Lords Chamber

Tuesday 24th February 2026

(began 1 month ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
None Portrait Oral questions: Plans to use the Post-16 education and skills white paper to promote and deliver a culture of lifelong learning Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-

I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring the UK is able to optimise the opportunities arising from quantum technology Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-

My Lord.
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Student loans regime review Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Young of Cookham. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
None Portrait Business of the House
-

That concludes our questions for today. >> Message from the Commons that they have passed the Industry and Exports Financial Assistance Bill, and they have passed the Universal Credit removal of two child limit bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordship.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Industry and Exports Financial Assistance bill, I beg to move. This bill is now read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. My Lords, the question is that this bill be. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The question that this bill be. Now read a first time. As many of Now read a first time. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords universal credit remove the two child limit bill. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. This bill is now read the first Time Lords. The question is that this bill be now read a first time, as many be now read a first time, as many are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Third Reading of the Sustainable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Reading of the Sustainable Aviation fuel Bill Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. I beg to move that this bill now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, the question is that this bill be now read a is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as have that opinion will say content content the contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I am very grateful for the scrutiny, due diligence and expertise from noble Lords during the debates on this legislation. This bill is a huge step forward by unlocking the
15:21
15:21
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
greenhouse gas emissions, grow the economy and support green jobs. Your Lordships input as this bill Your Lordships input as this bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place in better shape. I would like to in better shape. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whose engagement and scrutiny on this piece of legislation has been this piece of legislation has been welcomed, particularly on HEFA. I'm sorry about the acronyms. This bill sorry about the acronyms.

This bill is particularly full of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon and the noble Lord Earl Russell have been exemplary with their engagement on this bill. I thank them for their continued scrutiny and in particular, making sure transparency is at the forefront of the bill. I'd also like to thank the noble Lord Lord Grayling, whose amendment to the Energy Act paved the way for the first consultation on a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF. His expertise on this subject has been invaluable. The Bill will now ensure the Secretary of State can only enter into revenue certainty contracts, where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the UK, which was always the government's intention.

In addition, I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale for the expertise and clarity he's brought to our discussions on power to liquid and feedstocks more generally. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who supported me, including the bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in parliamentary counsel and others that have been involved in its successful passage. I look forward to seeing this bill pass. If we are to create the jobs and attract the business investment Britain needs, we must grow aviation and grow it sustainably.

This bill does just that. I beg to move. pass.
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, as we reach the final stage of this bill, I want to start by saying a huge thank you to the Minister and his team of officials. They have been incredibly open to discussion and have genuinely discussion and have genuinely listened to our concerns throughout this process. And I hope the Minister agrees with me that our Minister agrees with me that our discussions on reporting and monitoring will help to ensure that the impacts of the act are understood thoroughly as it is implemented, including by government, the sector and other stakeholders.

I think this level of engagement has been vital in making sure the bill is practical and ready to work in the real world, and this legislation will provide the clarity and confidence the industry needs to finally get the wheels turning on sustainable aviation fuel. I want to thank Adam Bull in our whips office for his support and hard work behind the scenes. And I'd like to thank my noble Lord, my noble friend Earl Russell, for his immense work and support during this Bill. Ultimately, ultimately, my Lords, our goal is to see the aviation industry embrace a cleaner future.

I think this bill is an important step forward, making sustainable aviation fuel a common reality rather than a distant goal, ensuring we can stay connected while significantly reducing the sector's environmental impact. I look forward to seeing this legislation put into practice and seeing a much higher proportion of sustainable fuel in the sector in the years to come, OK.
15:26
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, despite. The applause from all sides of the chamber for from all sides of the chamber for this bill, I'm afraid it does remain a very troubling piece of legislation. It's been described by the Baroness, Lady Pigeon, as effectively as piece of net zero legislation. But as I've insisted throughout the passage of the bill, this is not a net zero legislation. The net zero effect in relation to sustainable aviation fuel was was achieved by the SAF mandate put in place some 1516 months ago, which requires airlines to mix in a certain amount of HEFA or increasingly other fuels.

An increasing amount of this over time. That is what will make the difference. To make the contribution to net zero. This bill is, in fact a piece of industrial policy. It is based on the premise that somehow, because we are going to consume SAF, that we need to be a world leader in producing it. And despite my pressing the government repeatedly, Minister has not been able to offer any reasons for thinking that we have a comparative advantage in this field and that we should be dedicating resources to it.

And its means of doing so is by piling subsidy upon subsidy. And it really is, as I say, very troubling. We're now through this bill guaranteeing a floor price for SAF producers, and the risk is being transferred away from them. That risk is being transferred down the chain to airlines and their passengers. And we on our side sought a commitment from the government to be transparent about the likely impact on fares. Instead, they, along with the Liberal Democrats, chose to shield the travelling public from the dangerous knowledge of what they were actually paying.

Will be paying for this policy over the years ahead, and much of what matters to make this bill work is, in fact, is is saved for secondary legislation and indeed for commercially confidential negotiations between officials, on the one hand, and the shark toothed lawyers of the international investor sector on the other. It is a recipe for success. I'm sure the Minister would want to say that. My Lords, despite all of that. I cannot fail to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his now reliable courtesy and helpfulness in the passage of this legislation.

In working with the Official Opposition and other noble Lords, and in his responsiveness. And I also want to thank his officials who have been very helpful and have responded rapidly and efficiently when we have had questions for them. So I'm grateful to all of those for doing that. I do wish to pay particular tribute to my noble friends, Lord Harper and Lord Grayling for their contribution in the debate, but also to the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale, with whom I worked on on certain amendments.

And I think we have achieved some improvements to the bill as it's passed through your Lordships House. Nonetheless, the best solution for this bill would be that it is never called upon and never actually used, and that we procure, procure sustainable aviation fuel for use in our airline industry from the cheapest and most efficient source, whether that be produced here in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain or elsewhere. I thank all noble Lords and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question. The question is that the Bill do now pass, as many that the Bill do now pass, as many of that opinion will say, content, the contrary not content. The the contrary not content. The contents have it questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons yesterday

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the House of Commons yesterday on Labour Together and Apco worldwide. My Lords. The Prime Minister promised to clean up politics. Yet we have had the Cabinet Office investigating one of its own Ministers before belatedly referring the matter to the independent adviser. The process has been conflicted from
15:31
15:32
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Well. >> Good afternoon. I thank the noble Lady for her questions, of which there are several. So let me see if I can assist the noble Lady see if I can assist the noble Lady with some of her concerns. First of all, I would like to place on record my thanks and thanks to the government and the thanks of the government, to the civil servants who have so diligently undertaken their work. The noble Lady is very aware that civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code, and therefore all of their actions are impartial.

So in terms of some of the questions, I just think it's it's important that we don't cast aspersions upon their impartiality or their ability to do their roles without fear or favour with regards to the appointment of a former member of staff from Labour Together into the team, I'd like to clarify that the post in question sits within the wider Propriety and Constitution group, not in the propriety and ethics team, and that member of staff had nothing to do with the fact finding exercise that was undertaken by the Cabinet Office just to confirm the process.

What has happened is a fact finding mission by the propriety and ethics team that the findings of which were discussed with the Prime Minister, with a recommendation that that the independent adviser on ethics then undertook a process. Sir Laurie Magnus is now undertaking that process, and I would expect him to to report soon. Noble Lords will be aware that all of his publications are placed in the public domain, so we will all be able to read his recommendations. And in terms of the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards, I hate to say it, my Lords, but the clue may be in the name.

It's on ministerial standards. They can only investigate. Sorry, Magnus can only investigate Ministers, as has always been the case, and there is no such thing as a suspended Minister. There is a Minister or there is not a Minister, and therefore he is undertaking an investigation into the efforts and into the the member in the other place, as a Minister.
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal, for the opportunity to respond to this statement. We are three weeks on from the motion passed in the other place for this Humble Address to be presented to His Majesty, and not a single document has yet been published. We often hear that Ministers are moving at pace, but this time Ministers are moving at an unacceptably slow pace. Transparency delayed is transparency denied. The government must not drag its feet in, complying with the clear instruction of Parliament.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm that there will be no further slippage in the timetable for publication? In the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepted that compiling the material will take some time, and he spoke of publication very shortly in tranches, but very shortly is not a plan. Parliament's instruction requires urgency as well as completeness, and we will continue to hold Ministers to account for delivering both. The Chief Secretary also told the other place that the first tranche would be published in early March.

Can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, clarify what the government means by early March? For example, should the House expect publication within the first week of March? And can she confirm the precise date on which the first tranche will be laid? My Lord, my Lords, the Humble Address expressly exempts papers that would be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations. These papers are instead to be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC can the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, explain what test officials are applying when they decide that disclosure would be prejudicial in each case? Will she also confirm that material identified as engaging those exemptions is being passed to the ISC promptly as it as it is identified, rather than being held back and sent only once.

The wider collation exercise is complete so that the committee can begin its work without delay. It has also been noted that the ISC Secretariat is provided by Cabinet Office officials. I want to be unequivocal. We do not question the independence or integrity of the ISC. However, given that the Cabinet Office is also leading the government's sifting and handling of material for publication, what steps are being taken to ensure that these parallel roles do not create even the perception of a conflict, and that the ISC has the resources and independence it needs to do this job quickly and thoroughly.

My Lords, turning to the matter that of the documents the government says it is withholding. Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police. In the other place, the speaker has been clear that the police cannot dictate to that House what may be required under a Humble Address. Will the noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, confirm that the government accepts the principle behind that statement, that the duty to comply rest with Ministers, and that any documents withheld because of the live investigation will be published as soon as it is possible to do so? And will she also consider setting a clear backstop for further updates to Parliament, so that the process cannot drift indefinitely? More broadly, my Lords, humble addresses are understood to be binding resolutions of the House.

Does the noble Baroness Lord Privy Seal accept that a failure to comply with the Humble Address without proper justification, could be treated as a contempt of Parliament? Finally, my Lords, the Official Opposition has called for clarity on what is to be published, what is being withheld, and why will the noble Baroness commit to publishing a comprehensive list of the categories of documents within scope, identifying which have been disclosed, which have been referred to the ISC, and which are being temporarily withheld.

For example, because of the police investigation, together with the reasons in each, with the reason in each case, and if the noble Baroness cannot give a firm commitment today, will she undertake to write to clarify the government's position? My Lords, we have been patient and constructive, but the public interest in these papers is clear. They must be published in a timely way if lessons are to be learned and accountability secured.
15:46
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we all now recognise that it was a massive misjudgement to appoint Lord Mandelson to the to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister has already apologised for that. He is not the first Prime Minister to have made such a serious error, and opposition parties should avoid pretending that they are entirely innocent of similar past mistakes. That will only persuade the public that all politicians are aggressively partisan and potentially corrupt. But there should be a much wider canvas for this investigation.

What we really need to know is not only the involvement of Lord Mandelson in the Epstein network, but how far others within the UK were also involved, and whether any of the trafficking young women took place through Britain and British airports. The interaction between a sexual exploitation network and the provision of confidential governmental information, to which financiers is a potentially explosive mixture. It could deepen public mistrust not only of our political elite, but also of the City of London and its links to New York banks.

And then there are rumours of Russian links with all this. So it is vital to demonstrate as much transparency as possible, with a vigorous attempt to uncover what has really taken place. We recognise the challenge that the vast mass of documents to be examined poses. We also recognise that there will be some areas where national security interests unavoidably prevent full publication, particularly the rumours of Russian links, if they turn out to have some foundation. But we ask the government to publish as much as possible, and to explain to the public as much as possible in order to rebuild public trust.

I hope that Ministers also recognise that they are now in a position where the British government can and should, set an international example of our adherence to democratic accountability and the rule of law. There have already been a number of comments in Washington on the contrast between American and British reactions to this developing scandal. No recent arrest in the United States, reluctant release of heavily redacted documents, and an administration which is doing its best to deny any involvement.

Contrasted with the government in London and the head of state, which is taking the limited British involvement seriously, democracy and the rule of law are under attack in the United States and elsewhere. We on these benches therefore encourage our government to demonstrate in everything it does in this developing scandal that accountability and the law matter enormously. There is likely to be a lot more still to come out from all of these documents that will embarrass the US government and America's financial, high tech and business elites, as well as their counterparts in the UK.

The last conservative government resisted publication of the full extent of Russian penetration of British politics, primarily because his deepest penetration had been of the Conservative Party. We still do not know how far it extended or what lessons we all need to learn. Could I again encourage the government now to publish a much fuller version of the ISC report, to alert the public to the threats of foreign interference in British politics that we face, and is helpful to background to the sad mixture of money, sleaze and sexual exploitation that Lord Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and perhaps other leading British people were caught up in.
15:50
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank both lady and >> My Lords, I thank both lady and the noble Lord for their questions, and I'll try and answer as many as possible. I actually don't recognise the noble Lady suggestion about delay in dealing with this. There are a lot of documents to be produced. The government's been very clear. There is no hesitation at all whatsoever in complying fully and completely with the Humble Address. I hope that reassures her. In terms of timetable, there isn't a sort of scheduled timetable out, but I think it's important that with so many documents, what we don't want to do is to wait until we have every document, but to get them out in tranches and some of those there may be out of sequence in a sense, but I can say that all government departments have been asked to be very clear that all documents must be kept, whether they're, you know, whatever form they are in, information must be kept, messages must be kept, and so they can be fully disclosed.

The only areas and she asked for confirmation about what is being withheld. The only two areas withheld, that is the information that will be sent to the ISC and the government will make a judgement if that has an impact on international security, if it has an impact on international relations and national security, if the government makes that judgement, it will then be given to the ISC to assess that. So there's a clear process and an assessment of the government's judgement on that.

When it's sent to the ISC. The other document, and I understand this is one document or one maybe a suite of documents, but the one issue is the questions that were asked of Peter Mandelson by number ten. That is the information that is currently with the Metropolitan Police. There's obviously a delay in publishing that, but as soon as they're able to do so, they will. But it's and I take into account the, the Lord speaker's comments that nothing should be allowed to prejudice justice being held.

She asked me what early March means. I'm tempted to say early March means early March. I don't know quite how to further describe early March. Does it mean the 1st of March? The 2nd of March? It means early March and it will be published early March. I expect the next couple or so weeks. We'll see the information produced, she also raised a slightly curious House of Commons. It's reasonable independence of the ISC and I hope I'm not misunderstood. She's shaking her head at me, so perhaps I did, but it's the ISC has to be able to conduct its work without fear of favour, and have the full confidence of the whole of Parliament in doing so.

And although the staff are employed by the Cabinet Office, I think, and she will know from her experience of civil service how very much they work to the ISC. Now, having said that, I understand there have been discussions about whether they should be employed directly by the ISC or whether it's more appropriate that there is a pool of people that work for the ISC and they may return to other civil service jobs. That matters that have been discussed. The important thing is they have the resources to do their job.

But looking at the members of this House who are members of the ISC, the noble Lord West Baroness Brown, and I think the third one is the chair of the Lord Beamish who's behind me. Keep an eye on me. I have absolute confidence in them ensuring they do their work fully, completely and properly. I'm sure the noble Lady will actually agree with the points I make on that one. The noble Lady made a comment about the Metropolitan Police can't dictate to the house, and does the government accept its duty that any documents held be released afterwards? And I think I've already answered that they will be released when we're able to do so.

It does not jeopardise any possible further action. The police may want to take. My Lords, I think the noble Lord Wallace addressed this. All of us can make mistakes and he referred to past government mistakes, this government mistakes. And indeed, I heard his party leader on the radio this morning about his own mistakes that he'd made. And I think it's important when mistakes are being made. There's 2 or 3 things that have to happen. One is an admission that mistake has been made.

Secondly, to find out how that happened because unless you understand how it happened and why it happened, you can't take the action that's needed to protect yourself and others from making similar mistakes in the future. And I think an apology is required as well. And I think those three things are make a mistake. So I'm never going to suggest that no government has ever made a mistake. It's human life. But to have those things, to understand how and why, to put the wrong right and to apologise for doing so, I think are important steps forward.

He asked that government publish and explain as much as possible. Yes, of course. And I think transparency, particularly when they're I think it's generally an era of distrust in politicians and has been for some time that democratic accountability, the rule of law and being open and transparent as possible is really important. And who would have expected when the Epstein papers and documents and emails were released, this would reverberate around the world. And it's uncomfortable, I think, for any government to find itself in a position where the information in those emails was completely unknown by government.

I'm trying to see the little Lord trying to drive past you to see those documents, to see that information is really, really the sense of betrayal, the sense of hurt, the sense of anger and upset, I think is enormous. So I can assure him on that. When he says there are rumours about Russian influence, I think it is very difficult to just make things about rumours and I worry about rumours. What we have to work on is evidence, and so if there is any evidence that is available should be made available.

But there is that balance between I know he understands this. He talks about the Russia report, about transparency and international relations and security, and it's finding that balance. And that's where the ISC and I'm grateful for the work they are doing on this and do generally, I think the whole House must be to ensure that they are confident that that balance is the right place and they can work with the government and doing so. But ultimately, the responsibility for national security lies with the government.

He says. There's further embarrassment to come. Can I say I'm less worried about embarrassment than not doing justice to the young women and girls who abused by Jeffrey Epstein? And I think there are times in life where we have to take a bit of embarrassment to ensure that justice is done here.
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Well. >> Firstly, I'm not quite sure what the noble Lords comment was aimed at on the Humble Address. He's heard no complaints whatsoever from heard no complaints whatsoever from me from this Dispatch Box in complying fully and totally with the Humble Address. I don't think I made any complaints. Previously on Humble Addresses, although he implied so. I'm not quite sure what he was saying that can I just say to him as well the no charges have been brought on misconduct in public office yet, but if they what? I think the evidence that is being looked at is evidence that has come to the for post due diligence and security vetting from the Epstein files.

And I don't think anybody in this house or outside it could have had any warning or a crystal ball or anything that could have indicated the extent of those messages and what they contained. So if there is anything about any charges brought about misconduct in public office, it will come from those emails that were released. I have to say that I would wait and let the police do their work on that one, to see if charges are brought against any of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

arrested. We seem to have come to the end

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We seem to have come to the end of questions, so may I suggest that we have a few minutes for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I suggest we move on. So please, would you mind sitting down, sir? would you mind sitting down, sir? The contrary. Not content the The contrary. Not content the contents have it now in clause one, amendment one Lord Murray of Blidworth. Blidworth.
16:12
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I speak to all my amendments in this group, which is all of them, barring amendment 203. I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby, who has also signed all of my amendments. These amendments all do the same thing they remove in the necessary places in the bill. The generational smoking ban, that is to say, the prohibition on tobacco sales to all those born after the 1st of January 2009 and replaces it with a fixed age of sale of 21.

In my view, this policy was wrong when it was adopted by my party in government, and it's still wrong now. In asking for noble Lords to support this amendment, I make six points. The first point is in relation to the prohibition. A general a generational ban may sound like a progressive step to protect public health, but it is de facto prohibition, and there remains no evidence anywhere in the world that prohibition of a long standing legal product has ever worked in time.

This policy will result in the termination of a legally controlled, highly regulated, highly taxed industry, which will be replaced by an illegal, uncontrolled, unregulated, untaxed criminal bonanza. The idea that because the government bans a legal product, it extinguishes demand must be pure fantasy. In the government's impact assessment, modelling for the smoke free generation policy, it clearly presents that. Scenario two increasing the minimum legal age of purchase from 18 to 21, and scenario for implementing a generational smoking ban.

So that is my amendment, and the government's policy will result in the same outcome, namely that 0% of smoking prevalence exists among 14 to 30 year olds by 2050. It is therefore, apparently the government's own assessment that an increase in the minimum legal age of purchase for tobacco from 18 to 21 would have the same impact in terms of reducing youth uptake of smoking as the generational ban. If the outcome remains the same, it begs the question why not adopt the proven and straightforward policy approach of implementing a ban at the age of 21? After all, increasing the minimum purchase age to 21 has been adopted or is in the process of being adopted in the United States, Singapore, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Honduras, Samoa, Uganda, the list goes on.

The Republic of Ireland will adopt the age of 21 threshold from February 2028, and it is a very pertinent case study because in 2024, the Irish government specifically announced that it would not look to implement a generational smoking ban because of the legal advice it had received that such a ban would conflict with the EU's Single Market rules and the Tobacco Products Directive. A point to which I will return shortly. New Zealand adopted the same generational ban policy as that advanced by the government today in 2023.

It was reversed in 2024 before it came into effect. The new New Zealand government argued that the existing regulatory regime was on track to deliver the same smoke free results, and without the profound unintended consequences which would flow from implementing a generational ban. Sound reasoning, my Lords. My second point the policy is unnecessary as smoking rates are declining anyway. According to the ONS, smoking rates among all adults aged 18 and over across the UK have declined from 20% in 2011 to 10% in 2024.

In 2019, the then Prime Minister, my noble friend lady May of Maidenhead, announced the government's intention to reach smoke free, which means equating to 5% or less of the adult population by 2030. Less than five years later, adult smoking rates had declined by a further 4%. Therefore, based on this progress, adult smoking rates will hit the smoke free target by 2030 or very closely thereafter. Which begs the further question what is the rationale to break from a policy approach which is clearly working to one which is untried and untested, and which will have significant unfavourable consequences? My third point the black market substitution effect.

So long as there is a flourishing alternative market offering a 20 pack of illicit cigarettes for anywhere between £3.50 and £7, compared to an average of £17 for a legal 20 pack. Consumer demand will only go in one direction. People are switching already in huge numbers to buy cheaper illicit products, which is also resulting in the loss of vital tax revenue to the tune of many billions of pounds a year. It is surely obvious that this trend will only be accelerated if those born after the 1st of January, 2009 can never legally buy cigarettes.

Now when it comes to illicit tobacco products. Action on smoking and health trading standards and the government themselves maintain that illicit tobacco consumption is declining. Repeatingly repeatedly citing HMRC evidence that illicit tobacco trade has shrunk by 90% since 2000 and that only 10% of cigarettes consumed in 20 2324 were illicit, which amounts to some 2 billion illicit cigarettes. However, in giving evidence to the Business and Trade Select Committee in November, the National Crime Agency Illicit Finance Deputy Director Sal Mielke stated that the combined law enforcement agencies Operation Mechanise had seized 4.5 billion illicit cigarettes in 2024 alone, thereby seizing 2.5 billion illicit cigarettes, which, according to HMRC, shouldn't exist.

The stark reality is that no one knows the size and the scale of the illicit tobacco market. But what is become glaringly apparent is that the government refuses to waver from the narrative that it is in decline, even when the evidence clearly points in the opposite direction. We must learn the lessons from Australia, where organised criminals have taken control of illicit tobacco and vapes, market and violence and chaos has exploded onto Australia's streets. The situation will, I fear, be worse here.

My Lords, once the generational ban is in effect. My fourth point the very significant impact of the ban on retailers crimes against retailers are already at epidemic levels, and many independent shopkeepers are scared of the impact that a generational ban will have on their business and the safety of their staff. There is no getting away from the fact that the weight of responsibility for enforcement of the ban will fall entirely on their shoulders. They will have to navigate the new legal age threshold, which will change each year and every year, and be a different threshold for other age limited goods.

For example, alcohol. One clear potential effect of the proposed ban is that many small local shops will struggle to remain viable in the face of increased competition from the untaxed, unregulated black market. I fear, my Lords, many neighbourhood shops will close as a result of this policy. I know my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I will make some further points on this issue. My fifth point is in relation to the winds of framework. The government continues to claim, based on its own legal evidence, that it will be able to implement the generational ban across the whole of the UK, even though the government knows full well that in Northern Ireland, such measures are subject to the Windsor framework.

It is clear that the Bill is contrary to EU law. The ban is, my Lords, although the Minister won't call it this, a Brexit benefit. In spite of legal objections from seven EU member states Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. The implementation of a generational smoking ban will breach the Windsor Framework and the EU Products Directive, but still the government intends to press on without ever explaining the bases of their legal confidence. In reality, the strong likelihood must be that these provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill are likely to be applied by the High Court in Northern Ireland.

And my final point, my Lords, is on liberty. There is a tendency in modern politics to clamour for a ban to achieve social benefits in preference to seeking other solutions, notwithstanding the impacts on personal liberty and freedom of choice. The generational smoking ban significantly erodes personal freedom and choice. So much for the government that would tread more likely on your lives. The ban imposed by this bill is simply not justified. It will have absurd consequences.

Why, a few years hence, should a 42 year old be able to buy cigarettes, but a 41 year old cannot? If an 18 year old can drive a car, buy alcohol, join the army and have already voted for two years. If this government gets its way, surely by the age of 21, they can decide whether or not they wish to buy. What will still be a legal product? The state should not remove forever that freedom to choose simply because a person happens to have been born on or after the 1st of January 2009.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one. Line five. Leave out born page one. Line five. Leave out born on or after the 1st of January 2009

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on or after the 1st of January 2009 and insert under the age of 21. 203. In my name. In this group, which is also supported by my noble is also supported by my noble friend Baroness Walmsley, she's very sorry that she can't be here today because of ill health, and I
16:24
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
today because of ill health, and I know that she's keeping a close eye on us, but I hope she takes it easily and will be back with us very soon. Amendment 203. To change the subject slightly would require the government to publish shortly after Royal Assent, a communications plan to support the implementation of the smoke free generation policy and to raise public awareness. We know that the ban on smoking in public places was effectively communicated, so that those who needed to take action were well prepared to do so, and the public knew what the plans were.

We want to see the same actions here. When this amendment was put at committee. It was excellent to hear the Minister strongly agree that such communication was vital. Many of us involved in this debate over the years know from experience how effective public health communication can be. We have played our part in the major advances in tobacco control, from smoke free public places to changes in the age of sail and plain packaging. And we've had all the same arguments coming back at us.

None of those reforms succeeded by chance. They worked because they were carefully planned, cross-party in approach and underpinned by communication strategies that brought the public with them. This bill is an excellent piece of legislation, far sighted and so potentially significant for our children and grandchildren. We fully realise how the industry, as ever and represented, I can see here today, will push back against this using every device in the book. We have seen that time after time in this chamber over the years.

