regret amendment was about the difference between hard processes and soft power. Hong Kongers remain concerned that they will be further under threat, and I am grateful for the hard processes that the Minister has given. I am also grateful for the promise of a meeting, because I think that will help people within the community to feel that their concerns are being listened to and that they will know where to go if there is a concern about China pressing for extradition from the UK in the future. On that basis, I beg to withdraw my regret amendment.
Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
The Earl of Caithness
That this House regrets that the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 increase the likelihood of wildfires in upland areas; risk the Fire and Rescue Service’s response capability; impact livelihoods, biodiversity, peatland protection, and human health and life; and fail to include a full impact assessment including on wider government priorities.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, for thousands of years, mankind has used fire to control vegetation. It is a sensible and practical process that also benefits nature. In this country, we tend to burn heather and grass in a prescribed manner and, if done correctly and under careful regulation, with practitioners trained in safe methods, only the vegetation and not the underlying soil is burnt.
The heather and grass burning regulations effectively mean that prescribed burning, or muirburn as we call it in Scotland, as a management tool for vegetation over some 676,000 hectares of predominantly moorland is banned in England. I believe that it will increase the likelihood of wildfires in upland areas, risk the fire and rescue services’ response capability and impact livelihoods, biodiversity, peatland protection, human health and life. No full impact assessment, including on wider government priorities, has been published.
If the vegetation is not controlled, it becomes older, woodier and denser, creating a bigger fuel load and making it more prone to intense, uncontrolled and indiscriminate wildfires, which always burn the underlying soil—if that is peat, the damage to this carbon-rich soil can be devastating. A recent study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland found that
“96 % of the total wildfire area occurred outside moorlands managed by muirburn”,
suggesting that,
“may be due to fuel load reduction following muirburns”.
The National Fire Chiefs Council, in its consultation response to these regulations, expressed concerns that restricting prescribed burning would increase
“the risk of larger, more intense wildfires”,
by limiting the ability to reduce burnable fuel loads and create fire or fuel breaks. I agree with that. Alarmingly, it also went on:
“Further restricting land managers’ ability to use prescribed burning as a wildfire prevention tool could compromise FRS preparedness and response, increasing the danger to firefighters and the public”.
No Government should increase risk in this way.
In fighting wildfires, the FRS acknowledged that the expertise of landowners, gamekeepers and farmers is almost invaluable. At the recent Langdale forest fire, it was the local gamekeepers who provided the expertise for the risky operation of back-burning the vegetation to create a fire break. Without that, the fire would probably have crossed the A169, destroying Goathland village. If prescribed burning is stopped, the FRS will lose the benefit of the vital skills, local knowledge and equipment provided by grouse-shooting estates that are so vital to them.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. There are indeed matters to regret in the manner—and especially the timing—of these regulations. I cannot claim the experience that other Members of this House doubtless have in dealing with those very large expanses of northern moorland. My experience is from decades of land management on Exmoor, in particular the matter of heather burning, by which I also include gorse, bracken and grass. I am aware of the finely balanced expertise involved in burning operations: the topographical issues, soils, ground moisture, the dwarf shrub combustibility at any given moment, burnable volume or fuel load, wind direction—often depending on which side of the hill you are—and available manpower. I pay tribute to generations not only of Exmoor farmers but of land managers in the uplands in particular, across the country. Their efforts have retained much of what the public appreciate in terms of the natural beauty. I think here particularly of heather moorland—one of the reasons why Exmoor was designated a national park in the first place.
I am also aware of the effect of regulation and the perils of swamping land manager initiative in a sea of red tape, in which timeframes for consenting matters cease to be simple or cognisant of an essentially spontaneous alignment of the factors I have just referred to. In other words, practical matters are subordinate to process.
In my experience, heather is not the invasive species that obliterates moss and bog species. Most heathers do not seem to like boggy conditions, but they do like peaty podzols, where competition from other vegetation is impeded, allowing this pioneer species to develop and thrive. It is held in that balance by the management process: a management driven by purpose, usually gainful agricultural enterprise but also sometimes for game and sporting interests.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing this extremely important matter to your Lordships’ attention, and I support his Motion. I declare my interest as a member of the GWCT, the BASC and the Countryside Alliance.
As my noble friend has alluded to, 2025 has seen almost 48,000 hectares of the UK burned by wildfires. That is seven times the average area burned between 2006 and 2024, and more than twice the area burned in 2022. This represents the new fire norm, whereby our changing climate is driving increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather. While the majority of this hectarage was in semi-natural habitats, I want to highlight the risk that wildfire is posing at the rural-urban interface.
Development of the rural-urban interface is putting more assets and people at risk, either directly through loss of life and property, or indirectly via impacts on health and vital infrastructure. The Government are now talking about the possibility of housing developments being built on grey-belt land, which is bound to further exacerbate the problems.
The Wennington wildfire in July 2022 destroyed more than 18 houses and their residents’ possessions, as well as 12 stables, five cars and six garages. Fortunately, there was no loss of life. Such risks are not limited to London. The Ordnance Survey has estimated that over 1.8 million homes sit within the first 100 metres of urban-rural edges. As the agency states, these transition areas
“are where fuel and ignition sources, and the potential for high human and economic impact converge”.
The need to create and manage fuel breaks applies as much at the rural-urban interface as it does on our peatlands. The difference is that, on our peatlands, there are expert land managers and gamekeepers whose knowledge is vital to both preventing and fighting wildfires.
The peatlands of the Peak District and the Staffordshire Moorlands—where I live— are close to the urban conurbations of Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Sheffield, where experience already proves that wildfires can threaten homes and affect the health of local populations. The Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, which was close to the Greater Manchester conurbation, resulted in 50 homes and 150 people being evacuated; and 4.5 million people up 80 kilometres away were exposed to very high concentrations of ppm 2.5 for longer than the World Health Organization’s 24-hour guideline, causing an estimated £21 million in extra health costs.
While the debate over how we protect our peatlands becomes mired in the broader ideological debate over grouse shooting—I no longer shoot, so do not have an interest in that—the very real threat of wildfire to these precious ecosystems, and to the health and infrastructure of our communities and the role of prescribed burning in addressing these risks, is being relegated to a mere sideshow. If the Government are not prepared to accept the practical experience of land managers—the experts—then surely they should take note of the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the consultation on these regulatory changes. This expressed concern that policy decisions are not aligned with the need to manage wildfire risk and that increasing the restrictions on a land manager’s ability to use prescribed burning for wildfire prevention would have implications for the ability of the fire and rescue services to respond to a wildfire, thereby increasing the danger to firefighters and the public. I sincerely hope that the licensing process is able to facilitate this need.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this regret Motion debate on heather and grass burning restrictions as laid out in the Government’s statutory instrument; I support it wholeheartedly. Like the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, I declare my interests: my membership of GWCT, BASC and Countryside Alliance. I also declare an interest relevant to today’s debate: I own and my team manage, under licence from Natural England as a Section 35 approved body, the Holkham National Nature Reserve in North Norfolk. It is the largest and arguably the most important NNR in the country. Indeed, in the years following our resumption of management of the NNR from Natural England, I received three letters from senior Natural England executives congratulating us on the excellent management of the reserve, and in particular on our interventions and the resulting outcomes. We have a team of land managers very experienced in nature conservation, forestry and nature-friendly farming, so although we do not have a current need to burn heather and grass in Norfolk, we are aware of its benefits.
I too have spent a good deal of time in the uplands, in the north of England and Scotland, speaking to practitioners of these practices, and I am well versed in the multifarious benefits preventive burning provides in protecting against wildfires, and the biodiversity benefits it provides. I am incredibly disappointed by the content of the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. In fact, by the time I finished reading them my blood was boiling, such was the litany of at best contentious assertions.
For a start, I am stunned that no government impact assessment was carried out, as
“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.
That is a very bold assertion. I hope to demonstrate—as will other noble Lords—how wrong that is, and that the whole premise of this SI is deeply flawed and has already been found to be incorrect following the damage inflicted by two huge wildfires in the uplands this summer. The impact on forestry and biodiversity, and in terms of deep peat carbon loss, has been immeasurable. For the moment—until we are subject to even greater and more dangerous fires—the impact on communities, who, mercifully, were not hit with loss of property or life, has been less. The document also states that the purpose of the SI is to protect 676,628 hectares of peatland habitat by preventing further damage from burning—an increase of 246,000 hectares, as prescribed by the 2020 regulations of the same name.
