Lords Chamber

Tuesday 3rd March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Potential impact of the Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 on promoting economic growth and job creation in English regions and devolved nations
-

Second Oral Question Lord Forbes of Newcastle.
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Statement: Publication of the draft text of the UK-EU Treaty on Gibraltar
-

>> >> I >> I should >> I should sit >> I should sit down >> I should sit down without.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I should sit down without.
15:21
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Lords, the Minister, for giving the House the opportunity to ask questions on this statement. I should begin by saying that the Official Opposition welcomes the fact that the Government of Gibraltar have been at the table throughout these negotiations. Gibraltar is British. The government tell us that sovereignty was never on the table throughout these negotiations, and it never should be. I only wish the government were consistent in their application of this approach to other treaties. This is a treaty that runs to over 1000 pages, and of course, we need careful time to consider the detail.

And I thank the noble Lord and his colleagues for ensuring the publication of the treaty in draft. And this has allowed us to begin the process of scrutiny early. Can the noble Lord say when the treaty will be laid formally, so that we can plan for the crag process, which will follow? When we went through the Crag process for the 2025 UK Mauritius Treaty, the government failed to follow the Ponsonby Rule. The rule established convention that the government will allow a debate on a substantive motion in respect of treaty ratification, where a formal request is made by the Official Opposition, so could the noble Lord confirm whether the government will follow the convention.

If a request is received in respect of this treaty on a connected scrutiny point, can the noble Lords say whether domestic legislation will also be needed before we proceed to ratification? And if so, when will that be laid before the House? As the noble Lord knows, we've been critical of the government's sequencing of the agreements in respect of the UK Mauritius Treaty and the Bill. So could he say whether the government is aware of any extant and binding treaties in respect of Gibraltar that may be in tension with the terms of the draft treaty that has been now been agreed with the EU.

Turning from process to the practicalities of the treaty, can the noble Lord please set out what steps will be taken under the treaty to protect the rights of British citizens to freely visit Gibraltar? We know that dual passport checks will be undertaken at the airport in Gibraltar. What recourse will a citizen in circumstances where Spanish border control and British border control are in disagreement on a person's admission to what will remain British territory, and can he say what oversight UK authorities will have over the activities of the Spanish border control operations in Gibraltar? What is the process for dispute resolution? Ministers know that we on these benches have profound concerns about the process of dynamic alignment.

We must not be rule takers. How will dynamic alignment operate under this treaty, and how will Gibraltar and the UK avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule taking without meaningful political control? Can the noble Lord confirm that Gibraltar, and not EU politicians, will decide on her own future? When the Minister and the Other place was asked about article 25 and its reference to the ECHR, he said we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and indeed Spain and the EU.

We do not shy away from that. That is the statement, obviously of the status quo. But can the Minister please explain what the status of article 25 would be if the UK were to withdraw from the ECHR? Would an amendment to the treaty need to be agreed with the EU at that point, or could the UK derogate from article 25 unilaterally? Finally, on a point of fairness, this treaty appears to create an imbalance in the treatment of EU citizens, and UK citizens at EU National may have free access to Gibraltar through the land border without any restrictions whatsoever, but a British national travelling from the UK could potentially be banned from entering at the airport by Spanish border control guards.

These are challenging issues and of course we can understand why compromise can be necessary. But could the noble Lord please set out the work that he is doing to ensure that UK citizens continue to have smooth and free access to water, which is, after all, still a British territory? I look forward to the noble Lords reply to these questions.
15:25
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I welcome the Minister back to FCDO business, even though it may FCDO business, even though it may well be temporary. These benches support this treaty in the House of Commons without any sense of irony. The conservative opposition said that Parliament had been kept in the dark about this treaty, but given it was the previous government that ignored the wishes of 96% of the people of Gibraltar in seeking to remain in the EU, and then, having been forced on them the hardest of Brexits.

And then the previous government took no action to correct the damage, they were told by Gibraltarians that would happen and then refused to present to Parliament a mandate for negotiations to have a sustainable agreement. I therefore thank the government for working closely with the Gibraltar Government and agreeing with these benches, who said before the election that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltar. I also want to put on record the hard work of the Chief Minister and deputy Chief Minister of our sister party, Joseph Garcia, but also officials including the recently retired Dominic Searle of the Gibraltar representative in the UK.

For all of their patience and perseverance and dedication to reach agreement. I also welcome the fact that the Gibraltar Parliament is debating this treaty as we speak now, and the fact that the Gibraltar Government has accepted a constructive amendment from the opposition. We will likely see it pass unanimously. From the Gibraltar Parliament and then be sent to us for consideration under the Crag process. I hope that if our EU Committee seeks a debate on this, the government will honour the Grimstone convention in this House and timetable a debate, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the government will do that.

If the EU Committee seeks it. These benches have and will always support the right of Gibraltarians to decide their future, and therefore, can the Minister confirm that there are no sovereignty concessions? And indeed, there is no mechanism in this treaty which would allow for sovereignty claims? I know the Gibraltar government sought independent legal advice to confirm this, but the Minister put it on the record at the despatch box would be helpful. I believe the EU and Spain have entered into these new arrangements in good faith, but we have to be conscious conscience of the previous unilateral actions of Madrid, which has caused disruption and concern for Gibraltarians in the past.

So can we receive assurances that the dispute resolution mechanisms between the EU and the UK can also allow for Gibraltar to seek to extract itself from the terms, should it feel the terms are reneged on. I hope that that will never be necessary, but we don't know. Perhaps a right wing government in Madrid might take a different view from the current one. I note also the pragmatic position of the Gibraltar Government for the involvement and the operation of the ECJ in this.

We are perhaps starting to see sensible approaches again, which is welcome. And as we seek better and closer relations with the EU, can we ensure that in the reset on SPS and hopefully youth movement, there are no negative implications for this treaty? The Minister could confirm that. I would be grateful. Also, as part of the SPS discussions, can we seek an SPS point for Gibraltar adjacent to Gibraltar, not farther away than currently being envisaged, which will be gratefully greatly beneficial to the Gibraltar economy? The benefits of the work of the Gibb government will be for the people and economy of Gibraltar.

There are 15,000 crossings each day for workers in Gibraltar. All parts of society are interconnected. The health and care service is reliant on staffing and family relationships across the frontier. This doesn't make any Gibraltarian less British, but it does mean easing and removing friction is a pressing need. We would also like to see no delay now in the implementation. And can I ask the Minister if we are preparing for provisional implementation of the agreed text prior to formal ratification in order to avoid the unnecessary burden of installing costly infrastructure for entry and exit systems before the 10th of April.

This would be a pragmatic and also welcome step. We also welcome finally the approach of the Gibraltar Government and the UK government, and indeed the EU, and indeed we hope that we can learn positive lessons and build on this leadership by Gibraltar so the rest of the UK can adopt a similar mechanism and processes for the rest of the UK to make benefits, as Gibraltar will see if it is good for the people and economy of Gibraltar, then does the Minister agree that it is good for the people and the economy, for the UK as a whole?
15:30
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank the noble Lords for. Their questions and contributions and I certainly welcome their both their comments in terms of support for the agreement. There is absolutely no doubt that this is good for Gibraltar. I must declare an interest. I was a union official representing members in Gibraltar for 30 odd years, so I visited it on numerous occasions. I've also been there and experienced it when there were difficulties on the border. In fact, I represented 10,000 Moroccan workers who were based in the barracks in Gibraltar when the border was far from open.

So can I just say this is really good news and absolutely, sovereignty has never been on the table, is not on the table. In fact, the agreement safeguards it explicitly. And the double lock we set out at the beginning has been fully respected. Can I also say that, you know, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, we expect the signature next month. Following the signature, the treaty will be laid under the crag in the usual way, and we will follow the appropriate parliamentary processes.

And there are, of course, parallel processes on the EU side that must be observed. So, I mean, just to to reassure, we will follow Crag and Parliament will be able to fully scrutinise the treaty. There is no doubt about that. But can I just say that it really is good news? As the noble Lord, Lord said, 15,000 people. This is not only good news for the economy of Gibraltar and the people of Gibraltar, and it's had the support of Gibraltar, of course.

No, those you know, the economy of Gibraltar is 19% service orientated, but it also through that employment it's creating and that cross-border employment is also having a really positive impact on the region in Spain. It's good news for Spain as well. And certainly when I first went to Gibraltar, La Linea and the area around that was certainly one of the highest unemployment areas in Spain. So it's really, really is good news. Can I just also reassure the noble Lord that, you know, British citizens have always been subject to immigration checks in Gibraltar? You know, that has always been the case.

And certainly as a union official, I also had to ensure that I couldn't work in Gibraltar unless explicitly approved by the Gibraltar government. So immigration and entry into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. And can I just say that we are absolutely clear that, you know, I mean, I think one of the things the noble Lord referred to as we speak, the Gibraltar Parliament is considering the treaty and the principle we have adhered to adhere to these negotiations is nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and that will absolutely continue.

And we've been very, very clear that that will continue to be the case as we move forward. And, of course, you know, one of the things that we are very also clear about is that there are, as is normal in these types of agreements, a range of mechanisms available to help the parties resolve disagreements. And certainly the the expectation is that we will resolve those issues amicably through dialogue. And if this isn't possible, there is a formal dispute resolution mechanism that includes the possibility of using independent arbitration to resolve the issues.

So that will be the case. But finally, and you know, no one expects or or would hope that it doesn't come to this, but there is the ultimate insurance of a unilateral termination clause that can be used in the event it becomes apparent the agreement is not working for us or our partners. So I think it's absolutely clear that all the guarantees that we've sought, particularly the guarantees in terms of our military operations and facilities, are all there.

So I'm pleased that the noble Lords welcomed the agreement. I'm pleased that after five years of uncertainty and uncertainty for the economy, that we now have a situation where we can move forward that will support the continuation of Gibraltar as a British territory, but under the control and determination of the Gibraltar people.
15:36
15:37
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I think there have been a number of occasions that the noble Lord and I have been in Gibraltar Lord and I have been in Gibraltar together, so I certainly understand and fully appreciate his commitment. and fully appreciate his commitment. But let me be clear, we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. They are full of disagreement, which they judge will be good for jobs and businesses in Gibraltar. Good for the people of Gibraltar.

Indeed, good for the prosperity. As I said earlier, for the whole of the region, Gibraltar is not joining the EU single market or Schengen. Gibraltar will align with some laws through their own domestic system, mainly in relation to immigration and customs. The European Court of Justice will not have jurisdiction over Gibraltar, but will have limited interpretative role in resolving disputes over EU law. Accordingly, Gibraltar courts will factor CGU rulings into their consideration when ruling on matters that touch on the EU aligned law in Gibraltar.

But let's be clear and we know this Gibraltar geographically is a small place, but it has huge potential for service industries. That's where the jobs are coming from. That's where they export. And this agreement will guarantee that for the future. And I think with all parties agreeing to that, we can see a prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar.
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 21, a Lord Kamall. >> My Lords, I beg to move amendment 21 A standing in my name amendment 21 A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall. In committee, the Minister stated that the government would be designing a licensing regime that would support compliant retailers while targeting rogue operators. She also spoke of minimising burdens where possible and recognise the importance of ensuring that retailers and local authorities had sufficient time for training and development.

Reference was also made to a call for evidence and to the subsequent consultation that would address matters such as the process for granting licences and implementation generally. My Lords, a retail licensing system will require the creation of application systems, fee structures, compliance mechanisms and, crucially, enforcement arrangements. Local authorities will need to establish or adapt administrative systems, train their staff and ensure alignment with trading standards and environmental health functions. Small retailers, many of them independent businesses, will need to understand the new requirements.

They will obviously have to submit applications, adjust their own internal processes and potentially invest in training or record keeping systems. In our committee debate, I was encouraged by the Minister's statement, which indicated that the government were actively seeking views on how long a period of time implementation would require. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can she update the House on the outcome of the call for evidence? If she has that and the subsequent consultation to which she referred in in committee specifically, is she in a position to say what feedback the government have received from retailers and local authorities about the time they would require to implement a licensing regime? Secondly, have the government reached a provisional view on the likely commencement timetable for retail licensing regulations? Do they anticipate a phased introduction, and, if so, over what period? Thirdly, what assessment of the government made of the administrative readiness of local authorities? Has the Department engaged directly with representative bodies to understand the system's staffing and training that will be required, and the time needed to put those in place? And lastly, will the government commit, if not to the precise terms of this amendment, to ensuring that there is a clearly defined and publicly communicated minimum lead in period between the laying of regulations and their commencement, I beg to move.
16:01
16:02
Earl of Lindsay Portrait The Earl of Lindsay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I rise. >> To move the amendments in this group that are standing in my name and the names of the noble Lord and the names of the noble Lord Lord Mendelsohn and my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston. And in doing so I should declare an interest as president of the Ctsi. The. I should emphasise that these amendments are not linked to the Ctsi or to my role there. But before moving this amendment, I would like to support the amendment number 21 a moved by my noble friend Earl Howe are a small businesses will need all the time they can get to prepare for yet another layer of administrative burden and by way of background track and trace, which specialist tobacconists have been preparing for for over five years, requires every economic operator to have a unique identifier code, which they must supply when an order is sent out to them.

Even something this simple has been remarkably complex and very time consuming. It has taken one supplier in the handmade cigar sector well over two years to register all their customers, and they are not yet there. A fully fledged licence licensing system with all it entails is likely to be much more complex, especially for businesses like hotels, for whom cigars are not a primary source of income. My Lords, businesses will suffer and possibly cease trading if the licence application process is excessively burdensome in terms of cost, time or hassle.

My Lords, traditionally the handmade cigar sector, which comprises mostly family owned businesses, has been permitted extra time to prepare for new legislation such as packaging of display restrictions and so forth, in recognition of how much harder it is for small and micro businesses with less, with less resources to adapt. My Lords, moving on to the amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114, 115 in this group, I'm hoping that these amendments will be seen as being a constructive, good faith effort to identify an evidence based, proportionate and workable solution for specialist tobacconists.

Their principal business, my Lord, comprising some 70% of their of their turnover, is in handmade cigars. I explained, my Lords, on the first day of report that handmade cigars, which are artisanal, individually crafted, high value, relatively expensive premium products, are fundamentally distinct from mass produced, lower priced, machine made, small format cigars and cigarillos. In other words, my Lords, they occupy a completely different segment of the market, and this distinction matters both in terms of price and consumer characteristics and also, most importantly, in my Lords, in terms of the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health, there is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway into nicotine addiction.

My Lords, that fact was challenged last week and I should therefore reiterate that there is that where there is any data or evidence of cigar usage are by young people. It refers not to handmade cigars, but to machine made, mass produced, low priced of small format cigars and cigarillos. Now there was the overwhelming majority of those. Purchasing handmade cigars are over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Furthermore, handmade cigars are not inhaled and are consumed infrequently, not habitually.

They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult customers. So, my Lords, these amendments, we do not oppose the principle of licensing the introduction of a new licensing framework, however, raises legitimate concerns about how it would apply to existing specialist tobacconists. They are a small number of lawful specialist businesses whose principal business is handmade cigars. Most of them are long established, multi-generational, family run, small and micro high street enterprises, and they have long been separately recognised in legislation and regulations.

These amendments, my Lords, will provide for the grandfathering of existing specialist tobacconists into the new licensing scheme and seek to protect them from future regulations that might impose new numerical caps or geographical restrictions. So, my Lords, these amendments do not go as far as proposing a separate category of licence, nor do they propose exempting new entrants from the licensing regime. They simply recognise that the small businesses operating lawfully under the current stringent regulatory framework should neither be unnecessarily destabilised by the introduction of a new regime, nor gradually extinguished by density or zoning controls designed for different purposes.

On this point, my Lords, it is worth noting that in certain locations and Saint James's in London is one such example, they form a recognised specialist cluster that is popular with tourists, not dissimilar in character to Savile Row in the context of bespoke tailoring. So, my Lords, at a time when small businesses face significant economic pressures, we would be cautious. We should be cautious about regulatory layering that risks unintended consequences for niche sectors that do not present the public health harms this bill is designed to address.

I beg to you.
16:09
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to speak to a number of amendments which are laid in my name, and I'll start off with the ones listed as numbers 24 and 25, and starting with 24. Noble Lords will note that this amendment seeks to establish a national register of tobacco and vape retailers, the National Register. And the reason I'm pushing this so strongly is would strengthen traceability, support our trading standards officers. But importantly, it could, my Lords, become a mechanism to strengthen consumer confidence and public reporting of rogue traders by providing a general public with means of distinguished means to distinguish legitimate retailers from rogue operators.

Amendment 25 will. Hopefully. Hopefully, my Lords will understand the significant challenges that small businesses in this country are facing at this time. And yet, here we are through this bill, finding yet more ways to strangle our small, legitimate traders with more red tape and more bureaucracy. I, like several people I'm sure have heard directly from small retailers about when it comes to people who smash or grab and steal things that many retailers now don't even bother to report these to the police due to the time it takes out of their working day.

And with these themes in mind, we should be mindful of passing legislation that places new and undue burdens on these small businesses. For if we get this wrong, and I fear that this legislation unamended would actually push many small and currently legally trading businesses into the hands of criminal enterprises that are fuelling illicit tobacco and vape trading across the UK. That's why, my Lords, through amendment 25, I am asking for the cessation of the creation of a single digital portal for licence applications and renewals.

This digital portal would lessen the burden on businesses while also enabling greater oversight from enforcement agencies, all the while reducing the risk of administrative errors. Moving to clause 18, sorry, amendment 31, which comes out clause 18. My Lords, this amendment enables licensing authorities to suspend or revoke alcohol licences in cases where tobacco or vape licence conditions are persistently breached, beyond the fact that in breaching tobacco and vape licensing requirements, the person would fail, fail to meet the definition of a fit and proper person.

If this bill is to succeed, then it must be based on meaningful economic consequences that hurt and impact illicit trading. Alcohol represents a very significant proportion of convenient store turnover. Linking the two regimes creates a deterrent and uses existing powers. Under the Licensing Act of 2003, if everybody is serious and genuine in their endeavours to protect children through this legislation, though, we must close this enforcement gap and send a message to those who breached tobacco and vape conditions by deeming them unfit to sell alcohol.