Very familiar arguments. I commend those who have helped to bring about this legislation. From Professor Khan to Professor Chris Whitty, from Rishi Sunak to the current government and the Bill team have done a fantastic job in bringing together previously fragmented strands of tobacco regulation, seeking to close loopholes so that we create a framework that is robust enough to withstand future industry innovation, which is, again, extremely familiar. This might indeed be one of the last tobacco bills needing to pass through this House.

Not that I hold my breath. This legislation contains a world leading and genuinely novel policy to help deliver a smoke free generation, which the opposition is also theoretically committed to. Therefore, it creates a real opportunity not just to implement a new age of sail, but to communicate the harms of smoking and to promote smoking cessation. Just like the ban on smoking in public places did. I therefore welcome the Minister's comments in committee that clear guidance will be published and that the government will work out.

Will work to ensure successful implementation. But guidance alone is the minimum requirement. I hope that the government's ambition goes further than that. In 2007, and those of us here then will remember this when smoke free legislation was introduced, the message was simple, consistent and widespread. The government didn't leave it to businesses and others to explain on their behalf. Stakeholders were identified early, supported properly, not undermined, with all sorts of reasons to feel anxious and given time to prepare.

Guidance, signage and materials were ready well in advance. National TV adverts raised awareness. The result was immediate and saw 98% compliance on day one, accompanied by growing public support. That approach achieved more than compliance. It changed attitudes. It sparked conversations about the harms of smoking and not the liberties. As if an addiction is a liberty, and encouraged many people to try to quit. That kind of cultural shift is exactly what this legislation should aim to replicate.

Although the rising age of sail applies to a specific cohort, a wider objective is to engage the whole population and frame smoking cessation as a shared national endeavour. There have been recent missed opportunities in this area. The guidance around disposable vapes ban failed to reach key audiences and left significant gaps, including in healthcare settings where those products are used for smoking cessation. That experience underlines the case for this amendment. As soon as the bill receives Royal Assent, the government should be engaging proactively with retailers, particularly those who face who may face additional challenges in understanding and implementing the new age of sale.

And that includes thinking seriously about accessibility. For example, how many language languages will the guidance and signage be available in? I would therefore welcome reassurance from the Minister that officials are working closely with retailer representatives to ensure that guidance, signage and communications are aligned and as straightforward as possible. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about what is planned. With the right communication strategy in place. This bill should accelerate our progress towards a smoke free country, which theoretically, we are all committed to, and this amendment is designed to help ensure that it does.

That.
16:30
Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support the movement of the 26 out of 27 amendments in this clause, so ably moved by my noble friend, the House may not know, and there's no reason why they should know, that. When I came back from working in India and Sri Lanka, both of which are very extensive uses of tobacco, I joined an advertising agency on the marketing side, and in particular was asked to help on the marketing of Gallaher products.

Park Drive Senior Service and others. And that experience, which meant getting to know those particular companies in depth, meant I begin to understand how that industry operated. Of course, at that point, I had no idea that I would become a member of Parliament for some ten years later, but I did realise that this is not a flippant industry. This was an industry employing significant thousands of people, particularly in the skilled area and an industry that, as far as I could see as a marketing man, did listen to the problems of health.

Now I am married to a doctor, a GP, full time GP, and I have a son who full time GP, and I have a son who was a GP. Now I admired very political parties that ran the National Health Service right way through the 60s, 70s, 80s onwards and you only had to go into your own surgeries to see the effort that was put in on the ground to encourage people not to smoke. It wasn't as if the industry ignored it.

And then pressure was put on, understandably, that the advertising of which I had a role to play should be targeted in terms of age and timing. And of course, the media in that period of time were very different. But on the recommendation that I and my team went through, the industry recognised that they should avoid advertising to young people. And he took real positive steps to that effect. Now, therefore, my involvement, and I hasten to say I have no financial involvement.

I don't have any stocks or shares in the tobacco company. So I'm only now speaking from experience. And when I got to the other place, and as the hon. Member for Northampton South, I continued to take an interest in the industry. And as I say, I'm impressed with the efforts that were made jointly by the industry and the various governments of the day. And I have to say, I do express some huge disappointment to the present government that, as far as I understand it, the government today have resisted attempts to talk to the industry in depth and particularly to the retailers in the other representatives, and they certainly feel they've been ignored.

And that is not a good position to be in. But leaving that aside, we come back to the central issue, which is that what the government are proposing and what my noble friend and I and others, are 21 is a sensible age. I did my National Service RAAF pilot from 18 to 20, then went to Cambridge. By that time you can decide yourself or you're going to do this idea of a sort of phased introduction is confusing to all those involved.

Now there is a problem on the ground. I live in Bedfordshire, next door to Northamptonshire. We live. We have a lot of small towns. One newsagent, roughly speaking, 19% of his income comes from tobacco falling, falling. But that's understandable. It's falling because the actual volume in all the percentage of the population smoking from the period when I first got involved in 1964 to today has dramatically fallen. Now, I don't argue that it would not be better that maybe if it had fallen a bit further, but it had fallen dramatically.

And so that there is this issue of the retail, the retail trade, another issue that that Her Majesty's Government appears to be not terribly up to date. And I talk about the illicit tobacco trade, which is a huge problem today. And Her Majesty's Government, as I understand it, recognises that only 10% of cigarettes consumed in 2324 were illicit. That itself equalled 12 billion illicit cigarettes. However, when you look and dig a bit deeper with the National Crime Agency, illicit finance deputy director, somebody called Sal Mielke, who stated that the combined law enforcement agencies Operation Machine, says that's a c h I n I z e had seized 4.5 billion illicit cigarettes in 24.

Now, surely that's the area we should actually really be focussed on. We don't need new laws, complicated laws there. There's a real target. And I don't understand why Her Majesty's Government is not making that a real priority. Totally. As it is the illicit trade totally undermining our situation. My Lords, I had the privilege of working as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland. Now, I'm not blaming anybody, but it was my own party that failed to deal properly with the situation in Northern Ireland.

Here, here and I, I really upset that we didn't do it better, but we didn't. And it ought not to have happened. But quite frankly, even if the government's wish were to go through not going to happen in Northern Ireland and that's not good. We're part of the United Kingdom. We don't want to have another category where poor Northern Ireland is left out in the cold. So, my Lord, I'm not going to repeat the points that my noble friend has already made.

I think there is a simple proposition, which is what the amendment is, that he and I have put down that replacing the generational ban with a minimum legal purchasing age of 21, and I plead to the House to just think long and hard. Certainly I shall be supporting this amendment and moving it to have the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
16:38
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
For the speeches of Lord Murray and Lord Naseby. But what they and Lord Naseby. But what they cannot avoid is that their cannot avoid is that their amendment, by maintaining the legal sale of tobacco products to persons sale of tobacco products to persons over the age of 21, will continue the damage to public health, which the enormous damage to public health, which is caused by this product, and the enormous cost to the exchequer, to the National Health Service, which is caused by the consumption of this product.

I'm not persuaded by arguments from freedom. We ban heroin. We require that people wear seatbelts even though they're a over the age of 21, and they may take a different view. If Sir Walter Raleigh were to bring into this country today for the first time, tobacco products, there's surely no doubt whatsoever that it would be banned because of its noxious, dangerous character. And. The reason why this bill contains such detailed provisions relating to legality is precisely because this has been a lawful product for so long, and I think the government are quite right in the way that they seek to deal with it.

The only other argument of substance presented was Lord Murray's point relating to illicit tobacco products. But that's a consequence. It's an unfortunate consequence of banning any product. We ban cannabis. There's no doubt there is an illicit trade in cannabis. I don't think Lord Murray is a supporter of the legality of the sale of cannabis. And of course, the enactment of this bill will do an enormous amount to educate the public of the dangers that this product causes and of the need to ensure that we move forward now to promote public health.

My Lord, my Lords, I want to speak in my interest. About 30 years ago, I was a director of British American Tobacco, and I started smoking when I was at school, and I've now been smoking for about 70 years, and
16:41
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Portrait Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Conservative)
-
-
I've not at the moment had the thought crossed my mind that I'm going to abandon my enjoyable going to abandon my enjoyable smoking of my small cigars, but leaving that aside, I do recall that when I was at B.a.t. just as my noble friend's experience of my noble friend's experience of gallaher's confirmed, we were desperately anxious to actually keep our reputation as a country and make sure as a company, and to make sure that the dangers of our product were actually brought to the attention of people and we could protect our reputation.

I won't reminisce too long, but I do recall we lobbied the then government to make it illegal to sell our products to under 18 year olds. The then government rejected that idea because of counter lobbying from retailers, and we certainly offered no resistance whatever to the publication. Widespread publication of the health risks of smoking, which are considerable. We were often accused of doing dreadful things. People who campaigned against our product decided there had to campaign against the evil organisation that was involved in it, but this was a complete misunderstanding of our attempt to maintain good reputation.

It was, in fact, an extremely well run company. My own opinion was that smoking should not be banned and made illegal. If the sale is to well informed adults who are fully informed that they're adding the risks to their health, that motoring and other things already posed to them, and decide that the pleasure of smoking involves them taking it on. Now, I won't repeat all the excellent arguments of Lord Murray, who put the case perfectly, clearly, perfectly well.

And I agree with every word that he said. I do find the proposition which was first put forward by my own party towards the end of my last period of office, a quite extraordinary one that shopkeepers are going to be found, that they're making an illegal sale if their customer is a day older than the legal limit that has been imposed by Parliament. I assume that in 60 years time, somebody like me will be required to go into a shop taking my birth certificate, saying that I'm 85 so I can legally buy a cigarette.

Whereas if I was 84 years of age it would be illegal act to actually engage in this transaction, because I can't see how else shopkeepers are going to comply with the law, except by demanding some proof of date of birth and continue to demand that proof as the legally entitled purchasers steadily grow older and older. I'm sure it's well intentioned. It's another attempt to reinforce the already very successful efforts we've made in this country to reduce the incidence of smoking, but it is faintly ridiculous and slightly preposterous.

And I really do think, given the history of decline of smoking in this country, it's quite unnecessary. I do think the most important point Lord Murray makes to those who might be faintly neutral in this debate is that it will stimulate organised illegality. It most undoubtedly will. He made the arguments for that, but I just remind the House of the best example in my lifetime. Until about 30 years ago, betting on horse race horses was only legal on course, and it was strictly illegal.

There was a firm law saying you could not place a bet on a horse unless you were actually at the course. Well, those was old enough to remember it. No, this was faintly ridiculous. I well recall that quite a lot of stations had a flower seller who sat out in front of the station, and everybody knew that the flower seller actually was the guy who made most of his money by taking bets on horses from people coming in.

And I think my recollection is it was the Blair government who went in for a dramatic reform and just repealed this ridiculous legislation and legalised what had become betting shops. And overnight the whole thing was transformed. I do think we should put some constraints on the advertising of betting. Now. I must say I don't go the whole way, but I think we can see with hindsight that the illegality of off course betting was well intentioned, absurd and utterly ineffective misuse of the criminal law.

And I think Lord Murray should persuade us all that this bill, as it stands, is a repeat of that rather ridiculous experiment. I'm going to publicly disagree with my noble friend Lord Clarke, and I want to speak very briefly, but very strongly against
16:46
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
these group of amendments which would simply defeat the object of the bill, which is to introduce a the bill, which is to introduce a generational ban and achieve over time a smoke free country. My Lords, time a smoke free country. My Lords, it was less than two years ago that a generational ban was the policy a generational ban was the policy of a conservative government, and the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, described it as one of his Sunak, described it as one of his proudest initiatives in that parliament.

On a free vote. The vast majority of conservative members of parliament supported the bill, as did 28 out of the 30 members of the Cabinet. All the arguments that we've heard this afternoon were put forward at that time and listened to and discounted in this Parliament. The measure passed with a majority of 415 to 47. So it's fair to say that the Bill has broad cross-party support, and the Bill is popular outside. It has a clear objective of reducing the burden on the economy and the NHS of the burdens of smoking.

I'll leave to others to deal with the argument about illicit tobacco and the Windsor framework. I just want to tackle the libertarian argument. Following on the speech of Lord Pannick, I listened to all the libertarian arguments when a conservative government made it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear crash helmets, we heard the arguments about well-informed adults were aware of the risks. Nobody would now reverse that piece of legislation. We had the same arguments on compulsory seatbelts, both those measures introduced by a conservative government.

We heard the same arguments when it came to smoking on public transport, on trains, smoking in pubs. Yes, there is a libertarian argument, but in my view there is a much broader benefit in moving to a smoke free

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. My Lord, sir, I rise. To speak on, on, in in favour of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak on, on, in in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. But I just want to concentrate on But I just want to concentrate on one very narrow area. One of the practical aspects of this generational ban, which, as my noble friend Lord Clark has noble friend Lord Clark has highlighted, is the inevitable difficulty of age verification in stores. Now, the noble Lady, the
16:49
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
stores. Now, the noble Lady, the Minister will, I'm sure, soon argue that age verification is a well established practice and there should therefore should present no particular difficulty but the implications of this bill in a few years time, as my noble friend noted, is profound. Judging the difference between an 18 year old and a 40 year old by I is not especially difficult. Although I would at this point note that there are a number of peers on the government benches who regularly claim that even that is impossible in the case of asylum seekers.

But how is a shop shopkeeper supposed to judge the precise age of an apparently 40 year old in a few years time? Is he 40? Is he 39? Is he 40 and 364 days again? I'm sure we'll soon hear the argument that after that, this point is actually somewhat moot, because that 40 year old born after the 1st of January 2009, because of this bill, will have never smoked or shown any desire to smoke. But that is simply not a credible argument because, as my noble friend Lord Murray has noted, the generational ban is a de facto prohibition, and one doesn't need to be a dedicated student of history to know that prohibition of any kind has never worked.

Indeed, it serves to make whatever is being prohibited more desirable, more glamorous, and more edgy. So plenty of people will still choose to smoke. So in effect, the state will be therefore asking shopkeepers to both comply with and police the law at the same time. And my Lords, to put some statistics around this, the Association of Convenience Stores represents 50,000 local shops, petrol forecourt sites and independent retailers across all locations. Last year they reported that there were 57,000 incidents of violence against people working in convenience stores.

80% 87% of store workers reported verbal abuse, 44% hate motivated abuse. And my Lords, the top three triggers of this violence epidemic were encountering shop thieves, enforcing age restriction policies and refusing to serve intoxicated customers. So can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if she thinks this will get any better? When the shopkeeper has to ask two middle aged men for their passports, or indeed an 85 year old for his birth certificate? My Lords, today I read that the British Retail Consortium has reported that there were 1600 incidents of violence and abuse per day in shops in the year 2024 to 2025.

That's down from the previous year, but it's still a staggering number. It is welcome that the Crime and Policing Bill will make assaulting a retail worker an aggravated offence, but that is, I would contend, highly unlikely to make any difference at all to the number of incidents around age verification which are inevitable. The noble Lady, the Minister, will also, I'm sure, refer to the increase in police numbers and neighbourhood policing officers that are due by 2029. And that's also, of course, welcome. But I would note that the previous government bequeathed more police officers than ever before in this country, and that did not have a noticeable impact.

The simple fact is that this measure will inevitably cause more trouble, and the government will be unable to do much about that. It is ludicrous to pass a law that will provoke the breaking of other laws. My noble friend Lord Murray's amendments achieve the government's aims without causing this needless aggravation. The government's own impact assessment states that a one off increase in the age of sale to 21 would be just as effective as in the short term at reducing smoking rates compared to a generational smoking ban.

So the government should change tack and accept my noble friend Lord Murray's amendment. Yes, my Lord.
16:52
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I oppose amendment one and the associated amendments tabled by the associated amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Murray of Blidworth. I believe wholeheartedly that a country free from the harms of tobacco would transform the public health of this nation and prevent health of this nation and prevent huge amounts of human suffering. We heard from the noble Lord about the reversal of the planned policy in New Zealand, but we did not hear an explanation for that. The explanation is quite simple.

There was a change of coalition parties following a general election. One of the new coalition parties actually feared the drop in revenue to the government as a result of the policy being introduced and a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco smoking, which surely proves the point that that party accepted that such policies as this would be effective. We've heard this afternoon about the wonderful, kind, spirited nature of the tobacco industry caring for young people, but not enough about the many, many decades of deceit in which that industry knew full well the links between its products and lung cancer, and which covered up what it knew and lied about them as it lied about tobacco smoking on a second hand nature.

This is not an industry which we can trust for a remote second, and we've heard about the problems of the cliff edge. But, my Lords, we have a cliff edge now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Eatwell asking what evidence he has for that. I will remember that when I was on the remember that when I was on the board of VAT, we acknowledged the health risks. We were then accused health risks. We were then accused of somehow denying it. But the people with this bizarre conspiracy theory were never able to produce theory were never able to produce any examples of our denying it, because we didn't, and we did not oppose warnings and labels on packages.

So it's just part of the mythology of the more extreme fringe of well-intentioned anti tobacco lobbyists. I Lord Watts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not part of any extreme fringe, and the views which I have enunciated are shared entirely, enunciated are shared entirely, almost entirely by the medical profession in this country. For decades, the tobacco companies had decades, the tobacco companies had evidence that tobacco was linked to lung cancer, yet they kept denying it until it was proven by showing it until it was proven by showing the number of people with lung cancer who smoked and the number of cancer who smoked and the number of lung cancer who did not smoke.

They industry hid that as it fought tooth and nail against things like plain paper packaging with many bogus arguments. And this is the most deceitful industry in the world. The cliff edge problem is one that we have now. You can, at 17 years and 364 days, not buy tobacco, but you can on your 18th birthday. Even with these amendments, that will change to being able to buy tobacco and your 21st birthday, but not on your 20th and 364th day on this planet.

My own experience being orphaned at 16 and finding my mother a heavy smoker, dead in her bed as a result of hypertensive heart disease, with smoking obviously a key factor in her death has driven me ever since then to support people trying to quit. That is, most smokers, in my experience, and to prevent the tobacco industry trying to promote addiction to its lethal products. This bill proposes a world leading policy of which we should be proud, and we should not make it less effective, as is proposed by many amendments in this group.

Raising the age at which someone can legally be sold a cigarette works in terms of reducing tobacco consumption. It may not be 100% effective, but that is not a reason to try and make it less effective. We know that raising the age of sail from 16 to 18, in England in 2007 reduced smoking rates among 16 to 17 year olds by 30%. In the US, when the age of sail was increased from 18 to 21, the chance of a person in that age group taking up smoking fell by 39%.

The tobacco industry employs the most deceitful and dangerous lobbyists in the world. Their role is to try and protect its enormous profits and persuade more people, particularly young people, to take up the deadly habit in order to replace the 50% of their consumers whose lives are shortened by smoking tobacco. One argument we hear from opponents of tobacco control legislation is that it represents a so-called nanny state. This is a term that I feel is only really used in the media.

The phrase does not resonate with the public, who are highly supportive of tobacco control legislation. I hear laughter, but polling shows that 68% of the public support the smoke free generation. The Chief Medical Officer has been clear there is no freedom in addiction. Many people start smoking as children and become addicted almost immediately. Two out of three people who try just one cigarette go on to become daily smokers, and three quarters of smokers said that they would never have started if they had the choice again.

It's also important to be clear about what this policy does and does not do. The rising age of sale does not remove any current adults ability to buy tobacco. It simply phases in a high minimum age of purchase for future generations. Then, my Lords, is a proportionate approach. By contrast, accepting these amendments would mean that those aged 18, 19 and 20 who already smoke would suddenly be unable to buy legally tobacco. That is a far more intrusive step.

Smoking remains one of the greatest preventable burdens on our public services and our economy. It is responsible for up to 75,000 GP appointments every year. It costs the country approximately 27.6 billion in lost economic productivity. It costs the NHS almost 2 billion annually and local authorities nearly 4 billion a year in social care costs. That is money we don't have, and money that could and should be spent on improving health, not managing preventable harm. The number of people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I just remind the noble Lord this is Report stage of the Lord this is Report stage of the proceedings. I think his speech is a bit on the long side. Could you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a bit on the long side. Could you bring his remarks to a close, please? My Lords, I hear some responses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I hear some responses from right who disagree with this. I hope, however, they will consider carefully the arguments that I am making, and those will no doubt making, and those will no doubt come from the Lord, noble Lord, the Minister shortly.
17:00
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lord Rennard, I'd like to support my noble friend amendments in Group one. Not to defend tobacco, in Group one. Not to defend tobacco, but to defend common sense, public safety and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of small shopkeepers of thousands of small shopkeepers that will be most harmed by a policy that looks simple on paper but is deeply dangerous in practice. but is deeply dangerous in practice. First of all, my Lords, the burden on retailers and communities is real. Small shopkeepers already face unprecedented levels of crime and intimidation.

The bill would force them to enforce a moving legal threshold every year, placing the full weight of policing on their shoulders. Now, we heard an awful lot from the noble Lady Baroness Northover and guidance, guidance, guidance. And yet when I listened to my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom describing what the shopkeeper would have to do, I would love to see what the government guidance will be for that shopkeeper. Well, yeah. What is your age? OK. When were you born? Prove it.

And how will the earth will the shopkeeper be able to deal with people in their 20s, 30s and 40s in trying to seek to stay on the right side of an ever changing law? So the implementation of a generational ban on tobacco sales will have profound unintended consequences for shopkeepers, for law enforcement retailers, for the benefit of organised criminals across the UK for years to come. But that's not hyperbole. It's a sober description of the risks we're being asked to accept with this.

Second, my Lords, the policy will drastically expand the illicit cigarette market and hand controlled, organised criminals. Everybody knows the stark evidence except the HMRC, who will never admit it, that illicit tobacco loses the Treasury £3.5 billion per annum. 25% of all cigarettes sold are illicit and cheap, and the price differential drives consumers to illegal sources in pubs, clubs and under the counter sales. Now this is this ill conceived generational ban, admittedly, a stupid idea from the last government will create a permanent cohort of consumers who cannot legally buy tobacco.

And where demand exists, supply will follow and that supply will be by criminal networks. And let's just look briefly at Australia as a sign of what will unfold in the UK. Organised criminal gangs dominate the illicit illicit tobacco market in Australia, and that's led to arson, violence and the takeover of local markets by criminal gangs. And third, enforcement capacity is already stretched to breaking point. Trading standards and other front line agencies have lost staff and lacked the resources to police a complex, ever changing age.

Rule enforcement bodies are underfunded, under-resourced and adding a perpetual generational rule will only widen the enforcement gap and shift the burden to retailers and local communities who will be unable to cope. And where enforcement fails, the law becomes a paper shield for criminals and a real threat to honest businesses. So what is the sensible alternative? Well, it has to be my noble Friends amendment. My noble friends, age 21 as set out in the amendment, that's not a retreat from public health.

It's a pragmatic, enforceable measure that achieves the same term long term output output for young people while avoiding the catastrophic side effects of a generational ban. And my learned friend set out in detail from the government's own impact assessment, how raising the age to 21 would achieve the same long term aim. A minimum age of 21 is clear, it's static, and it's much more easily enforceable. It allows retailers to train staff once, apply a consistent rule, and reduces the incentive for criminal markets to exploit a permanently excluded generation.

It also aligns with international practice and with the Republic of Ireland's own policy direction, reducing cross-border legal friction. And finally, my Lord, we must pair any age change with stronger enforcement and support. If we raise age to 21, we should simultaneously strengthen fixed penalty regimes, resource trading standards and border force properly and invest in targeted education and cessation services. Enforcement must be credible, which is not at the moment. Everybody knows you can get illegal cigarettes in any pub club in the country.

We need step penalties for repeat offenders. We need licensing powers at Bite and better funding for the agencies that will be asked to do the work. My Lords, the aim of reducing smoking is shared by all of us in this, in this House and in this Parliament. But good ends do not justify bad and unworkable means a generational ban risks destroying small businesses, empowered organised crime, overwhelming enforcement and creating legal chaos. A minimum legal purchasing age of 21 is proportionate, enforceable and effective alternative that protects public health without the catastrophic unintended consequences.

So, my Lords, if we come to a vote, I urge the House to reject the generational ban and support a measured, evidence based approach that combines an age of 21 with robust enforcement and support for cessation. I support my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend's amendments. I listen to Lord Pannick. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I listen to Lord Pannick. He persuaded me in his arguments that actually what we're dealing with is the question of health. At the end the question of health. At the end of the day, it is not about choice, it's about health. I'll give you an it's about health. I'll give you an example. Colin Bennetts I was Bishop of Coventry 1998 to 2008, Bishop of Coventry 1998 to 2008, and he died in July 2013 after a period of illness of cancer. His
17:05
17:07
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I declare my interest >> My Lords, I declare my interest as Chair of Cancer Research UK. And given that smoking continues to be the single biggest cause of cancer, the single biggest cause of cancer, it won't be surprised that I oppose the amendments in this group, which would substantially weaken this landmark legislation. And in explaining why, I thought perhaps I could just respond to each of the six points that Lord Murray of Blidworth made. The first is, he argued that in a sense, we don't need more tobacco control legislation anyway, because smoking rates are already coming down.

I think that's not correct. And Javid Khan has pointed out that amongst the most deprived parts of the country, for example, on the current trends, it wouldn't be until 2044 that we were smoke free. And in any event, I think that some in the tobacco industry themselves have come to the same conclusion. I've got an advert here that Philip Morris took out in the New Statesman, no doubt designed to influence people like us. And they say, quote, here in the UK, smoking rates are not declining fast enough.

None of the home nations are on course to hit their smoke free dates, and the most deprived communities are lagging significantly behind. So I think the suggestion that we can just kind of assume that the status quo will produce a benign outcome is is incorrect. I think his second argument was that rather than having a generational tobacco sales restriction, we should instead just move towards delaying the age at which smoking can be initiated to age 21. And the tobacco industry would doubtless switch their efforts to targeting 20 somethings instead of teenagers.

And for the surprising claims that we've heard in respect of the behaviour down the decades of Gallaher or British American Tobacco, I would simply say to noble Lords, Google their internal documents yourselves. They have all been disclosed as a result of international treaties and court cases. You can see the systematic duplicity, the bribery, the corruption that has continued across the world in advance of big tobacco's agenda. Those documents are their internal files. Go check it out for yourself.