This “protection” is a complete misnomer, because these restrictions will not protect these nature-rich habitats. Some 7,000 land managers have already contributed to the rewetting of the moorland in their management by blocking up drains as required by Natural England. That work did not stop the wildfires.
The claim that preventive burning dries up the moors is specious and not based on good science. Professor Andreas Heinemeyer of the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University is the most knowledgeable academic in the sphere of moorland management. His research into grouse-moor cool-burning’s impact on ecosystem services and aspects around alternative mowing, or no management at all, as advocated by this SI, has been broadly ignored. Has the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, ever visited the uplands in February and March to witness how this preventive cool-burning takes place?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as a life Peer, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness for tabling this Motion, which has enabled us in this House to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Leicester, three hereditary Peers—four, including my noble friend Lord Caithness—who have tremendous experience of safely managing moorland and using controlled burning. In particular, my noble friend Lord Leicester is regularly cited by Natural England and Defra as leading one of the finest private nature reserves in the country. Goodness knows how many official visits have been made to his estate to show others how it should be done. Therefore, I think it is terribly important that the whole House and Defra should pay attention to the wise words of my noble friend.
I am absolutely certain, although I am speaking from the Back Benches, that I will probably agree absolutely with my noble and hereditary friend Lord Roborough when he makes his speech from the Front Bench. I drafted my notes on the assumption that the excellent noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would be back with us today, but that is not to be. So I hope the noble Lord will pass on our remarks and I know others in the building will pass on our remarks to the noble Baroness.
I wish to raise a related matter about the destruction of heather moorlands when the old straggly heather is not controlled properly through rotational burning. Noble Lords will be aware, as we have heard already, of the fires at Saddleworth Moor in 2018, 2020 and this year. Since 2007, the Peak District has had fires which have destroyed 77 square kilometres of moorland. In real money, that is 30 square miles destroyed, in nearly all cases by disposable barbecues. Just after the 2018 fire, which took three weeks to extinguish, people were again found on an unburned bit of the heather moor with disposable barbecues lit again, leading the Manchester fire chief to say that it beggared belief how stupid they were.
I want to demolish the myth perpetuated by some commentators that these fires are because of climate change. That is simply not true. There is no known case anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the UK, where a wildfire has started because of spontaneous combustion caused by global warming or climate change. There are no cases anywhere of dry grass spontaneously combusting. Wet grass tightly packed into hay bales can ignite when the chemical reaction causes the temperature to get to 250 degrees centigrade. Trees can self-ignite if the external temperature reaches, again, 250 degrees centigrade. Our temperatures have not quite got to that level yet. Dry heather cannot self-ignite. Of course, we all accept that when the habitat is bone dry it will burn more easily if a fire starts, and if there is wind it will burn more ferociously.
So how do so-called wildfires happen? Quite simply, in every case they are caused by humans, either deliberately or, in a minority of cases, accidently. The vast majority are caused by carelessness or stupidity, as in nearly all the cases of those Peak District fires. One was caused by a discarded glass bottle acting as a magnifying glass for the sun and one was a controlled burn this year—Beeley Moor—which got out of control due to a wind change. That should not have happened, but it is very rare.
In June 2022, the magnificent Thursley Common national nature reserve, which I have visited, was devasted by a massive fire, most likely started by a disposable barbecue. Almost half of the of the rare heath was destroyed. The Surrey fire chief said, “Help us to prevent wildfires; pack a picnic instead of a barbecue”. There was devastating fire in Wareham, Dorset, linked to barbecues, and it contributed to Dorset Council’s decision to ban them in many areas. This led to a subsequent council report that showed
“a huge increase in BBQ related fires from 2016 to 2020”.
There are hundreds more incidents that I will not go into, including 300 in Greater London itself—it is not just the urban fringe in the countryside—leaving a London fire chief to call for a ban on these filthy disposable barbecues.
My noble friend Lord Caithness had an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we did not debate yesterday, calling for the Government to do more on public education on the risks of wildfires in the countryside. I also want the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, when she is back in action, to do more private education: private education of the remaining supermarkets who continue to sell these dangerous items.
Keep Britain Tidy advocates for banning disposable barbecues due to their significant fire risk and environmental damage. It highlights the fact that these barbecues cause wildfires, injure people and create hazardous litter when left hot and uncooled, sometimes causing fires even in public litter bins. The organisation is campaigning for retailers to stop selling them permanently and encourages the public to support these efforts.
I congratulate the majority of shops and supermarkets that have stopped selling them, but too many still do. That is why I want the Minister to call in the other retailers still selling them and give them a bit of private education on the sheer destruction they are causing to our wildlife, habitats and heather moorlands by continuing to sell these things. If retailers insist on selling them, I believe they should be banned.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for moving this debate, which touches on many important issues. Following on from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I had to look this up, but when we have four of a kind in a row, it is a “haul”. So we experienced a haul of Earls at the start of this debate, which is a very unusual thing.
At the heart of this debate today lies our relationship with nature and our country. It is hard to find any of our landscapes that have not been managed for thousands for years. The wildest parts of Dartmoor show evidence of intensive habitation and livestock grazing dating back to prehistory. The Flow Country of northern Scotland, with its open landscape of peat bogs, occasionally shows huge networks of tree roots that were surely harvested in prehistory and replaced with grazing. In that light, I refer the House to my registered interests as an owner of land, both in Dartmoor national park and in Sutherland. Just for the sake of clarity, I do not have any grouse. I have no grouse interests in this particular debate, apart from the fact that I enjoy going elsewhere and engaging with that.
There appears to be a presumption that, by reducing management of this land through things such as the regulations we are debating today, we are somehow helping nature. However, we need to appreciate that, if we reduce our management, we are laying ourselves open to much more damaging wildfires, as many noble Lords have pointed out today, and also to negative impacts on native species that have become dependent on this management. We are also undermining farmers who derive their livelihoods from these landscapes. Irrespective of whether these regulations are right, why does government insist on using the stick of regulations rather than the carrot of incentives?
As others have pointed out, peat covers only 8.5% of the English land area, but 80% of it is degraded. When we look at these areas, the priority should be restoration. That restoration is primarily about rewetting and eliminating cultivation; it has little or nothing to do with whether you have mature or young heather or grass on top. As long as the sphagnum moss is healthy, it is rebuilding peat, and to get the sphagnum moss healthy, the water table needs to be towards the surface. As that peatland is rewetted, it eliminates the massive carbon releases from degraded and dry peat and also allows for future carbon sequestration.
The peatland carbon code is an important financial incentive for land managers to carry out this work. However, liquidity in this market is lacking, as it remains a voluntary carbon credit. Please could the Minister update the House on the status of consultations on the inclusion of the peatland carbon code and the woodland carbon code in the UK emissions trading scheme? In that light, I also point out my interests as someone restoring peatland under the auspices of the peatland carbon code and developing new forestry plantations.
The regulations we are debating today extend existing licensing from peat deeper than 40 centimetres to greater than 30 centimetres, and from heather to grass. The implication is that the area covered increases from 430,000 hectares to 680,000 hectares. That will lead to coverage of these regulations coming further down the hill towards areas of greater population density and where fire risks are even more serious.
We on these Benches are unhappy with the existing licensing regime that prevents appropriate management, and the extension is deeply unwelcome. Noble Lords have discussed that managed burning is an important component of reducing fuel load, preventing wildfires from becoming so hot and entrenched. In 2018, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service found that only four wildfires out of 153 reported were in managed moorland, and all of those were outside the burning season and the result of accident or arson. The 2018 Saddleworth Moor fire was on a moor with a no-burn policy and took seven different fire services 10 days to bring under control.
Discussion has also focused on the importance of managed burning for biodiversity. The latest scientific evidence from the University of York in 2023, cited by my noble friend Lord Leicester, found that
“the burning and mowing of heather supported an increased diversity of vegetation ... The study also predicted a greater number of some ground-nesting birds, many of which are red listed as being of conservation concern”.
As I have already highlighted, these are not natural landscapes any longer, and many of our threatened species rely on us to provide them with the right habitat. Heather is a plant that will establish dominance on acidic and peaty soils and, without management, crowd out everything else.