Finally, on amendment 44, this seeks to ensure fairness and avoid regulatory arbitrage by ensuring that there is consistency across England and Wales. And I am seeking your Lordships consent to apply the same alcohol licence linkage principle in Wales to that which I have proposed for England. That principle is that serious and persistent breaches of tobacco retail conditions should carry real commercial consequences. Hit road road traders in a way that seeks to gravely disrupt and deter rogue trading. My Lords.
16:13
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
We have had. ban on smoking, and I've been particularly intrigued by the journey that we've taken. And in that journey, a number of people have come to me and I want to say thank you to them for the enormous amount of information and support that we've received from the specialist cigar industry. I was particularly delighted, and noble Lords may be interested to hear this. Someone alerted me, my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to a brand of cigars which sadly no longer exists, called the House of Lords Cigar Range.

I'm sure we could sell that in the gift shop if things changed. I'd also like to thank the noble Baroness for her assurances over sampling rooms. And to some extent, although I'd be grateful for further clarification here. And I know this was debated, but I'd be grateful for further clarification relating to her correct assertion that plain packaging will be difficult for specialist tobacconists to comply with, and thus extra care will be taken to ensure that they can carry on their business within the law, and their specific needs will be met as they are already in relation to the display of tobacco products.

However, these amendments to which I've added my name go further in protecting this important, if niche industry of specialist tobacconists. These purveyors, as my noble friend the Earl Lindsay has said of handmade hand-rolled cigars, these shops employ hundreds of people. They are largely, as has been commented on, family owned or small businesses. They've been trading in some cases for hundreds of years. And importantly, they provide delight to thousands of tourists and enthusiasts every day. And in relation to compliance with local licensing regulations, I do not believe these shops have ever had any form of enforcement or issue around their compliance, and I believe their behaviour to be exemplary.

Indeed, if we don't acknowledge the difference between these specialist tobacco shops and simply lump them in with the hordes of vape shops that are polite on our high streets, then we will end up in a worse situation, which is causing the sorts of problems that we see today and have just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. These new regulations will potentially, and if misused as regulations normally are, and I'm sure we can all remember the extraordinary application of anti-terror legislation to people who left their bins out on the wrong day by local councils.

If they are misapplied, they will destroy the cluster of these specialist tobacconists, especially around Saint James's. We are told there are already laws in place to allow councils to power to revoke and limit licences. And yes, that is true, but we are asking for is confirmation that a properly behaving store in Saint James's Street cluster will be exempt from the new rules around the concentration of tobacco purveyors. And we must be specific, because I'm sure the noble Baroness, the Minister, will reassure us that well behaving shops will be treated appropriately, and that may be the case today under sensible counsellors.

But imagine if one of the councils became run by the Green Party, for example, the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett, who I don't see in her usual place, has made clear her opposition to cigars, citing unsubstantiated data that 35% of 11 to 17 year olds had tried a cigarillo in the last year alone. By the way, machine made cigarillos are a totally different product and we do not defend them and they are not relevant to this debate. She, along with Baroness Northover of the Liberal Democrats, also, if I may say slightly bizarrely suggested that cigars were somehow the preserve of the masculine right led by Andrew Tate.

Are they suggesting that I am some sort of red pill masculine chauvinist? Such stereotypes do not do credit to the industry and the people who are trying to make a living within it. And I should point out that I have never circuit trained in case anyone was concerned. And every cigar smoker I know is marked out by their mild manner and sensible politics. I would also add that the Green Party want to legalise drugs, and I think they made that announcement on the same day that they came down so heavily on cigars.

By the way, I'm not against that at all as a libertarian, but it seems to me to be inconsistent, to say the least, that under their benign rule, you will be able to legally take cocaine but not smoke a Cohiba. The future would not be entrusted hands at all. Which is why we are looking for these reassurances. So can the noble Baroness Minister make a clear statement about this situation and put our minds at rest, that Davidoff's is not to be turned into a drugs den.
16:17
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I'm. >> Very glad to follow. >> My noble friend. Although I fear after his poetry I will be much after his poetry I will be much more prosaic. I want to speak to amendment 21, in the name of my noble friend, moved by my noble friend, and it is about the implementation. I want particularly to talk about the implementation of the Enforcement and Licensing scheme in relation to vaping and nicotine products. During the course of committee, we discussed at that time the question of how the government might implement the registration and licensing scheme and the regulation of vaping and nicotine products in cooperation with industry.

I'm grateful to the Minister for the subsequent discussion we had and indeed for her letter, although I have to say that her letter, insofar as it followed up the analogy which we used in the debate with the role of the Portman Group in relation to alcohol and the regulation of alcohol products, her letter referred to the wrong bit of what the Portman Group does, which she referred to the voluntary aspects of what they do in relation to advertising and sponsorship, whereas the the correct bit of the correct analogy that we're looking for here is what they do in relation to the naming, packaging and protection code.

And essentially what that does is it ensures that where products are put on the market, which are intended to appeal to children as determined by their adjudication panel, it is then able to be notified to retailers, and the retailers ensure that the product is not stocked. Now, in this bill and in relation to vaping and nicotine products, as the Minister will be aware, there is intended to be a tighter regime than is the case in relation to alcohol products.

And but I think that still lends itself to the Co-regulatory solution, not because the industry is looking for a voluntary solution, but they're looking for a more proportionate and effective solution. And and in particular, what I want to make clear is that in essence, if there is a register of products and in clause 94, there will be a register of products, there will then have to be somebody who makes a judgement, whether a product that is registered is compliant with the requirements, not to be intended to be attractive to children.

The the essence of what we're setting out to do is to avoid children accessing or being attracted to vapes. That's essentially what we're directing to now. This scheme in the bill needs somebody whose job it is to do that job, like the adjudication panel does. And then, of course, through the licensing that is here in this in this clause, it is available then for the the conditions to be attached to licences for retailers to make it clear that if there is an adverse adjudication in relation to a product that is registered, then it would not be stopped by the retailers.

So this isn't voluntary. This is seems to me to be intended to be watertight. But of course somebody somewhere has to make an adjudication, whether the naming or the packaging or the promotion of a product, it may be compliant with the legislation, but nonetheless is intended to be attractive to children. And as the Minister will know, these are there will be a series, inevitably a series of judgements over time that will have to be made. And the, I think the less the least proportionate approach to this is for there to be a constant effort on the part of the government and the government department to try and establish in regulations what is and is not permissible.

Much better to have a process, as the Portland Group does, by which an adjudication panel arrives at a at a quick and effective solution. What I'm asking the Minister, if I may, is that we continue the debate which he has kindly entered into with me, but in particular that officials use the time which my noble friend in amendment 21 is looking for to ensure that we have an implementable solution which the vaping industry can, and the retailing industry in particular, can be confident and put in place in the course of a period of time that my noble friend is looking for before commencement of those provisions.

amendments.
16:22
Lord Strathcarron Portrait Lord Strathcarron (Non-affiliated)
-
-
In this group. If there is to be a retail licensing scheme, it needs to be more robust, fairer and more enforceable than currently envisaged. It needs to respect and reward those retailers who are already complying with the law. And this is the point behind amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 15. In the name of the noble Lord, the Earl of Lindsey, another noble Lords, and identify and punish those who are operating illicitly and illegally. And this is the point behind amendments 31 and 34.

The name in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lords Minister, the noble Lord, the Earl of Lindsay's amendment proposed that existing, compliant and currently exempted specialist tobacconists selling handmade Caribbean cigars are automatically included in the new retail licensing scheme. This tiny number of about 120 microbusinesses, many of them multi-generational, are already facing the prospect of the damage done to their business by the proposed packaging regulations and albeit in many years to come, as their customers are almost exclusively into early or late middle age, the prospect of competing with illicit sales as a consequence of the generational ban part of this bill, as they are the very model of compliant, law abiding, specialist retailers.

Would it not be only fair to at least give them the certainty that they would automatically be included in the retail licensing scheme, and would it not lessen the burden and cost of the new licensing regime itself, if they automatically had 120 responsible businesses with a proven track record of being good actors in the tobacco area, already having been granted licences? My Lords, the noble Baroness, the Minister has already said that she's not in the business of putting small businesses out of business, so I hope the government will favourably on these amendments, which would give it an easy way of keeping at least some of these businesses in business.

Amendments 31 and 34 recognise the reality that many tobacco products are sold from premises which not only sell alcohol, but which derive most of their business from alcohol. As drafted, there would be two separate licensing regimes, one for alcohol and the other for tobacco products. My Lords, would not alcohol retailers be far more circumspect about selling illicit tobacco products? If by doing so, they risk losing their alcohol licence and therefore their main source of income, would not trading standard, officers and local authorities find it much easier to enforce one combined licence than two separate ones would not illicit products supply chains be more easily disrupted if they were to lose their sales outlets through an unrelated alcohol penalty.

And finally, on these amendments, and here we cross over to the previous amendments. Would it not be fairer for existing specialist tobacconists if the bad actors were discouraged from unfairly competing with the good actors by having their alcohol licence removed, and thus their businesses seriously affected?
16:26
Lord Mendelsohn Portrait Lord Mendelsohn (Labour)
-
-
Lord Tope I rise briefly to >> Lord Tope I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment, standing in my name together with the noble Lord, the Earl of Lindsey, the noble Lord, the Earl of Lindsey, and the noble Lord Lord Johnson of Lainston, which as as referenced by many of the previous speakers, deal with the grandfathering rights that we would hope to get for these particularly small businesses in this sector. I'd like to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister also, for her engagement on this, on this and these issues and her willingness to take meetings and to have discussions on this.

My Lords, it has been it has been said. But I do think it is worth emphasising that, of course, these hand-rolled cigars are a very distinctive business, which of course does have a different health impact, does have a different profile of not having youth adoption, but I just rule reference again, that of course, this does actually have a significant element of economic benefit for the luxury tourist industry, which is an important component, particularly of a country with the with the tourist profile that we have, and therefore these businesses, small in number, that they are, offer a very distinctive service to the nation and they should be considered carefully with the impact of the proposed legislation.

There are distinct production methods, consumption patterns, market demographics of these products, and and therefore the risks of imposing a regulatory framework designed really for industrial size manufacture onto a small scale, family orientated and economically sensitive sector really does require adequate proportionality. These amendments are designed in order to do that, and the 120 or so businesses which would be covered by this particular series of amendments, and where there are huge concerns about economic viability, together with all the other matters, which of course, small businesses where where the government has a very strong concern that we make sure that we don't always legislate impeding the opportunities for small businesses.

These are very important principles that we should adhere to. And therefore these amendments offer a clear and enforceable definitions to ensure that the legislation can be targeted and proportionate. It doesn't undermine any of the public health objectives, but they define its application to ensure that vulnerable specialist tobacco vendors are granted a retail licence under the new scheme, with, again, the right sort of arrangements to allow flexibility in the circumstances of rental increases and other sorts of things which are particularly impactful on these size of businesses.

So I would hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, is able to give some reassurance that these matters have been considered carefully, and the significance and the opportunities for these companies to continue to exist are supported by the government.
16:29
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I respond to this group of amendments concerning the proposed retail licence scheme for tobacco and nicotine products. We welcome the inclusion of a retail licensing scheme in this bill. This is a significant and constructive addition to earlier versions. The proposal represents a major step forward in strengthening the regulation of tobacco and nicotine sales in the UK. It brings the sale of tobacco into line with established practice for alcohol. Tobacco, of course, remains a single most harmful product that is still readily available.

It is the single biggest cause of preventable illness and early death in the United Kingdom. It therefore follows that the sale of these products should be subject to comparable regulatory oversight. Extending the oversight oversight to vapes and other nicotine products will further assist trading standards in addressing non-compliant, unregistered and underage sales. This combination of proportionate regulation, clear enforcement powers will help to protect both the public and responsible retailers from unscrupulous and illegal competition. The principle underpinning this reform is simple the right to sell products that carry health risks must come with clear responsibilities.

We want a system that supports compliance, deters abuse, but place it, but places public health at its heart. Turning first to amendment 21, a move by the noble Lord Lord Howell and Lord Carmel, this amendment would ensure a minimum of one year gap for regulations being from regulations being passed to coming into effect, allowing for a transition period. We entirely understand the wish to allow retailers, local authorities and other enforcement bodies adequate time to prepare for the new framework.

Implementation must be orderly and practical. However, setting a fixed one year time delay in primary legislation risks creating unnecessarily rigid constraints. Some elements of the scheme may be ready to begin earlier, while others may benefit from a longer period of time. The government's approach to determine the precise timing through secondary legislation, informed by evidence gathered by those affected through consultation and negotiation, will ensure that transition happens as smoothly and credibly as possible. I we have taken note.

I've listened carefully to the points made by the Earl of Lindsay in relation to amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 relating to how existing specialist tobacco tobacconists should be treated within the new regime, including questions of transitional protection and possible exemptions. We recognise already that the government has made some considerable steps in these areas. We, while we fully recognise the intention here, that of trying to give certainty to small specialist retailers that have operated responsibly and reasonably within the law for many, many years.

However, these amendments would in fact would in effect enshrined grandfather rights in primary legislation automatically conferring licences or permanent exemptions from any future limits on the number or distribution of these outlets throughout the United Kingdom and devolved administrations. This would effectively pre-empt the consultation process and remove discretion before any evidence had been gathered and any evidence had been assessed in any way at all. It is important that all aspects of eligibility, transitional arrangements and the scope of any future caps or location based controls are properly considered through consultation, considering not only the interests of the existing traders, but also the wider objectives of public health, community protection and fair enforcement.

Given that this applies to existing retailers, not new ones, it does seem that these points should be made within the consultation, and we hope that the Minister does indeed do that and is open and considerate to these small and normally very, very compliant retailers as has been made considerably a few times. We imagine that the retail licensing scheme will differentiate between the different types of retailers, but given that all the details are yet to be confirmed, these amendments to us feel premature.

Amendments. Turning to amendments 24 and 25. These relate to national registers and a unified digital portal. Again, to us, this feels like these things will be necessary for any licensing scheme. And therefore these amendments, we assume, are not necessary. But it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that. Finally, on amendments 31 and 44 regarding alcohol licences, we believe that this is already possible. But if the Minister could confirm, it would again be useful, I would just like to pick up one point that was made in the debate, though, and that that really is in the as this bill is envisaged, where there's breaches made under one licence, it would be helpful if the Minister could just say a word about how that breach would be communicated and passed on to the people that are regulating the other licences, and how the Minister feels that these two licensing schemes would, would work and interact with each other, specifically in relation to place.

place.
16:35
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I'm most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This debate, as well as the engagement that noble Lords have been good enough to give their time to before report. Let me start with to before report. Let me start with the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, the UK government, Lord Lindsay, the UK government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive are carefully considering the design of the considering the design of the licensing scheme. A recent joint call for evidence did ask detailed questions about implementation and this included specifically inviting feedback on whether applications for existing businesses should be treated differently to those for new businesses, and whether factors such as the location and the density of retailers should have a role in granting licensing.

And I know that in particular from the debate today, that the question about existing businesses has is a matter of concern to noble Lords. We we are aware that under reforms to alcohol licensing through the Licensing Act, existing compliant businesses were indeed brought onto the new system as noble Lords have referred to before. Using grandfathering arrangements, I can assure noble Lords we are considering this carefully alongside the feedback from our call for evidence, and we will invite further feedback when we consult on our proposals.

However, the main point that I would like to make clear and again, a number of noble Lords have asked about this, and rightly so, but I want to emphasise the government does not wish to create a scheme, as I've said before, which arbitrarily puts law abiding retailers out of business. That is absolutely not the intent of this policy. And to a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the noble Lord Earl Russell, and my noble friend Lord Mendelson, who, along with others, another other noble Lords, did raise questions about specialist tobacconists, which we have discussed, and rightly so, on a number of occasions.

With regard in particular to various regulations that we have spoken about, noble Lords has, have and and also broadly about specialist tobacconists as the noble Lord. Lord Johnson did acknowledge. I did give the assurances at Report stage day one last week, and I hope that they have been heard. My Lords, we do want a scheme that is proportionate and fair, and I believe noble Lords want that as well, and proportionate and fair, particularly to the many. And I want to emphasise that because they deserve credit, the many existing businesses that operate responsibly, whilst we also want to deter those who break the law, which was called for by the noble Lord Lord Strathcarron.

Again, feedback on our proposals will help us strike the right balance. So whilst I can't accept the noble Earls Amendment, I hope that I have provided some reassurance that we are considering the details of the scheme in a way which is sympathetic to his aims. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister for tabling amendments 24 and 25, and the noble Lord Lord Kamall for tabling amendment 21. A I am sympathetic to what noble Lords are seeking to achieve from these amendments.

We do agree with the need to introduce more rigour around who can sell these products, and to minimise additional burdens on retailers and local authorities as far as possible. And we also share the desire of the noble Lord Lord Kamall, to ensure that retailers have enough time to prepare for the new licensing scheme. However, I do believe that these amendments are not needed as they are questions about how the scheme is implemented effectively and this is something we need to consider properly.

And the noble Lord Earl Russell referred to this. We need to consider it through consultation to the noble Lord Earl Howe. I can confirm, as I've done before, that we are in regular contact with retail associations on implementation of the Bill, including the design of the future licensing scheme, and this work will continue. And the noble Lord Lord Lansley. I know how strongly he feels about the point that he is raising, and I can say to that point that we have engaged with the UK's main independent vaping bodies and they are the UK Vaping Industry Association and the independent British Vape Trade Association, and that engagement will continue and we will continue to hear the considerations and those of their members.

But ultimately our policy decisions on future regulations will be guided by evidence. And, as noble Lords are aware, evidence to protect and improve public health. So I appreciate the noble Lord Lord Lansley you, which is different to the one that I am suggesting, but I hope he can be reassured about our engagement directly with those bodies, because we feel that is the right thing to do. My Lords, I want to again reference our call for evidence, which asked about what support retailers and local authorities may require, and encourage feedback on what works for existing licensing schemes.