Lord Murray of Blidworth referred to the Republic of Ireland as an example that perhaps we should be following. When they adopted the age of, as they proposed to adopt the age of 21. However, the tobacco industry funded Forest Front organisation, the director of forest, said that the effect of adopting an age of 21 tobacco sales restriction would be, quote, if you're not careful, you're actually going to make smoking fashionable again. You're actually going to encourage young people to smoke.

Close quotes. On the back of this proposed 21 year old sales restriction, the third argument we heard was about the black market, for reasons that I think are a non-sequitur, we've several times heard cited the example of Australia. The amendments in this group relate to changes to the age of sale. There has been no change in the age of sale in Australia. As far as I'm aware, it is still age 18 and has been for 30 years. So whatever else is going on in Australia, it's got nothing to do with the amendments in this group in respect of Age of Sale.

In fact, what the Australian example tells us is that you need rigorous enforcement. Until very recently, there was no retail licensing available for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, covering about 70% of the Australian population, and it is only been patchily introduced subsequently. And so I think there is agreement that we need strong enforcement to deal with the illicit trade. But the argument that says that we should essentially do whatever it takes to maximise revenue for the exchequer, I think is a flawed one.

If that were the case, then, as we've heard from other noble Lords, we would be legalising and licensing handguns or assault weapons or fentanyl or crack cocaine. The fact is, when it comes to tobacco control policy, it's not the Laffer curve that we should be focussed on. It's the life expectancy curve. The fourth argument has been around the impact on retailers, and I accept there are legitimate concerns, and Lord Sharpe of Epsom has rightly drawn attention to the epidemic of violence, and also noted the provisions that will be in the Crime and Policing Bill as one step to attempt to do this.

But the fact is, the progressive age of sale restrictions in this bill are an evolutionary measure that will be phased over many years, giving retailers much opportunity to adjust. There are substitutes that they can sell, including vaping, as alternatives to smoked tobacco. And surely nobody is suggesting that the Trump argument should be that we need to sustain the margins of retailers at the expense of 80,000 people who die prematurely from smoking every year. The fifth argument we heard was around the Windsor framework.

It's fair to say that alternative legal opinions are available. Member states are free to determine the age limit that they see as appropriate on their territories. This does not constitute a trade restriction within the meaning of the EU treaties. And in any event, even if a court found it did, it could be justified on public health grounds. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the bill has the support of Northern Irish health Ministers, and that legislative consent has been received by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

And then lastly, we came back to the liberty argument, the freedom of unborn smokers to become addicted in decades to come. Well, for those of us who take the opposite view, we judge that this is a proportionate response to a great harm. It is a novel piece of legislation. We will need to see how it plays out in practice. One of the government amendments that will be before us at Report stage, precisely, will be a report on its real world effects in the coming years.

But in the meantime, to weaken what has the potential to be one of the most fundamental health improving pieces of legislation this Parliament has ever enacted, would, in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judgement, be a grave error here. It's a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who gave noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who gave a pretty good summary of many of the arguments against this group of the arguments against this group of amendments. I would like to join him in all that he said. And my fundamental motive in doing that is fundamental motive in doing that is twofold. One is I would like to see the eradication of smoking in this country. I think that's a vision country.

I think that's a vision that we should embrace and we should be proud of. And just kicking the can down and putting up the age limit, as this group would seek to do, simply extends a very large and unfair addiction that kills two thirds of its users. And we could all do without. The second reason, though, is that I'm very proud that my party was leading on this issue and brought around the generational ban, and I would just remind noble Lords to have a moment of self-awareness, that this is a measure that is massively supported by voters, massively supported by taxpayers, massively supported by smokers, massively supported by conservatives, supported by retailers, and even by the smoking companies.

The tobacco companies, or at least in this country, have a notional commitment to the eradication of smoking. Now you can judge in your own way whether you
17:15
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
take that at face value or not, but that is at least their rhetorical position. So it seems out of date, position. So it seems out of date, if you don't mind me saying for the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Murray, and my noble friend Lord Murray, and my noble friend Lord Napier to be stalwarts for the permanent establishment of smoking permanent establishment of smoking in the face of such opposition, and to address the question of retail enforcement. I think a lot has been said on this issue, which I strongly support.

Can I just mention for those noble Lords who haven't maybe been to a shop recently looking maybe younger than their years, but if you are anywhere near anywhere near 18, 19, 20 and you attempt to buy tobacco, a lottery product, a knife, a firework, alcohol, you are going to be asked for proof of age even if you're in your 20s, 30s, 40s. Noble Lords may not believe me, but I sometimes get carded as well. Perfectly reasonably rebutted me on that.

My point is that the modern retail experience does not rely on retailers squinting to try to judge the difference between, say, 21 and 22. It is absolutely mandatory for almost everyone to produce ID when they are producing any restricted product. And as the noble Lord Lord Stevens quite rightly said, it is right that the government does support this regime and I am pleased to see statutory guidance, updated training standards and enforcement tools as part of this bill. In terms of the stories about the black market, I.

I must express grave reservations about some of the points that have been made in this debate. They remind me more of stories of Arthur Daley and Minder than modern Britain, and the stories of Australian biker gangs shooting each other. I'm not sure how relevant they are, just to correct a point that the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Napier said. He said 4 billion Lord Naseby. 50 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

50 years. You're doing. You're looking very well on it. Very well. You did mention that you thought that there mention that you thought that there were 4 billion cigarettes that had been taken by the police in 2024, according to the HMRC, the number is 24 million. And the reason for is 24 million. And the reason for drawing attention to that is that there is a lot of loose use of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

numbers in the description of the illicit trade. The figure he quotes is correct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The figure he quotes is correct from the source he quoted, but after further investigation it was found that the figure I quoted is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

found that the figure I quoted is the correct figure. If the noble Lord is correct, I will absolutely and humbly correct myself. And maybe we could have a drink afterwards and and compare drink afterwards and and compare notes on on that note, my Lords, on the question of freedom, I also am a passionate believer and for freedom. But the freedoms that I care about are not only the freedom of choice, it is also the freedom not to be impoverished by taxes and not to see my nation, my country, ruined by the health, welfare and productivity costs of carcinogenic, nasty toxins like cigarettes and the financial cost on ourselves and particularly on our children of this industry, is absolutely enormous and remains growing even if the numbers have stalled.

So I think that the freedom from addiction and debt should also be contained in any discussion of what the freedoms are. And so for those reasons, I'm going to be voting against this package of measures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Minister. Oh, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Minister. Oh, sorry. Sir. My Lords, I'm also against these amendments. Sir, I will disclose a conflict of interest. I disclose a conflict of interest. I started smoking when I was 16 and 33 years later. As many of us who start to smoke at that age because it is a childhood disease, I gave
17:19
Baroness Gerada Portrait Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
it is a childhood disease, I gave up. We know that we know all the health effects of smoking. We've heard them. But what we also have to realise is that smoking is an easy addiction. To start, I've looked after every addiction heroin, cocaine, alcohol, smoking is the easiest. You only need two cigarettes for 80% of those people to be addicted for like me for 33 years. And many people like myself try and give up. It's not just addiction that that's the problem.

It's actually not even about death. Though death is a bad outcome to have. It's also about all the other complications. Like many smokers, I've lost many of my teeth. Our eyesight goes. We have skin problems, all sorts of things that smoking causes. As a GP for nearly 30 years, I am pleased that I have seen a massive reduction in people with smoking related diseases. It used to be my surgeries, used to be full of what we call blue bloaters and pink puffers are full of people with having premature heart disease.

But it's not an accident that I don't see that in my consulting room anymore. It's because of the hard work of our Chief medical Officers, the Department of Health, Ash and many, many others to to stop normalising smoking and just an issue on on the black market. There is of course a price differential. And wherever there's a price differential, you will get a black market, whether it's diesel, cigarettes, alcohol, whatever. But this, this bill is about stopping people starting to stop as as my Lord said, to stop the next generation that hasn't even been born from starting.

And what we've got to focus on is prevention, which is what this bill is about. So thank you.
17:21
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lords, very briefly in this group. The noble Lord Lord Rennard group. The noble Lord Lord Rennard called this a world leading policy. It is world leading because no one It is world leading because no one else in the world has chosen this policy. The one wants to know why. I think at least the noble Lord Lord Stephen of Birmingham admitted that this was novel and therefore untested. So can we at least have a little bit of potential humility by admitting that this bill is an experiment? It's a risk.

It's a risk about age checking and how you do age verification as rather wittily described by the noble Lord. Lord Clarke of Nottingham is a bit untested. How we'll cope with the 84 year old versus the 85 year old, whether there'll be a scrap. And just by saying, well, it's not going to happen for too many years. I mean, I did think the idea of legislators was that you were meant to think about the future, not just tomorrow. And the long term implications of policies that pass.

But let's be honest, there's no good practice to copy with this bill. There's no evidence about exactly how it will work or if it will work. And the claims on its behalf are largely based on modelling and speculation. And that's not evidence. It's not scientific. And I do think that therefore, sometimes the moral high ground and the sense of certainty that's deployed by those who are enthusiasts for the bill and the disdain with which those of us who are sceptical about the bill are just a little misplaced.

I would therefore request that as we go through the very short Report stage that we have, because a lot of us have been through a longer Committee stage, that we're honest about things like cost benefit analysis, what's lost, what's gained, rather than moral righteousness. Consider is this actually fit for purpose, even the purpose of those people who are putting the bill forward? Because I actually think whatever the intentions of those promoting this bill, many of the clauses in the bill are counterproductive.

And I know we're not on this section yet, but just let me say, as an ex-smoker who started vaping, I am utterly distraught that we now have a bill before us that is likely to retreat in, to all intents and purposes, vaping and tobacco as interchangeable, despite a denial by the government. That's not true. More and more of the clauses as you look at them. So I actually think there won't be the health gains as claimed. And I just my my final point at this point because I will be back is I, I do think that it's a little rich to sneer about freedom.

I mean, I know that saying the word libertarian gives certain people a thrill, that they can kind of feel as though they're kind of morally virtuous. And I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, actually, despite what Wikipedia says, I do, however, fully embrace living in a free society. I don't think freedom is something I should be embarrassed about, and I don't think saying that people should be given choices about their lifestyles and about the choices they make in their lives is something that, you know, makes you to the right of Genghis Khan or whatever it is that people are implying or worth in the pay of big Tobacco, which is obviously the inference of a lot of contributions.

Well, it might mean is that you think that adults, adults, but, you know, the 84 and 85 year old, by the way, because they do grow up these kids to be adults. This bill will affect adults. Lots of adults will be denied a choice at some stage relatively soon that those that people can make choices about whether they take risks in their health. I mean, I don't know about you, but I suspect that practically everyone I know is using those weight loss injections.

Now, to me, it's a bit risky. I'm a bit like, oh, are they safe? Right? But I'm not mounting a campaign as yet because half this house would be out. But you know, like we know, I'm prepared to say that people say it's worth the risk. A lot of people do things like going skiing mad. Too risky for me, right? There's all sorts of things. But, you know, people have been known to have the odd extra pint eat the odd greasy breakfast.

In other words, people take risks with their health, make choices about their health all the time. I actually do not want more people to smoke, but I also think in a free society we have to give a certain degree of room for people to make choices, the wrong choices. Because we live in a free society where deciding what the right and the wrong choices is. What happens in authoritarian regimes. When in a free society you say, I don't think you should do that, but I'm not necessarily going to legislate, so you can't do everything I personally disapprove of.

And even saying you shouldn't do that because I know best for your health what you should and shouldn't do. In medical ethics, there are times when you go to the doctor and they say, take this and you say, I decline to take that medication. I do not want that intervention. And in a free society, the doctor can't force you to do what you don't want to do. Even the virtuous health profession who are all meant to Revere. So as far as I'm concerned, as we carry on at Report stage, can we at least all show a bit of humility that living in a free society puts before us difficult, difficult moral decisions? There's no necessarily right or wrong, and we are allowed to scrutinise a bill that's been put before us without being accused of somehow being evil, because we don't go along with the bill.

And just because the conservative government and the Labour, when they were in and the Labour government now agree. I mean, if that's the basis on which we shouldn't scrutinise, then we might as well all go home. Because I'm very sad to say that the Conservative Party have had far too much agreement with the Labour Party over recent decades for some of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before she sits down as a conservative member. When in the other House who voted against this proposition, would she not share my concern? But actually, one of the concern? But actually, one of the unspoken nonsenses of this legislation is that far too many young people are already choosing to smoke cannabis instead of cigarettes that they might legally cigarettes that they might legally obtain, which just proves that however you try to legislate, however you try to regulate this market, they will do what they choose to do, and virtually no effort is made to clamp down on illegal smoking and cannabis.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to come back or I'm allowed to come back. Let me come back on that. My Lord interrupted back on that. My Lord interrupted me. Let me just come back for one sentence, which is all I wanted to say was, I do not want it to go down in the Hansard that I support the smoking of cannabis. I'm such a the smoking of cannabis. I'm such a libertarian because I'm not Zack Polanski, but it's also the. But it Polanski, but it's also the.

But it is also the case that as we go through, we have to think of the unintended consequences and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real world and real young people rather than imaginary ones. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support Lord Murray's amendment. We've had a lot of nonsense from those who we would expect to hear a lot of nonsense from. What is more surprising is that from those who would have expected to hear some good sense, expected to hear some good sense, they have most grievously erred and strayed. This proposed legislation is in no way going to stop people from smoking. It is simply going to drive smoking underground. The health issues will not be improved.

Highly aggressive criminal involvement in this trade will saw His Majesty's Treasury will be denied at least £10 billion a year, which will accrue to the benefit of the criminal underworld. This will be a crass development which will simply turn out to be a disastrous
17:30
17:31
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
Hold on. >> It's not. >> Worth whether it's right or wrong to try and stop smoking, but I'm worried about it's the fact I'm worried about it's the fact would this work? Because there's no point in passing laws that don't. They just don't get respected. I They just don't get respected. I think back to the amount of pop that was smoked when I was at university. All the general drugs around the place, the switched from alcohol to ecstasy and other things when that was cheaper because they raised the price of alcohol, which didn't stop the alcohol.

So we tamper around with it. You're problem is much deeper than that, which is people do seem to need to take things in order to stave off a bit of reality. From time to time. I was not a smoker. I saw my friends wheezing at school. I did try very briefly because the amount of chocolate I ate, everyone people worried about. So I tried smoking briefly. I gave up after my second sore throat and I saw no benefit in it. So to be honest, I just don't think this is an effective way of doing it.

And so I see no point in putting all this thing. It will cause problems with policing it. It will cause problems with that age verification we can handle with various ways. But I'm not going to bore you with that now. So I just don't just make life more complicated for everyone. They're going to go on smoking if they if they're driven to it and don't make it look attractive, because driving stuff underground does. briefly.
17:32
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
About the noble Lord Moraes >> About the noble Lord Moraes amendment and his excellent speech, I just wanted to say my I just wanted to say my congratulate my former constituent, the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who made, I think, an excellent speech and spoke for what really is common sense about how we treat adults and the idea that, you know, we're allowing probably like allowing people at 16 to vote. We allow all sorts of things to happen to much, much younger age.

And yet we do not realise just how this is going to affect this generational ban. Older people making decisions about their own life and their own health, and the noble Baroness Fox has said people take risks all their time. I'm now suffering from a very sore back because I took risks thinking that at my age, I could still ski last week and find it quite, quite difficult. We all take those choices, and people, after the age of becoming an adult have to be able to make those choices.

We should be spending the time in education about young people. I don't want people to smoke. I've never smoked in my life, but I don't see this generational ban working. If I could just point out to people who really want to see smoking stopped, this generational ban is going to end up as the noble Lord Murray has said in the courts and Labour. Labour peers didn't listen when people said that the immigration bill would not be able to apply to Northern Ireland.

Labour peers didn't listen when we said that the legacy Bill would not apply to Northern Ireland, and it is absolutely clear from what has already been said by many, many noble QC's, but also by the European Union itself and by those seven countries that have put in very detailed reasons why this bill cannot apply to Northern Ireland, not just because of the Windsor framework, but generally because of the Tobacco Directive. And it's it's it's really I'm saying that if you are serious about getting rid of smoking and of course, if we were really serious about getting rid of smoking, we would ban tobacco altogether.

But that will never happen because the government likes to have the money that comes in for it. But if we're really serious, then I really don't understand how anyone could think that by voting for something that's going to take years to actually implement, no matter what the government says now, we will land up in court over and over and over again with legal things. And until the Windsor framework goes, this will not happen. I've got an amendment next week, so I won't go into it in any more detail now, but I would just say this might be the reason whether you agree or not, with the generational ban, to actually look seriously at the noble Lord Moraes amendment on the age of 21, because that is certain at least, even if you think in principle that adults over the age of 18 should be allowed to make their own decision.
17:35
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Ross. >> Ross. >> Arrives very, very briefly to sum up for the front bench on what's been a really interesting what's been a really interesting group of amendments. Our position from the front bench is that we support this generational change, and actually we welcome the government for having brought it forward. This is not a party political thing. These ideas come from across the house and we welcome them from our point of view, changing this to 21 is just tinkering at the edges, and that will not bring about the change that we all know we need.

There is there is not anybody who's ever tried or smoked a cigarette or been a smoker who does not wish otherwise. Imagine for a moment, my Lord, that today we were not considering this ban, but we were contemplating introducing cigarettes for the first time. Nobody with a modicum of common sense would ever contemplate having cigarettes. Having corporate companies selling products that kill half of of their users. This this is we all need to change this. My own father died of emphysema, so.

And I'm sure that there's hardly anybody in this house that hasn't had been impacted by the impacts of of tobacco. My Lord, this might actually be one of the most important things any of us do in this House in our lifetime. It's hard to see another piece of legislation that is going to have such a beneficial impact on people in society, in preventing harm, in preventing misery, helping people to lead healthier and better lives. This, this. There is no insurmountable problem that we see in terms of of this legislation.

Yes. This is new. Yes, this is novel. Yes, there will be teething problems. I'm not going to sit here and say there won't be any, but I feel they are all surmountable. Age verification and ID are commonly used. We do need to look after our small retailers. We do need to look at how it's implemented. There are other views in relation to the EU question, but my Lords, this this is essential and it needs to be done. We've had conversations about freedom of choice, but we wouldn't allow any of our young people to pick up a loaded revolver with two chambers and one bullet, and let them have the freedom of choice to spin it and put it up against their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

head and pull the trigger. So this. Lord Shipley, would you not agree that we'd say very many lives agree that we'd say very many lives if you passed a law saying that nobody should be allowed to drive a motorcar unless there's a man motorcar unless there's a man waving a stick walking in advance of it. Similarly, I think if we banned electric bicycles, we would banned electric bicycles, we would save a very great deal of injury and possible death.

These kind of judgements we all have to face as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the human condition, and we greatest. Of respect. I mean, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of respect. I mean, I think there's degrees of risk and there is no electric bike, there is no motor vehicle legislation that we allow that kills 50% of the people that get into a car, or 50% of the that get into a car, or 50% of the people to get on the bike. You are comparing apples with pears and these these the dangers of smoking these these the dangers of smoking are known. They are proven and they are far greater than anything else.

So to conclude, we welcome this generational ban. The we we have particular issues that need to be looked at. This bill does need to be regularly reviewed. We will come on to amendments in relation to that. But this is, my Lords, the most important thing that we must do. And it is essential that we make progress to make sure that we improve the public health of people in this country.
17:39
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank my >> My Lords, I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord Murray for his amendments in this group and all noble Lords, for their noble Lords, for their contributions to this important and lively debate, reducing smoking rates and in particular, preventing young people from taking up tobacco with its highly damaging and pernicious consequences, are goals which I believe command broad support across the House, my noble friends, amendments present us with an opportunity to settle in our minds.

What is the best way in which those goals might be achieved? From our committed debates? And again today, we know there is a dichotomy of views on that. My noble friend has eloquently made the case for substantially lifting the age of sale, such as the such that the legal purchase of tobacco by anyone under the age of 21 will be rendered impossible. The government, on the other hand, have proposed the much more radical step of initiating a complete ban on tobacco sales to anyone born after the 1st of January 2009, thus creating year by year a wider and wider cohort of individuals for whom access to cigarettes and other tobacco products in shops will be legally barred.

Neither of these proposals, whether it's that of my noble friend or that of the government, provides an absolute block on young would be smokers accessing tobacco, so long as cigarettes remain a legal product, nothing could. But if the generational ban can be made to work as intended, there can surely be no doubt that the benefits to public health over the long term will be immense. That realisation was one which my right hon. Friend, the previous Prime Minister arrived at during the last government and the present government have seen fit to agree with him.

There are two main arguments against the generational ban. One relates to civil liberties, the other is that of practical workability. I won't repeat some of the points that have been made on those themes, but I would say I would acknowledge that what is proposed in the Bill is by any standards, without precedent in our consumer law. For the first time, a permanent legal distinction would be drawn between two adults based solely on their date of birth. One person may lawfully purchase a legal product, another, perhaps a year younger, may not, not because of any difference in capacity or circumstance, but purely by virtue of when they were born.

The question people ask is whether in a free country that is right. Following on from that, or the questions around enforcement and general practicability, there are major questions around verification. As the years go by, shopkeepers will need to satisfy themselves that the person in front of them seeking to buy tobacco is 42, as opposed to 41, and so on. That does seem very different from a straightforward age of sale cut off, which is a rule that everybody understands.

Wood shops and customers get used to this rigmarole. How easy would it be? And as my noble friend rightly said, a number of countries have chosen to adopt the course that he is advocating rather than the generational ban. I must, however, declare my hand. This bill, as I've said, is an opportunity, an opportunity to make a transformational change in an area of public health which successive governments have agreed is one of the 2 or 3 most important and far reaching in our midst.

Indeed, I would say the most important. I don't think that the civil liberties arguments stand up to scrutiny for very long when we're talking about the chance of preventing serious ill health across millions of our population, smoking needs to be made deeply unfashionable. My noble friend's amendments, though entirely well meant, are unlikely to achieve that scale of health benefits, nor that kind of attitudinal change. My Lords, there is uncertainty in whatever we decide to do.

I am content for my noble friends on these benches to make up their own minds on these matters. My noble friend, who I greatly respect, will urge colleagues to join him in the lobbies if he chooses to divide the House. At the same time, I hope he will understand that it ill behoves me as my party's spokesman for health and social care and as a former health Minister, to pass up what I see as a golden opportunity to do something imaginative and radical, which is why I support the government in their excellent ambitions.
17:44
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
For my Lords. I'm most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I think we can safely say debate. I think we can safely say there is no unanimity of view. As a number of noble Lords have commented, I am particularly grateful for the support from both Frontbenches, as has been consistent throughout, and I'm also grateful for the support of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord Lord Pannick, Lord young Lord Rennard, Lord Stevens, Baroness Gerada, Lord Bethell and other noble Lords.

The amendments we have before us in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, propose a complete change to the smoke free generation provisions by making it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette persons to a person aged under the age of 21. This, in my view, is without any shadow of a doubt. Turning the core part of this bill on its head. And I understand why the noble Lord and other noble Lords feel as they do.

But I do think it's important to remind ourselves why the Bill is needed. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health. It is claiming the lives of around 80,000 people a year in the UK, and causes 1 in 4 of all cancer deaths in England, up to two thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking. Somebody is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute, and up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to smoking each month.

Furthermore, smoking is estimated to cost our society £21.3 billion a year in England alone. It's quite clear to me that we do need bold action to address this. It's why we are gradually raising the age of sale to create the UK's first smoke free generation, delivering on our manifesto commitment. My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer and I made available the opportunity to meet which a number of peers I was glad to say of differing views did take up to discuss the overwhelming positive impact that this bill would have across the UK.

I hope we could all agree with Professor Whitty that and I quote, this generation of children should not have to endure the damage caused by tobacco. I would also like to acknowledge the previous government's role and the courage that they showed in proposing this bill, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord young and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell and the noble Lord Earl Howe, amongst others. And it is a mark of, I think, of the strength of the bill that this support from across the benches on what is indeed a landmark policy.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords Lord Morrow, Lord Sharpe, Lord Blencathra and the noble Lady Baroness, who referred to their view that the impact assessment produces the same outcome. Whether these amendments are agreed. In other words, the ban comes in at the age of 21, exactly the same outcome as with the smoke free generation. I have to say, my Lords, this isn't true. And I also have to say to your Lordships House that in fact, it's the tobacco industry that are saying this and it is incorrect.

The published modelling did not even model the impact of raising the age of sale to 21. It did look at different scenarios for the impact of smoke free generation. So, my Lords, if we raised the age of sale to 21 by adopting these amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard said, the tobacco industry would simply change its business model to target older adults. It would not meet our ambition of the smoke free UK, which is the core of this bill, because stopping young people from ever starting to smoke is the easiest way to reduce smoking rates.

And the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, asked if he or suggested that perhaps he might be asked for his birth certificate in his later years, as any of us may be. Well, let me assure the noble Lord that this bill does not affect current smokers. It is aimed at those who are born after the 1st of January 2009. Modelling does show my Lords that creating a smoke free generation is expected to help reduce smoking rates of 14 to 30 year olds to near zero by 2050.

Over the next 50 years, that will save tens of thousands of lives and avoid up to 130,000 cases of lung cancer, strokes and heart disease. My Lords, for me, these are prizes worth having. We have heard in the course of this debate, including from the noble Lady Baroness Fox, that this policy, it is suggested, infringes on people's liberties, their right to choose. But I do have to say there is no freedom or choice in addiction. As the noble Lord Lord Bethell said, the tobacco industry took away young people's choice when they addicted them to nicotine at a young age.

Three quarters of people and we've heard some of those, like from the Baroness Gerada, wish they had never started smoking. And I might add, the majority want to quit. We've also heard in this debate concerns that the smoke free generation will cause a rise in the illicit tobacco market, but this bill will prevent people from ever becoming addicted to smoking in the first place. Because as the total market for tobacco products shrinks, demand for the illicit market shrinks.

And I do have to remind your Lordships House, because we do have experience to draw on. When the age of sale was increased from 16 to 18, this created 1.3 million more people no longer able to be sold cigarettes. However, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed, it is estimated, fell by 25%. There is no immediate connection. We have heard much about Australia and the noble Lord Lord Stevenson made this point very clearly that, in fact, we do need to remind ourselves that it that the references to the illicit market going through the roof and the Lord Adonis that goes with it, it was suggested, is because a change to the age of sale.