One of the arguments against heather burning is carbon emissions. The University of York study also found that, while there are carbon emissions from a fire, the regrowth took up considerably more carbon over the longer term. When wildfires enjoy an excessive fuel load, they burn hotter and get deep into the peat, releasing far more carbon. The flow country fire in 2019 released 700,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That is equivalent to the annual carbon emissions of 75,000 people.
That same point about the natural dominance of heather in these landscapes is also why managed burning is so critical for grazing. Cattle and sheep need grass and young heather to graze and gain nothing from veteran, woody heather. To support our farmers, we need to allow this managed burning. When adding in the benefits to wildfire management and biodiversity, the argument for including it within sustainable farming incentives is very strong. We read in the papers that new sustainable farming incentives are likely to focus more on upland farming, which was disadvantaged in the earlier SFIs. Given the many benefits of the managed burning of these upland landscapes, could I ask the Minister whether it is possible that a component of some of these SFIs could be for more of this managed burning? When will we see these new SFI regulations? We were originally promised that it would be in July of this year; we are now at the end of October.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the Carrbridge and Dava fire. Without repeating their points, I would say that this fire underscored, yet again, the importance of gamekeepers, farmers and land managers, not just in putting out these fires but in prevention through muirburn. On the back of the evidence of that incident, the Scottish Government have delayed the introduction of more controls on muirburn.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I agree with his questions. In particular, would the Government be open to more integrated cross-government development of these regulations? The Minister is today responding for the Government, but it is not clear to us that the fire service, through MHCLG, is adequately involved in setting and implementing these regulations.
The point which illuminates the entire debate on the Motion that my noble friend has moved is the lack of a full impact assessment, including on wider government priorities. Those who have contributed today have demonstrated the many benefits of heather and grass burning, if managed and done correctly. It is unclear what real merits there are in restricting it further. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made this point most forcefully: where is the science? Surely a pragmatic, rational assessment could only conclude that it is in everyone’s interest to encourage the right kind of burning and, in instances where there is no other financial incentive to manage open land in this way, to provide those incentives.
We on these Benches fully support my noble friend Lord Caithness in this regret Motion. The extension of the burning regulations in this way appears to be unscientific and politically motivated. The Minister has been given a lot of questions to answer in this debate, and if he is unable to find the answers or does not have the time, I very much encourage him to commit to write to us.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for introducing this Motion and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for telling us that we have had a haul of Earls from the Back Benches. I did not realise that there were collective nouns for different numbers of Earls, but in all sincerity I thank them not only for their contributions today but for their years—and, I am sure, in some cases, decades—of collective stewardship of our rich tapestry of habitats, which makes our countryside such a source of pride and one of the things we are most admired for throughout the world.
I appreciate the concerns raised particularly around the potential for increased wildfire risk because of these new regulations, which has been the focus of much of the debate. It is a valid concern, and I want to be clear that we are in no way dismissive of it: it is one that the Government have taken seriously throughout the development of this statutory instrument.
Let me begin by being clear that the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 are not about ignoring wildfire risk; they are about addressing it more effectively, sustainably and scientifically. The central aim of these regulations is to protect England’s peatlands, which are among our most valuable natural assets. Here I will shamelessly steal the words of my colleague, Minister Creagh, in the other place, who calls them the UK’s rainforests. These habitats store vast amounts of carbon, regulate water flow, support biodiversity and, crucially, when healthy, are more resilient to wildfire. England’s peatlands are of huge international importance and, when healthy, provide lots of environmental benefits.
However, 80% of England’s peatlands are degraded, with rotational burning being a contributing factor in upland areas. Burning also has negative impacts on air quality and human health. Large-scale burning of vegetation releases vast amounts of smoke into the air, impacting local communities. The evidence is clear: wet, healthy peatlands are far less likely to burn during wildfires. When peat is saturated, it resists ignition, slows the spread of fire and prevents deep burns that can release stored carbon and destroy the habitat irreversibly. Repeated burning dries out the peat, alters its hydrology and makes it more vulnerable to fire. Climate change also contributes to drying out peatlands. Rising temperatures and reduced rainfall further impact the hydrology of these habitats, lowering the water table.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who brought his experience of managing peatland areas in Exmoor to bear in his contribution, raised the impact on the hydrology of those peatlands. It is clear that restoring peatlands helps to raise the water table, which promotes the growth of key species, such as sphagnum moss and cotton grasses, and prevents overdominance of drying species such as heather or linnaea. Having a water table which sits close to the surface leads the site to being more resilient to the impacts of wildfire and reduces the likelihood of fire getting into the peat, causing further damage. A study following a 2019 wildfire in the flow country peatlands in Scotland suggested that the wildfire caused mostly superficial burning, except in the most degraded areas. The conclusion of this study implied that peatlands with wet conditions have the potential to help reduce the impacts of severe wildfires. We know that rotational burning can perpetuate the risks in the long term by altering the hydrology of blanket bog and making it impossible to return to its natural state. The flow country study is evidence from the field and supports the Government’s position that restoration and protection are the best long-term strategies for wildfire resistance.
Some have argued that restricting burning will allow vegetation to grow unchecked, increasing fuel loads and therefore fire risk, and we heard that in the debate this afternoon. While understandable, this concern overlooks the broader picture. First, burning is not the only tool available to manage vegetation. Mechanical cutting, grazing and other sustainable methods remain permitted and encouraged. These regulations do not restrict these practices. Secondly, the licensing regime remains in place. Where no feasible alternative exists, land managers can apply for a licence to burn specifically to reduce the impacts of wildfire. This is not a blanket ban; it is a targeted, evidence-based approach that allows for flexibility in exceptional circumstances.
This is probably as apt a time as any to refer to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, whose conclusion referred to the discussion at the recent G7 summit, which talked about controlled burning being part of a strategy to decrease the risk of extreme wildfires. Indeed, we are not saying that burning is not the right tool in some places and for the right habitats. We are saying that, while it is a tool that works in other habitats that are at risk of extreme wildfires—one thinks, obviously, of California—it is not necessarily the right tool for all habitats, and we are thinking particularly about protecting peatlands.
Thirdly, the newly revised heather and grass management code provides clear guidance on sustainable land management, including how to manage fuel loads without resorting to damaging burning practices.
We have also taken steps to improve the licensing system itself. These aim to reduce complexity and enhance co-ordination to make the process faster, more efficient and easier to navigate for applicants. We have also removed impractical grounds as a rationale for granting a licence, such as the land being inaccessible to cutting equipment. This should be considered in all cases whenever a licence application is made to evidence why burning is the only available option, rather than the ground for application. Instead, we have introduced a new, legitimate ground for research and education, and have extended the conservation ground to include the natural and historic environment, recognising the importance of maintaining archaeological features.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
Professor Heinemeyer’s research shows that there is actually a higher water table where controlled burning takes place, which is contrary to what the Minister just said.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I appreciate that intervention and may address some of that in my answers. I believe that this also relates to the Mars bar test, which was a new phenomenon to me, but we will come to that.
The noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, talked about the timing of this SI. It is worth saying that the legislation has been laid to come into force in time for the 2025-26 burn season, to ensure a greater level of protection for England’s valuable peatlands at the earliest opportunity. To allow sufficient time for comprehensive public consultation and a comprehensive analysis of responses, it has not been possible to lay the SI sooner.
This leads on to the consultation itself, which many noble Lords, including the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, raised. I want to be clear that the consultation was open for eight weeks, from 31 March to 25 May earlier this year. It received 1,861 responses, mostly from the public but also from academics and bodies such as the NFCC. The response demonstrated broad support for expanding protections to all upland peatlands in less favoured areas and lowering the peat depth threshold from 40 centimetres to 30 centimetres. Indeed, most respondents opposed burning due to concerns about climate change, biodiversity, and loss of air and water quality. There was backing for mandatory fire training and improved licensing processes. I wish to make it clear that a minority of respondents were opposed to the proposals, citing, as many noble Lords have today, concerns of increased wildfire risk from higher fuel loads of vegetation that cannot be managed through burning.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, asked if I had visited the uplands in February and March. Sadly, I have to tell him that I have not. Maybe one of the noble Earls who contributed to the debate might wish to issue an invite—I am sure that it would be a very pleasant trip. On the serious point he was making, upland peatland habitats are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of burning. While winter burns tend to affect mainly surface vegetation rather than peat itself, rotational burning makes it difficult to restore blanket bog to its natural hydrology. He mentioned the Mars bar test, which we contend does not take into account the long-term impacts of burning, which encourages new heather growth. Heather’s deep roots dry out peat and form woody flammable material, which increases long-term vulnerability to wildfires.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned disposable barbecues. While I will not be tempted to go down the road of bans, as he did, we must recognise the importance of good public education, which was at the heart of his contribution. Clearly, a significant cause of wildfires is ignorant, foolhardy behaviour by people who should know better. The Government recognise that good communication can shape public behaviour and decrease the chances of wildfires starting. We took lessons from the devastation we saw during the 2022 wildfire season. That is why we worked across departments to increase the prominence of wildfire messaging to the public. This has included developing government social media messaging around periods of high wildfire risk and including wildfire as part of the Cabinet Office’s newly developed resilience websites.