It also asked a specific question about how long is required to implement the scheme. All things rightly, of concern to noble Lords in this group and the noble Lord Earl Howe did raise the point about timings, how the timetable will go and including a lead in time. Well, we are considering these issues carefully, reflecting on the feedback that we have received before consulting on our proposals. And the noble Lord Earl Howe also asked me for again, understandably asked for an update on the feedback in the call for evidence.

And that is important because feedback will, as the noble Lord knows, inform our proposals for consultation. I'm not able today to provide the update which the noble Lord rightly seeks, not least because we are still considering the returns from the call from evidence which closed at the end of last year. But I can say that in our view, there is no need to introduce legislative requirements as within these amendments before consultation has taken place. The noble Lord Earl Russell made this point about the amendments being somewhat premature.

I know, although they are with the best of intentions, but the government is indeed fully committed to ensuring this fair and reasonable time for businesses to adapt to any new regulatory regime. So, turning to the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister amendments 31 and 44, I am again sympathetic to what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, where a business is found to have not complied with tobacco and vape legislation, it makes sense to bring into question whether that business is acting responsibly, responsibly in relation to other products.

However, any action that licensing authorities take against businesses should, as we would all expect, should be justifiable and proportionate and a decision to suspend or revoke a business's licence might have a significant impact on their livelihood and should not be taken lightly. Again, as noble Lords have rightly made the point in this chamber. My Lords, we are talking here about different products, and it might not always be the case that non-compliance with one licensing scheme means that a business is non-compliant with another.

It is important that licensing authorities take decisions with evidence of the businesses capability to sell specific products, in line with the objectives of the respective licensing schemes. However, where I do agree is that breaching a tobacco and vape licensing might I agree that breaching a tobacco and vape licensing may indeed be a useful signal for licensing authorities to more closely investigate a business's compliance with their alcohol licence, or vice versa, something the noble Lord Earl Russell also asked about.

Licensing authorities can and should use their judgement and knowledge of a business's track record to inform the level of scrutiny that they apply. This includes where there are concerns of business is not complying with one scheme. Carrying out additional checks to ensure compliance with other licensing licences they may hold and taking appropriate action where needed. I hope that noble Lords are reassured not only today, but also in the engagement that we have had prior to today, and that the noble Lord Lord Kamall, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
16:46
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. >> To. >> My amendment, which was largely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment, which was largely reassuring. Her response provided useful clarity, because I think we all agree that with the new all agree that with the new licensing regime, enforcement must be effective and proportionate, whilst also ensuring that businesses, especially smaller businesses, have time to prepare. I welcome the Minister's assurances on this. I do, however, think that useful progress could be made if the will is there on the constructive ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about which I know she has had discussions with him.

Last week the noble Baroness provided welcome assurances to my noble friend Lord Lindsay on specialist tobacconists. She acknowledged their unique character and indicated that it isn't the government's intention to remove the existing exemption, which allows such premises to display tobacco products, provided that those products aren't visible from from outside. In relation to my noble friend's amendments in this group, I thought the logic of his case was compelling, and I was therefore encouraged to hear the Minister say that the government was sympathetic to the aims implicit in the amendment.

So I look forward to some good news on that front. I hope my hopes are not misplaced there in relation to the amendments from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I thought these contained some interesting ideas because they are all aimed at strengthening enforcement, improving verification processes and more broadly, simplifying the operation of the licensing regime. And as he said, there could also be benefits for consumer confidence, all of which are a good thing. So whether or not my noble friend withdraws his amendments in due course, I do hope that the government might take some of his ideas away and give them further consideration.

Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw amendment 21 a is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it your Lordships pleasure that. Amendment 21 be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 21 be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. That brings us to amendment 22. Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Moved. Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Moved. Lord Lindsay, amendment 23 not moved. Not moved. We can do the next three as a bundle. En bloc amendments 24 as a bundle. En bloc amendments 24 to 26 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Moved. That should then bring us on to the next substantive group of amendments, which is Baroness Merron amendment.
16:48
None Portrait Amdt. 27 Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move amendment 27 in my name. This group of amendments was tabled in my name for committee, but was not moved at the time. Government amendments 67, 69 and 74 are also needed as part of these changes. However, as these amendments also required for changes, the government is introducing to the use of proceeds from fixed penalty notices, they will be moved formally as part of the next group. At the moment, the bill places responsibility on trading standards to enforce the future licensing scheme.

However, the licensing authority for the scheme will be set out in regulations. The licensing authority may sit in a different tier of local government from trading standards and therefore, as the Bill is currently drafted, would not be able to enforce the scheme. Feedback from stakeholders has suggested that enforcement of the licensing scheme would be stronger and more seamless if those responsible for administering the scheme could also enforce it. These amendments will therefore ensure that whoever is designated as the licensing authority for the scheme will have the powers to do so.

In any scenario, trading standing Trading Standards officers will still will be still able to enforce the scheme alongside the licensing authority. These amendments will help the licensing scheme achieve its aims of supporting legitimate businesses, whilst tackling those who disregard the law and in doing so, support public health. I will now turn to Government amendments 144 and 145. Amendment 145 was tabled in my name at Committee stage but wasn't moved. It has now also been necessary to table amendment 144 which is connected.

These amendments seek to resolve an issue which has arisen during the passage of the Bill. The product, Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals certain enforcement procedures and provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. As currently drafted, clause 103 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which rely on these provisions. Therefore, without amendment, there is a risk we may not be able to confer the necessary powers on enforcement authorities. Amendment 145 allows for equivalent enforcement powers to be provided, to be provided for by the enforcement of regulations made under part five of the bill, without referring to the Consumer Protection Act.

In doing so, it ensures that regulations made under part five of the act are fully enforceable. Amendment 144 allows for flexibility in the penalties that can be imposed by regulations under part five of the bill. This flexibility will enable regulations creating new offences to replace certain offences from the Consumer Protection Act, and to provide for the lesser penalties associated with them. The amendment retains the maximum term of imprisonment the Bill currently provides for. As a safeguard, government amendment 49 corrects a minor drafting error in the bill.

It does not reflect a change in policy. Finally, government amendments 208 to 2 one five are consequential changes as a result of changes made by the legislation. Procedure, Publication and Repeals Wales Act 2025. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.
16:52
16:53
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
I will also be brief. I'm grateful for the support from the noble Lord Earl Russell. And as I stated in my opening speech, these amendments do serve to strengthen the overall enforcement of the bill as well as the processes for future regulation, something I know is of concern to both frontbenchers as well as all noble Lords. So for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this reason, I beg to move. The amendment. Question is that amendment 27 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that amendment 27 be agreed to as opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. Bear with me. There's a have it. Bear with me. There's a whole lot of me and very little of you coming up. Amendments 28 and 29 move formally Baroness Merron. The move formally Baroness Merron. The question is that amendments 28 and 29 en bloc be agreed to, as that opinion will say, content, not opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it amendment after clause 18, amendment 30.

Lord Lindsay is not in his place, but I'm assuming that will not be moved. Lord Udny-Lister amendment 31 not moved. That brings us on to a group of amendments 32 to 41 En bloc move formally Baroness Merron Oral Questions amendments 32 to 41 En bloc be agreed to, as opinion will say, content not content. The contents have it. That brings us to amendment 42. Lord Udny-Lister not moved, moved, bringing us on to Lord Lindsay who's not in his place. Amendment 43, I'm assuming, therefore not moved after clause 22, amendment 44 Lord Udny-Lister not moved.

Moved Lord Lindsay again, not in his place, but amendment 45 not moved. That brings us to clause 23, amendment 46 previously debated Lord Udny-Lister not moved, moved. We then make some more progress. Amendments 47 and 48 En bloc Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Not moved. That brings us to the substantive point on clause 31, Baroness Merron amendment 49. Oh no, it's still me. You're right. No, not quite right. Sorry I was. The excitement got too much for me moved. We are going to then take amendments 49 to 59 En bloc moved formerly En bloc moved formally.

The question, therefore, is that amendments 49 to 59 be agreed to as is, I will say, content, not content. The contents have it nearly there. That brings us to amendment 60. Previously debated Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Not moved. That brings us to amendment 61 and 62. Move formally Baroness Mone. Formally, the question is that amendment 61 and 62 be agreed to, as opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. That brings us to clause 37, amendment 63. Previously debated Lord Udny-Lister not moved, not moved.

We should now be on to the substantive amendment Baroness Merron, clause 38, amendment 64.
16:56
None Portrait Amdt. 64 Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move amendment 64 standing in my name. amendment 64 standing in my name. In an earlier group, I spoke to the importance of fixed penalty notices in the bill, as they provide Trading standards officers with an additional enforcement tool to bring retailers into compliance without taking up court resource. I have carefully considered the points that have been raised by noble Lords during committee about the proceeds of fixed penalty notices issued for licensing offences, including those made by the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley.

I am therefore pleased to have tabled these amendments because they will allow local authorities in England and Wales to retain all of the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing fixed penalty notices for enforcement purposes, rather than having to return proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. This will enable local authorities to reinvest proceeds into strengthening the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation, something that noble Lords have asked for. In addition, we are also investing up to £10 million of new funding in Trading Standards annually until 20 2829 to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes, and to help enforce the law.

This funding is being used to boost the trading standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England, and we will continue to provide funding to support the apprentices over the next three years as they complete their training. Trading standards do play an essential role in ensuring compliance with tobacco and vape legislation. The enforcement provisions in this bill, further strengthened by this amendment, will give them the tools they need to carry out that role. Proper enforcement of the law will protect the public from potential health harms and help to release help to realise public health outcomes from policies in the bill and other tobacco and vape legislation.

For these reasons, I do hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the government amendments in this group.
16:59
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Proposed clause eight, page, >> Proposed clause eight, page, page 20. Line 17. Leave out subsections one and two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsections one and two. My Lords. I rise. To speak to amendment 66 and 68, in my name. These amendments provide that the money collected by trading standards and small fines imposed by fixed penalty notices for offences other than those related to the licensing regulations, should go towards smoking cessation services provided by the relevant local authority. This is something that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since the bill was first introduced to Parliament. My Lords, I've modified my Committee stage amendment because the Minister convinced me that I should not request that the larger fines for offences against the licensing regulations in subsections one and two of the clause should be diverted to smoking cessation services, because it might deter local authorities from enforcing the regulations if they were to be financially penalised.

By doing so. I accepted the noble Lady, the minister's argument, so I focussed my amendments on sections three and four of the clause 38, which relate to the smaller fines of £200 or £100 if paid promptly. These are enforced by Trading standards offices. In the normal course of their work, they tell me that the government has provided funds for more people, but there are still costs relating to collecting the fixed penalty notice fines. But the additional government funding and the licence fee should cover that.

My Lords, my amendments focus on the fact that despite the welcome additional £70 million for local authorities secured for three years, many local smoking cessation services cannot afford to provide the full range of methods of helping smokers to quit. There has been a lot of success. The number of people successfully quitting with local stop smoking services in England has risen by 34% since 2223, from 95,400, up to 127,541, but there are still 5.3 million smokers across the UK, and we need a broader approach to help them to quit.

Most services provide nicotine replacement methods, which is fine for smokers who just want to avoid the dangers of tobacco smoke. But it doesn't help those who find it very difficult to quit, or who want to kick their addiction to nicotine. Nicotine, as we all know, is very addictive and will cost the user a lot of money for the rest of their lives. So hence the demand for non-nicotine replacement methods. One of the methods that has been found to be extremely effective is through pharmaceutical drugs such as varenicline, which work on the brain receptors that respond to nicotine.

Smoking cessation services tell me that these work extremely well and permanently, but they also tell me that they cannot provide this method because they can't afford to have a prescriber on hand. Instead, they have to refer the patient to a GP and this costs money. So for this and other reasons, I'm looking for ways of getting more money to local authority, local authorities so that they can fund these services more generously and appropriately, in line with the need and demand. However, the noble Baroness, the Minister, has just told us that the government amendments will allow local authorities to keep the full amount of all the fines to spend on enforcement, not just the amount it costs them in court fees or administration.

My Lords, that is very good news and I welcome it and thank the noble Baroness, the Minister. I'm assuming that this will leave the local authorities more money to spend on a wider range of smoking cessation services. So with that assumption, I welcome the government's compromise and do not intend to press my amendments. But perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Just one final comment, if I may, whilst I'm on my feet. I was disappointed not to be able to be here last week due to illness, and so I couldn't speak on amendment 204 on the polluter pays levy.

But I did watch online. I was also disappointed that the minister's response, in particular the assertion that we already have such a levy through excise taxation, which is not the case as all costs are passed on to consumers whilst companies continue to make huge profits. So I'd just say to the noble Baroness, the Minister who's been most helpful in this group already, I hope to continue this conversation beyond the passage of this bill.
17:04
17:04
17:05
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 to this debate and I can assure the noble Lord Lord Kamall there are no limits to Lord Kamall there are no limits to the amount of praise that can be received by Ministers on this front bench, and noble Lords should feel free at any time to heap praise. We will always be grateful. And but I am very grateful that there has been a welcome from the noble Lord Lord Lansley, the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley, who we are very pleased to see back in her place in good health, and also thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carmel.

Turning to the noble Lady's amendment 66 and 68, I have heard the call, for as the noble Lady described a broad approach, as the noble Lady set out. And to that point I can say that we do recognise the importance of local smoking cessation services, and that is the very reason that we are investing an additional £260 million over the next three years within the public health grant. This will mean at least 150 million is ring fenced for stop smoking services every year.

The funding is protected as the noble Lady seeks and cannot be used for other public health initiatives. It provides assurance and stability for these essential services. In addition, we have extended the National Smoke Free Pregnancy Incentive Scheme for a further three years from 2026 27 to 20 2829, with funding worth up to £15 million 5 million per annum. We are also committed to integrating opt out smoking cessation services into routine care within all hospitals, as set out in the ten year health plan.

I do hope that this reassures the noble Lady, the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, about how committed we are to providing support for smokers to quit without the need to fund services using proceeds from fixed penalty notices. Instead, as your Lordships House has heard, we do believe that proceeds can be better used by local authorities on the enforcement of the bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. It is important that local authorities are able to retain the proceeds to cover their costs from issuing fixed penalty notices and reinvest any remaining funds in enforcement.

Strong enforcement of the measures in this bill and other tobacco and vape legislation will help ensure we deliver our ambition to achieve a smoke free UK and to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. In other words, I'm saying to the very important points that the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley is pursuing through these amendments, that ultimately is the best way of reducing smoking. My Lords Government amendment 64, 65, 67, 69 and 74 will support this by allowing local authorities to retain all of the proceeds from the 2500 licensing offence, fixed penalty notices, as well as the 200 fixed penalty notices in the bill.

This does go further than noble Lords were originally requesting. So with that, I do hope that noble Lords will support these important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments and I beg to move. Question is that amendment 64 be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. content. The contents have it. Amendment 65 moved formally. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. As many as of that agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it as amendment 65 has been have it as amendment 65 has been agreed.

I cannot call amendment 66 for reasons of pre-emption. Amendment 67 moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as have that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it, and as that amendment has been, has been agreed. I cannot call amendment 68 for reasons of pre-emption. Government amendment 69 through to 75 move. Formally, the question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content.

The contents have it now. We have a group of amendments already debated amendment 76 Earl Russell not moved. Amendment 77 Baroness Bennett not moved. Amendment 78 Lord Murray. 7879 80 8182. Lord Murray not moved in clause 44, amendment 80, government amendments 83 to 86. Baroness Merron moved formally En bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content and to the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

Amendment 87 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 88 Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to as members of that opinion will say content and to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 89 and 90 Lord Udny-Lister not moved after clause 48, amendment 91 Baroness Hoey.
17:11
None Portrait Amdt. 91 Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-

I move, I'd like to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The name of myself and the noble Lord Dodds of Duncairn. Amendment 120 201 216. In the name of the noble Lord Dobbs and Lord Naseby. And also to say at the beginning that I wholeheartedly support amendment 207. I'm not actually referring to that. My Lords, when referring to that. My Lords, when the Windsor framework was proposed, I and others warned that it would be anti-democratic in the sense that it would lead to laws being introduced in Northern Ireland, that the people had no democratic say over.

And we warned that it would mean laws approved by our elected parliament sometimes could be blocked in a constituent part of the United Kingdom. So these amendments are all about the primacy of our law over EU law. Since the framework EU rules have quietly been applied to Northern Ireland, affecting items such as mundane tumble dryers, smartphones, vehicle imports, all of very irritating, all very anti-democratic and anti-democratic. But this is really on a different scale, this bill, because the generational smoking ban and the Tobacco and Vapes Bill are a flagship policy of His Majesty's Government.

They were in Labour's manifesto and they've been they have sweeping implications which have been debated on trade for retailers and for hospitality. And they touch on civil liberties, on our culture and on the integrity of the Union. So when foreign states seek to use the Windsor framework to obstruct the implementation of this legislation in Northern Ireland, the matter just cannot be simply waved away. And I'm afraid that's precisely what the government appears to be doing on this issue. Right from the beginning of of the Second Reading, when it was debated, seven EU member states have said that the bill violates EU tobacco directives and undermines the single market, and they have formally registered their opposition and called for the law to be blocked.

Now, the government's response is first to say it has a different interpretation of the law, and second, that even if that is wrong, it should be able to proceed on public health grounds. But, my Lords, we've known about the legal issues this Bill faces in Northern Ireland for over a year, and King's counsels, former Ministers, leading journalists, leading academics have raised the alarm. And of course, they've been proved right on other bills that government legal experts have said would be fine and nothing could stop them being implemented in Northern Ireland.

And then, of course, we saw that they could, after months of uncertainty and months of parliamentary questions being met with silence or one line answers, and after months of evasion, we still haven't really had a clear answer. When I asked the attorney general for clarity, of course I, as I said at committee, I was told to ask the Minister instead. So Baroness Merron became not just defending the bill, but doubling as the government's attorney general. And so I still am asking, why does the government believe it is right and seven EU states are wrong? And why did Denmark and Ireland have to abandon almost identical proposals because of EU law? But our government insists it can press ahead regardless.

Northern Ireland is subject to the same directives and rules because of the Windsor framework, and the government is proceeding in a way that leaves this policy open to challenge in EU legal mechanisms and potentially, of course, financial penalties, although I would hope you would never actually pay them. It is proceeding in a way that leaves Northern Ireland in a suspended state of uncertainty. Retailers, traders and shopkeepers will pay the price and those who thrive on their illicit trade.