But as the noble Lord Lord Stevens rightly said, Australia has not actually changed its age of sale since 1998. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord Lord Naseby that tackling the illicit market does remain a priority. And that's why I'm pleased to confirm again, that we will continue to invest up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2829, to tackle the illicit and underage sales of tobacco and vapes, and to boost the workforce in trading standards, and to the noble Lord Lord Sharpe, as he rightly predicted.

But I do think it's worth repeating that the violence and abuse against retail staff is never acceptable. And indeed, it is the case that the Crime and Policing Bill is there to protect hard working and loyal staff who are doing a job in their communities because it introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker. To the point about Northern Ireland that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised in his introduction. We are content, I can confirm, that the measures in the bill that are intended to apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework.

I have heard the points raised by noble Lords and as the noble Lady Baroness Hoey referred to, we will cover this issue in further detail in Group 12, and I can confirm to the noble Lord Lord Stevens. As I mentioned earlier, this is a UK wide bill. It's been developed in partnership with the devolved governments, and we have received legislative consent motions from all. I would also add, and this might be helpful in the questions that have been raised about the evidence base.

I would refer noble Lords to the technical note that was written and is available to all peers, including evidence, sources and references, which was sent by the four Chief Medical officers from around the UK. So, my Lords, this government is determined to stop the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and I do hope noble Lords will support us in creating our first smoke free generation. Let me turn to amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Northover.

We are committed, I can confirm, to ensuring the successful implementation of this Bill. I want to reassure the noble Baroness and also the noble Lord Lord Naseby, that we will take forward a communications plan and we do not need, therefore, this requirement within legislation. We are working to ensure that everyone is aware of the provisions of this landmark legislation, what it means for them and the associated commencement dates. And yes, that does include close working with the retail sector.

The noble Lady Baroness Northover did ask about this point. Not just that we are working closely with retailers, but also enforcement agencies in order to publish clear guidance on this legislation. The amendment also seeks to raise public awareness of the harms of smoking and the benefits of quitting. We are committed to supporting and promoting smoking cessation. I hope that noble Lords have seen or heard our most recent National Stop Smoking campaign, launched earlier this month. This campaign is in addition to more than £150 million of ring fence ring fence funding to local stop smoking services each year until 20 2829.

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships House can understand why the government will not be accepting these amendments. And I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will now feel able to withdraw his amendment here.
17:56
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, what an excellent debate showing, I think, my Lords, your Lordships House at its best. Superb speeches are on both sides of the argument. It would be invidious to list them, and I won't, and I would like to thank the Minister for her reply and her tolerance of my points throughout the Committee stage and the Report stage of this bill. Three thoughts occurred to me during the course of those speeches. The first was in relation to the point first raised by my noble Lord Lord Pannick, who of course is a man to whom I listen very carefully.

And he tried to draw an analogy in his speech of this provision being my amendment being analogous with the ban on heroin, the requirement that people wear seat belts in a motor car or a helmet when riding a motorcycle. That is, however, to ignore the fact that there is always a balancing exercise in whether or not to ban something. And one of the factors when you're considering whether or not to ban something is a balance of proportionality. And we know from the excellent speeches we've heard this evening that what the government proposed by this bill is untested and is a gamble.

And it's a gamble not only with the lives of people who may take up smoking, but also with the livelihoods of shopkeepers and with many who are involved in the retail trade. This is a policy which is not properly thought through, and I am afraid Lord Pannick analogy does not satisfy me that my reasoning is flawed. The second thought that occurred to me was as I listened to the speech of Lady Northover and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is that I am always astonished that the noble Lady in the noble Lord still retained the use of the word liberal in the title of the Liberal Democrat Party.

Having heard their speeches, it is surely redundant. My third thought was during the speech, the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, she said. Freedom is not something to be embarrassed about. I very much hope that if the noble Lady has yet to order her coat of arms from Garter, that she uses that resounding phrase as her motto. And with that ringing in your Lordship's ears, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
17:59
18:10
18:12
18:13
18:14
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I, I rise to, I think, half >> I, I rise to, I think, half support amendment 26. I also, at this point would like to congratulate the noble Lord Lord congratulate the noble Lord Lord Moylan. But anyway, the introduction of this regressive and untested generational ban on tobacco sales obviously does raise the thorny issue of how it will be implemented. In terms of retailers checking on ages, I do think, following on from the first group that we discussed, that it is worth noting that it is very different to standardised age checks, which we already have, where there can be challenges at 18 or over 21 or over.

But I would like to quote Trading Standard Wales, who described it as creating a two tier age system for tobacco, where some in the way that that we know that someone born in 2008 would be legally able to purchase tobacco products, while someone born in 2009 would not. And it does seem to me that this bill to work in its own terms, enforcement is a key, but it is not clear how that will be practical. Again, quoting Trading Standard Wales having a two tier age system means that young people actually, if we're honest, will still be able to obtain cigarettes from older friends, from family members that smoke.

And it's unlikely that any parties would report each other to the authorities, as both would face legal consequences for doing so. But more pertinent to this group of amendments, Trading Standard Wales states quote, we do not think it is realistic that in the future 30, 40 or 50 year old adults who are purchasing tobacco products would be challenged about their age and asked to prove they were born before January 2009. Checking on age is tough at the best of times, but to increase increase proof of age ID checks on tobacco buyers of any age, which is what eventually will happen, could well trigger an escalation of tensions, abuse and even violence for hard pressed retailers.

And we've heard some very important testimony in the first group about that whole issue. So anything the government can do to ease these tensions, to help those retailers cope with the very challenging demands this bill will place on shopkeepers, I think is to be welcomed. And it's why I'm drawn to amendment 26, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister. And the government, I do think, has an obligation to think about how those retailers will cope. And could a grant scheme to subsidise the cost of age verification technology and reduce the financial burden on small retailers, be something that the noble Lady the Minister would consider, because it would certainly help improve compliance? I think the government do have to address, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, earlier talked about shopkeepers being scared, and I think that word is an appropriate word.

They are very scared about the impact of the generational ban on their business and the safety of their staff, and the loss of income that in an already struggling sector, which will no doubt lead to a lot of them going under, or certainly losing a great deal of income. And in order to make this age verification work, they might need some help. And I think the whatever happens, we should make no mistake that the weight of responsibility for enforcement of this legislation that we are discussing here will not fall on our shoulders, but will fall on the shoulders of retailers who will have to navigate a new legal age threshold, which will change and become more challenging each year and every year.

The reason I mentioned that I have some reservations and I'm not sure how to resolve them, is that the way that the amendment 26 is presently worded? It targets all nicotine products, and one of my concerns throughout the course of this bill is that there is an elision between, for example, vapes and tobacco. And whereas the generation smoking ban makes it clear that we're going to have special age verification needs, at the moment, there is already an age checking that needs to be done for young people and vaping, and I just don't want that undermining of the public perception that vaping is exactly the same as tobacco.

So that was one of my reservations. Also, any age verification technology will have an impact on increasing number of adults, as a generational band's impact kicks in. And I'm concerned that this could be something of a Trojan horse for everything, for from the use of facial recognition technology to digital ID, and so I always get nervous when I kind of think that there's going to be more technology checking on you everywhere you go is the libertarian bit of me, even though I'm not a libertarian, but it makes me a bit nervous, right? So there.

My reservations. Those reservations aside, if I can directly ask the noble Lady the Minister to address, I think the core of the what the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister main point is, which is how will the government help reduce the financial burden on especially smaller retailers of the very challenging and complex demands that this bill will pose for them in relation to age checks? Surely we can't just pass this bill and then abandon them and tell them to get on with it.

And therefore, I think that this amendment is worth considering seriously.
18:20
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, let me begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister for Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister for their amendments in this group. I welcome the fact that the government have accepted my noble friend Lord Moylan amendment, and I do congratulate my noble friend on pressing the point. Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I'd like to pick up the cogent points made just now by the noble Baroness Lane-Fox, because I think this does bring us to the question of age verification more broadly, our debates in committee demonstrated the genuine concerns amongst retailers that a strict no ID, no sale policy could become a serious flashpoint for violence and abuse directed at shop workers, an issue which I'm sure the Minister will agree can't be dismissed lightly.

There's also a risk of confusion amongst customers, particularly where different age thresholds already apply across tobacco, alcohol and other age restricted products, and any new requirement must add to that complexity. The process for purchasing these products should remain clear and readily understood by all members of the public and, crucially, by shopkeepers. Against that background, it would be extraordinary if technology were not to play a part in making that process easier and less potentially fraught. Can the Minister tell us anything about the cost and affordability of such technology? What specific consideration was given to these concerns during the government's consultations, and what assessment has been made of the potential impact on retail workers, of what could become a cumbersome and confusing set of procedures with the added risk, as I said, of threats and abuse to shopkeepers.

At the very least, is any guidance planned to ensure that new verification requirements don't create a patchwork of conflicting obligations at the point of sale.
18:22
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the contributions to this short debate, and I thank the noble Lord Lord Moylan for bringing back amendments three and 12, which would change the procedure for making regulations to specify steps that may be taken to verify the age of customers moving from negative to affirmative. I did commit it at committee that I would return with the government's response to the recommendations by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have carefully considered these recommendations and listened to the support within your Lordships House, so I can confirm that we are accepting the recommendations in full.

And I have, as noble Lords, have observed, therefore, unusually, I think we can say put my name to Lord Moylan's amendments. I can only counsel the noble Lord not to get used to it, but I'm very pleased to support the noble Lords amendments three and 12, and I have also tabled Government Amendment 105 for consistency. I've also tabled amendment 110, which gives an equivalent amendment to the power to specify age verification steps in clause 76 for Northern Ireland.

Turning now to the amendment 26, tabled in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, that requires the Secretary of State to establish financial assistance scheme for the acquisition of age verification technology by producers and retailers of nicotine products. I absolutely understand the noble Lords aim is to support retailers, something that I hope the noble Lord heard me saying on behalf of the government. And I also understand that the aim is to strengthen adherence to age restriction laws.

But I would say to the noble Lord and also to the noble Lady Baroness Fox that and it's important to clarify this point. The government has no plans to mandate the use of age verification technologies to enforce age of sale. So checking that a customer over the age of sail is a well established concept for retailers, and they should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure they do not sell age restricted products to anyone under age.

To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID they can use, the bill provides powers to specify and regulations that may be taken to verify customers age, and this does include the types of digital identities that can be used and to some of the points that the noble Lord Earl Howe raised. But I know no other noble Lords rightly are concerned about this. I can confirm once again that the government will work with the retail sector, as we are already doing, in order to publish very clear, workable guidance to support them with these legislative changes.

So with that, I do hope that the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister understands the government's position, and I encourage noble Lords to support amendments 312, 105 and 110.
18:26
18:27
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Earl Russell. >> My Lord, I open this group on restrictions on vaping products and restrictions on vaping products and I move my amendment seven. I thank the noble Lord, my noble friend Lady Walmsley, for her support. We welcome and commend the government's ambition to create a smoke free generation. But if our goal is to truly to protect the next generation from addiction and ill health, we must go further towards a nicotine free generation as well. Big tobacco must not be allowed to re-establish its market through the vaping industry.

Government often speak of delivering the smoke free generation, yet this phrase does not appear in the bill. My Lords, my amendment has been through a bit of a journey. My original intention had been to amend the general purpose clause in the bill, but as I said that that there is not one in the bill. I then plan to add a general purpose clause, but on advice from the public Bill office, I have instead decided to table this enabling power, allowing further controls on nicotine products should that ever prove necessary.

While cigarette smoking has continued to decline, vaping, particularly amongst young people, has increased. Some 20% of 11 to 17 year olds have tried vaping, 5% of 11 to 15 year olds vape regularly, rising to 12% for 16 to 17 year olds. If you ask any parent or teacher, this trend is unmistakeable. We vaping should be here to enjoy as a smoking cessation tool, not as a new generation of addicts to provide revenues for Big tobacco.

The provision is modest and it's enabling. It compels no action, but does give Ministers the power through the affirmative procedure and after consultation with the devolved administrations, to respond swiftly when new evidence of novel nicotine products emerge. And flexibility is crucial because legislation often lacks behind the innovative curve of the tobacco industry. And without it, we face a situation where as soon as this legislation is passed that we may find new products emerging. So this would really do three things.

First, it would align nicotine and tobacco policy. Second, it would seek to close loopholes. And third, to signal the United Kingdom's clear direction of travel, that our public health goal is not only to end smoking, but to reduce nicotine dependency as well. And safeguards remain. My Lords, the affirmative procedure ensures parliamentary oversight and consultation with devolved governments and reflects shared health responsibilities. So I want to be clear that this amendment is not anti-vaping. It simply recognises that addiction in any form is harmful and that policy must evolve as markets and technologies change.

This clause gives that agility. Without reopening me to reopen the statute books in that way, it's really an act of foresight. It's trying to look forward and to future proof the bill. By accepting it, Ministers would reaffirm their commitment to a smoke free generation and show leadership towards a genuinely healthy, healthier, nicotine free future as well. And my Lords, I find it difficult to see why the government would not wish for this legislation to be as adaptable and updatable as possible.

And why would we not wish to send a clear message that vaping exists to help smokers quit, not to recruit new generation of nicotine consumers? Turning to amendment 16, in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, I returned to an issue that we debated in committee. At that stage, I tabled an amendment seeking to introduce a minimum pricing for vapes in committee. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in response, and the assurances from the government that the government does recognise the scale of both the youth vaping problem and the environmental damage caused by the use of particularly disposable vaping devices.

But, my Lords, nothing in government policy to date has convinced me that the problem is actually being adequately addressed, and that is why I've brought forward this new amendment today, which now asks for a formal taskforce to take a joined up view of these intertwined concerns. Those of youth addiction and environmental waste. Despite the claims that disposable vapes have not have been banned, vapes, my Lords, are still freely available on the high street at what I can only describe as pocket money prices.

Most are still, for all intents and purposes, used as a single use device. They're marketed and priced at young people, and this is the exact demographic that the government is trying to create to be a nicotine free generation. So it's not enough to say that we'll tighten the rules in due course. We need to have further action on these issues now. So every single vape, that disposable vape that is thrown away contains a lithium battery, plastic casing, copper wiring, other precious metals, and most of them are never recoverable.

Most of them cannot be recycled. This is extremely difficult, and most of them end up in the general waste streams, where they cause untold number of fires and injuries in our waste facilities, and they're causing great concern for local authorities and those who are dealing with the waste systems, particularly fires within the recycling sector as well. So that's why this amendment explicitly links youth vaping with its waste impacts. The two problems have a shared cause, and that is the peripheral peripheral proliferation of cheap, throwaway vapes.

And we should be moving my Lords towards products that are designed to be reused and to be recycled. There is not enough producer responsibility for vapes. The government does have the circular economy taskforce. I welcome that, but the taskforce, my Lords, has barely touched on this issue. It is. It is a tangent. It is not been a priority. There is not a clear direction of travel, and it doesn't really have the level of expertise and specialism or really, I see no desire from the government to move beyond the position where they say that they have banned disposable vapes.

But as I say, these things are still available at cheap prices and they're still used a single once use once devices. So this is a this is my attempt to try and get a way forward on these issues. I hope that the government is listening. They may not like my way forward. They may have another suggestion, but I do think this is an area where further work is needed. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed after clause two. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. I rise quite briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise quite briefly. First of all, to welcome the government amendments 14 and 15, which we haven't heard from yet. I look forward to hearing them over look forward to hearing them over the lady, the Minister, and so I won't go through them in detail, because I'm sure the noble Lady
18:35
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
because I'm sure the noble Lady will. But I will just note that this is is a lovely practical example, and all credit to the government that campaigning has worked. We heard from both Action on Smoking and Health and the Mental Health Partnership during discussion in committee about how there needed to be an exemption in inpatient mental health settings for vaping vending machines. And the government has clearly listened, and this is really an example of how this all should work. So let's let's applaud that and highlight that.

But I also wanted to just very briefly speak in support of amendment 16, which the noble Earl Earl Russell has just introduced. We are obviously in a situation where the ban on disposable vapes is being widely, almost universally got around noble Lords. Noble Earl spoke about producer responsibility. Well, what we have is a profoundly irresponsible industry that is behaving in ways with really serious health impacts and also environmental impacts. I actually spent most of this afternoon hosting an event for the National Association of Local Councils, and as soon as I said, I'm going off to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the reaction I got was waste.

And that's understandable. Look at some figures that come from Biffa looking at three recycling facilities in Suffolk, Teesside and London before the ban on single use vapes came in, they saw an average of 200,000 vapes mixed in with general waste. After the ban came in. That went up about 3%. Now. There was perhaps an immediate rush of material being sold in that immediate period, but everything we're hearing is that the waste problem is still enormous, and the risk of these lithium batteries exploding, catching fire in waste lorries in recycling centres is absolutely enormous.

And we do need more action, both from the public health aspect. One of the other people I was speaking to today, a younger person, was like, well, I'm a bit confused about what vaping. And you know, how how it relates to health and cigarettes. Young people are not getting a clear message and they're being sold these things everywhere. And that's, you know, this is saying we need to keep watching this and be ready to catch whatever the industry does next. Because the thing that we know is big tobacco is profoundly irresponsible.

And I think this is, as a noble Lord said, perhaps not the exact way to do this. I don't have any, but we need to make sure and hear from the government that they are going to keep a very close action, prepared to take action against Big Tobacco at any time.
18:38
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I too want to warmly welcome the want to warmly welcome the government's amendments 14 and 15 that create an exemption in that create an exemption in relation to vapes vending machines in mental health hospitals. I mean, in mental health hospitals. I mean, this really was good to see, and I think it's humane. I think that it is going to be very beneficial to patients, and it proves that the government can listen and amend, and I hope that there might be more listening and amending, amending and exemptions even at this late stage at report.

But I think it does make the debates that we've had feel as though they can go somewhere. And I think this this was an important concession for the government to make. So I'm really pleased to see that. I do, of course, have grave concerns about amendment seven. In the name of the noble Lord Earl Russell and the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley. I think that there is a real danger here, that we end up seeing this bill as a vehicle for a relentless, relentless attack on anything to do with nicotine.

And unless I'm much mistaken, the bill is not intending, even though I think it does. In effect, it's not intending to treat all nicotine products in an undifferentiated way. It is aware of Cancer Research's statement that vaping is far less harmful than tobacco, and is the most popular tool to help people quit smoking. But I also think, following on from the remarks of the noble Lord Earl Russell, that I. I don't want to simply say that vaping can only be considered to be positive if it's used as a smoking cessation tool, because people will undoubtedly and do undoubtedly then vape as a recreational habit is the government's aim, or is this amendment aim to tackle any dependence on any substance whatsoever? Nicotine is the one that's named.

But I mean, will there be caffeine next? I mean, where do we draw the line? And I as far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be what this bill tries to do. I think that what I worry about is that this will lead to a mission creep of the bill, and it's a kind of pre-crime listening to the noble Lady Baroness. Oh, God, I've written it down. I've got it on my book. Sorry. Hold on. Oh, right. I'm going to carry on.

I do not think that we should have a moral panic about vaping. That is the main thing. I do not think it is appropriate for this bill to start doing a kind of pre-crime anticipation of all the things that might or might not go wrong in relation to vaping. I think that would be a disastrous outcome of this bill. So I really would urge the noble Lady to avoid the siren voices of those urging her to take this bill even further down the line of prohibition, and to actually hold firm to the notion that actually, whilst there is going to be some suggested regulation of vaping, that what we shouldn't and mustn't do is to actually make vaping indistinguishable from tobacco in the public's eye by treating them equally the same as equally problematic.

Through the course of this bill.
18:42
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, I very much support my noble friend Earl Russell's noble friend Earl Russell's amendments to seek to address the abuse of vapes and other nicotine abuse of vapes and other nicotine products. And when you go into any local shop or see adverts, you must mentally think that those promoting mentally think that those promoting these really should hang their heads in shame. I've already mentioned at Committee stage the example from my own extended family, where vaping has been the route for teenage relatives to become addicted to nicotine, and from there to smoking.

So I fully support everything that we are doing to to reduce nicotine dependency. And I support my noble friends amendments here. Despite that, we do welcome the government's amendments, which create an exemption for mental health settings allowing the continued use of vape vending machines. Written evidence submitted to the bill committee by, for example, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust and others made clear that vape vending machines located in mental health wards are currently a crucial part of delivering effective smoking cessation services.

Several trusts using these machines have reported that they provide a safe and straightforward way of ensuring patients can access vapes when they need them. It's therefore welcome that the the government has listened to this evidence and made this concession. In England, vapes are now the most commonly used smoking cessation aid, and it's awful that they've been exploited for other purposes. Nevertheless, vaping is recommended by nice as the first line smoking cessation tool and is more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies.

Smoking prevalence in inpatient mental health settings remains extremely high, with estimates estimates of about 50% overall and some studies reporting rates as high as 80% in in individual hospitals. So I see why the government has decided to take this particular measure forward. While it's technically possible for vending machines to be stocked with other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, this wouldn't reflect patient preference. And we need to be guided by what works to support smokers to quit. That's what vapes, as my noble friend Russell has said, should be about the risks associated with proxy purchasing would seem to be low, particularly in closed wards, but I'd be interested to hear from the Minister further on this point, and also to have clarification on how she envisages these machines operating within the new licensing scheme.

So therefore, although we accept the government's amendments in relation to mental health settings, we do think that the government needs to do more to tackle the awful spread of nicotine addiction that we now see among young people, and I look forward to the noble Lady. The minister's response?
18:45
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'll speak to my amendments 13 and 14 a only as a amendments 13 and 14 a only as a means of thanking the Minister very much for her own amendments, 14 and 15 in this group, as a number of us argued in committee, including in particular my noble friend Lord Moylan, there is a strong case for saying that in a secure mental health setting, 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 wellbeing of the individuals being treated and potentially to to staff, as well as a knock on effect.

I'm very glad that the Minister felt able to reconsider this issue in the way that she has. I confess I am troubled by amendment seven in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because although its stated purpose is to future proof the bill, the signal that it sends is perhaps regrettable in the context of current public attitudes towards vaping as a means of quitting cigarettes, a substantial percentage of both of the general public and of smokers mistakenly believe that vapes present a greater risk to health than smoking tobacco, extraordinary as that is, the NHS is unequivocal that vapes provide a far, far safer route to managing nicotine addiction than continuing to smoke, and the prospect that they could, at a later stage, simply be swept into the same prohibition regime.

Risks, I think, creating uncertainty, discouraging switching and undermining public health gains. We need to remember that the bill already contains extensive regulation making powers in respect of vaping and nicotine products, on advertising, on flavours, packaging, display and sale, and those powers are wide ranging and substantial. So to add a further power of this breadth is, I would suggest, unnecessary overreach, I'm afraid. I think amendment 16 is unnecessary as well. The bill already contains extensive powers to regulate vaping products, from product standards and enforcement to environmental controls.

The government are already consulting widely and gathering evidence in these areas, and I'm afraid I don't think there is any need for the creation of yet another statutory task force.
18:48
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this noble Lords who contributed to this debate. Let me start with referring to the Chief Medical Officer's advice on vapes, which is quite clear. Whilst vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, non-smokers and children should never vape in the design of policy proposals, it it is imperative we have failed to get the balance right. And I say this to noble Lords who've who've raised this point, and we sought to get the balance right between protecting future generations from the risk of vaping, whilst ensuring that vapes remain accessible for adult smokers.

And I hope the noble Lady Baroness Fox in particular, will welcome that. The noble Earl, Lord Russell's Amendment seven, would add a new clause to the bill to provide a regulation making powers to a power that could be used to add vaping and nicotine products to the smoke free generation provisions in England and Wales. And I understand the aims of the noble Earl in bringing this forward. But I do have to say, and again, I hope this will be helpful to noble Lords who have expressed concerns.

There is a fundamental difference in the safety between vapes and tobacco products. Tobacco is uniquely harmful. Up to two thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking. So vaping, whilst it's not harm free, it is significantly less harmful than smoking. And given the current research on health harms, the evidence base does not support extending smoke free, smoke free generation provisions to vapes or to nicotine products. Also to respond to this amendment, the government should only be assuming new powers where there is clear justification for future regulatory change, and certainly introducing a vape-free generation power, as is suggested, would be a major step, but not currently supported by evidence.

An age of sale restriction of 18 for vaping and nicotine products is therefore considered proportionate to protect children and young people, particularly as they may be more susceptible to the risks from nicotine use, including addiction. So turning now to amendment 16 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and points raised alongside this by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, I hope I can provide a reassurance that the government is indeed already delivering a comprehensive programme to tackle youth vaping, strengthen enforcement and reduce environmental impacts and has the relevant expertise required on these issues.

So it is our contention that it is not necessary to put this on a statutory footing. The noble Lord, Earl Russell, asked about how we were going to be dealing, as did the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, on the issue of environmental impact of vapes. And that's an extremely important area. So what I can say to that is, as part of our upcoming circular economy growth plan, which the noble Lord referred to, the taskforce considers will consider circular design.

That means including cross-government approaches such as would fit the this this bill to and it will consider regulation of product features and support increased recyclability and I think that's the right place for it to be dealt with. But we do have to remember, my Lords, that last June we did ban the sale and supply of single use vapes. And from October the 1st, this year we will introduce a vaping products duty, which we know is effective at dissuading price sensitive young people.

Furthermore, we have a range of measures in this bill that will tackle the drivers of youth vaping and allow us to take action on advertising, packaging, flavours and display, and to support the development of future regulations. Importantly, we have recently conducted a call for evidence to gather views on issues such as flavours, nicotine limits and tank sizes. Because there are differing opinions on all of these, and therefore I think the call for evidence is the right approach. My Lords, the Bill does itself also strengthen enforcement with powers that will enable us to introduce a licensing scheme and product registration scheme through our £10 million enforcement programme with National Trading Standards, which I referred to in the previous group.

We will also fund the Vaping Expert Panel to provide valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations. We are also commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. This includes a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies and a five year long living evidence review that will collate the latest research of vaping. Additionally, last year we announced a landmark ten year study that will include in its investigations the long term health impacts of vaping on young people's health health and I consider that all these will greatly build to the knowledge base and evidence base that we have.