I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that officials are exploring other ways we can expand the use of our well-established Fire Kills campaign to deliver targeted messages and resources to the public. The benefit of utilising Fire Kills is the partnership approach with local fire and rescue services, with all activities and resources designed to best support their local prevention delivery. I hope that provides him with some assurance that we absolutely understand the risk of the use of disposable barbecues and other materials that can inadvertently cause fire. We will take action to ensure that the public are educated on it.
I hope I have answered most of the questions. I have possibly missed one out from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on SFIs. He will know that SFIs now have more than 39,000 multiyear live agreements and are not only delivering sustainable food production and natural recovery for today and the years ahead but putting money back into farmers’ pockets. I am not sure I have any more detail on that to hand, which he requested, so I will write to him. I will be very happy to undertake to write to him also on the questions that he began his contribution with on the carbon code.
Having said all that—and having probably taken more time to answer noble Lords’ questions than was warranted—I ask the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to withdraw his regret Motion.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, bringing their experience and knowledge to make it a very useful debate. It was wonderful to hear about Exmoor. It was very interesting to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, who mentioned Wennington, an extremely different part of the country, about 15 miles behind where the Minister is sitting now, where 18 houses were burned, leaving devastation to people’s property. It shows what an important subject this is.
I find it difficult to understand why Natural England listens so carefully to my noble friend Lord Leicester when it comes to his nature reserve at Holkham but does not listen to him when it comes to his expertise on moorland. My noble friend Lord Blencathra quite rightly wages war against disposable barbecues. I would just question one thing. He said that all wildfires are started by human stupidity. Most are, but some are started quite deliberately. The yobs go out and think it is fun to light a fire, and that it will not go very far, and they suddenly find it is out of control and they cannot do anything about it but scarper. It is the fire and rescue services and good locals who have to pick up the bill.
My noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned the Flow Country fire in 2019, which has special interest to me, as I was living up there at the time. The Minister also raised it. It is worth pointing out what my noble friend Lord Roborough said: that fire doubled Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions for the six days of burning. The Minister said that the fire was not so strong where wetting had taken place, which had helped. At the Langdale Forest fire, the fire was not so strong where rotational heather burning had taken place. Why is one good and one bad? It is a totally illogical position for the Government to take.
The Minister said how important peat was. We all knew that peat was very important long before Defra was even thought about. The Minister mentioned NEER155. I confirmed to the Minister that that took some scientific evidence but did not take any scientific evidence on the impact of not burning. It is a biased report and has been highly criticised by those who know.
The Minister said that there was no impact assessment because the costs were not going to be over £10 million. But hang on, the health costs of the Saddleworth Moor fire were £20 million by themselves. How can the Minister possibly say that these regulations, which are going to increase wildfires, are not worthy of an impact assessment?
I finish by thanking the Minister for what he said. He ended by talking about the consultation. I am not at all surprised by the result of the consultation. We can all devise questions to get the answer we want. That is what Defra did in this case. Given that it is Thursday afternoon and there is another piece of business, I will withdraw my Motion and, once again, thank all noble Lords for taking part.
Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument introduces the mechanisms to enforce the EU mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, which maintains Northern Ireland’s dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market. I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework’s democratic scrutiny mechanisms are a frequent area of consideration and discussion, and I am sure we will discuss them again today. This affirmative statutory instrument clearly demonstrates the purpose and benefit of the Windsor Framework, but before I set out its scope and objectives, I want to provide some further background on the arrangements applying in Northern Ireland that make this measure necessary.
Dental amalgam is a dental filling material made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys including silver, tin and copper. It is a stable, safe filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities caused by tooth decay. Compared to alternative fillings such as composite resins, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply. Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the EU mercury regulation that applies under the Windsor Framework. These amendments introduced a ban on the use and export of dental amalgam from 1 January 2025 and a ban on the manufacture and import of dental amalgam from 1 July 2026.
Here, we saw an issue that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. We saw Members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinise the issue and voice their concerns because an immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. This could ultimately worsen oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland. The Government acted on these concerns and made representations to the EU. The EU Commission recognised Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances last year, leading to the bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland that we are discussing today.
Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period: until 2034, or until an earlier phase-out date is agreed by the Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties. It will mean that the continued use of dental amalgam in Northern Ireland is aligned with the rest of the UK.
The absence of these exemptions would have meant an immediate ban on dental amalgam use and import, which would have negative health and socio-economic impacts in Northern Ireland. For instance, mercury-free alternatives, such as composite fillings, generally require longer treatment times that could strain dental service capacity and may not be suitable for all patients. This could have resulted in longer treatment times and patient waiting lists, potentially harming oral health in Northern Ireland.
A gradual transition to mercury-free alternatives will ensure a managed phase-out, therefore minimising disruptions to Northern Ireland’s dental service provision. During this time, businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam. Such treatment may be given to UK residents only, and imports need to be proportionate with use. This gradual phase-out of dental amalgam will allow a longer period to transition to alternative fillings. This will give dentists time to improve practice efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings and adapt to emerging alternatives, and will support the training of dental professionals.
The dental amalgam exemptions on use and import have applied in Northern Ireland since 1 January 2025, and the authorities in Northern Ireland have taken the steps required to implement them, including issuing further guidance and engaging with dentists. The purpose of this instrument is further to strengthen the enforcement measures Northern Ireland authorities can take on the ground to support the arrangements in Northern Ireland. These include powers to enforce the prohibitions on dental amalgam export and manufacture, additional reporting requirements for dental amalgam importers, and restrictions on dental amalgam use for patients as set out in the European Commission notice. The instrument also implements the allowed exemptions to the import and use of dental amalgam while Northern Ireland gradually phases out its use.
On the issue of mercury more broadly, I recognise the concerns about its environmental impact. It is a highly toxic substance that can harm human health and the environment if improperly managed. When dental amalgam is exposed to high temperatures, such as during cremation, the mercury it contains can enter the environment as a toxic gas if there are no mercury-emission controls in place. I am happy to confirm that crematoria in Northern Ireland are fitted with control technologies to reduce mercury emissions. Under our environmental improvement plan, we are taking steps and further developing plans to reduce mercury emissions, including from crematoria. As part of this, the Government will soon publish an updated process guidance note for crematoria and the accompanying government consultation response, which will include further guidance on emission abatement technologies in crematoria.
In conclusion, this measure is clear in its purpose, ensuring that Northern Ireland authorities have the powers to enforce the EU export and manufacturing prohibitions, reporting requirements and exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, as set out in the European Commission notice. This instrument will also mean that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, allowing for a longer transition period and equity of dental provision with the rest of the UK. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hoey
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that, while the Regulations will extend the use of amalgam fillings in Northern Ireland, they do so by means of placing their provision, and thus the provision of NHS dental services in Northern Ireland, on an uncertain constitutional foundation.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is nice to see the noble Baroness answering on this statutory instrument, and I thank her for her outline of what it contains. I reassure noble Lords that, while the Whip’s notice says that today’s rising time will probably be about 7 pm, I have no intention—I do not think any of us have—of continuing this debate until then. That might be helpful.
Dentists in Northern Ireland are obviously relieved that the burden that was hanging over them regarding a date has now been lifted. I have brought this issue to the Floor of the House today as I feel, along with many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, that it is important and necessary to expose how, drip by drip, the EU is taking more control over what happens in a part of the United Kingdom.
We have talked regularly about the 300 areas of law that are now out of our own Government’s hands, and sometimes it seems that no one understands the practical problems these are causing. We have seen the questions on duty-free, pet travel and the large numbers of GB businesses that are now refusing to send anything to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucracy. Just recently, in the last couple of days, we had the ridiculous situation whereby poppy sellers in Northern Ireland had to get EU leaflets and deal with EU bureaucracy to be able to sell poppies. That is outrageous, and I am sure noble Baroness would agree with me on that point.