The black marketeers, the criminal gangs and those who exploit smuggling routes will benefit. Now some noble Lords may ask, given my views on the European Union, why am I not pleased that the government is, in a sense, standing up to Brussels? It's not that simple. We should never have, of course, been placed in a position where the EU can interfere in the operation of British legislation in parts of the United Kingdom, and it make matters worse, not better, that we now have an arrangement in which the EU can object when it suits and look the other way when it suits, and Northern Ireland is left to carry the risk, the cost and the uncertainty.

It's an insult to Northern Ireland, to our businesses, to our traders, to our people and to United Kingdom law enforcement. The key legislation affecting daily life is left for lawyers to argue over. Imagine if you're running a corner shop in Northern Ireland. You invest in all the things that you need to invest in to deal with this bill. Your staff are expected to police a rolling age threshold, distinguishing between a 27 and a 28 year old illicit products undercut you at a fraction of the price.

Customers can cross the border to buy what is restricted on one side but not the other. And then, after you've spent the time and money adapting, the legal and political uncertainty returns again, and the law could even be reversed because the courts will be involved. And I have to say to anyone who knows about Northern Ireland, lawfare is absolutely rife in Northern Ireland. And this isn't a theoretical concern. It's happening now. It affects every person in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom throughout, not just business.

And this is the first serious test of the Windsor framework, the first major disagreement between the UK and the EU over a significant new policy being implemented in in our province since we left the European Union, disagreement has led only to more disagreement, and uncertainty has led only to more uncertainty. It really is a mess. And I do say to the House that these amendments are designed to pretend not to pretend that everything is OK. We should be treating this debacle, really, I would say, as a warning, and reassess the underlying flaws of the Windsor framework, how it is at its core, anti-democratic and how it will over time.

And we are already seeing our United Kingdom apart, one rule at a time. What really is baffling and surprises me is that a government which claims it wants to reset with the EU is now seemingly picking a fight with seven EU states and the European Commission and branding their interpretation of UQ of EU law as wrong. And it's insisting on implementing a measure that is incompatible with the rules of the Windsor framework of the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Directive, which this government claims to support.

And I wonder, is it that the government has been given some form of private assurance or reassurance that the Commission doesn't intend to take enforcement action? Perhaps the EU intends to change its tobacco directives in future, but it would be a disgrace if Northern Ireland's constitutional position and the practical realities of its laws were being decided through backroom understandings and wink and nod politics. And I think we are entitled here in this House to know if this is happening. It would also be a damning indictment of the Windsor framework, if it can only function through secrecy, and by asking the UK either to test or bend or breach the very rules it says it is operating under, we deserve better in Northern Ireland and we deserve better in the United Kingdom, and that's why I really cannot understand why the government should not publish its legal advice in full.

They do so occasionally. Over the weekend they published their advice on the US jets using British bases. But after months we've had nothing on this critical constitutional issue. And I have to say that the noble Lord Hermer, the attorney general, I think, has been very, very bad in the way that he has not even wanted or tried to engage on this issue with any of us from Northern Ireland. A government full of lawyers and led by a lawyer who seems obsessed actually about international law, should explain clearly how it claims it can proceed, how it claims it can override EU objections, and what the risks are for Northern Ireland if it is wrong, and for this Bill, we deserve transparency.

And the United Kingdom deserves better than a system where laws affecting one part of our country can be challenged, delayed or diluted by external actors. While Ministers shrug and asked to take it on trust. We've taken it on trust before, and we were proved that that was something we couldn't do again. My Lords, for those reasons, I cannot support the approach that has been taken on this and I beg to move my amendments.
17:21
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
After clause 48 amendment proposed, insert the new clause as proposed, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, amendment 202, in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 202, in my name and that of the. Noble Baroness Walmsley Northover puts a requirement on the Secretary of requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap to a smoke free country every five years, and it then sets out some specific obligations that should be included within that roadmap. The bill is world leading and I welcome that, but it does very little for current smokers, of whom there are still about 5.3 million left in the UK.

And without a comprehensive strategy to ensure that current smokers are supported to quit, with certain groups being left behind from a smoke free future. And of course, we'll have to wait several generations, several decades for the smoke free generation to take over. The previous conservative government actually published the 2017 Tobacco Control Plan, which set out key areas of focus and the ambition of creating a smoke free generation by tackling youth smoking. And this was then accompanied by the Tobacco Control Delivery Plan, which enabled relevant partners and services to implement that plan.

Now these have both expired and there is no current strategy in place on tobacco. The Labour Party pledged to publish such a strategy in the health Mission document build an NHS fit for the future, saying it was important that it should be. No one should be left behind and this is what it actually said. We will build on the success of the last Labour government with a roadmap to a smoke free Britain. So basically my amendment asks the government to make good on that promise now that they are in power.

Now, it's disappointing that when I raised this in committee, the noble Lady, the Minister said, I quote, there are no plans to develop a report on specific targets or to publish a roadmap at this time, which seems a very clear rejection of the commitment that I've just read out. But the reason the noble Lady the Minister gave, I think, lacked substance. She justified this by saying, I quote. It was because we are focusing our attention and ambition on making sure we can deliver the bill and work on the regulations that will follow.

End of quotes. But the amendment simply asks for a report every five years. Indeed, there's no requirement to produce one until 2031. It's not going to take that long. Firstly, to deliver the bill, hopefully by the end of this session and then introduce the regulations shortly after. So I hope she comes to the House today with a more robust defence of the abandonment of the commitment I have referred to. A roadmap would include a clear target to end smoking in 2023.

The Khan Review found that England will miss the smoke free 2030 target by at least seven years, and the poorest areas in society will not meet it in 20 until 2044. When I asked the Minister about this in committee, she said, and again, I quote, we are going even further than the smoke free 2030 target. As I've mentioned throughout, our ambition is for a smoke free UK and creating the first smoke free generation. Excellent. I entirely applaud that. But without a roadmap we won't know if or indeed how that ambition is going to be delivered.

Now, I appreciate that the government has tabled amendment 205, which requires the government to carry out a review no earlier than four years and no later than seven. And my noble friend Lord Lansley has tabled his amendment to a six, which I am sure he will speak to in a moment. But the government amendment is actually very little different to what should happen anyway. All government departments are expected to review new legislation 3 to 5 years after Royal Assent, known as Post-legislative scrutiny, and this typically assesses how the act has worked in practice and whether it has met its policy objectives.

And under that obligation, the departments are expected to produce a memorandum on the act 3 to 5 years after its passed, which is then presented to Parliament and departmental select committees, who can decide if they want to take it further. So in practice, the government amendment adds very little to what ought to happen anyway. And the timescale in the government amendment is less onerous than current practice, and such a review would be much less specific than the process that I've set out in amendment 202, with some very specific targets.

Any any government review would be retrospective in nature and limited to assessing the specific measures contained within the legislation. Whereas Subclauses one and two of amendment 202 go much wider. And indeed amendment 206, in the name of my noble friend, is also more granular granular than the government amendment. So a roadmap would require the government to explain how it intends to use the powers in the bill, how these will sit alongside broader policy action and service provision required beyond legislation.

A roadmap would provide a shared direction and common goals to work towards helping to maximise the impact and success of the legislation from the outset, rather than simply looking back at how it has performed years later. And for those reasons, I hope the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. My Lords.
17:26
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the amendments in this group and for the record, I declare my and for the record, I declare my interest as a trustee of Action on Smoking and Health. And first of Smoking and Health. And first of all, may I follow on from the noble Lord. Lord Young's comments around Lord. Lord Young's comments around a roadmap. But I would ask him, surely a roadmap is less strong in surely a roadmap is less strong in terms of action than the very substance of this bill in the first place, which is about action.

And each successive year of the implementation of this bill will take another year of smokers out of the reach of the tobacco industry and therefore the actions I believe, as proposed in this bill are stronger than a roadmap would suggest, which implies a level of choice further down the line. That is clearly what this bill is intended to avoid. The further consideration of actions to reduce smoking instead of decisive measures to reduce smoking now and I my Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to legal opinions, which I believe was a piece of work commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, whose members include B.a.t.

JTI and Imperial, and given the industry's long and litigious history both here and internationally, it would be remarkable if they did not try to use this process to threaten legal action that has been their playbook for decades, and some noble Lords will have heard directly from advocates in Kenya, Zambia and Pakistan. At a recent Ash briefing, they described years of aggressive industry interference, including a six year battle in Kenya over measures as basic as health warnings measures the industry had already failed to overturn elsewhere.

The purpose of these cases is rarely to win on the law. It is to depress political will, delay implementation and exhaust public authorities. And that effect is especially corrosive in countries with fewer resources or resilience than the UK. So when we're presented with yet another industry funded legal opinion, it is reasonable, my Lords, to treat it with caution. The smoke free generation policy is indeed novel, but novelty as a concept is not a legal defect. It is simply untested. And that is not in itself a reason to abandon a policy designed to protect children from addiction and future generations from avoidable disease.

Ash has commissioned its own legal opinion from academics at the University of Liverpool, with expertise in both public health and EU law. Their analysis directly addresses the issues raised in the group amendments that we are debating now. They conclude that there are strong grounds to believe that any legal challenge would fail, and that the Bill is compatible with EU law. And I would like to explain why EU law explicitly encourages member states to set and enforce age of sale limits to protect children and young people in the absence of harmonised rules on age of sale member States and therefore by extension, Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, retain discretion to determine the age they consider appropriate, and when it comes to trade rules, the protection of public health, particularly the health of children, is one of the most firmly established justifications for restricting intra-eu trade.

My Lords, given that smoking causes at least 16 cancers and remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, it is difficult to see how this bill could be judged anything other than proportionate and consistent with both the Tobacco Products Directive and EU free movement principles. The tree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Popat his view on that. Could he then explain why Denmark and Ireland were not allowed to go ahead, and why seven countries feel so differently from what what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so differently from what what the noble Lord has just said? I will come to that point in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will come to that point in a moment, my Lords, and explain a slightly further ahead of my speech. slightly further ahead of my speech. But the ptrs process concluded on the 18th of February, and the UK government has provided a clear and satisfactory response to the concerns raised by member States, and I hope this offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey and my Lords. Far from being alarmed by the UK's approach, several EU countries are watching it carefully.

In France, a similar private member's bill is gathering cross-party support. In the Republic of Ireland, Ministers opted to raise the age of sale to 21 at this stage, but they have been explicit that future generations, future governments may keep going and consider a rising age of sale, and countries across the EU are following developments here with great interest. We cannot say that positions taken by EU governments in the past will determine their future positions on this issue, and we are clearly leading a global conversation of how about how best to respond to the harms that are caused by tobacco? And there is not just EU wide, but global interest in what the UK is doing here.

And finally, my Lords, two successive UK governments of different political persuasions have brought forward this bill with the smoke free generation policy at its heart. Both will have taken detailed legal advice and agreed to proceed on the basis of its content. The fact that an alternative piece of legal advice commissioned and funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, offers an opinion to the contrary does not, for me outweigh the judgement of two successive administrations firmly committed to protecting public health.

I therefore cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I hope that the House will consider the strength of legal arguments in favour of this government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position, as assurance that it is the right and moral thing to do. Hear, hear! Well done. Excellent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent. Hello. I'm glad to follow the noble Lord and to speak to my amendment that I take the number amendment that I take the number 206. I might just say to the to the noble Lord. It seems to me very noble Lord. It seems to me very clear that what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and other Lord Young of Cookham and other noble Lords are intending in amendment 202, is to complement
17:33
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
what is in this bill, rather than in any sense to contradict it in any sense to contradict it entirely, to look at how, in addition to the measures in this bill, we can move to a smoke free bill, we can move to a smoke free country, rather than simply relying upon the assumption that in the upon the assumption that in the fullness of time, as my noble friend said, in a matter of decades, the smoke free generation will take the smoke free generation will take over and give us a smoke free country.

It's a very long way ahead to arrive at that point. And and my noble friend and I and other my noble friend in the front, the two front benches actually have all been involved in many of the measures that have got us over the years to a reputation as having amongst the strongest tobacco control policies anywhere in the world. And I hope that's something we can collectively all work to sustain. The point about reviews. The risk of. Lord Singh the Minister.

Again, I actually welcome the fact that she's brought forward her amendment. I know my noble friend says it's only a little more than is required in any case, but it's not necessarily required in statute, which is rather important. I see the the presence of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who was kind enough to also sign amendment to amendment 206, and the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley did so likewise. And I think what we were setting out to do was impart exactly to establish in each statute that there should be the necessary review process.

But as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, amendment 206 does have some granularity about what this review actually requires. The the. I think if I may draw attention to what is in amendment 206, because in a sense, what I'm asking the Minister to do is to say that in addition to the fact of a review, that there will be substance that contributes to that review and is reflected into that review in due course. Firstly, that there is independent and substantial research into the harms associated, in particular with vape products and nicotine products.

I think we are all during Committee stage. We discussed this a number of times, less than convinced that we knew what would be the long term health impacts of substantial vape use. We've we have some evidence over up to ten years, but that is certainly not going to be sufficient for the longer term. We need to have much more and better evidence, and I hope her review will not be about just the process of the of the operation of the act, but actually look to the, to what the underlying issues that are at the heart of this bill are moving over time.

And likewise, that's why in subsection five of the amendment, that amendment 206, we've put into that, that we should look specifically at the extent to which the operation of the act reduces rates of smoking, reduces the use of vaping products among children, whether the operations of the Act lead to a reduction in the use of vaping products for the purposes of smoking cessation, which just I know from the point of view of action on smoking and health, is one of the central issues that we need to examine is that can we be certain that we are continuing to secure the benefits of vaping products, but not leading more young people or others into using vaping products, rather than having no kind of smoking products at all, which would be the better solution.

But we also want to look at what the economic impacts of the bill might be. And we have, on a number of occasions discussed small and micro businesses. So I'm hoping that some of that granularity in amendment 206, while it's not my intention that we should press it, will be reflected into the review that the Minister has vouchsafe to us under amendment 205, and that she might, at the Dispatch Box, make it clear that in due course that will fall, they will all form part of the review.
17:38
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Non-affiliated)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Lansley, who deserves much personal credit for deserves much personal credit for his work on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and I are on the same side on these issues, but I rise to speak in support of amendment 202, because I believe it would be a good thing to require the government to publish five yearly reports setting out a clear roadmap towards a smoke free country.

Whilst the smoke free generation policy will rightly protect future generations from the harms of tobacco, it does not sufficiently address in itself the needs of the 5.3 million people who still currently smoke. If we are serious about creating a smoke free country, then we cannot afford to overlook them. Smoking remains responsible for around 74,000 deaths each year, and a national strategy would ensure a focus on getting smokers the support that they need to live healthier lives, free from the harms of tobacco.

The UK's tobacco control policies over many years have delivered a remarkable decline in smoking rates, representing a major public health success story. But further progress is not inevitable without sustained action. This can be shown by the example of Germany, where smoking rates have remained at around 30% since 2017. Key differences are the absence in Germany of a comprehensive national strategy, and that having weaker restrictions on tobacco. So without a clear plan, progress can stall.

Crucially, this amendment includes targets and specific interventions for groups and areas with persistently high smoking prevalence. This matters because smoking rates remain deeply unequal in the most deprived areas of the country. 1 in 5 people, 21% or so smoke, compared with just 6.2% in the least deprived areas. Around half in healthy life expectancy between these groups be attributed to smoking. Supporting people in these communities to quit would make a significant contribution towards the government's stated ambition to reduce health inequalities, and to making our country more productive as well as happier.

We need to do more to reach groups where smoking prevalence remains stubbornly high, such as those people with serious mental illnesses, those living in social housing and those in routine manual occupations. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will help to ensure that no, nobody starts smoking, but it must be the first step in a wider national roadmap to ensure that everyone is supported to kick the habit, which is what most smokers seek. The publication of a roadmap would complement the government's own amendment 205, which sets out how the implementation of this bill will be reviewed.

A clear plan would articulate what the government aims to achieve in future and by when. It could also encompass further measures long called for by the APPG on Smoking and Health, including action on so-called cigarette filters, the publication of industry sales data and warnings on individual cigarettes. Amendment 202 urges the government to be bold, to set a new target, and to back it with a credible long term plan. The APPG examined evidence last year and recommended a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament, alongside a clear ambition to make smoking obsolete within the next 20 years.

These goals, my Lords, are achievable and I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to seize this opportunity by indicating that there will be a roadmap of the kind that we seek very soon.
17:42
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to those amendments in the name of those amendments in the name of Baroness Hoey, and also in the name of Lord Dodds. I support a smoke free generation policy, which I believe is central to this bill and central to those who support a smoke free generation, because we want to achieve better health qualities for all within our generation and particularly young people, to ensure that they have better health outcomes in terms of heart disease, in terms of various types of cancers.

And if I look at the proposal made by the UK government to the European Commission in respect of this particular issue, it is quite clear that the number of deaths caused in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking is quite high, so we should be making every effort to ensure that that is lowered. And in fact, we also need lung screening in Northern Ireland, because that would help oncologists identify those individuals who are liable at a later stage to lung cancer.

So I would hope that my noble friend, the Minister, could pass on that request to the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland for the prioritisation of such resources. And I have some families members who are involved in actually lung specialisms in Belfast City Hospital in terms of oncology, and they have told me this, it would make their job much easier in identification in diagnosis if there was that screening available. But it's quite clear, my Lords, that the proposal made by the UK government to the EU clearly demonstrates that this and these particular clauses under this Bill is not at variance with the Windsor framework to tobacco products will continue to be available in Northern Ireland, but the Bill received legislative consent.

And I would say that in terms of Northern Ireland, which is a divided society where there are different views on the Windsor framework, for my part, I support it, but there are others and I respect that fact that are opposed to it. But I would say that if the executive and the Assembly, which is made up of various parties in the mandatory coalition with different political perspectives on the constitutional issue and different political perspectives on Brexit and the Windsor framework, had noted a breach of the principles of free movement of goods.