Turning to amendments 13 and 14 a tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, which seek to exempt sales from vape vending machines in mental health hospitals for patients and staff aged 18 and over. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, for raising this issue and we do believe, as I'm sure the noble Lord realises, that the government's amendment does cover what he is intending to achieve, and I'm glad that he is indicating his agreement on that point.

So yes, indeed, I did listen carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords during committee regarding patients in mental health facilities, something particularly close to my heart as I'm the Minister for Mental Health. These patients liberties may be restricted from being able to access vaping products to meet the public health need of helping them quit smoking or to manage nicotine addiction. Adults with a long term mental health condition do have much higher smoking prevalence rates than the general population, and this exemption takes into consideration the concerns that were raised by peers, for which I'm grateful.

The concerns related to helping those people with a long term mental health condition, helping them to quit where needed and is appropriate. In my reflection on these concerns, I'm pleased to say that's why I've brought forward government amendments 14 and 15, and I am very pleased to have the welcome of both frontbenchers. The noble Lady Baroness Bennett, the noble Lady Baroness Fox as well. But these amendments provide an these government amendments provide an exemption from the ban on vape vending machines for adult mental health inpatient facilities in England and Wales.

And to be quite clear, my Lords, the wording of the exemption exemption has been very deliberately chosen. It is tightly defined to only include adult mental health inpatient settings and only in areas intended wholly or mainly for inpatients. By its nature, this does mean that staff will also be able to access these machines, but the exemption would not extend to areas that are not mainly for inpatient use, such as a visitor's waiting room or a staff room, and I hope that gives some indication to the noble Lady Baroness Northover on how this might work.

We are retaining the wider ban on vending machines to prevent young people from accessing age restricted products, and to protect the next generation from being hooked on nicotine. I do hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
18:57
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I'm thankful for those, all those who've spoken in this debate and for the Minister's detailed response. Just turning to amendments 14 and 15. First, I'm grateful to Lord Moynihan for bringing them forward. I'm very grateful to the Minister for listening and bringing forward the government's own amendments. As the Minister has commented, they have been welcomed from across the House. They are indeed compassionate and sensible measures. So. So they are very, very welcome indeed. Turning to my amendment seven, I tried to explain the journey I had been on in terms of a general purpose clause.

It might be that actually the wording of my amendment was still a little bit clunky. I want to be absolutely clear. It's not a relentless attack on nicotine. It's I'm not anti vaping. But what I do want to see is I think the question is where we draw draw the line on these issues. And that's probably for another bill in the future. And I absolutely recognise the role of vaping in smoking cessation. But what I don't want is, is a new product line for big Tobacco to create new nicotine addicts, to create future revenue.

So where we sit between those two points is perhaps a matter for another bill, but those issues will at some point need to be addressed. And I that should not be done in a way that's overly restrictive, but it should not also be done in a way that is overly freedom in allowing big Tobacco to exploit young people and get them addicted to nicotine when that doesn't need to happen. Turning then to my amendment 16, I listened to what the Minister has said.

I welcome the fact that the the the Circular Economy Task Force is looking at these issues. We will look at those recommendations closely when they come forward. The government does say they've banned single disposable vapes. I must admit, for real intents and purposes in the real world, that that is just simply, to my mind, not the case. They're still used as single products. But that all being said, I welcome the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response and I withdraw my amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure that amendment be withdrawn? No. that amendment be withdrawn? No. I'll put the question again. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn? No. In clause five and six, Lord Murray, amendments and six, Lord Murray, amendments eight and nine not moved after clause six. Baroness Northover amendment ten.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I move. I'm seeking to move amendment ten in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness that of my noble friend Baroness Walmsley, which would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide quarterly sales data to assist public health activities. assist public health activities. These regulations may include information about, for example, the volume of sales, geographical area, volume of sales, geographical area, and product type. Tobacco is not like any other industry, as we have been discussing the products sold by the industry kill around two thirds of the long term users and the harms are widespread and well documented.

Yet the industry treats their data as a commercial secret, leading public health authorities in the dark. The information already exists. The tobacco industry holds it. This amendment would ensure that the data are harnessed for the public good. I want to note that although amendment ten outlines areas where regulations could be brought, could be brought, it does say May and there is flexibility there for the government. All that's required is that they make progress in this area. The noble Lord Earl Howe
19:01
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noted at Committee stage that HMRC and the Department of Health have access to some data. Currently, however, we don't feel that that's sufficient. We've heard from those sufficient. We've heard from those working in public health that there are gaps which are filled would are gaps which are filled would benefit activities on the ground. Smoking is responsible for deep Smoking is responsible for deep health inequalities, with modelling, for example from Cancer Research UK showing a 25 year gap between the most and least affluent communities in this country in terms of achieving smoke free status.

And so that's a shocking illustration of health inequality, reflected in nearly twice as many smoking related cancers in the poorest areas, compared with the wealthiest. Access to sales data would help local authorities, trading standards and public health agencies target resources, effectively monitor patterns of use and respond quickly to emerging threats. And other countries do this. Canada's Tobacco reporting Regulations require that manufacturers report on over 20 ingredients and 40 emissions, along with sales and promotion data, to assist Health Canada in policy decisions.

Australia also requires companies to report on sales volumes, product pricing, advertising, promotion and sponsorship activities and expenditure alongside information regarding ingredients. Mandating transparency is the right step and we were discussing transparency earlier. It holds the tobacco industry more accountable and it ensures that public health can act on the evidence rather than wait for other data sources. So for these reasons, I urge the government to support this amendment and commit to improve transparency for an industry that has avoided accountability for decades.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause six. Insert the new.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause transparency of tobacco sales data, words of which on page four the Marshalled List. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ten. My Lords. I rise. Speak to speak to
19:03
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
>> I rise. Speak to speak to amendment 17 A in my name, which I did cover at Committee stage. So I'll be brief. My Lords, currently, I'll be brief. My Lords, currently, the vast majority of cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, and each cigarette butt contains around two straws worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered in the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered daily. That's equivalent to 6000 cigarette butts being dropped in every parliamentary constituency every day.

Each plastic block can take up to ten years to break down into tiny fragments or microplastics, and they've polluted the entire planet from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. And worryingly, according to recent scientific research, the level of microplastics being found in human brain tissue samples has increased by 50% since 2016 and is increasing in other organs. Local authorities in the UK spend around 40 million a year fighting a losing battle, money that many would argue could be better spent on vital frontline services.

The industry could have made a change, but so far they haven't gone far enough. One plastic cigarette filters is also supported by the public, including smokers in Poland. Commissioned by the parliament news website from Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council. Earlier this year, 2000 people were asked for their views on this issue. When asked would you agree or disagree with these statements? Cigarette manufacturers should be required by law to switch from using plastics in cigarette butts to a fully biodegradable, biodegradable alternative.

Almost 9 in 10. That's 8,086% agreed, while just 1 in 20 6% disagreed. Interestingly, even among current smokers, the vast majority 77% supported the change. Support was high across every age group, social group and region. In contrast, asked if cigarette manufacturers should be able to continue to use plastic filters, just 13% agreed. The survey also found 1810 support the government, levy an additional taxes on cigarette brands that refuse to switch from traditional plastic butts, including 51% of smokers.

84% of UK adults would support cigarette manufacturers being fined for not switching to biodegradable butts, with the revenues going towards paying for cleaning up the environment. My Lords, I don't think this is a party political issue. The issue was discussed by MPs who voted on an amendment which was supported cross-party, including conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, reform, independents and unions. But unfortunately the government did not accept the change that was being put forward. My Lords, if we're going to be serious about how we consider the environment, this could be an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important change. My. Lords, it's. A great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson, with whom I nearly always agree, with whom I nearly always agree, but not on this occasion. The noble Lady and your Lordships' House will Lady and your Lordships' House will know that concern about plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics public health concerns, the way in which
19:07
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
health concerns, the way in which they are penetrating every corner of this planet and every piece of our body, is something I am gravely concerned about. And as I will come to later, my amendment on on filters calls for banning filters altogether. Very often I find myself in your Lordships House acknowledging that something that's being proposed is not exactly what I want, but it would be, you know, it's an improvement, I'm afraid. I am not convinced that the ban, as the noble Lady proposes on plastic filters, would be an improvement.

We had an extensive debate in the Committee stage, which I am not going to reprise, but basically we have a problem in that the term biodegradable, which is what's being proposed to be replaced. This is exceedingly unclear. Is is not defined. And there is very clear evidence that the so-called biodegradable filters can take nearly as long to degrade as the plastic ones do, that they leach harmful chemicals. They remain in the environment for long periods of time. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them.

So although this might look like a small step in the right direction, I do not believe there is the evidence to actually take us in that direction. So amendment 77, in my name, as was extensively canvassed at Committee stage, proposes to end the environmental and health harms of so-called cigarette filters, compelling the government to act now and ban all cigarette filters which have no health benefits, reasonable evidence of health harms and of course, huge environmental harms, whether they are the plastic filters or the so-called biodegradable ones.

Now, I think Earl Howe and the Liberal Democrats for amendment 76, which explores a consultation on this subject. And I'm also absolutely delighted for the second group in a row to say to the noble Lady, the Minister, that the series of amendments that she has tabled, which means the government is preparing the way for banning filters in the future, that is a really significant step forward. However, I wanted to keep my amendment on the paper to make the case for why I feel this action must be taken now.

The problem of guilt, so-called guilt free littering, making littering problem even worse. And of course, companies that manufacture biodegradable filters, so-called only continue to make profits if people continue to consume tobacco. And this is essentially a proposal that's coming from the tobacco industry. This biodegradable filters proposal. Now, this country has never been afraid of leading the world when it comes to tobacco control. We could be we hear the phrase world leading so often in your Lordships House, but this is a place where we could be the first country in the world to ban so-called tobacco cigarette filters.

We could use this as an opportunity to reverse the damage done by decades of industry marketing, to raise awareness of the harms of smoking and incentivise smokers to quit. The World Health Organisation has said they believe a ban on filters would have a significant impact on discouraging consumption. A 2023 randomised controlled trial found that those smoking filterless cigarettes consumed less and filtered cigarettes were perceived to be better tasting, more satisfying, more more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent, and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes.

I recognise that in the committee, the Minister said that she would like more evidence and modelling on this behavioural point, and there are now academics working on that very point and I will make sure I'm sure they'll be reaching out, but I'll make sure that the noble Lady hears about that as well. While I agree, the Minister said that the that the long term solution here is to eliminate tobacco use, and that's obviously the ambition that pretty well everyone can sign up to. However, with 5.3 million smokers still in the UK, 75% of whom admit to littering their butts, there is a strong case for action, and I would.

I'm glad to see the government's position has again shifted on this since committee. Finally, I particularly like to again thank Action on Smoking and Health and my colleagues in the All-Party parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, alongside the academics who've been highlighting this issue and moving this forward. Then just very briefly, finally, I want to express support for amendments. Ten 204 and 133, and particularly the suggestion one, three, three, which again, I spoke out extensively on committee about individual warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers.

Again, this is a place where we wouldn't quite be first in the world, but we certainly be in the leading pack of doing something that is being shown to have positive impacts in reducing smoking, which is what we're all after.
19:12
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 204 in my name and those amendment 204 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Crisp, and the noble Cookham, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. And I want to thank them for their support for this important amendment. This this important amendment. This amendment proposes a polluter pays levy on tobacco manufacturers, ensuring that those who profit from one of the most harmful products in human history contribute to repairing some of the immense damage they have caused.

The principle is simple and widely accepted. When an industry causes profound harm and reaps extraordinary profits, it should help to meet the costs of addressing that harm. Given the unambiguity of that harm, it is only right that those who are responsible contribute to putting it right. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, within two years of Royal Assent, to establish a levy on companies deriving income from the manufacturer of tobacco products. Its receipts would form a dedicated fund within the Department of Health and Social Care, used solely for smoking cessation, tobacco control, and health care for those suffering from smoking related illnesses.

Regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure proper parliamentary oversight. This is not a new change charge on consumers. It draws on. It draws on the vast profits of an industry that for decades has taken far more from the public purse and the public's health than it has ever contributed. For companies, my Lord, control over 95% of UK tobacco sales, enjoying monopoly like power and profit margins averaging 50%, some five times the UK manufacturing norm.

Together they make almost £900 million a year in UK profits, and they often pay little corporation tax here in the UK. Compare that with the cost. Smoking drains £43.7 billion a year from society in England, including 1.8 billion to the NHS, and far more in lost productivity, social care and human suffering. Tobacco duty and VAT raise barely 6.8 billion, only a fraction of the real cost of these harms. The polluter pays principle already underpins environmental law and is embedded in gambling reforms, where a statutory levy funds prevention and treatment, it is only logical to apply the same reasoning to tobacco, a product that kills nearly 74,000 people every year in 74,000 people every year in England.

And public support is very strong. 76% of adults back a levy on tobacco manufacturers with that same margin across political parties. They understand that the current situation is unsustainable and is unjust. A well structured levy could raise up to 700 million, or nearly 5 billion, over five years, according to modelling done by Ash and the University of Sheffield. And both critically, the design ensures costs cannot be passed to consumers. Manufacturers wholesale prices would be capped to allow a reasonable return, with excess profits forming the levy.

Thus, the burden falls on the company's profits, not smokers pockets. This approach prevents price manipulation, protects low income smokers, creates a secure, ring fenced source of funding for public health. Similar regulatory principles already imply, in sectors such as energy and water, so it's perfectly possible to apply them here. Some have voiced concerns about enforcement. We believe that the levy can be implemented effectively and that it can create stable revenue. So this is not an empty growth measure.

And in the UK's dependence on tobacco would strengthen, not weaken our economy. Again, research shows that eliminating smoking could create 135,000 jobs and add 10 billion to UK GDP as spending shifts to other goods and we improve productivity and reduce health costs. The moral case, my Lords, is pretty unanswerable. Smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable death. As the Minister herself has said, I am greatly the biggest cause of health, inequality and poverty. No other legal industry profits so richly from selling a product that kills so many when it is used in these stringent financial times, when we have long NHS waiting lists and the government faces stark financial choices, it is logical that we do something more on this front to provide these much needed funds to deal with these enduring problems from excess tobacco use.

And tobacco companies have the means, the responsibilities and a duty to contribute. So, my Lords, we believe that this amendment is proportionate, fair and workable. And we believe that we would like to see the government take further action on these measures. Turning very briefly to the other amendments, 76 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. This calls, as the Baroness Bennett has said, we had we had a big debate in a good debate, actually, in committee on cigarette filters.

And actually this is a complicated area, and it's one that actually we should be cautious before we rush to legislate in. It is the world's most common littered item, and we should take more action. My new. I've come back with a new amendment, my amendment. I've rowed back from my position in response to those conversations that we had, and I am calling for a review of cigarette filters examining their public health, behavioural environmental impacts, and the feasibility of biodegradable or alternative designs.

I had previously thought to have a ban, so I have moved away from that position in the hope of making progress. Now, I do welcome the government's amendments in this space. I think it was 24 I counted in in the bill, so I am very grateful for those. I guess what I'm looking for is, is when the Minister does get up to speak, is some further words of reassurance that beyond enabling powers, which absolutely we welcome, there is actually clear intention from the Minister to take action because obviously the government taking action is where we all want to get and to our view that is the best outcome on this issue.

So with that, I beg to move.
19:19
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords. >> My amendments 129 and 133, in this group, place a duty on the government to consult on whether health warnings should appear not health warnings should appear not just on cigarette packets or inserts within them, but on every single cigarette. By printing the warnings on the paper enclosing the dangerous tobacco. In Grand Committee, the noble Lady Baroness Mone, whose great work on this bill is much to be admired, said that this was something that the government can look at in future, but it is not something that they are looking at now, and that secondary legislation could in future provide for this.

I ask today, why not consider it now, and why not meet my request for a consultation to begin, this idea is not new, nor is it untested. It's been endorsed by the all party parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health First in 2021 and then in the Khan Review commissioned by the previous government in 2022. Canada has already implemented this approach on cigarette papers with demonstrable impact, and Australia followed suit in April last year, albeit with warnings only on the filters.

The evidence gathered for Health Canada examined how smokers and non-smokers respond to cigarettes carrying health warnings directly on them. The findings were striking. Cigarettes displaying warnings were consistently regarded as less attractive, while those without warnings were more likely to be seen as less dangerous. In other words, the absence of a warning sends its own message, and it is the wrong one. I strongly welcome the government's decision to introduce pack inserts which direct smokers towards quitting support, and this is something for which I argued strongly for when we debated the Health and Care Bill.

It is a positive and sensible step, but it does not address the problem that the first cigarette smoked is often, when offered one from someone else's packet. Warnings on individual cigarettes would get to these people in ways that pack based measures simply do not. This effect of warnings on individual cigarette paper has been shown to be especially pronounced among younger people. They are more likely to be offered a single cigarette in social settings, as opposed to purchasing a whole packet that already has warnings on, or may have an insert in future.

Printing warnings directly on the cigarette will ensure that the health warning is present at the point of use, not just at the point of purchase. Evidence from focus groups in Scotland found that warnings on individual cigarettes were perceived by young people as embarrassing, with the consensus being that it would be very off putting for young people. It sometimes disingenuously claimed that there is no need for health warnings about tobacco, as the dangers of smoking are already universally understood.

Action on smoking and health found in an analysis of their survey data that younger smokers were less likely to be aware of the full risks of smoking. The very people who would benefit most from this measure. But awareness alone does not change behaviour. The average smoker makes 30 attempts to give up before succeeding. My amendment will help them to give up every time they handle a cigarette. More importantly, it will help to prevent people smoking their very first cigarette.

The evidence shows that the greater the range of interventions we deploy, the greater our chances of preventing uptake and encouraging cessation. Different messages resonate with different people, and tobacco remains a uniquely lethal consumer product. We should be prepared to use every effective tool available to us to reduce the harm that it causes to smokers, to their families and to everybody else. Finally, I know that the Minister has raised concerns about how visible the messages might be and that in some countries where this has been implemented, they only appear on the filter.

But the UK could do things differently if we choose to, as in Canada, it's often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If I could now display to this chamber a picture of the effective health warnings on Canadian cigarette papers, then it would be easy to see how effective they are. If the noble Lady, the Minister, cannot accept this amendment today, then I hope that she will not just say that this message might be considered in future this measure, but that it will be considered now, beginning with the consultation requested.
19:25
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
To my name to two amendments in this group. But before coming to those, just a word about amendment those, just a word about amendment 77, in the name of Baroness Bennett. I was initially attracted to this. Like many other noble noble Lords, I went to a presentation by ash where we listened to health experts who explained that filters did not actually prevent anything noxious reaching the lungs. On the contrary, they actually had ingredients in it that might be damaging, but far worse because of the filter smokers actually inhaled more than they would have done if there had not been a filter because they thought it was safe.

So now it may be that the 24 government amendments achieve, in a rather roundabout way, what Baroness Bennett seeks to do in amendment 77, and we will listen with interest to the Minister when she talks to her own amendments. Amendment 133, ably moved, spoken to by the noble Lord Rennard, was something which, as I've said before, when I was a health Minister in 1979, I tried to get the tobacco industry to adopt. This is putting the warning on cigarettes. And as I've said before, they declined on the grounds that ink was carcinogenic, which was not an argument I found very persuasive.

And here we are, nearly 50 years later, still discussing something which was at the time, world beating, though I understand I have now been overtaken by Canada. But I just want to add a word or two on amendment 204. Amendment 204 sits rather uneasily in this group of amendments, which is otherwise about filters, and that it is about the tobacco levy spoken to by the noble Lord Russell. And I just want to make a number of points. Firstly, previously, the government have ruled this out on the grounds that they consulted on a levy model in 2014 and indeed they did.

But this is a very different model to the one that they consulted on and, crucially, the one they consulted on. The levy would have been passed on to the consumer with all the impact on the RPI or CPI, the way this model has been constructed, it avoids that. The model controls the price tobacco can be sold for, leading to very different outcomes from the model consulted on by the Treasury, and it doesn't show tobacco companies, it doesn't allow them to pass the costs on to the consumers like they do at the moment.

It would raise revenue. One estimate has been 5 billion. Even it's a fraction of that. That is money well worth having. And it's a scheme which is not actually complex to administer. As the noble Lord said, there are only four manufacturers. The department already operates the PRS scheme, controlling medicine prices with far more manufacturers than are involved with with tobacco. And crucially, the Khan Review again referred to in this debate initiated by Sajid Javid when he was health secretary.

The Khan Review pointed out that the government was not going to hit its then target of smoke free England by 2030. It actually recommended the Levy Independent review, commissioned by the last conservative government money that would then be reinvested in media campaigns, targeted media campaigns at those elements of the population who are still smoking. And finally, and I know the noble Lady, the Minister won't mind me reminding her what she said. When a similar amendment was debated in 2022 and passed in your Lordships' House by 213 to 154, and the noble Lady knows what I'm going to say.

She supported and voted for that amendment. And I quote, she said it would provide a well-funded and much needed boost, and the consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. Well, that's what we're asking for today. She didn't persuade me for the reasons why her, why she had changed her mind when she did so in committee. Perhaps she can have another go this evening and explain why what she thought was a good idea four years ago is now something which she's going to urge the House to reject.
19:29
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> Since this is the first time I've spoken at Report stage, I should perhaps declare my interest a professor of politics and international relations at St international relations at St Mary's University, Twickenham, where I teach a module on MBA module on health care policy and strategy. I also work with the strategy. I also work with the Vincent Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, and sometimes we do run seminars on evidence behind public health policy.

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on several distinct proposals for new requirements for the tobacco industry and requirements for tobacco products. And can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate? And I am also grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for bringing forward enabling powers to prohibit the supply of cigarette filters, as many noble Lords have said, research increasingly suggests that filters offer no meaningful reduction in health risks to smokers. And my noble friend Lord young said, in fact could increase the harm to smokers.

So both through encouraging deeper inhalation but also the environmental harm caused by these filters and their fragments. Now, I will not repeat the debate that we had at Committee stage, but we did have an interesting exchange of views, and my sense from that debate was that whilst the myths surrounding filters as a means of lessening the damage done to smokers is a myth that needs busting, I think several noble Lords have done that very well. This evening there was a recognition that perhaps a pre-emptive ban on supply might be unrealistic, certainly in the immediate term.

So for the government to have taken powers in this regard seems to me to be the right and proportionate response, which is why I am afraid that I cannot support Baroness Bennett amendment 77, well intentioned as it is, but I think it would be helpful nonetheless if the noble Lady, the Minister, was able to inform us further about the evidence base on which the Department has relied in this area, and whether there are there are issues on which Ministers will maintain a watching brief.

I would also be interested in the noble Minister's response to amendment 17, a tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson, and the amendment 76 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which I think all deserving of consideration. Now, while I understand the intention behind amendment ten and transparency in public health policy, is, of course, a legitimate aim, I think we we I would like to see far more transparency in public health policy. I am afraid that I am not drawn to the idea of imposing frequent and prescriptive reporting obligations on tobacco manufacturers and importers in a way that the amendment proposes.

I do believe that obligations could be imposed on industry of this kind in the context where there is a clear public health gain, but I am afraid I am prepared to consider this further. But I am not yet convinced that the amendment passes that test. But having said that, I look forward to the responses to the other noble Lords and the noble Lady, the Minister.
19:32
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm most grateful for >> My Lords, I'm most grateful for the contributions in this debate. So let me start by addressing the government amendments which have government amendments which have been tabled in my name. My Lords, the issue of filters has been raised, as we've heard in this debate throughout the passage of this bill, both in the other place and at Committee stage in your Lordships House. And indeed, I think it was the noble Lady Baroness Northover said this, that action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum.

However, there hasn't been a consensus on a single approach, and it is that we have sought to deal with. That is why we're taking a suite of powers to enable secondary legislation to regulate filters. Should evidence suggest that it's necessary. So whilst these powers could enable the banning of filters in the future, they also enable us to regulate in other ways, such as regulating filters, packaging, advertising, display in stores and free distribution. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord young, referred to, evidence that people do incorrectly believe that cigarette filters, some cigarette filters make cigarettes less harmful, and there's a risk, absolutely that this could influence smoking behaviours.

And the facts of the matter are cigarette filters provide no protection whatsoever from the health risks of smoking. The noble Lord, Earl Russell, asked about government intention on taking action. Let me say to that point and more broadly, that the evidence based about evidence base, about direct health impact is still information. So we are going to explore commissioning further research to understand the harms. And based on this, then consider further consultation. For these reasons, we're not able to accept amendment 76 from the noble Lord Earl Russell.

As we are taking these powers in the bill on filters. And this was a point raised by the noble Lord Lord Kamall amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. An amendment 17 a from the table by the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson are therefore not required. Should we choose to ban filters in the future, we would indeed be the first country in the world to do so. It's a significant. It would be a significant step, and noble Lords will understand that.

Before making any such decision, we need to interrogate the issue fully and ensure that all potential consequences are considered. However, we would now have the powers to act through these government amendments if and when the evidence emerges. Specifically in relation to amendment 17, a currently evidence suggests that filters that are labelled as biodegradable can, as the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett said, can still leach harmful chemicals into the environment. And there is also evidence, as noble Lords have said, to suggest, that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them.

Turning to amendment ten, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I am sympathetic towards attempts to increase transparency of the tobacco industry and I understand why. Therefore she's bringing this forward. But clause 95 already provides powers to make regulations that could require producers or importers to provide specified information. This could include sales data as well as market research from producers of any relevant products within the scope of part five, not just tobacco products. This clause also enables us to make provision about when and how the information must be provided, and the publication of any such information, so I can reassure the noble Baroness we will be consulting on these new on these requirements as we develop the necessary regulations.

Turning to amendment 204, tabled by noble Lords Earl Russell, Lord Young and Lord Crisp. Again, I am sympathetic to the aims of this amendment. But as I said at Committee stage, in an answer to again to the point the noble Lord has raised, I am now aware that we already have a polluter pays tax on tobacco, and that this comes in the form of tobacco duties. The UK has some of the highest tobacco rates, highest tobacco taxes in the world, duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation at the autumn budget 2025.