So why am I concerned about this SI? The British Dental Association did a great job of alerting dentists in Northern Ireland to the fact that originally, the EU directive was going to ban amalgam filling from 1 January 2025 in Northern Ireland. That became a topic of much concern, and to be fair, His Majesty’s Government sought talks with the EU, which led to a Commission notice—Regulation 2024/1849—saying that instead of Northern Ireland being required to cease using amalgam fillings in June 2026, dentists could continue to December 2034.
The purpose of today’s SI is to give effect to the solution the EU Commission developed, but the solution is deeply problematic because these regulations rest on the foundation not of EU law but of a Commission notice. I am sure I do not need to remind noble Lords that there are several different types of EU law: regulations that are binding, directives that are binding, recommendations that are non-binding and opinions that are non-binding. The reality is that Commission notices do not even have the standing of non-binding law. Indeed, Commission notices are not law because, in the constitutional architecture of the EU, the Commission proposes legislation but does not make it; that is the role of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The Commission is also not the judiciary; it usually adds to its statements. It usually says that
“the following is without prejudice to the fact that it is the role of the European Court of Justice to make final determinations in the application of the law”.
Indeed, after the Northern Ireland Assembly’s EU scrutiny committee had been notified of this change—and was quite pleased about it—a few weeks later the Department of Health sent it a letter regarding the standing of the Commission notice. I quote from it:
“It is described in the preamble as a ‘guidance note’ which is intended to facilitate the application of regulation (EU) 2024/1849”.
So it is not binding legislation in itself; rather, it is an interpretative aid to the application of the law in Northern Ireland, in the unique context of the Windsor Framework.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I will make a briefer speech, not on the constitutional aspect of this but on the dentistry aspect. I thank the Minister for introducing this, and indeed the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. I do recognise that there is a very important constitutional issue as well. The amalgam ban will come in in 10 years’ time to Northern Ireland. As regards the rest of the United Kingdom, clearly, EU rules do not apply, but the supply and price chains have a massive effect, so there is an issue about the availability of mercury and amalgam within the next period.
The Minister said quite correctly that amalgam fillings are cheaper, and that treatment is far longer for alternatives. It is also worth saying that they last longer and do not need replacing as often. So there is a very real issue about the cost going forward of alternatives. Research and development is needed within the dentistry profession, sponsored and helped by the Government, to look at alternatives to mercury. We also need investment in better oral health.
Without those things, I fear that, within the next 10 years, irrespective of the constitutional aspects we are talking about, there is a real concern for dentistry and oral health not just in Northern Ireland—although, admittedly, it will hit there harder—but in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will be able to address that. If she does not have specific details, I would appreciate it if she could write.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. There is no doubt that one of our greatest national institutions is the NHS. The people of the United Kingdom have in the past been exercised about the possibility that those whom they elect might tamper with it, notwithstanding their accountability to the electorate. Imagine, then, the concern that attends the prospect of having a key aspect of the NHS placed in jeopardy by the politicians of a foreign country who are not accountable to you. That is the plight that befell UK citizens living in Northern Ireland when the EU Parliament voted EU Regulation 1849 in 2024.
Being disenfranchised, which has already been mentioned, in some 300 areas of law is bad enough. But when the laws give the foreign legislators the power to strike down any aspect of one of our great national institutions, the justice of that disfranchisement is completely intolerable. It is an indignity to which the people of England, Wales and Scotland should never be subjected: why, then, the people of Northern Ireland?
In this context, I was aghast to listen last week to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Member for Leeds South, giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in another place that the Government had “solved” the amalgam problem. That was just quite extraordinary, to put it mildly. A piece of legislation has been imposed on part of the UK by a legislature in which it is not represented, and which places a key component of one of our greatest institutions in jeopardy. Rather than standing as citizens, we are subjected to the humiliation of being taken as supplicants to the bar of the grace and favour of a foreign Executive to see what crumbs they might be persuaded to toss from their gilded table.
To make matters worse, we are expected to be thankful, grateful and accepting of it, even though we have no more made the concession than the original legislation. Whatever happened to self-respect? Whatever happened to the United Kingdom? We are then forced to confront the consequences of the fact that, rather than being treated as legislators, we are taken for dumb supplicants in the development of the alternative provision through the fact that this alternative provision further alienates us from the rest of our home country.
Under the Commission notice, from 1 July 2026 it will be illegal to produce amalgam in Northern Ireland and it will have to come from Great Britain. This introduces two compulsions. First, in order to have amalgam, Northern Ireland must buy it from GB because it is not allowed to be produced in Northern Ireland. Secondly, its movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is subject to the imposition of an international customs border, cutting the United Kingdom in two. This means that, from July 2026, it will only be possible to take amalgam across the red lane as if moving it to a foreign country.
In a context where the number of traders selling goods from GB to Northern Ireland is falling all the time because of the cost of having to negotiate the border, what certainty do we have that anyone in GB will be ready to sell dental amalgam to Northern Ireland from July 2026 until December 2034? While UK citizens living in England, Wales and Scotland will be protected from this uncertainty, apparently it is fine not to afford the same protection to UK citizens in Northern Ireland.
We must confront the fact that the regulations before us today rest on a very uncertain foundation. The fundamental problem is that, when interpreting the relevant EU law to which these regulations seek to relate, the European Court of Justice will have to confine its interpretation to the law. It will have to ask what EU Regulation 2024/1849 means in relation to Northern Ireland and not what the EU Commission notice means, because, rather than being the law, the latter is simply the Commission’s rather extraordinary interpretation of EU Regulation 2024/1849.
In her response, the Minister might be tempted to say that there are other examples of Commission notices performing the same kinds of feats as that which underpins the regulations before us today. I can locate only two, both of which come with the heading “DISCLAIMER” and seek to interpret the relevant legislation to the point of changing its effective meaning. Interestingly, they both relate to the Irish Sea border and attempts to interpret one’s way out of earlier problems. One relates to human medicines and the other to veterinary medicines.
Finally, could the Minister explain why it is acceptable to bring legislation to your Lordships’ House that does the following? First, it testifies the disfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to key aspects of the NHS; secondly, it further alienates us from the rest of the United Kingdom through the imposition of a dental amalgam sea border from July 2026; thirdly, it presents all this on a legal foundation that relates not to EU law but to an interpretation of it that bears no relation to the actual legislation, and which could be struck down by the European Court of Justice at any time; and, fourthly, it acquiesces with the unconstitutional practice of, in effect, using the Executive to suspend laws made by this legislature.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment. This SI addresses the implications for Northern Ireland of the Government’s decision not to follow the Minamata Convention on Mercury on phasing out the use of mercury dental amalgam fillings throughout the EU. I will say a few words on why it is concerning that the UK Government are rowing back on their Minamata commitments, and why mercury amalgam fillings, which are highly toxic, should be banned throughout the UK at the earliest opportunity.
This issue is not merely one of dentistry; it concerns public health, environmental protection and ethical responsibility. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to science, as the Minister readily accepted in her opening statement, and there is no safe level of exposure for humans. Studies show that mercury vapour is released continuously into the mouth from amalgam fillings, especially when we chew, grind our teeth or have old fillings removed. These vapours are inhaled, absorbed into the bloodstream and stored in the body’s tissues. Chronic exposure has been linked to neurological damage, kidney dysfunction and developmental harm in unborn children.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement, which filled out very carefully the exact situation that we now face with amalgam fillings in a useful and important way. I am very grateful for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right on one key point. I have friends in the Irish Republic who regularly use Northern Irish dental services. This is, at the very least, a loose end in the regulations presented to us in the House today, which, in principle, place a burden on Northern Irish dentists. It is difficult to see how they can deal with it in any proper way. It is the loose end in the Minister’s very elegant introduction.
This is a sensitive matter. Reference has already been made to the operation of the NHS in Northern Ireland. One of the key differences between the Windsor Framework and the 2019 withdrawal agreement is that the Windsor Framework makes it clear on page 14 that basic state functions include medical supplies. This is essentially an issue of medical supplies. It is one of the things that can be said in favour of the Windsor Framework—indeed, it was the first item in the DUP’s election manifesto for the Assembly elections that this situation had to be rectified.