Conflicts with the EU and with the Windsor Framework, etc. then the Bill would not have received legislative consent. So I am in no doubt that my noble friend, the Minister, will allay the concerns of Baroness Hoey and of Lord Dobbs in relation to this particular issue. And I would say that if we hadn't have Brexit, we wouldn't have been confronted with this particular issue. So be careful what you argue for, because you could end up with something you might not be terribly happy with.

What? For my part, I believe that the Windsor framework is necessary to address the issues of movement of goods of a hard border, or I don't want to see hard border on the island of Ireland. So I do think that this bill and the provisions contained therein will allow the movement of goods in an unfettered state. Thank you.
17:46
Lord Dodds of Duncairn Portrait Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
I'm grateful to follow the noble Baroness Carr Baroness Ritchie. I would just say gently to her that Brexit, of course, has allowed the Brexit, of course, has allowed the UK government to pursue this particular piece of legislation because, as we've seen in the case of Denmark and the Irish Republic, both governments, whatever they might decide to do in the future. But one thing clear they're deciding now that they're unable to proceed with this type of legislation because of the tobacco directive.

So I would say to the noble Baroness that she needs to be careful of the actuality in terms of what actually prevails in terms of the legal position. And I would say to noble Lords that if you're in favour of this intergenerational ban and you are confident that the Windsor framework does not provide any legal impediment, then you should have no difficulty with these amendments because the amendment, particularly amendment to one standing in in the name of Baroness Hoey and myself, makes it just explicitly clear that the provision that exists in the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, section seven A, which provides that European Union law is supreme in Northern Ireland.

It's a conduit for the implementation of the Windsor Framework Protocol. What it says is that there is any doubt, then the courts must say that the UK law will, will, will be operative, that it cannot be set aside by any consideration of section seven A, so there should be no concern that these amendments are trying to impede the implementation of the intergenerational ban. They're actually trying to ensure that it will actually happen. Despite the Windsor framework, because it has been said and these are concerns.

I heard the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle talk about the legal opinion of the tobacco manufacturers. No doubt they have produced legal opinion, but many others have as well. And the courts in Northern Ireland have actually ruled on this as well. So we need to be clear that those of us who are concerned about this issue are looking at it from the point of view of ensuring that Northern Ireland does not lose out, that we're not prevented from benefiting from what should be a UK wide four nations approach.

The the former attorney General of Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC, said this the Tobacco and Vapes Bill serves almost as a textbook example of how a measure advanced by a government commanding a large majority in the House of Commons can run aground as respected Northern Ireland component on provisions contained in the Windsor framework. Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails. Through the Windsor framework of Northern Ireland, we look at other examples legacy legislation in which the courts of Northern Ireland have said that section seven A of the European Union Withdrawal Act means that Acts of Parliament, an Act of Parliament, is not just incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore needs to be rectified, but is actually disapplied made of no effect because of section seven A, and the fact that European law overrides.

We've seen it also in the case of migration law. So this is not some kind of novel concept simply dreamt up by a few people in the interests of the tobacco industry. This is a real concern about the application of European Union law in this case. In this case, the Tobacco directive that has the potential and almost certainly the effect of disapplying this law for Northern Ireland. And anyone who is concerned about reducing smoking and the and the effects of smoking in Northern Ireland were over 2000 people die every year from illnesses associated with smoking.

Should I be concerned about this issue and should want to do something about it now? The the government is relying on assertion. It keeps asserting that this will apply throughout the United Kingdom. We've heard other speakers in this debate again, just provide assertions, but ignoring the clear approach that the courts in Northern Ireland are taking on these matters. Now, why does the government not publish its advice? As Baroness Hoey said, it has published its advice in other areas recently.

Why not publish that advice and let us know what? What is the particular argument that says, in this particular instance of the Tobacco Directive, that this won't apply in Northern Ireland because there is no logic there. There is no analysis by any other lawyer that I know who has looked at this matter and who has dealt with the other cases that have come before the courts in Ireland, who believes that that is the case. So why, why, why will this. Advice not be published? We're told that this is just a normal age of sail restriction.

The fact of the matter, of course, that it isn't just a normal age of sail restriction, therefore exempt. It is a ruling ban and that can't be got round. And that is why the Irish Republic and Denmark took the position that it did after getting very serious legal advice from those European Union law experts within its own government and in the European Commission. So I would say very respectfully to noble Lords that have spoken, don't rely on assertions, don't rely on, on, on a view that this will be all right on the night, that there won't be any challenge, that the fact of the matter is these things will be challenged.

And what we're trying to do is to build into this act a protection that will ensure that Northern Ireland benefits, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, in moving forward with this intergenerational ban. That's entirely reasonable. It's entirely sensible. And why not take the opportunity to ensure that guarantee is in place?
17:53
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, following on from that >> My Lords, following on from that very useful contribution from the noble Lord Lord Dobbs in this group, it goes without saying that the it goes without saying that the amendments on the tensions between the Bill and the Windsor framework are crucial. And I do want to are crucial. And I do want to commend the noble Lady Baroness Hoey for leading on this issue, because you brought to light something that we need to understand, and it gets to a general concern about the bill that I have, which is a worry about its workability, both legally and also when it comes into contact with reality, because I fear a rude awakening, a part of that will be the unintended consequences of this bill, which a lot of us have tried to draw attention through committee and so on.

That's why I've added my name to amendment 206, calling for periodic reviews of the act in terms of its operation as well as its effects. I've also tabled my own amendment on the impact of the act on domestic production, supply chains and so on, which I'll discuss later. Just before I explain why. I am, of course, glad to see the government also recognise the need for a review, and that's very positive. But with all due respect to the noble Lady, the Minister, I'm afraid that amendment 205 is just not extensive enough.

I was particularly disappointed the consultation is limited to the Welsh Minister, the Scottish Minister and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland because I wanted to say, well, what about all those other stakeholders who would be affected and what about the research? So I would really urge the noble Lady Baroness Merron to incorporate parts of my amendment and that of the noble Lord Lord Lansley Lord Norton of Louth into her own to make it have some substance and not just be written down for the sake of it.

Amendment 206 really does give a concrete shape to what should be reviewed. I appreciate its focus on independently conducted research, particularly now. There's already been some complaint when you can't trust that research because it's by the Tobacco Manufacturing Alliance. I have similar views when I read research by Ash, as it happens, and the noble Lord, the who cited himself as though he was kind of neutral. Observer is part of another lobbying group. I'd rather have neither of you as my trustworthy a to go to, but I did feel, you know, I did feel myself that quite a lot of important information is missed if we don't have research.

So that's why I like it. I felt frustrating during our deliberations at committee that so much information had been overlooked. For example, many neutral academics who have researched the health impacts of vaping, in particular its efficacy in helping people quit smoking, the epidemiology of vaping versus smoking had been overlooked by the government, and I think that these would be invaluable sources of insights had they been consulted. Also at committee, I suggested that the government should look at research coming out of assessing the impact of the single use vape ban that came into force last June.

My amendment was rejected. But interestingly, early evidence and research, as well as market indicators show that the majority of adult vapers have transitioned to compliant, reusable products. I didn't think they would. They have. That's interesting because it goes against what I'd intuitively thought. However, recent evidence shows that 9% of daily vapers admit purchasing illegal single use vapes, and more worrying, 15% of former single use vapers report that they returned to smoking and or increased their tobacco use.

And this sort of research and information is important for us to understand why we need careful monitoring. And with this bill, we're going to need a lot of careful monitoring. So it's why I commend the noble Lord Lord Lansley amendment, which asks all the right questions, in my view, to review evidence, to discover if the act will actually reduce rates of smoking. Will it reduce rates of vaping amongst young people and children? Whether the legislation will reduce the use of vaping products for adults? Not a good outcome, but will that be what happens? And one of the constant concerns what will the economic impact of the law change be on small and micro businesses? Something I'm really worried about in terms of family run convenience stores and so on.

The amendment also usefully differentiates between tobacco, nicotine and vape juice to frequently in discussions elided without distinction, the suggestion of assessing behavioural responses to regulatory regimes introduced by the act is key, as this act makes a number of suppositions and that, based on the idea that this everything in this bill will have a certain impact on behaviour of consumers and of retailers and other parties. But as this is a novel policy that nobody else has done before, there's no evidence from anywhere else in the world that it will work.

We're yet to see if behaviour will change in the way the government allege and the support of this bill. Imagine so. The review will check with reality. My amendment 107 is more focussed on an aspect of the bill's impact we haven't really talked about before now, a structured parliamentary scrutiny of the Act's practical effects on domestic production, supply chains and market behaviour, and enforcement in relation to nicotine products. And just to say, there's a whole new industry that's grown up domestically around nicotine products, and I think that they are going to be hit by this bill.

This bill represents a significant regulatory intervention in a rapidly evolving market regulator. Interventions of this scale can produce structural consequences beyond their primary intent, so often with bills when they're passed. We've seen problematic effects afterwards, such as compliance costs, altering competitive balance, enforcement capacity not aligned with legislative ambition, lawful operators facing disproportionate burdens, illicit dodgy suppliers adopting more quickly outside the law than lawful businesses striving and straining to comply with law changes. And one area of concern is whether a relatively.

New, innovative domestic industry is going to be strangled almost before it gets off the ground that is associated with nicotine products. There's manufacturing happening in this country, there's laboratory testing, there's quality assurance, distribution, specialist retail activity, and this will be disproportionately harmed by this legislation as there. But the review would find out whether it's e-liquids or mixing or bottling in manufacturing or device assembly or quality control or UK specific compliance schemes and mechanisms or specialist shops. There's a whole ecosystem around this industry in the UK and this sports, by the way, skilled employment across the country in production, laboratory sciences, logistics, retail management, product safety training and more.

And why this matters is there's concern that this bill will actually reshape and perhaps damage supply chains servicing the UK market, making the market more reliant on overseas production. With Chinese vapes, which, by the way, I use regularly and I won't have a word said against them. But even I know that possibly in the quality scale they're not so great. But anyway, we're creating quality vapes at home domestically. Domestic production associated employment operates within UK regulatory oversight and provides greater traceability and accountability than supply chains are entirely import led.

In other words, will the bill end up unfairly impacting on best practice, quality, compliant, home grown industries to the advantage of less rigorous suppliers, etc. The review, beyond this theme of assessing any unintended consequences and proportionality, does so in a timely fashion of three years to allow Parliament early visibility of problems rather than waiting until structural effects are entrenched, and so that if distortions or enforcement gaps emerge, Parliament will have the evidence to address them, and partly that evidence will be gathered from a suggested consultation with a neglected set of stakeholders.

Those carrying out domestic production activities. And there's lots of them, and the government should talk to them and representatives of workers, workers in those relevant domestic sector. And I know that the government will want to talk to the workers. And and so and that's all to check that the bill is working as intended. Just to finish off one of the problems with consensus and the fact that, let's be honest, the official opposition decided not to oppose this bill at a certain point, which I don't know how that happened, means that everybody can nod through something and say, isn't it marvellous? I would say that we need a bit more critical thinking.

Scrutiny post legislation is going to be even more essential. All the reviews in this session need to be enacted for the government's sake.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah. My Lords. I'm interested to support. The noble Lord, Lord Young's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, Lord Young's smoke. Free society. In my view, is the right direction of travel. But I also direction of travel. But I also worry about the contact with reality. A road map I would suggest reality. A road map I would suggest should also include the potential unintended consequences regarding cannabis smoking in a smoke free cannabis smoking in a smoke free country with real targets and interventions. Walk across London
18:03
18:04
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord young, for tabling amendment Lord young, for tabling amendment 202, to which I have added my name. The amendment would require the government to publish a road map to government to publish a road map to a smoke free country every five years. In other words, a plan for the event rather than a review after the event. There are two essential components to achieving a smoke free country. The first is that no one should start smoking at all, and I hope that this bill will successfully successfully achieve that over time.

And the government has shown great ambition in this area. The second component is that all current smokers are supported to quit so that everyone stops. On this second part, the government has been a little quieter until recently, and we've heard about the recent success of targets met for the number of pregnant women smoking at the time of delivery. I think it's gone down by half. However, for other groups, rates remain stubbornly high and we're not seeing the same targeting interventions.

So I believe that we need to ensure that we have this type of focussed energy and commitment to other groups where we know smoking rates are higher and plans for these groups could be located in the road map that's being proposed. For example, mental health, a key priority area for the Liberal Democrats. There is a dual causal relationship between smoking and mental health. If you smoke, it increases your chances of developing mental health conditions. And if you already have a mental health condition, you're more likely to smoke nearly half of those with serious mental illness in England smoke alongside a quarter of people with depression or anxiety, compared to 11.6% of the general population.

High rates of smoking amongst this population have a disastrous impact on physical health, particularly for those with a serious mental health illness who are on average live 15 to 20 years less than someone without. It is estimated that smoking accounts for about two thirds of this reduced life expectancy. The pervasive false narrative that smoking somehow alleviates mental health symptoms urgently needs addressing as it creates so many challenges when trying to support these smokers to quit. If the government's going to publish a strategy, then a dedicated section on how they'll bring down smoking rates in this group would be extremely welcome and needed.

Now, I welcome the government concession that vaping vending machines should be allowed in secure adult mental health settings, and this should certainly help this population to quit. And moving on to amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, which would require the government to publish a review of the Bill. I do welcome Government Amendment 205, which does something similar but with a lot less granularity. But I would like to ask the Minister to give us a little more information about where the government will get its evidence to underpin the review.

Can she assure the House that evidence will be independent and not influenced by any lobbying or so-called evidence put before the government by Big Tobacco or anybody else who will benefit from slowing down the elimination of smoking in the UK. The intent of this review should be to support the legislation. The smoke free generation, as has been said by several noble noble Lords, is a novel policy and we need to demonstrate the impact and evaluate implementation to encourage other countries to follow.

There are also many regulations on the way regarding nicotine products, along with those in other government departments. A clear analysis of how these policies are going to work together would be very welcome. However, this review must not be viewed as a sunset on the smoke free generation, and I would welcome comments from the Minister on what, at this point, we know will not be in the government's review. For example, the bill's impact assessment notes that many of the health impacts of the rising age of sale won't be seen for ten years.

So we should be mindful that this part of the bill is playing a very long game. There may be early data that were on the right track, and the review perhaps will be able to look at compliance and retailer feedback and all the other things that the noble Lady Baroness Fox has mentioned. So I feel much of this will fall into the scope of amendment 207 from from the noble Lady. Finally, amendments 91, 120, 201 and 206 enable, tabled by the noble Baroness Hoey, raised concerns about the bill's implementation in Northern Ireland.

I have been reassured by the government's response to the Triz process, which lays out in some detail their response to the concerns raised. Does the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle mentioned the legal opinion published in the Daily Mail, was commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association without seeing it. I can't really comment other than to say it's not really surprising that the industry are laying the ground for future legal challenges. They are, as we know, highly litigious to and want to chill the appetite for tobacco control globally.

It all goes to show, I suppose, that if you put two lawyers in a room, you get three opinions. There are, as we have heard from the Minister on other occasions, other legal opinions out there that say that the bill is compatible. But I leave the noble Baroness to answer for those concerns. But I do support the government to press on with this vital public health legislation and planet, and review it as required.
18:10
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> My Lords, this has been a very useful debate with some powerful contributions, but I should like to contributions, but I should like to turn first, if I may, to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. Lady Hoey. My Lords, it was reported last week in the times that seven EU member states have formally expressed concern that the government's proposed generational smoking ban may breach the Windsor framework. The Minister said last week that the provisions of the bill, intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Windsor Framework.

However, these external concerns plainly have not gone away. In a previous meeting, I was grateful to the noble Baroness and her officials for discussing the technical Regulation Information System. The procedure in liaising with the European Commission and those EU countries that have raised objections, explaining that in the government's opinion, the procedure is about consultation and will not lead to any decisions that would be binding on the UK government. In that context, can the Minister clarify if my understanding of the government's position is correct in that regard? And also, will she also update the House on discussions with the European Commission and with representatives of those member states that have raised their concerns? Can she also say whether any formal objections have been lodged through the Windsor framework structures, including the Joint Committee? In general, on this issue, we see a rather polarised position with the tobacco industry on one side and Ash and the government indeed on the other.

So I'd be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could clarify whether the government have sought or obtained any independent external legal advice on compatibility, and whether they're confident that the measures would withstand a challenge in the event of infraction proceedings or dispute resolution. Following on from that, what contingency planning, if any, has been undertaken? Should a divergence issue arise in relation to Northern Ireland? My Lords, let me turn to amendments 202, 205 and 206 which relate in their several ways to reviewing the effects and outcomes of the bill as an act.

I'm supportive of them all, actually, but especially grateful for amendment 205, which responds to the plea put forward by a number of noble Lords in committee, that this far reaching bill, whose real life effects on the health of the population must inevitably lie in the realm of uncertainty, merits close review. At a point when we are in a position to assess those effects realistically. Hence, I particularly welcome Subclause two of the amendment, which refers to a set the impact of the act.

As my noble friend Lord Lansley argued persuasively, the review needs to drill down into the granular detail and the substance of what is actually happening in terms of how smokers and non-smokers are behaving in response to the implementation of the different strands of policy. Having said that, I very much support the ideas contained in my noble friend Lord Young's Amendment 202, for all the reasons that he gave a review within 4 to 7 years, as the government has proposed, considering both economic and health outcomes and involving the devolved governments, is a sensible safeguard as far as it goes.

But a roadmap and milestones, which I believe, which both government and Parliament could follow and monitor along the way, would, I believe, add considerable value. And I'm sorry that it appears that this isn't an idea that the government are not willing to take further. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, advanced a strong case for for a review focusing more directly on the bill's economic effects and and its effect on markets. And at the heart of her case, I think, is the heart of her case, I think, is is the.

The fact that we we are all, I think aware of, which is that the economy is at its heart about the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. When we regulate or prohibit products in a particular sector, we impose compliance costs, as she rightly pointed out. And that can, if affect investment decisions, supply chains, employment and innovation. That doesn't mean that regulation is wrong, but it does mean we should be honest about its wider consequences. So I did think that the noble Baroness proposal was one which merits very considerable thought.
18:16
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
And, my Lords, I'm most grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate, which contribution to this debate, which I've covered a number of important areas. But I would like to start areas. But I would like to start with amendment 202, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and also 206 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley. And it was also spoken to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord Lord Rennard.