This duty raises about £8 billion a year. I appreciate that the amendment proposes combining a levy with regulating prices, but the reality is that because of the ongoing structural decline in the UK tobacco market, we are sceptical that there is the level of profit available in the system that has been suggested. I would also add that regulating pricing would be complicated and a resource intense policy to design and implement, and we believe that is unlikely to be successful in meeting its objectives, such as raising additional revenue.

It would be challenging to design restrictions that industry could not circumvent, for example, by shifting focus to products not included in the cap or avoiding tax through international transfer pricing. Therefore, as I stated previously, our preference is indeed to continue with tobacco duties, an understood approach which incentivises those who currently smoke to quit and also generates revenue that can be put back into a full range of public services. Finally, amendments 129 and 133, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Rennard.

I am grateful for the noble Lords support for strong tobacco control. However, with respect to these amendments, we do already have the ability to regulate the information provided on products which could enable us to mandate health warnings in the future. We already have some of the most stringent regulations in the world on cigarette packaging that emphasises health harms. That includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. And we have announced that we are introduced to cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco.

Therefore, do Not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at noble Lords. That the government is committed to evidence based policy to tackle the harms from tobacco use, and that the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Northover, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a vital bill, even if we are seeking to improve it further, and we've clearly made it further, and we've clearly made progress on filters, and there are a number of other areas where clearly progress can be made under the bill. I note her encouraging words in relation to my amendment on data and transparency, and in the light of that, I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw. Is it your Lordship amendment ten be withdrawn. Amendment is by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave withdrawn. My Lords, this is. A convenient.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time to break for dinner. Break business. We will therefore not business. We will therefore not return to the bill before 820. I beg to move that the report be adjourned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Further consideration on report. Be now adjourned. As many as I have that opinion will say content. that opinion will say content. Content not content. The contents habit questions on a statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on the schools White Paper.
19:41
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to start by thanking the government for the statement and the publication of the schools White Paper, the consultation and the update on teacher recruitment. And I would also like to acknowledge the time taken by the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues in communicating, particularly the government's proposals in terms of reforming support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, including taking time to talk to parents. And this is obviously a very important and very sensitive area, and I think that is appreciated by all.

The government has been very clear about its intent with these reforms, but I would like to ask the Minister some questions, particularly about realigning the incentives in the system. And before the noble Baroness points out any of the mistakes of the previous government, I would, you know, absolutely be clear that there was an issue with the 2014 reforms in relation to incentives, because the principles that underpinned the Children and Families Act that introduced education, health and care plans were not flawed.

The aim of creating a tailored and comprehensive single plan for a child was not a bad one, nor was the requirement for local authorities and partners to jointly commission services and to focus on outcomes and participation of children. And nor was the extension of rights and support into further education and training, so that young people with Send were better prepared for adulthood. The problems came with the incentives, which ended up unintentionally pushing parents to seek specialist and in many cases, very expensive support for their child, something that every one of us as a parent would seek to get the best possible support for our children, but which ended up driving up costs in a way that no one anticipated.

So I really hope that the Minister can set out how the incentives will work in the new proposed system, because, of course, the existence of earlier intervention support, which is very welcome, doesn't equate to parents believing that it is sufficient for their child. So it would help to understand how the department and Ministers have thought through the incentives, both for parents and for mainstream schools, to intervene and improve outcomes. And if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could walk us through an example, I think that would be very helpful.

Perhaps she could expand on the plan set out on page 84 of the consultation to redirect more money into the core budget, and how much the government anticipates will be taken out of education, health and care plans to make that happen. I'd also be grateful if she could set out how confident the government feels that the new funding for inclusive, mainstream provision and for the specialist workforce will be sufficient. At first sight, the figures don't look sufficient when one thinks about them at an individual school level, although I appreciate they're very large in relation to any negotiation that His Majesty's Treasury.

But unless they're sufficient, of course parents will understandably seek to revert to specialist support as the only route for adequate help for their children. And the same is true when one looks at the numbers set out in the document in relation to the specialist workforce, where I see the plans of the previous government, particularly in relation to educational psychologists, are being continued at a rate of 200 a year. And I appreciate it's difficult to recruit and find these staff, but again, they need to be there in sufficient numbers.

And I also wondered whether an apologies if I missed it in the document, whether the government considered using approaches which I think are used quite frequently on the continent, where funding is given to a local area and all schools can benefit from provision for the children with the most complex need, where no individual school will have sufficient children to make it viable to support them. And finally, will the government be piloting these approaches to test how they work in practice? So we avoid unintended consequences? Apart from incentives, I wondered if the noble Lady could address some of the concerns that have been expressed by parents who are worried that their rights will be eroded.

And I hope this is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure those of them who are listening. There are many areas that have been highlighted. I'd just like to pick a couple. Firstly, education, health and care plans were specifically set with a legal test where they, I quote, may be necessary for provision to be secured through a plan and not whether a child has complex or severe needs. And it looks like severe needs. And it looks like that is changing.

The document says that education, health and care plans will be developed with the setting in consultation with parents, but only after the specialist provision, package and placement decisions have been made and the noble Lady will know parents are worried about that. And finally, can I give her the opportunity to answer the question that I think her colleagues have so far declined to answer is whether any child currently has an EHCP could lose it in future.
19:48
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord. Sir. this is I have been asking for this to come out for a long time, so thank you for getting there. thank you for getting there. Eventually the whole document does actually accept the fact that it's a difficult and slow process we're starting, and I think anybody who kids themselves that it's not, will actually doing a disservice to everybody involved. We're talking about 2030 for getting some structure in place. You have got to train people, get other people used to being told they are operating differently in the classroom to get schools, to incentivise the fact that you have an inclusion strategy and and the individual support plan.

My Lords, that is a cultural shift which is going to take real effort and time to push in. So if we accept that my questions start to be my Lords, how are we going to make sure that everybody, every school, understands they have a duty and the ability to identify and start to tell parents what the problem is, because that's where it all starts to go wrong. At the moment, there is a disincentive for anybody to be able to identify a school as having a special educational need, because you've got a budget that comes from the school, from the school main school budget to you, which means you've got a choice of four kids, get their dyslexia support, autism help, ADHD, or the roof leaks.

How is that to be squared? It's not just more money, it's allocation of money and it's the duty. If you're having an individual plan going through, are you flexible enough to allow that to be implemented? Now? There has been an acceptance in this chamber every time I've spoken that you don't work harder, you work smarter. And individual groups about this will have a different take on it. Because I'm a dyslexic and I declare my interest as president of British Association, and I use technology, technology, and I work with people who use technology.

And I declare my interest as the chairman of Microlink plc. The incentives I have there and the problems I square up to are different to those in the autism sector. For one of the most vocal groups here, how are we going to work these two in together? How are we going to have the flexibility to allow a school to actually undertake these different types of approach? If you have that, if you make that an incentive, you stand a chance of getting a better thing.

But only if you've identified you can get the right help to the right person. Only if I have a structure where they take dyslexia because I let's let's cling to mother for me. Let's talk to the one I know about. If it's not just the English teacher, but the maths teacher realises bad short term memory means these individuals will not remember formulas and equations. Bring those two together so everybody knows your work differently. You can go into things like all the disses, you know, dyscalculia Baroness Bull isn't here, but she has actually raised this and done a great service of bringing it further forward.

When these groups come through, are we going to have the how are we going to get the capacity into the school to identify and bring it forward? The reassessment of all plans and support structures when you get to secondary school, it's a natural break. You go from acquiring basic skills to acquiring knowledge to pass exams. How are we going to make sure that isn't something where somebody goes, right, you're doing here? How do you continue? Not how do we stop? Because there is a fear and it has become very apparent.

I recommend the Woman's Hour podcast to everybody. If you want to have a definition of fear that has come out about everybody in this thing, how are we going to come out about that? These are the sort of questions we are going to have to start to answer today and carry on with my Lords. I welcome the approach here, but unless you actually get a more coherent pattern that reassures those who have fought to get their EAC, they spent time, blood and time and blood on blood and not a little money.

Yeah. What are we going to do? And also, could we have a commitment from the Minister that the government will be looking at how to remove lawyers from the system? Well, there are a lot of very second rate lawyers, I think, in many cases who have taken on this and are working and are milking the system. My Lords, we cannot go back to this. We cannot go back to this situation of we are just only those articulate and well off are getting the help they need, the government and the rest of the statement.

And we're starting to ignore it. And by the way, I do applaud the attention towards things like sport in here and music, because actually it helps you special educational needs if you've got some positive attitude towards it, how are we going to bring this together and how is the flexibility, how is that inclusion pathway going to be put down? The rest of this can be put on. If you get that right, you stand a chance of making a real improvement here.

If we don't have that and we don't have the identification capacity, you won't achieve that much.
19:54
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords are our white paper. Every child achieving and thriving Every child achieving and thriving sets out our ambition to improve the lives of all children and young people, combining the support they receive at home with a school experience that is challenging, enriching and inclusive. Firstly, we will broaden children's experience of education with a knowledge rich curriculum, smooth the transition between phases and enrichment entitlement for every child and accountability changes that promote breadth. Secondly, we will ensure that children who have been sidelined for too long are fully included.

We want every child to have the best start in life, with support available earlier and locally, deprivation funding will be targeted to boost outcomes for the most disadvantaged children, and we're launching two place focussed missions to provide a blueprint for national change. Our ambitious Send reforms will support mainstream inclusion so that children can access health help without waiting for lengthy assessments or having to engage with lawyers, including from our £1.8 billion Experts at Hand programme. Wrapping professionals such as speech and language therapists around schools, removing the incentive that both the noble Lady and the noble Lord have identified.

For parents desperate for the support that they need and want for their children to have to fight through a lengthy process to get an education, health and care plan. But for those with more complex needs, new specialist provision packages designed with experts and parents will define the support required. All of this, backed by £7 billion more for send in 20 2829, compared to 2526. Third, we will move from children and communities withdrawing from school to engaging with a new pupil engagement framework, improved behaviour and attendance support and clearer information for parents will help strengthen relationships between families and schools.

And finally, we will be building the strong foundations needed to deliver this change. More expert teachers, better training and improved maternity provision. Deeper school collaboration through a trusted model and innovation powered by data, AI and regional Rise teams. These reforms, shaped by the largest national conversation on send, put children, families and inclusion at the heart of our system and together they will ensure that every child in every community can achieve and thrive. And to go to give more detail on the incentives and funding point raised by the noble Lady, Baroness.

Baron, we have been clear that we will reform the system through the addition of £4 billion over the next spending review over the next three years, including the £1.6 billion for the Inclusive Mainstream Fund. Because we must get to a position where more parents feel confident that their children are receiving the support that they need in schools, alongside their friends and as part of their communities. And then we will provide 1.6 billion for that fund over three years, with over £500 million per year over the next three years to mainstream schools and other educational settings.

And that fund will give schools and other education settings direct responsibility over funding to empower them to deliver for children and young people with Send. Over time, there will be a rebalancing of funding from the high needs budget into schools budgets in line with new accountability arrangements, funding in schools where it needs to make the difference. In addition, our £1.8 billion fund will enable there to be what we're calling experts at hand speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists and others supporting children and teachers before the point at which children need to get to having an education, health and care plan.

And that funding will provide, for example, the equivalent of 160 days worth of support in a secondary school, 40 additional days in primary. And yes, we will expect schools to work in groups in order to ensure that for that provision, which it doesn't necessarily make sense or is possible to provide in one school, they can work together in order to ensure that that provision is available. The key point here, as we think about education, health and care plans is how we move to a system where children won't need an education, health and care plan to get support in the first place.

Although, to be clear, education, health and care plans will remain for for children with complex needs. They will be based on evidence driven, expert determined, specialist provision packages which will enable better and more effective commissioning by local authorities of the provision that is most likely to to provide support for for children. So they will back up the education, health and care plans that, as I say, will remain for those children with complex needs.

We are clear that we should. We need to transform the system before we change the system, which is why we've been clear that which is why we've been clear that no child will have their. Renewed before 20, 2829, and it will only be those children who are currently in year two or below who will come to the point of the end of their primary, at which point it would seem appropriate to review their educational, health and care plan for many of them.

They will may well continue with that plan. For others, the transformed system and the development of individual support plans for every child with special educational needs may well provide a better opportunity for them. At that point. The noble Lord Lord Addington is right. We need to train people and teachers in order to be able to deliver the inclusive education that is at the heart of this reform. That's why we've already announced the £200 million additional support for every teacher and educator, from early years through to colleges to get training in special educational needs and the type of teaching required to support children and young people.

And it's why we will make, for example, in early years, additional support and practitioners available to help to identify those children who need additional support. And it's why we'll invest in research in order to find the most effective ways of doing that throughout the system. So to conclude, our ambition is clear to build an education system that enables every child, wherever they live, whatever their needs, to achieve and to thrive. And these reforms will deliver earlier support, stronger inclusion, broader opportunities and higher standards for all.

They are shaped by parents grounded in evidence and backed by significant investment. Most importantly, they place children at the heart of every decision we make, and working together, we can create a system that is fairer, more ambitious and fit for the future. And my Lords, that's how we will ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every child can achieve and thrive. My Lords. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know from my work as an MP how sensitive this issue is and how important it is to families. I should say it's a constituency that should say it's a constituency that the Minister will know very well that I used to represent. But there are concerns, I think, that we are concerns, I think, that we should not ignore. There are now a number of eminent clinicians and
20:02
20:02
20:04
20:04
20:05
20:07
20:08
20:09
20:10
20:11
20:12
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, can I declare an interest that my diocese has something over 190 church schools, something over 190 church schools, and we educate around 60,000 children in total on roll across that church of England has already that church of England has already officially welcomed the the White Paper. I'd want to echo that from these benches this this evening. these benches this this evening. One of the things we've been doing in Manchester is looking at those points of transition, the transition from pre-school into primary and from primary into secondary, and particularly the Bolton metropolitan area.

For the last 5 or 6 years, we've had a project actually called Changing Places because we recognised that those points of transition children's, academic, their social and their spiritual development can actually go go backwards. So we've investing money into into those points of transition. I note both the white paper and the noble Lady, the Minister in introducing this this evening have referred to those points of transition. I wonder if I might attempt to say a little bit more about how children can enable to manage those transitions without without dropping back in those various levels of attainment.

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think the right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. And just by way of example, we're working, for example, on how we can ensure that children are better prepared when they start better prepared when they start school with a, with a, an ambitious target in order to improve that and with investment, of course, in with investment, of course, in better start in life and childcare in order to enable that. Secondly, another key transition, of course, another key transition, of course, is that transition from primary to secondary and too often key stage three, those first three years in secondary are not spent as effectively as they could be.

So developing a new programme around the best practice for Key Stage three and really focusing on that will be part of the rise teams work. And finally, I would say one of the other areas where transition is often raised is in relation to send and children going from mainstream schools into colleges, and we will make better provision and early and expect schools at an earlier stage to provide the information that colleges need to help children with special educational needs to thrive.
20:14
20:15
20:16
20:17
20:18
20:19
20:19
20:20
20:21
20:22
20:23
20:24
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
this bill so far, there is still a high level of inconsistency and high level of inconsistency and ambiguity which renders the bill fundamentally flawed. Unless many of these amendments over the next of these amendments over the next few days are supported by your amendment by your Lordships House, amendment by your Lordships House, both retailers and Trading Standards officers require certainty when it comes to product classification. And I put it to your Lordships House that a clear statutory definition will avoid later confusion and reduce the overall risk of litigation and strengthen accountability, which, my Lords, must remain.

The overriding purpose of this bill, if it is to stand any chance at all of delivering what I believe is the government's intended result, and in the interest of making the Bill workable on the ground, I hope that the minor change will have on Lordships support. Turning, if I may now to clause 11. This is an amendment that I'm proposing mirrors the approach that I have taken concerning clause ten, and I am again asking for consistency that where vaping products are referenced, that heating tobacco products are dealt with explicitly.

We cannot pass legislation through this House where there is ambiguity. I fear, my Lords, that if these points are ignored, that the Bill will lack the clarity required to make it practically enforceable. And as such, we in this House will be placing an unfair burden upon those in enforcement. Furthermore, my Lords, we would be creating unfairness for compliant businesses which come with the not inconceivable risk of actually punishing pushing retailers towards the temptation of rogue and illicit trading.

I put it to your Lordships House that we need to legislate coherently across product categories, rather than allow voids to undermine the objectives and what the government are seeking to achieve. If I may, I will continue with the other amendments in my name. The. And speaking to amendments 87, 8991 011131891 90 and I wish to ensure that the phrase or consumed in any other way is removed, and that there is inserted a clear definition of heated tobacco. It is important for the House to note that heated tobacco does not burn tobacco.

It heats it. This is important, my Lords, as evidence indicates, lower toxicity exposure compared with that of most cigarettes. If future adult access is to be prohibited, then I put it to your Lordships' House that this decision must be based on proper assessment and evidence. Evidence which is lacking at this time. And in speaking to amendment 189 and 190. Specifically, the purpose of these amendments is simply to insert some precision into the bill. These amendments replace consumed with smoke and remove reference to heated tobacco devices.

I put it to you on Lordships that this consumed is excessively broad. Through slightly better drafting, we can protect businesses, enable better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement, and protect the courts from uncertainty. And I move. Amendment proposed clause ten,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause ten, page five, line 15 after vaping product insert heated tobacco

**** Possible New Speaker ****

product. And I'd like to commend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'd like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Lord Udny-Lister, for helping differentiate different products and having some precision products and having some precision in the way we discuss issues in relation to Bill. I've been
20:28
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
concerned throughout about a one size fits all approach, and I don't think it helps anyone, and I certainly don't think it helps in relation to health, let alone retailers and and so on as has been retailers and and so on as has been described. So if I can just say heated tobacco should not be conflated as the same as vaping or vapes, but it should also not be conflated with smoking cigarettes or tobacco in that sense. And I think the noble Lord has explained in relation to heated tobacco products which are heated, not combusted.

And that does mean that whilst they might be have some degree of harm, there is a body of evidence that shows that there is a huge reduction in harmful products from heating tobacco, rather than from smoking tobacco. The reason why this matters is because a lot of people do use heated tobacco as a smoking cessation tool, actually as a as a form of giving up smoking. So that matters to me. I also, when I've raised issues before about the evidence in relation to heated tobacco, I have been told that the problem with that evidence is it's based on research produced by the tobacco industry, rather than independent researchers.

Well, on the one hand, I'd like to just point out that nonetheless, it is scientific evidence and can be tested as scientific evidence whoever pays for it. But if it's the case that there is some concern about the evidence on this, then I would like to encourage the government to consider how it can fund research into the very different types of product that we're talking about, rather than simply dismissing any evidence it doesn't like the look of, because if we funds it, because we do need to have a sense of proportion, we shouldn't treat all products as the same.

And as I say, I therefore reject the one size fits all approach. And I think we'll have much better legislation if these things are clarified on the face of the bill. And we all know what we're talking about, and don't just lump things into one heading of harmful and dangerous.
20:30
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
Amendments relates to heated tobacco and its inclusion in the bill, and in particular, the rising bill, and in particular, the rising age of sale. It's essential that the measures in this bill apply to the measures in this bill apply to all tobacco products. Without exception. We have learned repeatedly that where legislation leaves loopholes, the tobacco industry exploits them. We saw this with cigarillos products defined as cigars but designed to resemble cigarettes, evading plain packaging with the flavour and pack size rules.

And we discussed this at committee. This bill is a chance for for truly comprehensive legislation. I am particularly concerned about amendment 89, which removes the phrase or consumed in any other way. This leaves the door wide open for further innovation from the industry to continue selling tobacco products. Here in the UK. The regulatory powers in this bill must be broadly defined, including powers over packaging and presentation. This is not overreach. This is fruit future proofing based upon our experience in the past.

Without it, we invite industry innovation designed solely to sidestep regulation and undermine public health. Heated tobacco products should not be conflated with vapes. Vapes can be recommended and are recommended for smoking cessation following evidence including a Cochrane review showing that they are a helpful tool for smokers. Heated tobacco products do not meet that standard and are not recommended by nice. They're they're used by fewer than 1% of people in the UK. Yet awareness is rising, particularly among young people.

Alarmingly, nearly a quarter of 11 to 17 year olds are now aware of these products, and this may very well be the result of marketing of these products in supermarkets and online. I therefore welcome government amendments 217, 218 and 219, which ensure that the comprehensive definition of a tobacco product applies from the moment this bill comes into force. This will help to address the ongoing and unacceptable advertising of heated tobacco products in supermarkets and elsewhere.

If we are indeed serious about creating a smoke free generation, then all tobacco products, including heated tobacco, must be included without ambiguity or exception.
20:33
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend has tabled a number of amendments concerning heated tobacco products. And I think whereas there may be some concern about what's behind some concern about what's behind them, they do raise important questions, which I'm afraid the government has yet to answer with any real precision. As I noted in committee, there appears to be some evidence that individuals who switched from conventional cigarettes to heated tobacco products show lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who contain smoking.

And I'm just comparing them to cigarettes, not to vapes, but clearly to cigarettes. Now, let me be clear. I do not suggest that this settles the question of harm. These are relatively new products, and the long term evidence base is still developing, but it does mean that the government cannot simply treat each tobacco as interchangeable with conventional cigarettes without explaining why they refused to consider the relative harm compared to cigarettes. What I'm talking about clearly is not absolute harm, relative harm.

And there's also the practical question about how these products are to be treated in terms of where they may be used. The position on indoor and outdoor spaces remains, as far as I can tell, unclear. Heated tobacco does not produce combustion or sidestream smoke in the conventional sense, and yet it is not obvious from the Bill how the government intends to address that. That distinction, if indeed they intend to address that distinction at all. And so, more fundamentally, can the Minister explain what specific evidence underpins the decision to include heated tobacco within the generational ban? Now, all noble Lords, I am sure, accept the current evidence that shows that vapes are relatively safer than smoking.

And it may well be that vapes are relatively safer than heated tobacco. But as yet, we have not yet seen the definitive evidence. Now, unfortunately, as noble Lords have said, much of the research on heated tobacco is funded by the tobacco industry, and I can understand the concern there. But I hope that the Minister will correct me if I'm wrong. But there is as yet, no definitive independent research on the relative harms of heated tobacco. If there is definitive research, can the noble Lady Minister write to noble Lords with links to the relevant academic papers? I think we saw one link to a not very good meta study, but actually there's not there hasn't really been in-depth research of any meaningful kind.

Now, it reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend who told me that when they tried to vapes to quit smoking, it just didn't do the job for them, unfortunately. So when they went back to their doctor, the doctor told them he wasn't supposed to do this, but he suggested heated tobacco as a relatively less harmful alternative. Now, while he hoped his patient might have switched from cigarettes to vapes, since this did not happen in we Don't Live in a Perfect World, he preferred his patient to use heated tobacco in preference to going back to cigarettes once again.

This is a practical approach based on relative harms. Now I completely understand the concerns that if we over promote heated tobacco, that what we might find is that smokers may indeed switch to heated tobacco as opposed to switching to vapes. And I completely understand that is a concern. So given that the policy rationale rests substantially on reducing harm, and we should be looking at absolute harm and relative harm, I would welcome clarity on whether the government is satisfied that the case for treating heated tobacco is cigarettes is proven.

It would be really interesting to see that distinction between heated tobacco and cigarettes, and whether there is an area where the science is still sufficiently uncertain to perhaps warrant a more cautious approach.
20:37
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I appreciate the. Contributions that have been made. >> In this debate, and I. >> Would like to start. >> By addressing the government amendments in my name. 217218 and 219. And I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Northover for her support. The bill updates the definition of a tobacco product in legislation relating to promotion and advertising, and in Scottish legislation, to a product wholly consisting to a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way.

And it is those last few words consumed in any other way that are the key ones here. What does this definition do? It ensures that all forms of tobacco products, regardless of how they are consumed, are captured by this legislation, including, and this is important to the points raised by noble Lords. Any future novel tobacco products. These amendments bring forward the commencement of this updated definition to the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent.

That's because the government's view is that all tobacco products that are currently on the market are already captured in the current definition, so it is appropriate for this future proofing amendment to come into force at Royal Assent, because there is no change to the law for which notice would be required. Turning now to amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, which seek to redefine how heated tobacco products are captured within the bill so that there are no longer treated in the same way as other tobacco products.

These amendments, in the name of the noble Lord, also seek to prevent provisions from being extended to heated tobacco devices in the future. Let me say to the points raised by the noble Lords, as well as the noble Lady Baroness Fox and the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, that the Bill does deliberately define tobacco products expansively, and it does include heated tobacco. The reason for that is that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption, and all forms of tobacco are harmful.

There is evidence of toxicity to the points raised about evidence from heated tobacco in laboratory studies, and the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices contains carcinogenic compounds. Unlike vapes, there is limited evidence that heated tobacco can support smoking cessation. Despite what is claimed by the tobacco industry. On the matter of evidence raised by the noble Lord Lord Kamall, the noble Lady Baroness Fox, as has been set out by all four Chief Medical officers of the UK, who set out in a technical note to noble Lords that any suggestion that heated tobacco products are safe or should be promoted as quit Aids in some way is entirely misleading, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, I can say that through the National Institute of Health and Care Research, we are funding high quality research into tobacco products.

The NIH has had a research program where £25 million was invested between 2020 and 2025 to do research into tobacco control, and that will help us in developing the evidence base. But the fact is to me that exempting heated tobacco products and smoke free generation policy and other provisions in the bill would simply allow the tobacco industry to continue to find a way to addict future generations to harmful and addictive products, something that this bill is completely geared to go the other way.

And the noble Lord Lord Kamall asked about heated tobacco free places. We will return to the whole issue of tobacco free places when it comes to Group 16, so I'm sure that will be debated then. I hope that I've been able to clarify the government's position for noble Lords and the noble Lord. Lord Udny-Lister will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to intervene, but no lady Minister talks about research that was done on tobacco products that was done on tobacco products between 20 and 2025. Was there any specific research done on heated tobacco as part of tobacco products

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tobacco as part of tobacco products in that time? Well, the specific definition is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the specific definition is tobacco control research. So it would be a strange thing if it didn't include what we know about didn't include what we know about already, which is heated tobacco. But I'd be glad to confirm to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord in writing. I'd like to thank the Minister for her reassurances, although I for her reassurances, although I don't I don't agree with her. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afraid I do accept that we've taken this as far as we can. Does the noble Lord wish to
20:42
20:43
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, in approaching this amendment, I start with a very amendment, I start with a very powerful series of BBC news reports that were broadcast before Christmas, and other noble Lords may have seen them. The BBC accompanied Trading Standards officers on Ray and and, I believe Customs and Excise too, on raids of various high street premises in various provincial towns, shops that looked like stores you would call them mini markets, something like that, and they would have goods on the shelves, packets of soup and whatever it might be that you might conceivably want to buy.