The debate today raises a degree of uncertainty as to how these matters are going. In broad outline, there is a practical resolution to most of the questions, and the Minister has made that clear, but one has to understand why there is a certain neuralgia in the public mind none the less. It is related to another issue, which is in no way the Minister’s responsibility—but it is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has brought forward an independent report on the Windsor Framework for the Government in this House. My noble friend Lord Carlile’s Select Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, sits, has also produced an important document on the working of the Windsor Framework. Does the Minister have any ideas of any significant EU response to the issues that have been raised and the loose ends, one of which we have discussed—the burden apparently being placed on Northern Irish dentists? Given those two reports, I hear very little about the government response.
This is a moment of reset in Anglo-Irish relations. For example, at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I attended last week, the Irish Minister, Mr Lawless, said that the key thing about the Windsor Framework was that it protected the Irish position on the island economy. Actually, the Windsor Framework makes it clear on page 5 that for the foreseeable future there are two economies on the island of Ireland—but for the first time in decades there was no British Minister to reply to that at the BIPA, if they had so wished.
In this House eight days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, dismissed a relatively innocent question on the green lane and its working in the Windsor Framework on the grounds that the green lane was a kind of old-style Brexit thinking. In fact, the green lane is in the Windsor Framework and is specifically referred to on page 8, so it is not unreasonable to ask how it is working out in actual fact.
For those of us who support the Windsor Framework critically but know that it leaves a lot of irritants for the public of Northern Ireland, it needs to be fully implemented. The Government cannot just pay lip service to it, as they do, but then half shy away when the Irish Government say something else, or it does not appear to fulfil commitments that were given to the electorate of Northern Ireland and are fundamental to why the Assembly and the Good Friday institutions currently operate. The fact that those commitments were given in good faith became the basis for the return of the Assembly.
A significant minority of unionists in Northern Ireland have tired of these institutions and are deeply critical of them—and, in my opinion, unrealistically and unreasonably wish to replace them. But it gives succour to that group if the Government do not just support the Windsor Framework but support it with vigour.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, earlier today we had a haul of Earls—I think that was the collective term. In this debate on issues that pertain to the protocol and the Windsor Framework, I rise as one of a number of unionist Peers. I am not sure what the collective term is, whether we are an anger of Peers or a frustration of Peers. I will allow some of my more erudite colleagues to disseminate the correct answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, made reference to the fact that a number of colleagues from across the Chamber are due on different flights tonight to return home to Northern Ireland. I am not, but I will forgo what I intended to do—a two-hour contextual dissertation on the impact of dental amalgam and its history over the past 100 years in British dentistry.
When looking at the issue and the regulations in front of us, we need to disaggregate two issues. One is the landing point of the regulation itself and the other—perhaps much more concerning, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others—is the underlying issues behind it. On the regulation itself, we have heard the concerns raised in relation to the continuance of mercury amalgam. I think that has been accepted largely, not simply by the UN convention but by the World Dental Federation. I think it has been accepted that there is a need at least for a phasing out of that dental amalgam. There may be some degree of disagreement over the speed of that.
We know that if immediate action was taken, there would be financial implications for dentists. Wherever we reach in the near future, the alternatives at present are considerably more costly and time-consuming. Indeed, the real concern that was raised, particularly by local dentists in Northern Ireland, was that if we faced a cliff-edge ban in 2025 or 2026, it would lead effectively to the collapse of NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland. That was a very real fear. This does not come simply within a vacuum. We have to realise that the impact, particularly for the dental profession, has arisen from the Covid situation, when it was particularly hard hit.
With that balance in place, I think that we can, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, indicated, at least accept a level of relief that, instead of the immediate crisis that had been created, with this regulation we are now talking about the beginning of January 2035 for that phasing-out period. That is in line with what has been put forward by the World Dental Federation. It should also be indicated—I will be interested in the Minister’s response on this—that whatever happens in terms of phasing out, it should be done across the UK.
I commend the landing zone but join others in expressing concern over the underlying issues of how we got here in the first place. There are three major concerns. First, on the dental issue itself, when either a piece of primary legislation or regulations are passed, I think we all fall into the trap of then dismissing the issue—job done; we have reached a solution. It is abundantly clear that, with these regulations, we are putting it off to a particular point at the end of 2034. That does not mean that the issue can simply be ignored between now and then. As was indicated, there needs to be considerable investment and support to ensure that we have practical alternatives to the dental amalgam. As has been highlighted earlier, some of those seem to be in progress but, at the moment, it is indicated that the alternatives are roughly five times the cost in private practice of what they would be in the NHS. We need to be in a position where we can institute the alternative. That means a considerable amount of work. It means support for the dental profession and for this to be brought about on a UK-wide basis.
Undoubtedly, it is the case that even if this did not apply anywhere in the United Kingdom, there is a major problem facing dentistry throughout the UK because of the EU ban. It is quite likely that the supply chains, and the overall European market for dental amalgam, will collapse in the near future, which will create its own difficulties. The Government need to be aware, so I again look to the Minister to see what support they will give to the dental profession as we move ahead between now and the beginning of 2035.
Secondly, on the solution that has been reached today, I commend officials and Ministers in the Government on raising these concerns with the EU and negotiating a sensible final position. But it highlights that these issues should not have to be fought out on a one-by-one basis. It shows the fundamental flaw with the system itself. These decisions lack any form of democratic accountability because they lie, ultimately, with the EU, where sovereignty has been surrendered and a level of democratic and political autonomy has been given over. We are left in a situation where this solution has been reached only because the EU decided, in effect, to do us a favour and agree this. We cannot be in a position, in the long term, of having to fight each individual matter on the basis that issues will be resolved on the good will or otherwise of the EU. We need a better solution to that.
Finally, this also shows, as has been shown with a number of other issues that I will touch on briefly, a level of overreach when it comes to our relationship with the EU. It is undoubtedly the case that the argument for a particular form of relationship that impacts Northern Ireland is largely based on two things from an EU perspective: the protection of the single market and a reduction of any friction on a cross-border basis. But the relationship at present, through the protocol and perhaps to a lesser extent through the Windsor Framework, goes into a wide range of areas, from immigration, for example, to the selling of poppies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, indicated, which is nothing to do with cross-border trade or protecting the EU market.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to this statutory instrument and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for raising this issue, even though I will take a very different approach to the SI. I will park the constitutional questions, leaving the Windsor Framework to one side, and raise the issue of why Britain is trailing globally on the issue of mercury dental fillings.
I take issue with the Minister’s introduction, which talked about a stable, safe and typically cheaper material. It is worth stressing that this SI provides bespoke arrangements—here, I am looking at it purely from the medical health side—for a longer transition period away from mercury dental fillings in Northern Ireland compared with the EU, a delayed phase-out that is in line with the rest of the UK. This is bad for the people of Northern Ireland, bad for the UK and bad for the world.
Coincidentally, a new study is out today from the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link that shows that more than 98% of fish and mussels tested in English waters contain mercury levels above EU safety limits. In fact, more than half the fish and mussels tested have mercury levels more than five times above the EU safety limits. We all know that mercury is a potent neurotoxin, even at low levels of exposure. There is the tragedy of Minamata, the disease that resulted from the industrial release of methylmercury in Japan. This has been known for many decades. Some 43 countries have now banned mercury amalgam fillings, including the EU and the Scandinavian countries, but also countries such as Tanzania and Indonesia.
The practical reality is that crematoriums are now the second-largest source of mercury emissions to the air, after the combustion of fossil fuels. We know that fossil fuels are and have to be on the way out for other reasons, so the percentage contribution will only rise higher and higher. As has been mentioned, there is the Minamata convention meeting in November, and there is talk of a global phase-out by 2030, led by African countries including Botswana and Burkina Faso.
I raised issue with the “cheaper” point. Cost is often cited as the reason why we have to go slower, but countries such as Germany use safer alternatives and the cost is only very marginally higher. If Germany can manage it, surely we can manage it too.
It is also important to understand the issue of mercury pollution on a global scale. It is interesting that the African nations are leading at that November convention, because the rise in the price of and demand for gold is also associated with massive increases in mercury pollution around the world. We are used to the idea of blood diamonds; mercury-poisoning gold might not be such a catchy phrase, but it is something we should really be talking about. The risks are particularly acute in the Amazon, as highlighted by the campaigning priest Miguel Ángel Cadenas, who works in Peru. It is also a huge issue in artisan gold mining in Africa, and globally it is estimated to release 800 tonnes of mercury into the air per year. That is nearly 40% of global emissions.