As noble Lords are aware, there is already a duty on government to review most secondary legislation and to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of primary legislation. And I would like to say to your Lordships' House that we do take these obligations very seriously for amendment 202. Specifically, it must be reiterated that this government is absolutely committed to achieving a smoke free UK, and we recognise that this work will absolutely not be over when this Bill receives Royal Assent. However, I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and it is for that reason that I have tabled amendment 205, which introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the act within 4 to 7 years of Royal Assent, and to lay a report before Parliament concluding findings of this review.

And I can assure the noble Lord Lord Rennard and the noble Lord, Lord young. This does include looking at the impacts on communities where smoking rates are currently the highest. I do hope that this is a clear demonstration of the government's commitment to monitoring progress against our smoke free ambition, the. I've also been asked by the noble Lord, Lord young, about and I heard his comment about and and other noble Lords who have said things around the fact that this bill is not about assisting people to quit.

Well, in the last group, noble Lords will recall, I did address both our determination, but also laid out the resource that we have committed for helping people to quit smoking now. And that absolutely is a key aspect. This going back to the amendment 205 that I've, that I've tabled in my name, this will ensure that this government and I emphasise any future administrations, are held to account for conducting an evidence based review of the act. Our intent is to make the report within five years in line, in line with our existing obligations.

However, the reason the amendment is set out as it is, it does provide the necessary flexibility on timing because we want to ensure that evidence is in place before conclusions are drawn. We do not want this to be a tick box exercise. And to the noble Lord Lord Lansley and the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley, I can confirm that independent evidence will indeed be central. Most notably will include the National Institute for Health and Care Research, commissioned Living Evidence map and that will collate UK based and international evidence on vapes and nicotine products for the next five years, and the kind of thing this will include is any published research evaluating the impact of the bill.

Regular summaries will be publicly available to outline emerging trends and evidence gap, and I'm pleased to say that this tool was published on the 18th of February. My Lords, as the Bill impact assessment outlines, we wouldn't, in all honesty, and I know noble Lords understand this, we wouldn't expect to see the full transformative impact of the act for some time. It is for that reason, the impact assessment used a 30 year appraisal period for the smoke free generation policy, and over the next 50 years, our modelling found that the bill will save tens of thousands of lives.

Nonetheless, we do expect this review will capture any early indicators and operational progress. And to the noble Lady Baroness Fox, I can say there isn't a limit on consultation to just devolved governments because, as I've set out in previous groups, we are keen, committed and have already set out how we will consult many. We will continue to commission a substantial package of high quality, independent research on what is world leading legislation. Turning to amendment 207 table by the noble Lady Baroness Fox.

I do appreciate the noble Ladies intention to ensure that the impact of the act receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, as I hope she has heard me say throughout every stage of this bill. As the noble Baroness is aware, the government has already published a thorough impact assessment of the measures in the Bill upon introduction and where possible, this has covered estimated impacts on businesses across the tobacco and vape supply chain, including impacts for manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers for measures delivered through secondary legislation, particularly product standards, flavours and packaging.

There will be further detailed impact assessments to be undertaken. I have also spoken about Amendment Government Amendment 205 and this will include consideration of economic impacts where evidence allows. I must also, my Lords, emphasise that we will not be prioritising the profits of business over protecting children from the risks of tobacco products, vaping and nicotine, and to the noble Lord Lord Mawson. There is no evidence to suggest that changing the age of sale of tobacco would have any relation to drug use.

Indeed, we can look at our experience that when age of sale went from 16 to 18, drug use actually did decrease. My Lords, turning to amendments 91 12012201. Let me read those again. Turning to amendments 91 120201 and 216 tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Hoey, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. And I hope this comments, particularly my opening remarks, will be helpful in this area to the noble Lord Earl Howe, because I would like to start to update your Lordships House on the notification of the Bill under the EU's Technical Regulatory Information System known as Tris.

The UK government has notified certain provisions in the bill related to Northern Ireland on the EU's Tris system. This is absolutely standard process. It is not an approval process. The Commission and Member states may indeed comment, but they do not play a role in approving the UK's legislation in respect of Northern Ireland. It is the case, as noble Lords have referred to, that certain EU member states issued opinions setting out their concerns about the compatibility of the smoke free generation policy with EU law.

It is not unusual, my Lords, for Member States to submit opinions on Tris notifications and to give just one example, several member states also wrote to France recently when they proposed a ban on nicotine pouches, despite several other member states already having introduced such a ban. The government has provided a comprehensive response on the opinions it has received. The response sets out the strong public health justification for the policy, and explains why the smoke free generation complies with EU law, as it applies under the Windsor framework.

The Commission has also now responded, noting our response and my Lords, this does conclude the Tris process to the points that were raised by noble Lords, including the noble Lady Baroness Hoey, the noble Lord Lord Dog Dodds, and in a different way, the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley about legal opinions. Let me say this to your Lordships House, a far more aware of this, probably, but I think it's worth restating the legal opinions to state what is obvious can and do differ.

It is not unusual, I would emphasise, for tobacco the tobacco industry, to argue that government measures are incompatible with the law. And my noble friend Lord Forbes spoke to this very point. And again, experience tells us that this has happened many times. And to give two examples, it's happened on the introduction of standardised packaging in 2016 and also on the regulations made under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. My Lords Amendments 91 120216 are not required.

The government has already published its response to the Commission, setting out why measures drafted in the bill, which apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework. At EU law. I did refer earlier to the government's published response on the system, following detailed opinions from EU member States, and I would strongly urge all interested peers to read this if they have not had the chance to do so already, because it sets out in detail why the government believes the smoke free generation policy and other measures in the bill are compatible with EU law.

It covers the bill's compatibility with articles 34 and 36 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the EU Tobacco Products Directive, and the Public Health Justification for measures in the Bill. And finally, I do wish to note that we cannot accept amendment 201 as this could put us in breach of international law by undermining compliance with the Windsor, with undermining compliance with our obligations under the Windsor framework. And to this point, I am grateful to my noble friend Baroness Ritchie for her observations.

So with that, my Lords, I therefore ask the noble Lady Baroness Hoey to withdraw her amendment.
18:28
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, I thank the noble Lady. >> My Lord, I thank the noble Lady. We've had this discussion a few times during Committee stage. I brought these amendments because I think all noble Lords really to think all noble Lords really to make sure that they're fully aware that this bill, no matter how much time we spend on it, whatever happens, it could end up in the EU ruling that we cannot it cannot apply to Northern Ireland. And that's just a fact.

And there may be different legal opinions. I certainly haven't relied on just the legal opinions of tobacco industry. I'm just disappointed as once again, the noble Lord, the Lord, the Attorney General, seems to be very, very quiet on this and does not want to engage and does not want to produce anything that actually shows us the legal opinion. However, as has been said many times before, I think, you know, there's obviously agreement in between the two Front Benchers, although I do welcome the noble Lord Howe's very sensible probing on this.

But clearly there's a consensus that this bill is going to go through whatever, because other bills are probably more important. I'm therefore just warning noble Lords that we would have been right before when we warned about legal opinion and what was happening in the Windsor framework. And I think we'll be right again. But having said that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll withdraw my amendment. Lord Rees amendment be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Rees amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, Amendments 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98. Lord Murray Lord Naseby not 98. Lord Murray Lord Naseby not moved, not moved. Include 62 amendments 99 and 100 Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content.

The contents have it in clause 63, amendment 101 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 102 Baroness Merron moved formally. Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it amendments 103 and 104 Lord Naseby not moved, not moved. Amendment 105 moved to Lord Lilley Baroness Merron. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendments 106 to 109.

Lord Naseby Lord McCrea not 109. Lord Naseby Lord McCrea not moved. Not moved. Amendments 102 110 to 112 Baroness Merron was formerly. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. En bloc as many as you have that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 113 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 114 the Earl of Lindsey not moved, not moved. And similarly 115 Earl of Lindsay not moved. Amendments 116 to 119 Baroness Merron moved formally.

The question is that these amendments be agreed to. En bloc as many as that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 120 Baroness Hoey not moved. Not moved. Amendments 120 201 and 122 Baroness Merron moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 123 Baroness Mone Baroness Walmsley. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 123.

Lords, I rise to move amendment 123.
18:32
18:32
None Portrait Amdt. 123 Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-

Lords, when in committee, my noble friend laid an amendment to prevent companies from advertising vapes in a way that attracted children. The minister's response was that this minister's response was that this was not necessary because advertising of vapes would be banned under the bill, except for banned under the bill, except for public health purposes, as a smoking cessation tool, and in that case, they would not be allowed to case, they would not be allowed to be advertised in a way that attracted children, and our amendment was therefore not necessary.

Having accepted the minister's point, we turned our attention to the packaging itself and point of sale display materials, because we know that the companies trying to sell vapes to people who've never smoked before will stop at nothing to hook people into nicotine addiction. That is why we have proposed that vapes must be sold in plain packaging like cigarettes, and not displayed with attractive materials at point of sale. A recent UCL study showed that implementing plain packaging for vapes reduced their appeal to young people, but did not affect how harmful adults perceive vapes to be compared to cigarettes.

In particular, the paper noted that packaging is a primary marketing tool for vape companies, unquote, and that, quote, it is commonplace for brands to also use youth appealing elements such as images, cartoon characters, stylised fonts and novel brands, and flavour names on vapes and e-liquid packaging. End quote. We therefore felt it worth exploring the government's plans with regard to consultation and regulations about the packaging and point of sale of vapes. Vapes were on the market for quite a few years before this big uptick in youth vaping around 2021, and that coincided with cheap, colourful, ergonomic disposables flooding the market.

We need to make vapes a dull cessation tool again, and regulating packaging can and should be done quickly. And that is because vapes are being more and more aggressively marketed, partly through displays in stores, and this is having an effect. Action on smoking and health. Latest Youth Vaping survey found that the awareness of vaping promotion has grown amongst 11 to 17 year olds between 2022 and 25. There has been significant increase in awareness of promotion of vapes over this period, particularly in shops.

37% in 2022 compared compared with 55% last year. In 2022, 56% of 11 to 17 year olds who are aware of vapes report that they were exposed to some form of vape promotion. In 2022, 11% of young people who were aware of vapes reported seeing vape plays every time, or most times, they go into supermarkets. Last year, that figure had risen to 27%. So, my Lords, there is a pressing need to do something about this. Now, I accept that plain packaging and display rules for tobacco products were implemented following consultation through secondary legislation.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister what research has been carried out on the potential effect of plain packaging and point of sale for vapes, whether it would deter young people who do not smoke from taking up vaping, and whether it's been shown that there would be any deterrent effect on those adults who wish to quit from using vapes to help them to do so. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if someone who wishes to quit would be deterred from buying a vape just because it was not in a shiny, colourful, attractive package on a shiny, colourful, attractive display like the ones I currently see all over the place.

On another amendment in this group, I do not support amendment one, two five and 134 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Moylan. I felt we'd had a very balanced debate during Committee stage about the role that flavours play in smoking cessation, and I was reassured by the Minister's comments at that time. Clearly, regulation of flavour descriptors is easier to do and may give us the desired outcomes, meaning we don't need to regulate flavours themselves. However, it is important that the government retains the right to regulate flavours in case evidence emerges about particular flavours.

That requires action on amendment 136A tabled by the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister. The limit on vape size is currently two mils, but I know there are concerns regarding products that are attached to vapes to increase this. I would just urge caution in this area. Whilst it might seem likely that larger tanks increase consumption, there's not yet evidence of this being the case and concerns regarding Big Puff products may be unfounded or maybe not. We need to find out.

Indeed, the rise in youth vaping in Britain since 2020 appears to have been primarily driven by two millilitres colourful single use vapes, not larger capacity products. It is possible that larger volume products could have benefits in terms of satisfying consumer demand for longer lasting products and reducing littering, which would be a good thing, and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking. So I look forward to comments from the Minister on the broad point regarding attachments.

I know that both of these issues were included in the recent call for evidence, so she may actually have some early insights for us in the light of that. But, my Lords, I beg to move. Amendment one, two, three.
18:39
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 89, page 5917. At end, insert the words printed on the Marshalled List. >> My amendment number one, two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment number one, two five and 134 in this group. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Lane-Fox Buckley for the support she's indicated for them. In relation to the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I'm obviously distressed that she's exposed needlessly to the sight of shiny vapes in her local supermarket or petrol station or whatever it is. We can sympathise with her in that, but in her speech she seems to have ignored entirely the context of paragraph 89 of the bill, which, least in relation to packaging given, give the government the most extensive powers.

Powers that, as far as I can see, could lead to the equivalent of plain packaging very easily. But she made no reference to it. I propose, in fact, in my amendments, to strengthen the powers to increase the powers the government has in paragraph 89. But let me explain. First of all, the rationale for what I'm proposing. There is a great deal of agreement. There has been throughout this report between the noble Baroness, the Minister and myself. And and I hope we can continue that in the course of this debate.

We are agreed crucially on the importance of how the flavours are described and presented to the public in attracting buyers to vapes and but, but, but that does cut two ways. We know on the one hand that vapes can have what I'm going to call flavour descriptors on them, which are deliberately designed to appeal to children and young people in a way that we are all opposed to. We all wish to see. We do not wish to see vapes marketed in such a way as to seduce children and young people into taking them up.

And so when we see flavour descriptors, which they could be called flavour descriptors, such as cotton candy and gummy bear on the side of a vape, I think we can all agree that that sort of thing should have a stop put to it, because we know the market it's intended to reach, but on the other hand, we also know, and I think the noble Baroness, the Minister has acknowledged this, that for for vapes to be an effective cessation tool for adults, it's important to have a range of flavours available to them.

And as I say, I think the government has acknowledged that government has acknowledged that now. Where in the bill is the power that the government needs to regulate flavour descriptors? It is the flavour descriptor, the gummy bear, the cotton candies that the government needs a clear power to be able to eliminate. We discussed this in committee and the noble Baroness, the Minister wrote to me afterwards very kindly, and said that the government would rely on paragraph 89 of the bill which relates to the retail packaging.

And so there it gives a certain number of powers to the bill, to the government to make regulations concerning the packaging. But it doesn't at any point, as far as I can see, specify the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging as something which the government has direct power to regulate. Now, the government may rely on it, and it may be possible that the scope of clause 89 could be stretched to cover the government's point. It would be it would be a matter ultimately, I suppose, for the courts to decide my amendment one, two, five fairly straightforwardly gives the government that power.

Explicitly, it adds to clause 89, subsection three. It adds to the list, which at the moment runs from A to K. The things that the government can regulate. It adds a further thing, which is, as I say, the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging. And I don't think the government necessarily would want to reject this amendment because it gives them a power that could be very useful, even if they feel they have it already. Making it explicit, I think, would make matters somewhat easier.

But to complement that, and turning to clause 91 of the of the bill, if I may complement that, and turning to clause 91, there is in clause 91 which relates to contents and flavours, a power for the government to, to, to to make regulations concerning the flavour of relevant products. And here I want to make a point which I made in committee, and which I think is of the utmost importance. And I speak as somebody who does use vapes, and that is that in practice.

And I say this to for the benefit especially of noble Lords who don't use vapes, the flavour descriptor on the vape has almost no relationship to the flavour of the vape. So if you buy a vape, there commonly might have names like mango ice. It tastes nothing like an actual mango. In regulating the flavour, you do not say anything about the flavour descriptor. Does the government really want to start regulating flavours? Which is in any case a subjective idea? I myself have a partiality to blueberry ice vapes.

Now they don't taste like blueberries. I can absolutely assure you of that. They don't remind me of blueberries. They don't make me feel like I'm enjoying a blueberry to the extent that when I go to reorder them, I actually have to look on the box to remind myself what the flavour I like is actually called. And it's called blueberry, but it certainly has no relation to blueberry. And indeed, if you go a little bit further into the examples I gave earlier, what flavour would the noble Baroness, the Minister, associate with gummy bear? I mean, does does it is it intended to taste of bear or taste of gums that the two, the two concepts of flavour and flavour descriptor are absolutely distinct.

And I think the government needs to be precise in what it is regulating, which is why I have a Second Amendment one, three, four that relates to clause 91 that substitutes flavour descriptor for flavour there so the government can actually focus its resources on on the thing that does the damage, which is the noble Baroness. Lady Walmsley more or less said, although for some reason she disagreed with my amendments, is the packaging and the advertising and the message on the box outside, not the taste on the inside, which is largely subjective, as I say, and bears no relation to what's on the outside.

Finally, I just wanted to say that the government and I say this pre-emptively, because the noble Baroness may refer to it when she replies, the government in her. The Minister in her letter wrote to me saying that evidence from Action on Smoking and Health in 2025 suggested that certain sorts of flavours appealed more to young people and other sorts of flavours appeared more to older people and I won't read out the details, but that was the gist of what it said here.

But I do dispute that this evidence is of any real value. First of all, it comes from action on smoking and health, which is a ludicrous source for the government to rely on from a statistical point of view as as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley mentioned the other day, it's as if as if the noble Lord, the Lord Hendy of Richmond, turned up at the despatch box and said the government was was relying on the London cycling campaign for the statistics it was going to use in relation to road traffic in London.

I mean, you know, these are highly biased partisan organisations that produce statistics to order. But the second reason is, even if you were so naive as to trust the evidence produced by action on smoking and health, is that there's no indication in the letter that the noble Baroness sent me that this evidence distinguished between the flavour descriptor being sweet or whatever, and the flavour itself. So it is actually quite useless from the point of view of the conversation we had in committee.

So I think, although I probably annoyed a number of noble Lords, which certainly isn't my intention, I wish to be. I wish to have everybody on my side, not least the noble Baroness, the Minister. I do think I'm actually being very helpful to the government, and I hope that the Minister will with with alacrity, indeed accept my two amendments. OK.
18:49
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I stand up to address >> My Lords, I stand up to address amendment 136 A, which I put forward, and that's to deal with forward, and that's to deal with the rapid emergence of very high puff count or so-called big puff devices, which are clearly, clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of existing legislation regulation. Sorry, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 approved by this House and the Other place set a two mill limit on vape tank size.