But their business was not actually selling these things. And nobody who went into those shops was particularly interested in buying the packets of soup that adorned the shelves. What they were doing was going into the shops to buy illegal cigarettes and illegal vapes as well, and the shops were extremely well stocked with these, not just under the counter, but in, in, in, in cupboards, in attics, in holes, under, under the floorboards and so on. And it really was quite shocking to see the extent of the sale of counterfeit products.

And they were all, of course, counterfeit products. Some might have been illegally imported without paying duty and be genuine cigarettes, but many of them were counterfeit. They they met no safety standards. And of course they were seized by the authorities on those occasions. The young people and it's usually young people who are manning the counters in these premises, know how to run very fast. And you don't often lay hands on them, but they are just, so to speak, that the small players, there are big operators behind these, these, these sales of counterfeit products.

The scale of the problem. We could argue about the scale of the problem. Perhaps earlier we had an argument about whether there would be an increase in illicit sales if this bill became law. But I don't think we need to argue about the scale of current illicit activities because we have data from trading standards of the amount of illegal stuff they seize every year. The figures I have, and I don't know if the noble Lady, the Minister recognises them, is 1.19 million illegal vapes seized in 20 23, 24, 19 million cigarettes seized in the same period and over 5000kg of hand-rolling tobacco in the same period.

But even if the figures were half those, it would still represent a major problem. It is, as I say, a multimillion pound industry it is connected to. It is part of it is a manifestation of organised crime. And it's allegedly linked, as you would expect, organised crime to be, to other illegal activities such as money laundering, people trafficking and so forth. And as somebody who comes from a local authority background and has always been interested in the public realm and for a number a couple of years chaired in your Lordships House, the Built Environment Select Committee, something that particularly strikes me as troubling is the devastating effect it has on our high streets, because it sucks all life out of our high streets.

Of course, it's impossible for small traders, genuine small traders, small shops to compete with the rents that these people are able to pay. So they suck out the life from the high street. And our urban centres can be hollowed out as a result of these activities. It's not simply the crime, and it's not simply the effect on those who might be smoking dangerous products. It's the social effect on our urban places. Now, you might say, is it not already illegal to sell counterfeit goods? And the answer is that it is illegal to sell counterfeit goods, but there's no specific legislation that deals with counterfeit cigarettes and nicotine tobacco products, nicotine products, cigarettes and vapes.

There's no specific legislation that deals with it, and my amendment is intended to address that. It's something I think everybody should be able to rally around. The approach I've taken is what I would call a firm approach. Some people might say harsh, but I don't think one can be too harsh in matters such as this. And it's a tiered approach, so that it makes it an offence to be involved in the sale of counterfeit nicotine, tobacco or nicotine related products.

And on summary conviction, there could be a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months and a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, and on indictment imprisonment up to three years and an unlimited fine. And I think this is absolutely essential in our toolbox for dealing with this. I won't say this bill makes it worse or better, but what is an existing problem and is unlikely to get better on its own? It will get better when we take firm action against it, and the firm action we need requires an appropriate legal basis.

This, I think, would help greatly and would give trading Standards and Customs and Excise an additional tool in their box for dealing with people who are genuinely very bad people, and tied in with a lot of activities that we do not approve of. I really believe in this very passionately, and I want to say, I can't think of any reason why the government would resist this amendment, apart from sort of the not invented here type of reason. So I hope, given that I have won over the noble Lady, the Minister, on one matter earlier today, and proudly just now, she heard me move formally an amendment which of course, I've never ever done before until earlier this evening.

I wonder if I could persuade her to come on board with this one as well, and if not to pick it up in exactly this form today, to give an undertaking which I'm sure the whole house would welcome, that she will come back at Third Reading with something which has similar effect. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 12. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. Well, I'm. Never quite sure whether I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Never quite sure whether I should declare an interest in this debate. As someone who has smoke the occasional cigar, but in this the occasional cigar, but in this particular set of amendments, I declare an interest in the fact that I have teenage children, and I see their actions, which chime very much with what Lord Moylan has just discussed. We are in danger, and we do this across the board, and I think we're very, I'm afraid, guilty. Noble Lords in this House of doing exactly this, which is creating a two tier system where on the one hand, we have excess intense regulation which affect law abiding citizens and law abiding
20:52
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
consumers and focus on that and feel that we've done our job. We can sit back and relax. We've can sit back and relax. We've stopped smoking or drinking or whatever it may be, but the reality is we simply end up creating a is we simply end up creating a second and entirely unregulated market. And I too, saw the same documentaries that my noble friend documentaries that my noble friend saw and was surprised not by the clandestine nature of organisations clandestine nature of organisations and illegal groups of pirates supplying illegal cigarettes and vape products under the counter or under the table in a pub.

These were shops that were well advertised. In fact, I was quite impressed with some of the branding. Some of them were actually chains. They'd become multi multinational corporations with headquarters running an effective illegal system that pays no taxes. And clearly from these documentaries showed that they also had other issues such as money laundering and very bad employment systems. So I would like to ask the Minister in in conversations with the noble Baroness Minister, I've been very encouraged by the realisation of this two tier issue.

This isn't just simply in the physical sense, but also online. The teenagers I speak to say they've never actually bought a legal package of cigarettes. It wouldn't occur to them, and at £20 a packet they'd be better off taking up cigars. Instead, they buy everything online where there are no age checks, they can get hold of somebody else's credit card usually, and it's delivered to the house. And I find that very alarming that we are going to spend our time in these debates, and the government will spend a huge amount of effort, so-called banning smoking and nicotine products, whilst at the same time allowing the illegal market to flourish.

I'm also aware from conversations with the Minister, which I found extremely helpful, that online sales are hard to regulate because of the way the enforcement happens at the local level. There is no one authority, although specific authorities will take leads in certain areas, and it doesn't seem to be enough money or focus on this very important issue. And I'm saying this because I care about the retailer and actually I care about the end ambition. In some measure of this overall government initiative.

And it would be extraordinary if we focussed all our efforts with a sledgehammer to crush legal, law abiding, decent retailers who are trying to do their job, and law abiding consumers without realising that we're creating another monster that needs to be tamed.
20:54
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
I stand ready to to talk about >> I stand ready to to talk about the two amendments in my name. First one is it stands. I know that the bill does not provide a deterrent. The proposed fixed penalty of £200 is nothing to those involved in this illicit trading and organised criminal activity, and it's obvious from the unscrupulous retailers will simply absorb the cost and just continue with what they're doing. And I think it's just worth mentioning at this point that when you actually and I have seen this, that when people are selling illegal tobacco, it isn't under the counter, you can have a nice card with all the different brands laid out for you to pick and choose.

It's it's almost it's very, very professional. It is a very, very serious bit of criminality which is out there, I might add. I don't smoke, but I've seen it with others and that's why I'm seeking through this amendment support to introduce a stepped penalty regime, escalating for repeat offenders and enabling referral to national and enforcement bodies where organised criminal activity may be involved. And if we want to do this where there is persistent this sorry, I'm losing myself.

If you want to stand any chance of sealing, cutting down this illicit trade and and the sale of tobacco and vapes, then enforcement must have real teeth and without a stepped penalty regime and referral powers, the bill and generational ban will be nothing more than symbolic. And the other clause, amendment 63 and I it's the points I've just made in proposing a more robust and and stepped approach to penalty notices through an additional amendment. And I want to strengthen enforcement further by introducing a new statutory duty referral where a fixed penalty notice is issued if the bill does not confront the organised criminal network, then it will just continue.

And what we want is local authorities issuing fixed penalties and then referring the matter to the National Crime Agency and the relevant police forces, and then sharing intelligence, which is the key to the whole thing. And if it is further my intention, this amendment then places a statutory duty on the NCA and police to investigate whether organised crime, excise or VAT evasion is at scale or other serious offences are involved.
20:57
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I wanted to speak on >> My Lords, I wanted to speak on two amendments in this group that I think are at the opposite ends of the retail spectrum. On the one the retail spectrum. On the one hand, law abiding shopkeepers who I think need to be given a certain leeway if they mess up, particularly at the start of the of this legislation. And then at the other end of the spectrum, are those open law breakers who are hiding in plain sight.

And so let me just explain. First of all, I've added my name to amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lord Udny-Lister, which is about giving relevant authorities the discretion to issue a warning notice to first time offenders. Because this is a totally novel, internationally unique piece of legislation. Enforcement will be important. But I do think that because it's a bit of an experiment, there has to be some leeway that's given to allow it to settle in without criminalising people unnecessarily.

Now, the very use of fixed penalty notices are precisely designed to enable offenders to avoid criminal prosecution and to reduce the burden on the courts. That's how they usually used. And I'm just worried about the overcriminalization via this bill of shopkeepers. So I think it is important to be proportionate and to allow that discretion in relation to first time offences, allowing trading standards officers to issue warnings to first time offenders promotes that idea that the shopkeepers can learn what the rules are, kind of kind of find out they've had their warning.

And I'm sure that many initial breaches are likely to be unintentional, and a warning will help a business understand the rules. Avoid allows them to not repeat the mistake, and so on, and therefore fines are reserved for repeat or serious offences. So I do think that that's an important way of approaching it. I think actually in relation to an earlier amendment about communicating what this bill will do, although I didn't necessarily agree with it, it is obviously important that people understand what the implications of this bill are when they become law.

And I do think that if it if it passes, which it will, that there's going to have to be quite a steep learning curve for all sorts of different parts of society. And I did want to just draw attention to one thing, which is called local vape action, which has just been launched in Maidstone, in in Kent. And they're a local partnership which is involved retail, local retail shops, working with local community, doing a bit of education, engagement and enforcement.

And I think that there are initiatives that are happening locally where people are trying to say, we are the good guys, we are the people who are compliant, we're trying to keep to the rules. We're not, you know, and they're trying to, for example, go about improving the appearance of high streets, making sure that vape retailers are legitimate are not the ones, as the noble Lord Lord Moylan described, they want to take some responsibility for not being the rogue traders, in other words, and I think that that's to be commended.

But in this group, therefore, I do want to commend amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Moylan, because I think that although I'm not usually one for creating new criminal offences, I do think that there is something to be said for tackling this issue of counterfeit nicotine production and sales, and I think making a specific offence would tackle one of the thorny issues that has rumbled under both our committee deliberations and in fact, throughout the first group that we discussed today in report, which is the unintended consequence of this legislation, that is the potential for the growth of the black market of a black market in tobacco and indeed vapes.

And even though the noble Lord Lord Moylan rightly said that this criminal law could stand regardless of this bill, I think this bill gives an added impetus to it. Now, I know that the Minister and supporters of the bill and this bill lights or console themselves that the tobacco industry, that this is just a tobacco industry talking point, this black market thing. And I know that action on smoking and health claim that concern about turbocharging the illicit market is just the corporates crying wolf.

But I tried to say in committee, maybe it's because of where I live that I can see round where I am. The explosion of shops that sell a few vapes, do a bit of barbering of all sorts of things, but you know, they are not. It is not the case that there is not a problem and it's not always to do the official statistics. And I think that I don't I think the government should avoid burying their head in the sand.

It would be better to take seriously the need to clamp down on illegitimate activities in order precisely to safeguard legitimate businesses from unfair competition, but also for the sake of the consumers as well. The noble Lord Adonis have vividly reminded us of the BBC's in-depth investigations, and I do think they they were genuinely shocking when you saw what was happening in many high streets throughout the country. But one of the things that stood out for me was one of the Trading standards officers went on record to say, we're losing the war.

We're losing the war against the criminal gangs. So it seems to me that we're losing the war. We should fight the battle. I mean, I we need to do something. We can't just sort of go. We're losing the war and then pass a law that could make it worse. Then it's a kind of defeatist attitude. So in that sense, I regard this as as a useful thing. And the government should surely benefit from a legislative tool to strengthen enforcement action against those criminal trading in illegal tobacco and so on, and clamp down on, on, on, on the roads.

Now, just one thing I wanted to say, because I think sometimes when we have this conversation, statistics are used all the time. There are there's a world in which you've got official statistics about this official data. There's also another world in which lots of people live, in which you can buy your tobacco cheap. You can buy your vapes cheap, illegally in local shops that nobody seems to. You don't seem to be reflected in the figures. But one thing I did want to draw your attention to was an opinion polling company did a big poll of 6000 adult vapers in December, and this was about vaping now.

And they said, and of the people that they interviewed, 27% of adults were aware of illegal vape sales in their local area. 29% of vapers have knowingly purchased illegal vapes, 9% of of daily vapers admit purchasing illegal single use vapes. Post the ban on that and consumer confidence of the people that they asked in the legality of vapes when purchasing from retailers varies significantly depending on where you live and depending on where you live is a code for saying working class areas versus other areas.

And as the majority of people live are working class in this country, then it means that in certain areas you're going to basically be more likely to be able to buy cheap tobacco and vapes in shops where there is no clampdown. And as a consequence of which I want the good retailers to be treated proportionately and not criminalised unnecessarily, which is why I support one amendment and the rogues that are exploiting both consumers illegal activity, often, by the way, using illegal migrants as as slave labour working in these shops.

And they should be. We should throw away the book and throw the book at them, I mean.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm delighted to have Baroness Fox's support on my earlier amendment, on on the communication strategy that she's come round to my point of view on come round to my point of view on this, it clearly is vital that we have an excellent proactive have an excellent proactive communication strategy in relation to this new policy, as I did indeed to this new policy, as I did indeed argue in the first group, these amendments seek to ensure that penalties for offences are fair and proportionate.

And I'm very sympathetic to the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister amendment 60, which looks like a very useful attempt to take a step to approach, to find to fines, which does seem a very reasonable way to go about this. So I look forward to hearing what the
21:06
21:07
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister have benefited. I think this debate by coming forward with their amendments in this group, based on their extensive experience in local government and, my Lords, I warmly welcome amendment 17. The counterfeiting of nicotine product is not a victimless crime. It undercuts legitimate businesses that are already operating under considerable regulatory and financial pressure. And let us be clear, the cumulative burden placed on small businesses, regulatory and otherwise, is already substantial.

And these businesses, as other nobles have said, are already playing by the rules. They pay their taxes, they comply with an ever increasing complex regulatory framework. And it's simply not fair that they should find themselves undercut by operators selling counterfeit products outside that framework entirely. Now, beyond the commercial harm, there is, of course, a serious consumer safety dimension. Counterfeit nicotine products are unregulated. They are untested and potentially dangerous. And so I should ask, I would like to ask the Minister, noble Lady, the Minister, to confirm that the government share the view that the robust criminal penalties for counterfeiting are not only appropriate, but actually essential.

And I would be grateful to hear what steps are being taken to ensure that enforcement capacity actually exists, to make sure that these penalties are meaningful in earlier stages of this bill, I know that there were some concerns about the capacity of trading standards, for example, and I know trading and I think it's to be welcomed, the amount, the sum that the government has made available for local trading standards. But some are still wondered whether that will be enough or whether that is a drop in the ocean.

Now, my noble friend, Lord Udny-Lister amendments, I think, reflect a sensible approach to fixed penalty notices a step penalty structure that treats a first offence differently from a repeated non-compliance is surely right. And while some local authorities may already have that discretion to issue a warning instead of a fixed penalty for first time offenders, the fact that my noble friend raises this issue, I think it's important that a first time offenders are not treated unduly harshly, given the complexity of some of the regulations that these small retailers are going to have to face.

So I do hope that the Minister can say some positive things about these amendments. If she if noble Lady feels that she can't accept the amendments as they stand.
21:10
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it's been a helpful >> My Lords, it's been a helpful debate over an issue that I know concerns us all in this chamber. concerns us all in this chamber. And let me turn first to amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I do agree with the noble Lords desire to take robust action against counterfeit products. Indeed, as I said, I'm sure that we all do. But the reason I'm not accepting the amendment is simply because I don't believe that the amendment is necessary, not because specific objections.

And I did hear the noble Lord inviting me to continue as I started earlier, but unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to do so on this one. I will go on to explain why I don't. The amendment is not believed to be necessary, and the reason is, and it's been referred to already by the noble Lady, Baroness Northover, is that protections against trademark infringement is a matter already for other existing legislation. And to the noble Lord Lord Moylan, as well as to the noble Lady Baroness Fox, to the point about necessary legislation actually addressing counterfeit products, which I do accept, as we've already heard, the Trademarks Act 1994 does already provide significant penalties for breaching these rules, and they include, on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both, or on conviction on indictment, a fine or imprisonment for a term if I finish this sentence, of course not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exceeding ten years or both, these are significant penalties. I just. Wanted to ask the noble Lady in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wanted to ask the noble Lady in terms of a duplication. I argued in the Crime and Policing Bill that it the Crime and Policing Bill that it was probably not necessary to bring in a law that said that assaulting in a law that said that assaulting a shop worker was against the law. When assaulting anyone is against the law. And why was there a the law. And why was there a specific point about shop workers and retail workers, and was told that this would make a special case of shop workers to emphasise why, their vulnerability and so on.

So I think that duplicating laws is not something I mean, it's never held the government back before, if you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know what I mean, because it keeps doing it. I must admit, I've got different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must admit, I've got different views on legislation that where we've already got legislation that we've already got legislation that covers, as we have here with the Trademark Act 1994, and it's very specific to the points we're even talking about, then that is no talking about, then that is no reason to go further in legislation. The legislation should work and we shouldn't. You know, we've got something that's already working. I think that the example the noble Lady has come up has said raise it.

But actually I, I it's not a view that I would share as a duplication. It was important to specifically identify shop workers, but maybe we will just need to disagree on duplication or otherwise of legislation. Perhaps I could continue with this point to say, whilst trademark protection is not a matter for this bill, it is the case that powers, in part five of the Bill will enable the government to introduce regulations relating to packaging, product safety and product registration and those who breach these regulations following their implementation may face significant penalties of up to two years imprisonment, a fine or both, and those penalties do broadly mirror the penalties provided by the noble Lords Amendment, albeit I do accept that the noble Lord does propose a slightly higher maximum term of imprisonment of three years in stead of two.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, did raise a points again, legitimate points about the scale of the illicit market and also potential connections to other illegal activities. To that point, I'd like to say that HMRC and Border Force's Joint Illicit Tobacco Strategy does set out the continued commitment to tackle and disrupt the organised crime groups behind the illicit tobacco trade, and that has been supported by over £100 million of new funding. And we are investing more than ever to tackle illicit vapes.

Also raised by noble Lords in 2526, we are providing £10 million new to new funding to trading standards, as I've mentioned before, and that has supported the seizure of some half a million vapes between April and June 2025. And I will also just mention that HMRC figures shows there has been a reduction in the tobacco duty gap estimate as a proportion of total theoretical tobacco duty liabilities, going down from 21.7% in 2005 to 2000 and six, to 13.8% in 22 to 24, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson raised the important point, as he has done previously with me, about online sales, and I can reassure him once again that the majority of the measures in this bill actually apply to products sold online.

We are also taking powers to introduce a retail licensing scheme. Our call for evidence did close in December, and it asked about how retail licensing should extend online. So I hope the noble Lord will find that helpful. Turning now to amendment 60 and 63, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, which are similar, of course, to the amendments that he introduced at Committee stage to the issue of warning notices and escalating fixed penalties for repeat offences. Local trading standards have to have regard to the regulator's code, underpinned by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, when carrying out their enforcement activity.

As such, they take a proportionate approach which the noble Lady Baroness Fox endorsed, which was helpful, and in the first instance they must support businesses to be compliant through advice and guidance, an approach that was clearly highlighted during oral evidence presented to the public Bill Committee. In the other place, this includes issuing warning notices to encourage compliance before escalating to formal action and penalties. Fixed penalty notices are indeed an important and proportionate tool to help trading standards bring retailers back into compliance without needing to undergo court proceedings, which are burdensome on both the local authority and the retailer, and introducing fixed penalty notices was overwhelmingly supported in the 2023 consultation on creating a smoke free generation, and £200 was the most popular suggestion for the level of the fine.

Therefore, we do believe that what we have in the bill is right, and I have heard that the noble Lord takes a different view. However, perhaps this may be helpful to the noble Lord that Ministers do within the Bill have the ability to change the level of penalty by regulations on the issue of the general concerns also about wider criminality that were raised. Trading standards. The police and HMRC already work closely together. They routinely share intelligence on illicit activity and organised crime through established multi-agency databases, through regional tasking groups and intelligence networks, all loading local trading standards services across the UK use a single intelligence database.

This is shared with HMRC and we understand it will be shortly be uploaded to the Police National database and that will bring further efficiencies and effectiveness to information exchange. And these ways of sharing intelligence do enable tackling of the concerns of wider criminality, including tax evasion and the links to organised crime, and they enable them to be flagged to the relevant enforcement agencies and investigated as appropriate. But it is worth saying that not every fixed penalty notice may be linked.

That's issued, may be linked to wider criminality, and therefore we do believe that the amendments that are before us would simply risk increasing administrative burden, which I know the noble Lord does not wish to do for our enforcement agencies without adding meaningful value. I do hope that this provides reassurances to the noble Lords and that noble, the noble Lord Lord Moylan, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
21:20
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I think that is a disappointing response. May I say, disappointing response. May I say, in relation to my own amendment, I just want to repeat it doesn't rest at all on any claim that this bill at all on any claim that this bill is going to make a bad situation worse. I don't want to get into that argument. I just want to say that argument. I just want to say that it is a bad situation already, and I think we should be willing to acknowledge that.

Perhaps it's worse than we realise, especially those of us who don't spend a lot of time on provincial high streets, necessarily, and in working class areas where this happens and is widespread. And I do think we need vigorous tools to deal with it. I do, of course, entirely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the need for nuance in how enforcement is carried out. And I'm aware of the enforcement code that regulators use, including trading standards, because I've worked with it.

One wants to be lenient to the honest shopkeeper who muddles up a 40 year old with a 41 year old, but it isn't possible to sell counterfeit goods accidentally. You know, if you are selling counterfeit goods, it is a deliberate action, especially if you have them stashed in the attic and under floorboards. You are not making an honest mistake when you sell them, and we need to be very, very hard on these people. And I also think that my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister has got something in which in arguing for for a gradation of fines and punishments, that that will bite harder on people who are repeat offenders or more serious offenders.

And the bill misses a trick in doing that. I think on this side at least, and I suspect if they reflect on it in other parts of the House, there is concern that the government hasn't got this element of the bill right and that they are going to have to come back to it. The ideal thing would be if they came back to it before the bill was enacted, by coming with something at Third Reading, perhaps along the lines that that my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister produced.

Of course, it's possible that they could put it right later when they've discovered they'd made a mistake, but that's much more messy and isn't going to have the desired effect. So I am disappointed, and I think the government will have to return to it that the sooner the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better, I would say. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your. Lordships pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn on the Supplementary Amendment 17 a the Supplementary Amendment 17 a Baroness Grey-Thompson not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 18 the Earl of Lindsay not moved. Are my Lords. I rise to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are my Lords. I rise to move. Amendments 1819, 127, 147 and 192. In my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelson. I think in
21:23
Earl of Lindsay Portrait The Earl of Lindsay (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Hollins absence I should also declare my support for the also declare my support for the spirit of her. Amendment 126. Although I'm seeking to tackle the issue that she's addressing in a slightly different way. My Lords, I should also declare an interest as should also declare an interest as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the Ctsi. However, the amendments I'm moving However, the amendments I'm moving in this bill are not ctsi amendments. They are very much my own.

My Lords, I move these amendments in a constructive spirit and as part of what I hope will be recognised as a good faith effort to identify an evidence based, proportionate and workable solution for handmade cigars within the Bill's existing architecture. My Lords, as I previously said, I unequivocally support the government's objective of reducing youth smoking and protecting future generations from smoking related harms. Nothing, my Lords, in this group of amendments seeks to undermine this. My Lords, it's rather that the proposed amendments seek to ensure that in pursuing that objective, we do so in a manner that is proportionate, evidence based and fair to a small number of lawful specialist businesses.

Handmade cigars are fundamentally distinct from mass produced tobacco products. They are also fundamentally distinct from mass produced, lower priced, machine made, small format cigars and cigarillos, all of which occupy a very different segment of the market. This distinction matters both in terms of market characteristics and most importantly, in terms of the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health. Handmade cigars are artisanal products. They are individually crafted, higher value, relatively expensive premium products. They're sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult consumers.

They are not impulse purchases, but my Lords of overriding importance is that handmade cigars are not inhaled. They are, and they are consumed infrequently and not habitually. They are often associated with special occasions or celebratory moments, and are an important feature of the UK's hospitality sector. My Lords, there is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway into nicotine addiction. The last time detailed UK data on cigar usage was collected, the overwhelming majority of cigar smokers were over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35.

Handmade cigars therefore occupy an entirely different segment of the market, both in price and consumer profile and in usage, and their production is also uniquely different. Which brings me to our amendments one 2127 and 147. My Lords, handmade cigars are low volume, high variety artisanal products manufactured in small batches, mostly by producers in Latin America and the Caribbean. There are over 1300 individual product lines, almost all of which are packaged manually, requiring bespoke standardised packaging specifically for a single market like the United Kingdom is simply not practical or commercially viable.

As currently drafted, the bill would enable the Secretary of State to impose the standardised packaging regime to handmade cigars in the same manner as to mass market cigarettes, etc. and such a measure, my Lords, ignores known risk profiles and market characteristics and certainly does not represent sound, evidence based policy. The certain outcome of this is that handmade cigars would disappear from our market altogether. Along with the long standing specialist retailers whose businesses depend upon them and of course, their employees.

So, my Lords, these two amendments, therefore, would exempt handmade cigars from the retail packaging regime, accompanied by a tightly drawn statutory definition of what constitutes a handmade cigar. They recognise that the policy rationale for plain packaging in the context of high volume, youth sensitive products, does not translate to artisanal, individually crafted cigars sold in specialist premises to adults. They acknowledged that imposing such measures on the handmade cigar sector is totally disproportionate. When there is no evidence of youth uptake, no discernible public health gain, but the strong likelihood of catastrophic operational and economic burdens being placed on small, compliant, law abiding businesses.