These are global emissions; they do not stay where the emissions happen. I point the Minister to a very important study that has just been published in the journal of the European Geosciences Union. We are used to the idea that food crops are being contaminated by taking up mercury from the soil, so the mercury has drifted in dust around the world, settled in the soil and then been taken up. This study has demonstrated, which we have not realised before, that the mercury is being taken in from the air by plants when they photosynthesise. It is going directly into the green, leafy crops that we all need.
I put to the Minister that this SI takes Northern Ireland in the wrong direction. More than that, the Government are not taking the steps they need to take for public and environmental health here in the UK and for global One Health.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will briefly make a few comments on this regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I am grateful to her for tabling it, as it allows a debate on this important issue, which has caused concern in Northern Ireland about access to NHS dentists and not having massive expense imposed on people seeking dental treatment.
I listened very carefully to the arguments that were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who spoke very eloquently about why they believe the EU is right to move to a speedy removal of dental amalgam. I also listened very carefully to other noble Lords who spoke about their real concern about a cliff edge, the impact that there may be on the supply chain and so on, in relation to this ban happening in Northern Ireland and not in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Whichever side of the argument noble Lords are on, whether for implementing an immediate ban, slowing it down, or having it at all, this is an issue that should be debated and decided by us. That is the crucial question. There is a multitude of issues within the Windsor Framework, of which this is one tiny example, ranging from the environment, agriculture, manufacturing and thousands of regulations. In Northern Ireland, we can debate until the cows come home about whether they are good or bad ideas and whether the principle behind them is a good or bad thing—which is good, and we should be debating that—but there is nothing we can do about it. The debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly is irrelevant; the British Parliament has no powers. That point has been highlighted by my noble friends Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
It is an amazing situation that the arguments that are being put forward in relation to these matters have no relevance in Northern Ireland, because the European Commission and the European Union will decide the matter and not give a fig for what anyone elected in Northern Ireland says about it.
When these issues are raised, with there being example after example, I know that there are people in the generality of Parliament who do not take a great interest in these matters, may find this tedious and may even find it laughable at times. You see people who ask, “What is this all about? What are they going on about again?” But time after time, we are seeing a situation where the impact on Northern Ireland is not just in terms of the economic costs of divergence, as has been recently highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses report and by the Murphy review of the Windsor Framework, which the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to and which was highlighted in the recent report of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of this House. I would urge your Lordships to read that report, which sets out in very stark terms the cost and the economic damage in a whole range of areas.
So it is not just the cost but the democratic cost as well. We cannot decide these matters. I thought the most telling remark that the Minister made in her introduction, in recognising the problem and hearing what people were saying in Northern Ireland, was that the UK Government “made representations to the EU”. Somebody mentioned self-respect and dignity; this is what we have come to in Northern Ireland on this issue and across a thousand directives and regulations, across 300 areas, for vast swathes of our economy.
We will continue to highlight this issue, because it is something that is ultimately going to cause major problems down the line. I have been warning for some time about the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has been set up, has worked and has done many good things, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to, the basis on which it has been restored and commitments that were entered into that the Government have been cast aside. EU labelling was to be introduced for the whole of the UK, which was a commitment in Safeguarding the Union. That was one of the reasons why the Assembly was restored, but it has been cast aside, rejected and torn up; commitments have been shredded and have not been implemented. This is another example of where we are going wrong and where, ultimately, the Northern Ireland Assembly will be placed in danger.
It may be a minority concern now—it is hard to know, but we will soon find out at the next election—but the recent Northern Ireland Life and Times survey by Queen’s University indicated growing concern in the unionist community about the implications of all these issues. If that is replicated in an election, it will be very difficult to have the stability within the Assembly that is needed to have a strong unionist and nationalist presence in the Executive. I do not say that out of any desire to see it collapse or anything like it, but I am just pointing out a reality.
Whitehall generally, the Government and the big parties need to understand what is at stake. There is a growing disillusionment, anger and frustration that these debates, which we should be having in the Assembly in Northern Ireland or here, are not happening. The decisions have been made by bureaucrats in Brussels, by the Commission, and imposed on Northern Ireland, and then we have to go and beg for a grace-and-favour extension to not have it implemented immediately. That is happening over and over again.
This has been a useful debate, and I commend those who have spoken and highlighted all these issues. I know that the Minister takes a very strong interest in Northern Ireland, follows these things deeply and cares about Northern Ireland, and I look forward to her response.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her very clear presentation. I take the opportunity to wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a speedy recovery. If she is watching this debate today, she should know that we are all thinking of her. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to have this debate, because it is an important debate. However, as ever, it is a debate about two different issues. The first is the ongoing constitutional debate about the functioning of the Windsor Framework and the democratic questions arising from Northern Ireland having to accept decisions taken by the European Union when we no longer have representation there since leaving the EU. The second debate is the substance of these regulations: the phasing out of amalgam dental fillings and the exemption for Northern Ireland to 2034. I will deal with the latter point first.
I believe the exemption to 2034 is welcome. The NHS in Northern Ireland, and dentistry in particular, is in a state of some crisis. This nine-year exemption will allow time to make the transition from amalgam to composite fillings in a planned and phased manner, and will avoid the shock to Northern Ireland dentistry which many dental professionals warned about. Clearly, I am not a dentist. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but it is noticeable, I would say, that amalgam fillings have seen a marked decrease in popularity in recent years. People are keen to choose the more aesthetically pleasing white composite fillings.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, powerfully made the case in his speech that the use of mercury amalgam fillings has always been somewhat controversial. They require much greater drilling in the tooth, which can have long-term consequences. They add enormously, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said, to mercury pollution in the environment. Ahead of this debate today, I was reading that a recent medical research paper has indicated that their use might even have an impact on arthritis. I would be grateful if the Minister could, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked, clarify the Government’s position on eventually banning mercury amalgam fillings in England.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, ahead of the imminent meeting on the Minamata Convention on Mercury being held next week, from 3 November to 7 November, I would be interested to know the Government’s response to a proposal by the African nations for a ban on dental amalgam by 2030. I believe the Minister in her opening remarks said that if amalgam fillings are eventually banned for the rest of the UK ahead of 2034, Northern Ireland would follow suit and these regulations would fall. I would be grateful if she could clarify that in her closing remarks.
On the constitutional issue, as noble Lords will know—indeed, it would not be a debate on a regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, if I did not point this out—if we had not left the European Union then we would not be having these arguments, because we would have been able to make the case within the EU institutions on behalf of UK dentists, including Northern Ireland dentists, at the Council and the European Parliament. But she and I are never entirely going to agree on those matters.
As others have said, the Windsor Framework is very far from perfect. There is a democratic deficit, and it is something that we in the rest of the UK are going to have to face if we go further down the route of dynamic alignment. But I would argue that this set of regulations is a positive story. There was an issue, and the UK Government and the EU listened, the Northern Ireland Assembly made the case powerfully, and an exemption to 2034 was granted. That is why on these Benches we support these regulations and oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because it allows us to debate a very important subject. It is important on two counts, as we heard in the debate: first, on the constitutional issue, and, secondly, on the merits or demerits of amalgam—and some powerful speeches were made pointing out how dangerous it can be. It has allowed us to hear an excellent opening address from the Minister.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on two counts, the first being her assurance, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that we will finish by 7 pm. Of course, this being Northern Ireland business, I was betting on 6.55 pm. The second count is that Peers from Northern Ireland have raised the important constitutional question. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that I do not find this tedious at all. I am afraid I share his view that, sooner or later, this is going to come to a crunch. We have yet another regulation before us here which will slowly drive a wedge between our United Kingdom and our Northern Ireland.
I had no idea about the poppies issue. I Google searched it after the noble Baroness mentioned it, and I was appalled to find that she is absolutely right—EU interference with selling poppies in Northern Ireland.
We on these Benches recognise the importance of reducing mercury use in line with the Minamata convention. We do not oppose the principle of this instrument. However, it is right that we probe the Government on how it has been implemented, particularly regarding dental amalgam and its replacement, as my noble friends have discussed.