That limit was deliberate. It was intended to restrict the volume of nicotine liquid immediately accessible within a device. Yet now we see devices incorporating multiple pods or attaching ten mil refill containers directly to the unit. These create systems with an effective capacity far beyond two mil. So I'm arguing if the law says two mil, it should mean two mil, not two mil. Multiplied by clever engineering, these are no longer niche products. Millions are now sold weekly.

They are cheaper per puff than standard devices, and they are particularly attractive to younger users. Research indicates that almost half of 16 to 34 year olds who vape are opting for these higher puff count devices. We now see products on the market claiming to deliver 100,000 puffs. To put that into perspective, that's broadly equivalent to the puff volume of something like 8000 cigarettes, and that's all contained within a single device. Therefore, the concentration of nicotine exposure in one unit on that scale should give us all very serious cause for concern.

I do not believe this is simply a matter of marketing exaggeration. Some of these devices contain several times more liquid than traditional products, materially increasing the potential volume of nicotine consumption and moving far beyond what Parliament envisaged when it established the two mil limit. We also see supervision attempts to comply with disposable vape devices are fitted with USB charging points, but retain non replaceable coils so that once the coil burns out, the entire device is discarded.

This is disposability in all but name. I anticipate that the noble Baroness, the Minister, may suggest that the bill already contains sufficient powers to regulate such devices through secondary legislation. If that is so, this amendment merely makes explicit what the government believes is already implicit. Where Parliament has previously set a clear quantitative limit, it is entirely reasonable to reaffirm that limit in an unambiguous terms, particularly where the market has moved to exploit perceived gaps. It may also be said that the government has launched a call for evidence, and the legislation at this stage would be premature.

However, the concern here is not about developing future policy, but about the exploitation of the existing framework. The two mil limit is already law. The issue is whether that settled position can be circumvented in practice through structural design. This amendment does not stifle the legitimate reusable products. It does not prohibit refill bottles sold separately. It does not alter the ten mil refill rule. It does not interfere with lawful refillable systems. It simply ensures that a single device cannot be engineered to exceed the two mil limit through multiple tanks or attached containers.

Effective enforcement depends upon legislative clarity. Trading standards officers should not be left to debate whether a 12 mil effective system technically complies with a two mil rule. Clear drafting reduces ambiguity and strengthens compliance. At the very least, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to reassure the House that there will be no undue delay in addressing devices that are clearly designed to sidestep the intent of the current rules, and that prompt action will be taken to close this up this loophole and uphold the two mil limit.

In practice.
18:54
Lord Darzi of Denham Portrait Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I strongly support >> My Lords, I strongly support this bill and the ambition to create a smoke free generation. create a smoke free generation. Throughout my clinical or academic career, I have consistently argued for bold preventative action because nothing would do more to reduce preventable death and health inequality than ending tobacco addiction, and I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for amendments one, two five and 134.

I understand the instincts behind them, but I cannot support them. These amendments would limit the government's power to regulating flavour descriptors. The words on the packet, rather than the chemical ingredients that create the flavour. Put it simply, we would be regulating the label, not the substance. The Chief Medical officer's evidence note is clear flavoured vaping products contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are safe to eat but dangerous to inhale. The long term effects of inhaling these substances are simply not known yet, so restricting regulations to descriptors alone would deny the government's ability to act.

As new science emerges. Flavour is one of the principal drivers, as we've heard earlier, of youth uptake. If we regulate only what the packet says and not what the product contains, manufacturers will simply reformulate to maintain the same appeal. We would be inviting a regulatory game of cat and mouse, and it is again that children will lose. I very much hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but if I may, the clause 91 gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate the substances that may be included in a relevant product.

I'm not changing that or proposing that we change that at all. It then goes on to say the flavour of relevant products, which I am suggesting be changed to flavour descriptor because flavour is inherently subjective, but the substances, that is, the things which may be toxic or harmful would still remain in scope of the legislation in the language the government has chosen to use, irrespective of my amendment. And I only interrupt the noble Lord because I'm not entirely sure that he's grasped the effect of my amendment, and I thought he might want to reflect on that.

Well, probably not, and if I have, then apologies. I still believe it's not clear in terms of reading the the paper. I felt it's the flavour that is being bound today, but that's fine if that's if you are. What you're saying is your amendment is correcting that, that's absolutely fine. And I think certainly narrowing the powers before the science is settled is another issue. There is very little scientific evidence on the impact, whether it's on the taste or whether the inhaler contains.

It's not something that has been utilised before. So we know the dangers of the substance that is being inhaled. So the prudent course is to retain the widest possible powers and to act on evidence as it emerges. And to do otherwise, I feel we're leaving our children exposed to risks we could have prevented. So I urge the House to at least look at these amendments or reject them. Yeah.
18:58
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My my Lords, I did very quickly because I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has explained what his amendment is trying to do. I did, however, just want to query whether saying that narrowing the powers before the science is settled was an admirable aspiration. I mean, that gives absolute authoritarian power to a government to do anything they want because there's no science. It's not settled. I mean, how is that evidence based policy? I mean, that's the opposite.

That's you could do anything you wanted until the. And so I really think that's very dangerous to do that. I wanted to to more actually emphasise that flavours are part of smoking cessation. But I'm only going to do that very briefly. But the reason I wanted to do it was to quote ash, because guess what, ash say, flavours are a very important way that adults actually vape and therefore give up smoking. So for once, I'm quoting ash in a positive way to say that flavours cannot be demonised and we have to be very careful what we wish for.

But my main point was actually to talk about plain packaging. I thought it was interesting that cancer research made the point about plain packaging of vapes. One of the difficulties is, is that as soon as you say plain packaging, we know that we're going through exactly the same playbook as tobacco and it's being treated the same. What did we do? We said that we have to bring in plain packaging of of of cigarettes. Then we say, oh, now what should we do with vapes? We'll bring in plain packaging.

And then we wonder why people get confused between vapes and smoking or the attitude to the same. So cancer research makes the point that it's important the government considers quoting evidence to ensure that changes to vape packaging strike the balance between reducing the appeal to young people and those who have never smoked, while ensuring that vapes remain accessible and appealing product to adults who smoke and want to quit. I also think that it's important to understand that point of sale information is actually essential to be able to communicate to any consumer making a purchase decision on the on whatever they're buying.

You see the packet, that's what you decide to do. And and I think that in relation to risk potential of nicotine product, which is relatively safer than smoking, it is vital that we don't simply hide away what it is that we actually want adult smokers to actually consume. So I would just say that the danger here is that even in relation to communicating age restrictions in shops, you're going to have posters, banners, digital screens, all sorts of things.

That does not equate having a demand that everyone buys vapes. But what it does do is it communicates to anyone who wants to buy vapes that they're on sale, the different types of vapes, and it also ensures that you can advertise the kind of age restrictions that we are demanding that retailers now enforce. So I think that there is a real danger of the kind of ultra position or plain packaging will have unintended consequences.
19:02
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but unless it is designed as a probing amendment, I fear I'm not drawn to amendment one, two, three. What the amendment would do is essentially to tie the government's hands as regards the rules around the packaging and display of vapes. If the amendment were accepted, it would make any prior consultation and legal advice completely pointless. Measures of this depth and scope mandating plain packaging for all vaping products and prohibiting point of sale display in all circumstances would represent a major intervention in what is currently, and will certainly remain a lawful market and not only a lawful market, but one which serves a very significant therapeutic purpose in a public health context.

The extent to which the powers in the bill relating to packaging and display of vapes need to be exercised must surely depend on decisions by Ministers following full and proper consultation with the businesses, the manufacturers and retailers who would be directly affected. Now, some regulation in these areas is almost certainly going to be necessary, particularly if we are to protect young people. However, regulation must be proportionate and evidence based vapes are not the same as tobacco as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox has pointed out.

For example, there needs to be scope for product differentiation by consumers. If consumers are denied choice, it will kill off any incentive on the part of manufacturers to pursue beneficial innovation. That consideration is important. If we believe that vapes are likely to occupy an important place as a smoking cessation tool for adult smokers over the medium to long term. As regards amendments 125 and 134. In the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. Notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord Lord Darzi, I very much hope to hear the Minister make some positive comments.

As my noble friend has argued both today and in committee, it isn't just the flavour of a vape that gives it an appeal, it is the flavour that it purports to have, and it is that flavour descriptor which we know can affect the purchasing decisions of those inclined to use vapes as a recreational toy. In relation to amendment 136 A, there are clearly a number of considerations that must be weighed carefully. On the one hand, higher capacity devices may be important for some adult users who rely on vaping as a smoking cessation tool, and for those individuals, practicality and product functionality can make a real difference in supporting a transition away from combustible tobacco.

On the other hand, there remains a legitimate concern which my noble friend rightly voiced about whether larger capacity devices could increase appeal to younger people or facilitate greater nicotine consumption, with implications for addiction. They are, I suggest, finely balanced issues. I look forward to hearing the minister's response on the evidence base underpinning the proposal, and how the government intends to strike the right balance.
19:06
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the >> My Lords, I'm grateful for the contributions in this debate. And let me start with amendment one, two, three. Table by the noble Lady two, three. Table by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Northover, and spoken to by the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley. I can say to this amendment that clause 89, which I will refer to later as well, already gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate packaging. And clause 13 already provides powers on display that can set requirements as to where products can be sold.

And the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley asked about evidence. Well, there is evidence that removing branding and standard standardising packaging does reduce a product's appeal to young people. As the noble Lady alluded to, whilst having little impact on adults. But I can say that we will consult on proposals before making regulations. And the noble Lord Earl Howe has referred to this a number of times, and I agree, because we are conscious of the need to ensure a balance between dissuading young people to to take this up.

Whilst we do not want to dissuade adult smokers to quit. So to the point on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we continue to fund high quality research. And this does include research on the packaging of vapes and nicotine products. And I'm glad to say that's due to conclude later this year. While I do understand the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley's intention to reduce the appeal and visibility of these products, and I do acknowledge her concerns by.

But but the noble Ladies Amendment does Lord said, any restrictions are proportionate and are evidenced based. However, I do want to reassure the noble Lady that these are areas on which we will be acting. Turning to amendment 136A tabled by the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, vaping products, as has been referred to in this debate, already limited to two millilitres for tanks and ten millilitres for refill containers. Over recent years, some manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill containers can be attached to a single device as a means to circumvent the legislative requirements and restrictions.

I want to assure the noble Lord that clause 90 does provide the powers to amend or to place additional requirements and limits on vape tank sizes and the size of refill containers. It is vital that we do undertake the necessary consultation, because we wish to make sure, of course, that our regulations are based on the best possible evidence related to tank capacity limits, and that we do not have unintended consequences for adult smokers who use vapes as a quit aid.

Something I know of concern, and rightly so to noble Lords. It is therefore more appropriate for such detailed technical measures to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our recent call for evidence did seek views specifically on the issue of tank sizes, to better understand current market practices, and we are, as I mentioned in an earlier group currently, analysing responses. And we will consider our proposals for consultation post Royal Assent. Finally, turning to amendments one, two five and one three for table by the noble Lord Lord Moylan.

Let me begin by assuring noble Lords and the noble Lord Lord Moylan suggested that I would do this, that clauses 89 and 90 do already provide powers for the government to regulate information on vape devices and packaging, which does include flavour descriptors, and I would particularly draw the attention of noble Lords to clause 89 three, which is a non-exhaustive, non-exhaustive list of the kind of provision that regulations could make, including and. If we look to subparagraph B, the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product have of course listened carefully to the concerns expressed by noble Lords about potential unintended consequences of implementing flavour restrictions to rapidly or stringently.

And I do understand the points that noble Lords have made about the role that flavoured vapes can play in adult in helping adult smokers quit something the noble Lady Baroness Fox has spoken to, and certainly the noble Lord Lord Moylan, did a very fine job of inviting us into this world that he has experienced in this regard. So in that spirit, I can confirm that the government's commitment to consult on regulating flavour descriptors as a first step before considering broader restrictions on flavoured ingredients.

This commitment does reflect our intention to adopt a proportionate approach. Again, as the noble Lord Earl Howe asked me to do, supporting adult smokers in their efforts to quit, whilst also working to reduce the appeal of vaping products to children. However, and to the points raised by the noble Lord Lord Darzi. I do have to be clear that it is essential that we retain the ability to go further in line with the evidence which the noble Lady referred to.

Flavourings are added to vaping products and that can increase their appeal. There are hundreds of flavoured ingredients being used in vapes, and although some are considered safe when ingested, we do not. As the noble Lord Lord Darzi said, we do not know the long term health effects when they are inhaled, particularly in respect of children. Some initial data drawn from the limited research available is concerning, and it does indicate that certain chemicals may be harmful if inhaled. So for this important reason, I feel we do have to have the flexibility to restrict flavoured ingredients in the future to protect public health.

We have sought further data on flavours as part of the call for evidence that was conducted at the end of last year, and we are reviewing those responses. In addition to this, we are also exploring commissioning further research on the health impacts of vape ingredients when inhaled. So I do hope that this all provides the reassurance to noble Lords that the powers in the Bill already provide a comprehensive framework to act on these issues, and that our approach will remain balanced and evidence based in order to strike what is a very necessary balance between reducing youth appeal while ensuring that adult smokers continue to have access to products that may help them quit.

So I do hope the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
19:14
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hear, hear! Minister, for her response, and in particular the words that were used, she used, and I hope I quote them correctly. These are areas on which we are planning to act. Now, I'd like to reassure Lord Moylan that I look very carefully at clause 89, as my earlier comments and earlier debates on how they might affect specialist tobacconists might have might have proved to him, but I'd point out that it only talks about packaging.

It doesn't talk about display materials. That appears in a different part of the bill. But I would also say to the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley that even if my amendment was put word for word into the bill, it would not prevent information about the products being provided to people who wanted to buy them on the packaging or on the display. That would be fine. But my intention, and I know the Minister understands this, is to do everything possible to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to be taken up by young children who have never smoked.

They are, and should remain a cessation tool. So. So I'm particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, because we have discussed outside the chamber this particular issue. She has given me what I want in that she has clarified that the government has the powers in the bill to regulate both packaging and display. And she has said, we intend to act in these areas, and I'm very grateful for that, having given me what I want. I'll withdraw my amendment.
19:16
None Portrait Amdt. 124 Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 124 Lord Lansley. My Lords, thank you. I'm glad to be Lords, thank you. I'm glad to be able to introduce this group and in particular to speak to my amendment. 124. This this group is about the features of products in clauses 89 and 90, not the ones that we've just discussed, but in particular the technology features to be found in, in in products amendment.

If I can jog to amendment, the later amendments, the the government amendments 130 and 132 and my amendment 131 relate to a subject that we discussed in a number of noble Lords at committee will recall, we discussed the question of whether the Bill should have the powers to regulate the technology in vapes, such that the mechanism for regulation would not only be at point of sale, but could also be at point of use. And my amendment one three, one was is designed specifically to to achieve that.

But the Minister listening again, I'm pleased to have the opportunity again to thank the Minister for both her engagement and that of officials, and also for the amendments that she's now brought forward, the amendments, the Minister's amendments one, three two and 130 together would have the effect of allowing for the features of a product to include the technology associated with that and in particular using one, three, two, the software that goes to be included with that technology.

What's the point of that? The point is to be able to secure that known technology, which would allow the age gating and verification linking the electronics in the in the vape to a smartphone with age verification built into the smartphone, would enable us to provide that only the verified adults would be able to use vapes. Now, what is really interesting in this context is that this is not speculative. There are the technology is presented to the FDA in America and most recently, the latest information I have from IK technology, whom I thank for their work on this, is about what I think is understood to be with the Food and Drug Administration in America.

The application for a premarket tobacco product application includes a human factors study, which has identified that in tests, 100% of adults were able to successfully to access the product. 0% of underage users were able to do so. So it's an effective technology now, I think where we are, if I can anticipate the minister's view on this subject, is that Ministers are not yet convinced that this is the approach to take, they want to ensure that there is effective point of sale verification.

But I hope they agree that given the progress that has been made, not least through the Food and Drug Administration in America, and this will be demonstrated in a substantial market that it may be, we find that the combination of point of sale and point of use will be necessary in future to achieve the level of assurance about age gating to vapes that we really want to achieve. Because we do know that at the moment, and I rely in this respect, the Baroness Fox is not with us just at the moment.

So I'm able to quote the action on smoking and health, who tell us at the moment that nearly half of underage vapers are presently buying them from shops. So we've got a substantial job to be done, and we know that nearly a quarter of underage vapers are receiving them by proxy purchases, so we are not going to eliminate the proxy purchases through the point of sale restriction. But age gating in the technology of the product itself may achieve exactly that.

So I think we're all agreed. I hope we're agreed following the debate on committee and subsequent work. And I do know that at committee we were indeed supported in this by my colleagues, my noble noble Lords, noble friends on the front bench, and indeed by the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley and the Liberal Democrat benches. I think we're all agreed that we want to have this power available, and hope that Ministers will look actively at whether it is a desirable thing to achieve.

Amendments, government amendments one 130 and 132 achieve that. Can I just ask because I didn't? There is also the remaining question of amendment one, two, four which I will formally move. But and is the basis of this debate that relates to clause 89 and is about the question of the technology in essentially in the packaging of a of of vaping products and vaping nicotine products. Now I really want to I, I won't press the amendment at all because I am assured by the Minister in those further conversations that the powers available in clause 89 would allow the kind of authentication technology for authentication of a product can be specified through clause 89.

But I do want to just say to the Minister, what we're looking, I hope we're looking to achieve is that we can put into products a smart tag, which we discussed previously, which is effectively a near-field communication tag embedded in the packaging to enable tracking of illicit products, giving real time identification of the history of a product by enforcement authorities, but also would enable retailers and indeed consumers with the appropriate technology in their smartphones to assure themselves about the authenticity and the safety of a product that was being available to them, and doing it in a way that is unlike QR codes that can be copied.

And and some of the other coding systems that are presently used can be done in a unique through a unique token ID system embedded in blockchain, which would mean that it would not be able to be removed or indeed copied or circumvented. So I think what we're what I'm hoping the Minister will be able to give us by way of assurance, is that clause 89 already has the powers that are necessary to include technology as sophisticated as this.