My Lords, these facts would have become evident had there been a more comprehensive and focussed impact assessment. The impact assessment produced by the department, which runs to 164 pages, makes just three mentions of cigars with no quantification of the likely economic impact to businesses trading in these products. No small and micro business assessment and no discussion of alternatives. So I would also, in moving these amendments, ask the Minister whether she can confirm that the government's response, which has been pending since January 2025, to the call for evidence to inform potential future regulation of standardised tobacco packaging, will confirm that the handmade cigars will retain their status quo as exempted from the introduction of plain packaging.

I should add, my Lords, that I am not aware of any current surveillance or enforcement issues relating to the identification of handmade cigars, nor any concerns regarding, nor of any concerns regarding illicit trade in this category. Under the existing regulatory framework. I therefore don't see why the continuation of processes already in place would be an issue, or require additional resources or training. I do agree that Trading Standards officers require clear and objective definitions that can be applied quickly during inspections.

But my Lords, that clarity already exists. Introducing plain packaging would not improve enforceability and may in fact complicate it. The proposed definition of a handmade cigar is not subjective. It is highly specific and technical trading standards from HMRC already distinguish between cigars, cigarillos, hand-rolling, tobacco, pipe, tobacco and cigarettes, cigarettes for exercise and enforcement purposes, and these distinctions are routinely applied in relation to taxation, illicit trade investigations and packaging compliance. An exemption for handmade cigars therefore, would not create a new product category, and my Lords, it would simply reference existing statutory definitions that officers already use.

My Lords, I turn to amendments 18 and 19, which relate to the display of tobacco products within specialist tobacconist premises. Parliament has previously determined that, subject to strict conditions, adult only specialist tobacconist premises may display tobacco products in a controlled manner. Such displays must not be visible from outside and access is restricted. My Lords, the exemption has operated for many years without any evidence of it contributing to youth uptake. So, my Lords, these two amendments simply ensure that the regulation making powers in this bill cannot inadvertently override that longstanding position.

Miles. This, again, is a preservation measure, not an expansionary, expansionary one. Finally, my Lords, Amendment 192 likewise concerns the current smoke free treatment of specified specialist tobacconist premises. Under existing regulations, certain tightly defined premises benefit from a limited suspension of the general smoke free requirements, subject to clear conditions, to allow for the sampling of handmade cigars. This amendment ensures that the delegated powers in the bill cannot be used to remove the that established position without explicit parliamentary scrutiny.

So, my Lords, taken together, these amendments are tightly targeted. They are proportionate and they're evidence based. They are rooted in a simple proposition that good regulation should be should be proportionate to risk. The distinctions long recognised in law should not be erased without evidence, and that in pursuing public health objectives, we should remain attentive to regulatory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairness and common sense. My Lords, I beg to move. The amendment. Proposed clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment. Proposed clause 13, page seven, line two at end, insert the words on the Marshalled insert the words on the Marshalled List. The amendment be made. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, thank you very much, My Lords. First off, I'd like to thank the noble Lady, the Minister,
21:33
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her highly engaged approach to these issues facing small specialist tobacconists and the niche, handmade hand-rolled cigar industry. I also appreciated the assistance of her officials, who've been sitting through a very, very long debate and wondering when it's going to come to an end. I think this is the last group, the officials at the Department for health, in their demonstration of a high level of understanding around cigars, their impact on health and the effects this bill could have on the people involved in a specialist industry.

I really do appreciate that. I think we've had a hugely successful open dialogue around what I think is a very important issue, and I believe in my conversations that the government does not want to destroy this important cottage industry of mainly small, family owned firms, firms, I might add, that attract a huge amount of tourism to this country and our world class in the standards of their service and of their compliance. They sell a product which is not associated with childhood smoking, and I believe we're not at risk of contributing to the remorseless rise of vapes and other nicotine delivery products.

Wonderful shops like Davidoff, Fox's Soto's Cigars, to name a few, employ hundreds of people and give satisfaction and happiness to thousands more. I think it's very important that we move these amendments, as proposed by the Earl of Lindsay, to protect these stores, especially in the cluster of Saint James's Street. I know we're going to come on to this later, but I would particularly welcome comments from the Minister in terms of guidance for local authorities, which actually reflects back on a number of the points in these amendments as well, when it comes to guiding local authorities in this particular area.

The issues around packaging are also surprisingly important to the industry. We're not asking for anything other than a commitment to the continuation of existing legislation, which protects special speciality tobacconists in terms of how they display cigar products and how they can trade new and importantly, vintage cigars. These products have to be stored and distributed in cedar or cedar lined wooden boxes, which can't be changed at source. I think it's important for noble Lords to understand this. They have to be transported in a certain way in a certain type of box.

So it's not a simple case of just moving them into some other type of packaging. And at source the packaging can't be changed since they come predominantly from important trading partners such as Cuba or the Dominican Republic, and they don't have the capacity to change the packaging to enable us to have plain packaging. By the way, the the boxing system and the labelling system also helps ensure authenticity, which follows on from the discussion we've had about counterfeiting earlier. I think it's important to also recognise these boxes and how they're packaged are a far cry from the packaging which advertises or advertising targeted at children, and it should be noted that health warnings are already applied to all of these boxes.

So I'd like to stress we're not looking for a carve out or a loophole with these amendments. We're looking simply to continuation of a sensible policy to allow a niche industry with important trading partners for speciality tobacconists in order to exist and to continue their trade as we've already planned, which fits in with the express quotes from noble Baroness, the Minister, that effectively preserving the status quo as it stands today and rolling forward is part of the government's agenda, which we respect and find enormously helpful.

There is overwhelming evidence that going back on this original legal commitment would mean the end of the specialist cigar industry, so if we did introduce plain packaging, it would be devastating for this important area of our economy, and it would have no benefit to the overall plan of making Britain smoke free either. I went to inspect the offices of Hunter and Frankau, who were the main importers of Cuban cigars, to see how a ban or ordinary box packaging could be implemented.

And if you could see the hundreds, if not thousands of product lines in their sort of Indiana Jones like warehouse, I must say it was a very happy moment for me when I had a chance to tour those those storerooms. But you can see how it is totally impractical in order to bring in some type of plain packaging, given the way these authentic handmade products are sourced and distributed now, Canada and Australia have been quoted as having bought these measures into place.

They're very different markets. I don't think it's comparable in reality, but in actuality it's led to the almost total collapse of the handmade cigar industry as a result of the reduction of lines from many hundreds down to a few tens. The effect hasn't been on large multinationals or big tobacco. It's actually been on the closure of of many small businesses. These family owned tobacconists, speciality suppliers who've closed as a result of this. And needless to say, the consumer also suffers. Finally, I'd be grateful to hear confirmation that the government has no plans to go back on previous legislation, which allowed for a very small number of sampling rooms in this country.

I believe the number is less than 30. These are not to be confused with so-called cigar lounges, of which there are many, and these are predominantly outdoor areas, albeit with some type of heating and sometimes roofing. The investment in these humidors, which is what they are with sampling rooms attached, has been significant, though, and several major hotels see them as integrated into their business model. They are part of the supply chain of handmade premium cigars, and to disestablish them would cause significant unnecessary harm.

At no point I'd like to reassure noble Lords. At no point do I believe these actions will create a loophole for Big Tobacco, and I'm very aware that that has happened in the past with flavourings and cigarillos and so on. Protecting these characteristics will not see an increase in youth smoking. I think we are all agreed on that. No one I have met, even who are most fanatical about this bill, and there are people who are and I don't disrespect that. But no one I've spoken to wants to see the end today of our specialist tobacconist industry.

These are small, family owned businesses who behave impeccably, who are drivers of tourism, who create income for the Exchequer, who behave extremely effectively in terms of providing a niche community with cigars, to have clear commitments from the Minister. The Dispatch Box about this, about these important matters will allow the industry to continue to be a highly responsible part of British retail. It will allow these small, family owned stores to continue to drive footfall and income for this country.

And I may add, it would be a fair way to treat the adult free choosing occasional cigar smoker into the future too.
21:40
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Hear, hear. Hear, hear. to carve out exemptions for specialist tobacconists, particularly when it comes to cigars. I'm going to focus primarily on amendments one two, 6127147 and 192. And I want to begin by focusing on what cigars actually are. They are often described, and we have been hearing them described as luxury or artisanal goods. But what they are, first of all, is carcinogenic tobacco products that are harmful to human health. I'm supportive of the government's approach, as the bill stands now to comprehensive tobacco control regulation that ensures that future generations don't become addicted to any form of tobacco.

Now, we've heard arguments that their use is infrequent and primarily to those over the age of 25. And indeed, the absolute numbers show that the majority of cigar smokers are over 25, but that reflects population size in reality among smokers. This is a really important point. The younger someone is, the more likely they are to be smoking cigars and toxic influences such as Andrew Tate actively support promote cigar use to a young, predominantly male audience. Linking cigars with power, wealth and success.

And we know how quickly such kind of influence can spread and be taken up if we leave loopholes for it. Now, as we've already heard, cigars have traditionally benefited from carve outs of regulation on things like pack size, flavours and packaging. Now, were we to change that now that would be opening the door to future innovations. As some of the proponents of this these amendments have already acknowledged, with, for example, cigarillos and action on smoking and health data shows that they are popular among young people who smoke.

35% of 11 to 17 year olds have used have tried them in 2024 and 2025. We must not leave space in this bill for innovation by the merchants of death, which I'm afraid these amendments do. Now, turning to amendments that refer to plain packaging. While I understand the intention behind them, I do not support them. The suggestion has been that plain packaging will be fatal to the industry. But noting that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay all apply standardised packaging to all tobacco products, including cigars and data from Canada shows that since that's come in, there's only been a very minor drop in the sale of cigars in line with the traditional long term trends.

And it's also really important to note that the power to introduce plain packaging for cigars is not new. It already exists under regulations introduced in 2015 by the conservative Liberal Democrat coalition and implemented by a subsequent conservative government. The government. The government issued a call for evidence on this in November 2024. And very briefly, I'm just going to finally touch on the smoke free places and cigar lounges. I don't support amendment 192. Yes, the customers may choose to be in that space.

The staff may not have any realistic, practical choice about being there. It may be the only job they can get, and we do not want workers exposed to second hand smoke under those kind of conditions.
21:43
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, my neighbour friends Baroness Walmsley also signed Baroness Walmsley also signed amendment one two, six, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, has referred and seeks above all to referred and seeks above all to ensure that all small retailers are treated fairly. And I'm sure the noble Lady, the Minister, will be addressing this. Moving on to cigars and cigar lounges. Generally, I do not see why these should be exempt. At Committee stage we heard from the noble Baroness, Baroness Ramsay, about a new cigar lounge in Sheffield, which had opened near a school, and a public health team at the council made representations saying that they had serious concerns about the impact of the lounge, particularly in an area where smoking causes great health inequalities.

But they were powerless to stop this and as we've just heard, staff working indoors and does indeed in these lounges does indeed seem to go against the very intention of the original smoke free legislation, which was to protect staff from the harmful impact of second hand smoke. We've been talking quite a bit about loopholes, and I'm extremely struck by what Baroness Bennett has just said about the age range of those now taking up cigars and also the malign influence of Andrew Tate and similar influences.

And I now see what I, I had, I had spotted young men in the US, in Canada, in the UK smoking cigars. I now trace it and can see I was puzzled and I think I now see why that had been taken up. And so for me, this points very clearly to the necessity to close this loophole, as I hope the government will do, because we know that where there are loopholes, they are exploited and the exemption of cigars has definitely proved that.
21:46
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay's excellent and persuasive arguments in support of the group of amendments in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelson, I see he's not in his place. I think really they cannot be bettered. So I shall not try to do that, except to say that I support them. My Lords, regardless of one's attitude to smoking, I think there is a general recognition that of the important role that specialist tobacconists play, they are small, highly regulated businesses and they serve a discerning adult clientele.

They are not engaged in the mass marketing of cigarettes, nor are they driving youth uptake. And specifically to that point, they are not cigarillos. Premium handmade cigars are luxury products purchased occasionally and at considerable cost by informed adult consumers. I was also surprised to learn at Committee stage that they attract overseas visitors who spend huge amounts of money here in the UK because of the way that cigars are. Are these handmade cigars are packaged but also marketed in a way that's unique to the United Kingdom compared to other countries.

So it's difficult to see how such establishments constitute a meaningful threat to the government's stated objective of reducing youth smoking and creating a smoke free generation. But I should also stress many of the criticisms made of cigarettes. Cigars are actually made of cigarillos, and it's important that we distinguish between these unique products, these artisan cigars, whatever one thinks of it, I don't smoke. I think smokers are disgusting habit. I don't drink alcohol. I think drink alcohol is a terrible thing, but I'm a liberal.

I don't seek to impose my views on other people, but it is important to distinguish between handmade crafted cigars and mass marketed cigarillos, which may well be attractive to young people. And in that light, I believe cigarillos should be seen in the same light as cigarettes. But since the introduction of this bill, there's obviously been an enormous anxiety on the part of specialist tobacconists around the country about what the government might choose to do to their day to day businesses. And these amendments will, I hope, provide the Minister with an opportunity to reassure the sector about their concerns.

There is a real concern that if plain packaging regulations were to be imposed on hand rolled cigars, that this would constitute an almost instant death to every single specialist tobacco business. Now, we heard about other countries where plain packaging has been a has been imposed. But remember, this is a being not at the UK, but the UK continues to attract people who do want to buy sometimes, you know, whatever we may think of it, actually all the sort of the packaging and the marketing around it.

So for the good reasons already stated, these businesses do enjoy special dispensation from the provisions of the law which apply to the generality of tobacco retailing. I think these dispensations are well founded and well understood and respected across the supply chain. And as far as I'm aware, they have not been abused. Many other complaints about cigar smoking and the uptake of cigar smoking are in fact not in relation to these type of cigars. They're actually in relation to cigarillos. So in this niche area of tobacco retailing, so niche that is irrelevant to the vast majority of smokers.

I do believe that there is no reasonable case for a government choosing to exercise powers to impede, restrict or otherwise alter the day to day lives of those involved in this specialist sector. And let me be clear, I'm talking about the packaging. I'm not referring to any of the amendments concerned with the cigar lounges. And I do understand the concerns that have been expressed about workers who may not wish to be exposed to cigars, but having no choice to take that job and be exposed.

I'm really talking about the these these specialist tobacco manufacturers and retailers, and I know that any attempts to restrict these businesses obviously would involve some consultation with the Department of Business and Trade. So I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the government has no intentions to restrict the specialist manufacturers in this unviable.
21:50
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Here, here. Lord Kamall. Well said. said. >> My Lords. I'm grateful to all noble Lords that have contributed noble Lords that have contributed to this debate and to amendments one, two seven and 147 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and Amendment 126 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I have listened to the points that have been raised by noble Lords, not just today in the chamber, but also in engaging outside of the chamber, which I've been pleased to do, and I've listened to the calls for handmade cigars to be exempt from packaging provisions in this legislation.

I do need to remind the House, as I've had to remind noble Lords in other discussions, that the powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products are not new. They already exist. They were first introduced under the coalition government as part of the Children and Families Act in 2014. At the time these powers were introduced, the government of the time rightly recognised the need to ensure that these powers apply to all tobacco products. Future proofing the legislation.

So introducing an exemption for handmade cigars now would weaken what is, in effect, longstanding legislation. And I just would remind noble Lords that one of the points about this bill is to bring together legislation which is in other areas, into Tobacco and Vapes bill, which is what we are doing. So, my Lords, all tobacco products, as I've said on a number of occasions, are harmful. This does include cigars and those marketed as premium or handmade. When burned, all tobacco products release toxic compounds that post a risk pose a risk to the user.

In fact, research has found that some toxicants, including carbon monoxide and certain carcinogens, were higher in cigar smoke than cigarette smoke, and the toxicants that are found in tobacco smoking cigars do, of course, increase the user's risk of developing diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or respiratory disease. And as the four chief medical officers of the UK have set out in their technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that cigars are substantially safer than other tobacco products is not accurate, given the health harms of all cigars, it is appropriate that they are in scope of the legislation and that the government retains its current ability.

Introduced in 2014 to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products. Moreover, exempting product categories is likely to lead to exploitation by the tobacco industry, who will always find a loophole to exploit. For example, following the ban on menthol cigarettes in 2020, tobacco companies began marketing cigarette like, menthol flavoured cigarillos. However, perhaps I could provide some assistance on the points being raised today. As I said, I have heard concerns from noble Lords about future packaging packaging restrictions that could impact specialist tobacconists more significantly than other retailers, and concerns about potential unfairness arising from this.

So I can say, as I've said before, it's absolutely not this government's intention that any future packaging requirements to put any small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, out of business, our intent is that any future packaging regulations make the health harms of these products clear, whilst minimising the impact on businesses and to the noble Lord Earl Lindsay, in respect of future regulations on packaging. If that is to be the case, there will be further impact assessments prepared in advance, including the economic impact of any proposed regulations.

My Lords, the policy proposals for any packaging requirements will be a matter for consultation and all businesses, including, I'm sure specialist tobacconists, will want to respond and indeed will be welcome to respond to that consultation. I want to also be clear that the government will consider the impact of any that any policy proposal has on small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, via a future, as I've just said, future published impact
21:55
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
assessment. It is important, however, that despite these points however, that despite these points that I've made, that the government does retain its current powers to regulate the packaging of all regulate the packaging of all tobacco products, as any carve out tobacco products, as any carve out would potentially create loopholes for exploitation. As other noble Lords have expressed concern about turning to amendment 102 from the noble Lord, the Earl of Lindsay, which seeks to maintain the existing exemption to allow individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist shop.

This the government is, as noble Lords know, committed to protecting people from the harms of second hand smoke, which is why we launched a consultation on expanding smoke free places on 13th of February. There are, and it's to the point the noble Lady Baroness Bennett made. There are a number of exemptions to the current smoke free legislation, including an exemption for sampling rooms, not smoking lounges. As the noble Lady Baroness Northover referred to, but sampling rooms in specialist tobacconists providing certain criteria are met, as are outlined, and the government hasn't and has does not have an intention to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists.

And the consultation explicitly states our intention for the exemption to remain. Finally, turning to amendments 18 and 19, also tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, which seek to maintain the existing exemption. Specialist tobacconists currently have to display tobacco products. There are several exemptions to the current tobacco display legislation, including an exemption for specialist tobacconists in England. This allows specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products as long as they are not visible from outside the premises.

The government's intention is not to remove this existing exemption for tobacco specialist tobacconists. This will be reflected when we consult on future display regulations later this year. My Lords, it is important that the bill balances the public health aims with any disproportionate impacts on businesses, including specialist tobacconists. However, I can say that we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure they are not targeting young people, nor are exploiting the existing exemptions. I hope that on this basis that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
21:58
Earl of Lindsay Portrait The Earl of Lindsay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I'd say >> My Lords, first of all, I'd say I'm very grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful answer she's given to the various points that my given to the various points that my amendments have raised. I'm also grateful for the time she allowed for discussions between committee and reports. HE understand the issues better. So my thanks to her. I'm also grateful to my noble friend, our Lord Johnson of Lainston and my dear friend Lord Karmel for the support they've also offered for this group of amendments.

Before coming back to what the noble, the Minister said, can I just say to Baroness, the Nobel, Baroness Morris Bennett and noble Baroness Bi Baroness Northover, that there is quite a lot of confusion over the statistics relating to cigars as a generic category. I would remind both of them that my amendments were dealing solely with handmade cigars, not with cigars as a as a single generic whole. Handmade cigars are, as I said, are not inhaled.

They are really relatively expensive compared with other smoking options. There are a lot of cigars out there on the market that are machine made. Some of them are small enough to be cigarillos, and the statistics about young people indulging in cigar smoking, I think, almost wholly relate to that, especially in that age group, to people of, of, of, of who are not smoking handmade cigars but are making other types of cigars.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord for giving way, and I'm very aware of the hour, but I just did a quick the hour, but I just did a quick look online and saw Andrew Tate's favourite cigars. Very expensive favourite cigars. Very expensive kind of products. Exactly that the noble Lord is talking about. And that's what's being promoted to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly young men. I remind the Lord Bowness that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remind the Lord Bowness that very expensive cigars are usually unaffordable to young people, which is why the vast majority of cigar smokers are not only over the age of 25, but most of them are over the age of 35. And the statistics bear that out. But, my Lords, I'm grateful for all the interest that these amendments have have inspired. But most of all, I think I'm grateful to the Minister for the very thoughtful response she's given for the undertakings that it is not currently the government's intention to remove certain practices which allow the specialist tobacconist sector to continue.

These are important because, despite what has been suggested, handmade cigars. I really stress re-emphasise are not inhaled. They are not habitual. They are almost solely associated with occasions Christmas, birthdays, those sorts of parties, the up-market sort of hospitality venues. So I think the continued survival of the almost always family owned specialist tobacconist and the continued access to handmade cigars for those types of events and occasion, I think, is extremely important to maintain. So the noble Baroness, the Noble Ministers Assurances, I think, will be valued by all those in the handmade cigar sector and I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move my amendment. I withdraw. Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment number 19. The Earl of Amendment number 19. The Earl of Lindsay not moved. We come to amendment number 20. Baroness Mone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment number 20. Baroness Mone. My Lords, I beg to move amendment 20 standing in my name. The amendments in this group are government amendments relating to the advertising provisions. They
22:02
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
are in large part technical in nature, but they do sit within a clear and important purpose to stop clear and important purpose to stop the advertising and promotion of products that risk addicting a new products that risk addicting a new generation to nicotine. They also ensure that the regime is clear and capable of being enforced fairly and consistently across all settings, whether online or offline. settings, whether online or offline. We know, my Lords, why we are here today in 2025, over 1 million children reported having tried vaping.

We've seen the brightly coloured and cartoon advertisements that have clearly appealed to young people. The bill delivers on this government's mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children, whilst continuing to support adult smokers to quit, beginning with Government beginning with Government 9111148150154156158160162164167, and 170 to 172, which are minor and technical amendments. They simply update the wording across the clauses that create offences relating to free distribution, advertising, brand sharing and sponsorship. These amendments will ensure the offence is committed.

For example, as soon as an advert is published which may not have been the case in some circumstances. So that means, for example, if a leaflet with an advert is put through a letterbox, the offence arises when it is delivered, not when the resident eventually reads it. I've also laid amendment 165, which restores specific exceptions that already exist in current law. They make clear that intermediaries companies such as TalkTalk or BT that provide passive internet services like internet access, cannot be liable for advertising offences in certain circumstances.

This, My Lords, does not reflect change in policy. The Bill does not intend to change the circumstance in which passive service providers may be liable. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, these amendments explicitly protect providers of passive services who have no ability to control, publish or remove adverts if they satisfy the circumstances prescribed in the exceptions. Turning to government amendments one seven 3 to 1 74179180 to 18318 5 to 1 eight seven. These make it clear that the product placement provisions in part six of the bill are not retrospective.

They restate the existing law in relation to Tabacco, and they ensure that the new restrictions apply only going forward and do not affect programmes made before they came into force. This means that broadcasters or on demand programme service providers will not be required to review or edit existing programmes. And finally, turning to amendment 184. This amendment removes now redundant amendments to video sharing legislation that was repealed by the Online Safety Act 2023. My Lords, I now turn to what is perhaps the most substantive amendment in this group amendments 166 and one seven 5 to 1 seven eight.

The Public Health defence. During committee, I explained that the bill already allows public health authorities to take certain steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking, and noble Lords raised important questions about how this applies to pharmacists, pharmacies and GP practices who both support smoking cessation and operator's businesses. I listen carefully to these concerns and in response I have tabled an amendment creating a specific defence to provide clarity on how this will work in practice.

This amendment allows businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products where it's done in arrangement with a public authority for public health reasons. In practice, this means that public authorities will continue to be able to partner with businesses such as pharmacies to run effective public health campaigns that promote vaping for smoking cessation. We have also replicated this exception for on demand programme services, ensuring that public health authorities can continue to work with businesses to promote vaping for smoking cessation through these platforms.

I hope that this provides reassurance to noble Lords that health care professionals, including pharmacists and GPS, can continue to display smoking cessation materials. It also ensures that others, such as design agencies commissioned by public authorities, will not be caught in advertently by the offence provisions. When supporting this work, I know that all of these matters were of concern to noble Lords, and I am therefore, as I've said, glad to have been putting forward amendments to tackle this very these very real points.

I look forward to hearing the views and contributions of noble Lords in this debate, and I do hope I can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

count on their support. Amendment. Proposed clause 15, page eight. Line 14. Leave out is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page eight. Line 14. Leave out is and insert will be. From these benches. You can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

count on our support. My Lords, the hour is late and given that some of my liberal given that some of my liberal friends have left the chamber, no doubt to enjoy a very expensive, hand-crafted cigar, it's left to my hand-crafted cigar, it's left to my noble friend the Earl of Effingham and I to to to to offer the opposition. So any temptation that
22:08
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
I may have had to call a division, I can see I'm outnumbered. Yeah. My Lords, can I thank the noble Lady, Lords, can I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for tabling these amendments? I know many of them are technical, but some of them are technical, but some of them are very important. And I particularly welcome 165, which provides sensible protection for internet sensible protection for internet service providers acting as conduits, caching services or passive hosts. They are not really passive hosts.

They are not really active in this space. They do not initiate, select or modify the content content transmitted across their networks, and it would wouldn't be fair or practical to render them criminally liable for material for which they have no knowledge, and over which they exercise no control. Similarly, amendments 166 and 178 ensure that legitimate public health campaigns are not inadvertently caught out by the advertising offences in this bill, and where a person also is acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority and for the purpose of promoting or protecting public health, it would be wrong for them to face criminal liability.

And finally, on amendment 183, we welcome that because it ensures that the new restrictions do not apply retrospectively to programmes that were already in production before the new rules came into force. I suppose this is all a very long way of just saying that we welcome the amendments from the government.
22:09
00:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Plans to use the Post-16 education and skills white paper to promote and deliver a culture of lifelong learning Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page