Northern Ireland, as we know, has been granted a longer-term transition period, allowing the continued import and use of amalgam until 2034 to avoid disruption to dental services. Apart from my noble friend Lord Reay, most Members in the House seem to agree that the extension is sensible while we look for workable alternatives. What engagement has taken place with dental practitioners in Northern Ireland? How will the Government monitor the practical impacts of divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will any future decision under the Minamata convention affect this timeline?
We note the British Dental Association’s concerns about cost and capacity. Amalgam, it says, is a widely used and affordable material, and replacing it too quickly, without proper support, could worsen access issues. My noble friend Lord Bourne also wanted reassurance on that point. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Reay, in a very powerful speech, pointed out the severe dangers of mercury amalgam and that alternatives were available already—almost as cheap and better.
I simply do not know. I will not say that finding the answer is like pulling teeth—there is no time for silliness—but the Government ought to know. If the Government do not know now, hopefully in the next few years they will. Will we be able, before 2034, to find for the whole United Kingdom—not just Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom—a reasonably cheap alternative to dental amalgam?
We do not oppose this instrument, but we urge the Government to remain alert to its impact on front-line services to ensure that both patients and practitioners in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are properly supported. I urge the Government, as soon as possible, to work with those developing alternatives to make sure that a replacement is available to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as soon as practicable.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I was tempted to make a joke about filling the gap in the noble Lord’s information, given what we are talking about. Noble Lords are aware that I am passionate about Northern Ireland, and there are many issues that I thoroughly enjoy talking about with Members of your Lordships’ House. I did not realise that dental amalgam was going to be one of them, so noble Lords will have to bear with me.
I am very aware of people’s travel arrangements for this evening, so I will be short and sweet, but I will reflect on Hansard in case I have missed anyone’s comments. I also hope that my noble friend Lady Hayman is getting better, but I am not sure that watching your Lordships’ House is going to assist in that, so I hope she is having chicken soup and lying in bed.
Many points have been raised, and I will try to cover them all. There are some on which I would like to reassure noble Lords. On others, I think it might be helpful to Members of your Lordships’ House if I offered a meeting to discuss the constitutional aspects of this with regard to the Windsor Framework, because as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, highlighted, we have a constitutional issue here and we also have the SI at hand.
I will try to touch on many issues for reassurance, but noble Lords are aware that this is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that we talk about the effectiveness of the Windsor Framework and where some of the challenges are. I would very much welcome the opportunity to have further conversations on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, touched on the fact that pressure was placed through discussions in Parliament and elsewhere to make sure that this issue was raised. In fact, the noble Baroness had the benefit of being the first person to table a Question of this Government on any issue, and it was on this issue on our first day out. I thought I was going to have my first outing as Northern Ireland spokesperson talking about this issue; it turns out I was not first, but I was not going to escape.
Turning to the specific concerns that were raised, I want to put noble Lords’ minds at rest about poppies. They are available to be bought, with additional materials, and are freely available in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords are aware, I would be horrified if people could not purchase them.
The EU Commission notice was touched on. The Government have considered all our obligations in developing this SI, including the nature of the notice. The arrangements are already in effect and have been since January this year. The SI strengthens the enforcement measures, and we are comfortable with where we are; the SI gives it further practicalities.
On enforcement, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency—an executive agency of DAERA—will keep accurate records of all regulatory and enforcement action undertaken, along with information provided by Northern Ireland’s Department of Health. This will enable assessment, over time, of the impact of the prohibitions and exemptions on Northern Ireland.
I also assure both the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the other Members of your Lordships’ House who raised this issue that there will be no guards on the border checking people’s teeth. I know that that was a concern, but I assure noble Lords that it will not be how enforcement of this is done.
Dental tourism and members of the republic using these services was raised by several noble Lords. Republic of Ireland patients will not be entitled to NHS dentistry, and residency needs to be proven. People will still be able to access their dentist in Northern Ireland in the same way as they did before non-amalgam fillings, as they can in the Republic of Ireland, but not via the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and several noble Lords asked about dental amalgam and what the Government are doing to improve dental services. State-funded healthcare is a devolved matter and responsibility of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments. I was pleased to see the Northern Ireland Government announce an extra £7 million for dentistry services this year, but we are working together on both the issues that dentists currently face and these issues.
On the proposed updates to mercury regulations in Great Britain and what action is being taken in the UK to reduce mercury use, the UK will be laying legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacture in Great Britain of a number of products containing intentionally added mercury. These products will also be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury-containing products.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as I realise that some of her issues interlay with others. The health impacts of the continued use of dental amalgam were touched upon. Dental amalgam is a well-established, safe and effective dental filling material. There is no evidence that amalgam fillings cause any harm to the health of dental patients. However, mercury, when released into the environment in large volumes, can cause harm and this is carefully managed by the UK to reduce any environmental impact.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have not finished addressing the points the noble Baroness raised, if she will bear with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked what we are doing on our long-term use of mercury, and about the Minamata convention. Noble Lords are aware that discussions will again be occurring at COP next week on what happens next with Minamata. The actions we are taking align with our international commitments under the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty. The convention is aimed at protecting health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury, and the UK is a fully committed party to this convention. Our current measures were based on decisions made at the fourth and fifth Minamata convention of the parties.
In addressing what will happen next with our dental amalgam being in line with the Minamata Convention on Mercury, UK-wide restrictions on dental amalgam use have been in place for certain populations since 1 July 2018. These include children under the age of 15, and pregnant and breastfeeding women. Since 1 January 2019, there has been a requirement in UK law to use dental amalgam only in pre-dosed encapsulated form, and for dental facilities to be equipped with amalgam separators to minimise dental professionals’ and the environment’s exposure to mercury. There will be further discussions on dental amalgam at the upcoming Minamata conference of the parties, which starts next week. Discussions and conversations on these issues are ongoing.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. This is not a specific Northern Ireland point, but we heard a fairly powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who said that Germany has introduced an alternative that it is only marginally more expensive than mercury amalgam. My noble friend, Lord Reay, made the point that mercury should be banned immediately because of this alternative. Will the Minister raise with the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care that we want a statement on these alternatives? Is the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, right? Is my noble friend right? Do we have to wait 10 years before we have a replacement? We really could do with a statement from the Department of Health on the work that is currently happening on alternatives, such as that in Germany.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I will raise that with my colleagues in the Department of Health. Some of these discussions are genuinely active as part of the negotiations at COP next week. We cannot withdraw dental amalgam without having cost-effective alternatives, as I would hope these alternatives are.
As ever, it is a privilege to spend time talking about the impact of legislation on Northern Ireland. I am grateful that everyone has stayed on a Thursday evening to discuss it with us, and I wish everyone safe travels.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for the offer of a letter about the gold mining issues. All these are related, because it is the amount of mercury in the environment, globally, that matters. I mentioned a study about British seafood—fish and mussels—which was produced literally a couple of hours ago. I am aware that it is not the Minister’s department, but I hope that, when she is recovered soon, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, or the relevant person could write to me on the fish study as well.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I said, I will reflect on everything that the noble Baroness said, and I will make sure that she receives the letter.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, having listened to the debate, I feel I should have declared an interest at the beginning, in that I have amalgam fillings. I am very pleased that the Minister reiterated that, whatever the issue is in the longer term, amalgam fillings are safe. We would not want to be worrying the millions of people out there who have amalgam fillings.
I know that the Minister is not the Minister for dentistry—and I am sure she does not want to add that to her title. It was a very interesting debate, much wider than I had intended, in the sense that it was a constitutional issue that I wanted to raise. It has been very helpful—and I now know where the dentists among us are sitting for when my amalgam fillings go.
I thank everyone for speaking, particularly the Minister for her response. I hope she knows how well she is thought of in Northern Ireland. I thought her response was, in the circumstances, given the Government’s policy positions, very helpful indeed. It might be helpful if she could write to me outlining exactly what the legal position of the Commission’s notice is.
Finally, this is not about dentistry—although, if we are to ban amalgam fillings, we need to start now, to make sure our dentists are able to cope, because they will certainly have extra costs, which will be an issue in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in his usual way, expressed how frustrating it is now for people in Northern Ireland. At the beginning, when all this happened, a lot of people in the public thought that it was all about business—big business, small business—and nothing to do with us. Now they are seeing so many things happening—the chickens are coming home to roost, as they would say. I really hope that noble Lords listening to these Sis—which we will continue to challenge, because we need to get the information out there—will understand that Northern Ireland is being treated as a second-class part of the United Kingdom. That is not acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.