I beg to move. Amendment one, two, four, amendment proposed.
19:24
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Clause 89, page 50. Line 33 attend. Insert the words on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, I, I respond to this group of amendments that relate to group of amendments that relate to technology in devices. Turning first to the government amendments 130 and 132. Our understanding of both these amendments is that they are designed to future proof this legislation, particularly to prevent the placing of video games inside vaping devices on these benches, benches. We very much welcome the intention and the future proofing of this legislation. This is of the utmost importance.

We've seen it time and time again, and we are right to expect that the tobacco industry will react to this legislation when it hits the statute book. So we definitely, definitely welcome that. And my Lords, this is this is not abstract. This this is based on real life evidence and real life vapes that exist. E-cigarette companies are now producing vape devices that incorporate video games, particularly retro video games, and in some cases are even including virtual pets. So to some, this might appear like this is, you know, not that important, not that essential, but actually nothing could be further from the truth because this linking of nicotine addiction with people, possibly with gaming addiction, linking different rewards and sensory interactions actually are extremely powerful.

And the motivations behind it are only about increasing profits for big tobacco. So looking at it in more detail, just so your Lordships understand the actual points that users can get in the games on the vaping devices are linked to the number of puffs that you might be taking, how frequently you take those puffs, how often you interact with your vaping device. You can compare scores between you and your friends, and virtual pets, as I said, can die if you don't take enough nicotine.

So these are intended to make they look like they're playful, but they're actually about feeding and deepening individuals addiction to these devices. And in that way, they're extremely powerful and harmful, particularly to our young people at whom they are aimed. So one of these new devices, apparently has been viewed over 12 million times. British American Tobacco latest views. Ultra was recently dubbed the future of vaping, and these devices are available in the UK, and this market will inevitably grow if there are loopholes in in the legislation.

So these devices push the boundaries. So it is absolutely important that the government regulates this. And as we've heard, the oversight remains weak. Trading standards remains weak. These devices get into our young people's hands and it might predominantly through purchases in shops or through friends or even sometimes parents purchasing these devices. And online restrictions are not as good as they should be. So these are important issues. I guess. What I really wanted to ask the Minister, we do really welcome these, these, these, these new amendments.

But my question really to the Minister is, is the Minister convinced that with these two new amendments, does the government really have all the powers that they need to future proof this legislation? And I wanted to just ask a couple of questions. So does the government feel that they have adequate powers in this bill and future regulations to prevent future vapes that might so that the government can stop vaping devices being linked to any form of online data collection and storage to prevent the licking.

The linking of vapes to apps in phone via Bluetooth, QR codes or via joining of the websites to stop the linking of individual puff accounts of users to games or online collections. To stop the actual connection between the number and times of puffs taken and access to forms of promotions, discounts or VIP access passes and stuff like that. Because this this is clearly where the industry would like to go. If the guardrails are not provided by government.

I also welcome the amendment from Labour Lord Lansley. I think really just speaking to the word you've used. I think really the hope is that really the government amendments one through two and 130 cover amendment 131, but it would be good to have the Minister that. And then finally turning to one, which is really about actually the technology within the pack packaging, and whether the government feels that they actually have the powers that they need. Again, to put these near-field tracking devices and anti to make sure that these are genuine products and that they're not fraud and unreal products.

So really, I think my question simply to the Minister is to ask on that in relation to one, two, four, does the government feels that in terms of making sure that the products available in the shops are legal and not counterfeit, does the government need one, two, four, or have?
19:30
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
Well, before I respond to the specific amendments, I wonder whether I can just touch on two things that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. One of the things that some someone who's when I was previously in the European Parliament, worked on a number of technology regulation. One of the things that we can never be absolutely certain about is that we have actually legislated for the future, or we've completely future proofed anything. The only way to do that is to ban everything, frankly.

And therefore quite often we find regulation having to keep up with technology and far behind technology. But it's one but it's something to be. We can put certain provisions in place and we can predict certain things, but we can't predict all innovation completely. And secondly, I hope the noble Lord Russell will not mind me gently reminding him that not all vape companies are connected to Big tobacco. There are a number of vape companies who have nothing to do with with Big Tobacco, and I think it's important that we understand that distinction.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lord Lansley. And also before the noble Lady, the Minister speaks to them. We also very much welcome the two government amendments in this group, which we think respond very helpfully to the issues raised in committee by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We believe that adding these provisions is a good way of future proofing the bill. As much as any bill can be future proofed, without necessarily compromising any decisions that Ministers may wish to make in short term, but also without committing the government or a future government to any one specific technology solution or to one company's specific solution.

So in that. With that in mind, I look forward to what the noble Lady the Minister has to say.
19:32
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords Government amendments 130 and 132 provide a power that would allow the government to regulate the technological features of vaping products and tobacco related devices, and the software associated with those features to address emerging risks and to protect children. So, my Lords, whilst the Bill already does provide regulatory powers to regulate various device features such as colour, size and shape, I have listened carefully to the points raised during committee about vape technology and the need to future proof the bill in order to respond quickly to new risks, and I appreciate the support of both frontbenchers on this point, and particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, about how far one can ever go about future proofing.

And I can assure him we're not planning to ban everything, but thank him for the suggestion. It's interesting. The noble Lord. Oh, Russell spoke to what are very concerning examples of the emergence of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people. As the noble Lord said, some can now come with gaming functionality and others can be linked to what are called puff leaderboards and reward systems. So the more you inhale, the more credits you build up.

And emerging evidence does indeed suggest. And it's worrying that these interactive and gamified vaping features may heighten their appeal to children and raises very serious public health concerns around their potential to escalate dependence on nicotine. So this this amendment therefore ensures that such emergent technology features can be appropriately regulated to reduce the appeal to children. Turning to amendments 124 and 131, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley. Firstly, let me reassure the noble Lord Lord Lansley, as well as the noble Lord Earl Russell, that with regard to amendment one two, four, the powers in the bill already do enable us to regulate markings, which could include digital markings such as QR codes, to be used as part of a system to authenticate products, and with regard to amendment 131, which is with reference to the device itself.

I am very grateful for the noble Lords suggestions and his contributions on how best to future proof the bill, including on age verification technology. So whilst it is not the government's policy to verify age at the point of use, and we have no intention to do so at this time, we do recognise that need, as I've already said, to be able to regulate technology, to protect public health and respond to evidence. As the noble Lord Lord Lansley does acknowledge. So it is for this reason that we're introducing the new regulation making power on technology to which I have just spoken to.

And I therefore ask the noble Lord Lord Lansley to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And before I sit down. Thank you. Before the noble Lady sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lady sits down, she was referring to QR codes on packaging, which of course is covered. You know, obviously by the terminology of the bill as it stands. But the example I was using was smart tags, which are effectively incorporating an electronic feature into the electronic feature into the packaging of a product. For monitoring, I'd like to be assured that smart tags, too, are covered by the existing powers in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll I'll be very happy to write to confirm that point, but we do to confirm that point, but we do feel that the bill does cover what we need to cover now. And our we need to cover now. And our amendments talk about future proofing. And I think that that is the key thing, but I'd be very
19:36
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
pleased to write further. >> I most grateful to the Minister and indeed for the support from the and indeed for the support from the noble Lord Earl Russell and my noble friend Lord Carmel. With those assurances, I'm very happy to withdraw if I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships. Pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave. Withdraw. Amendment 125 Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 126 Baroness Walmsley not moved. Baroness Walmsley not moved. Amendment 127 the Earl of Lindsay not moved. Amendment 128 Baroness not moved. Amendment 128 Baroness Harman formally. In clause 90, page 51, line 14. Insert the words on the Marshalled List. The question is been made, as many say, content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it number 129 Lord Rennard not moved.

Amendment 130 Baroness Mone moved me. Clause 90, page 51 913. Insert the words in the Marshalled List question has been made as many that opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it amendment 131 Lord Lansley not move. Amendment 132 Baroness Merron move formally Amendment Clause 90, page 51, line 1610. Insert the words on the Marshalled List. The question is amendment be made? As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

Clement 133 Lord Rennard not moved. Amendment 134 Lord Moylan not moved. Amendment 135 and 136I think I could take En bloc Baroness Merron moved formally. Amendment 135 and 136 En bloc those amendments been made, as has been content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it and 136A Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 137 Baroness Merron. Perhaps I could take amendment one three 7 to 1 four six En bloc move amendments 13721468 questions that those amendments be made, as many of their opinion will say.

Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Which brings me to, I think, amendment 147. The Earl of Lindsay not moved. Amendment 113 Baroness Mone moved formally in clause 113, page 62, line 31. Leave out or effect and insert the words in the Marshalled List which has been made, as many people say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 149 Lord Udny-Lister I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stand to move 149. And also while I'm on my feet, talk about the other amendments talk about the other amendments which are in my name, and we must prevent an indiscriminate or prevent an indiscriminate or blanket prohibition without proper scrutiny and consultation. And I fear that without these safeguards and measures and this approach being taken, that years of success in smoking cessation will be reversed rapidly. Further still, in the drafting of this bill, it is
19:39
19:41
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Let me propose clause 113, page 62 and 35. Leave out Subparagraphs 62 and 35. Leave out Subparagraphs four and five. The amendment made. >> My Lords. >> I rise to speak to amendment 168,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 168, in this group in the name. And we'll also speak briefly to my amendment 196, which is in the next group. But the the subject matter is broadly similar, and I'm very grateful to my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham, Lord Naseby, and the noble Lady Baroness Fox for signing these amendments. And these amendments, taken together, serve the purpose of providing safeguards and guarantees for the hospitality sector within the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

I should be clear, they do not tie the hands of government in any way. They do not create carve outs or specific loopholes, with the exception of a very narrow exemption in amendment 1168, they merely propose a requirement to consult specifically with the hospitality, retail and entertainment industries before making regulations in these areas. So when thinking about these amendments, I would ask that noble Lords consider the broader burdens that are currently faced by the hospitality industry. As is well known, the sector has been exposed to a number of challenges as a result of a government policy in recent months, and some aspects of this bill have the potential to substantially add to these challenges.

My Lords, it's worth looking at the broader context because the hospitality sector contributes £93 billion to the UK economy each year. It's the third largest employer, with 3.5 million people employed in the sector. And since the 2024 budget, over 89,000 jobs have been lost, which accounts for roughly 53% of all job losses in the economy. That is before the impact of the Employment Rights bill that 49% of business leaders have said will make them less likely to hire new staff on business rates reforms.

Pubs have been granted a limited stay of execution, but in the wider hospitality sector, the estimate is that it will cost the industry an additional £150 million, or the equivalent of about 12,500 jobs. The beer tax in the 2025 budget has forced up the price of pint by effectively eliminating the profit margin on beer, though the alcohol through the alcoholic hike of 3.55% from last month. And this is all before the increases to the National Insurance that has driven up operating costs across the board, as well as, of course, sky high energy prices.

My Lords, this is an industry that is under considerable existential pressure. It is important to reiterate these facts in the light of the briefing from many of the public health charities that have been campaigning on this bill, and they claim that these amendments are not necessary. But, my Lords, every single UK hospitality industry association, including UK hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industry Association have warned about the damage this bill could do to the sector. These amendments are therefore needed because the industry has said they have absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs.

Now, while the government have said that it's not their intention to legislate for smoke and smoke and vape-free places for the hospitality industry as it is not the right time. That statement does carry the clear implication that they might choose to do so in the future. These amendments, to be clear, do not stop the government from legislating in this area. They merely require that they guarantee consultation with an impact assessment before doing so. And my Lords, why the guarantee? Because too often we see sectors that have concerns around this area dismissed for having vested interests.

Indeed, we've heard many arguments this evening around the same subject and the government only heeding the suspicion submissions of organisations that tell them what they want to hear. In view of this, we would suggest that these amendments and safeguards are extremely important. Now in amendment 168, noble Lords may question why advertising is also included, and the reason for that is twofold. Following on from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, we must acknowledge that revenue from advertising that supports the hospitality sector is not unhelpful, but more importantly, the reason why advertising is included is that in the smoking area of a nightclub or bar, advertising for non tobacco products, which I must stress, non tobacco products is an effective way to ensure that smokers are being directly encouraged to quit smoking and to switch to something significantly less harmful.

Exactly. The policy of the NHS and the intention behind this bill. So with these amendments, there would be complete control over what is communicated in these adverts. There were a couple of criticisms of these proposals at committee, and that they included allowing marketing of this type could mean that these products are seen as recreational, and that underage teams are often able to slip into age restricted environments. So just to quickly address both of these points, my Lords, the Advertising Standards Authority, and with these amendments, the government can make very specific regulations about how these products are presented to ensure that no recreational messaging could be used.

If this was a concern. Vaping is heavily regulated already in terms of advertising by the Advertising Standards Authority, and that could easily be strengthened and under 18 slipping into these environments by Lord Barwell. This argument rather makes a mockery of the entire principle of the age verification, on which the success or failure of this bill depends. I would suggest that it would be somewhat ironic and illogical to depend on that argument. Now, one would hope that even the most stringent supporters of the Bill would see what these amendments are proposing is a very constructive form of targeted, controlled, limited and effective communication that will not only help the UK drive down smoking rates and limit the exposure of children to any marketing these products, but at the same time would safeguard the interests of the hospitality sector.

And should it transpire that these measures turn out to be flawed or ineffective, consultation with the industry could eliminate any issues or omissions. My Lords, this government likes a consultation and indeed in a previous group, the noble Lady, the Minister said that we would be wise to consult. Well, I agree it might be of interest. Just to digress briefly, to know that. Note that as of January the 28th of this year, the noble Ladies colleague, Lord Leong informed me that via letter that there were 81 consultations ongoing across government departments.

Now, I don't think it would be onerous to add 1 or 2 more. So I do believe that the government should consider accepting this amendment, which is designed to facilitate good policy making, to mitigate any of the unintended consequences that the powers of this bill may have on the hospitality industry.
19:47
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I too, I think that the explanation for the amendments has been well made. I've added my name to a number of amendments, such as 149 and 151 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lord Udny-Lister. Excluding vapes and nicotine products from prohibition regarding advertising. And he's explained why, I do think it is shocking, genuinely, how many misconceptions there are about vaping and smoking in the public. And so there's a real job of communication that the government has an obligation to make.

If 50% of adults now believe that vaping is equally as harmful as smoking, that's not a good thing. If only 3,730% believe vaping is less harmful, that is not positive. Conflicting messaging about vaping can discourage smokers from switching to lower risk products and therefore widen health inequalities. All the things we keep talking about and misrepresentations are a real problem, and I think that we've got to tackle it. And so the idea of banning advertising, I think, would reinforce the false perception that vaping is just as harmful as smoking.

So as we're kind of coming to the end of this, I just want to do my final declaration as somebody who smoked 40 cigarettes for 40 years, every day, I mean, can you imagine I would like to put down on record in Hansard that I am grateful to the vaping industry and particularly to flavours, because actually I stopped smoking as a consequence of flavoured vapes. And that's what I thought everybody wanted us smokers to do, only to find that actually vaping and smoking is being treated almost as though they're the same.

So I'm very keen that we do not do anything that will make vaping less visible, or erase it from the public square. The government has sort of acknowledged that now, by allowing public authorities to run mass media campaigns encouraging adults who smoke to swap and stop. But dare I suggest that just possibly official public health adverts, even if they go on TikTok, might just be a little bit dry and less appealing than actually seeing some adverts for vapes in a nightclub where there are tens of thousands of people go, people gather for a night out at hospitality venues and that therefore, this would seem to me to be something that the government would want to encourage.

If anything, although I know that the amendments don't make the government do anything, I would just suggest that it seems very positive in places where you have thousands of smokers going, adult smokers in areas of venues, if they see adverts for less harmful. Alternative to smoking is a clever way to encourage, switch and quit. That's one of the reasons why I have added my name to amendment 168, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom, with Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby.

I do think that the emphasis here on adverts that do not contain tobacco, but for vaping is well made. But I also think it is important for us to consider the hospitality sector. I think that's been explained very well, but indeed hospitality venues do rely on marketing and sponsorship as part of their income. And as I say, I think it would be doing a public service rather than doing anything damaging to allow them to carry on. I'm already, and many of us are worried about the fatal damage that this bill is going to have on the retail sector.

It does seem to me to be ridiculous. If we have another industry that could also be put in jeopardy by this bill, I do not think it's very good for the government's growth strategy. And when UK hospitality stressed that the industry just has, quote, absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs, I think that should listen. I think when the CEO of Whitbread, one of the largest hospitality operators in the country, says that the hospitality industry, quote, finds itself on the receiving end of a series of government interventions which together will significantly hold back our ability to contribute to growth.

We should listen, and I just think that rather carelessly, we could be in a situation where we don't take that into consideration when we bring in some of these advertising restrictions, and this is just simply very proportionate amendments that tell us to suggest that we hold back a little, at least organise consultation just in terms of another industry in peril from this bill are the design industry, which is why I've added my name to amendment 152, and that removes the offence from designers regarding a reason to suspect the design or imagery that contains these kind of products.

So what it's basically doing is there is a problem for designers, which is they can be criminalised for designing something which has within the design products which this bill is trying to eradicate from the public space. I think that's a serious attack on artistic freedom, and I think that amendment should be just simply incorporated into the bill, because I do not think that anyone ever intended designers to be criminalised by it. But on the other hand, it's a bill that will do all sorts of things that it didn't intend to do.

So these amendments are very moderate, and they allow the government, I think, to hold back the tide of that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak very briefly in support of amendment 168. In the name of the noble Lord Lord In the name of the noble Lord Lord Sharpe and other noble Lords, because they seem so reasonable. Surely there's no harm done if the Surely there's no harm done if the advertisement is in licensed premises, is not visible except from the inside. From inside the from the inside. From inside the venue is not for a tobacco product. venue is not for a tobacco product.

Mentions a smoke or vape-free area and is adult only age restricted. I can't see what there is to object to unless we are saying that the age restrictions don't work. But why then are we pressing ahead with a generational ban in the first place? Do we really want to get into this overreaching, overregulated situation where the compulsory cure is worse than the
19:54
19:55
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I, I speak to respond to this group of amendments on advertising and sponsorship on these benches. We feel it is essential that this bill strikes the right balance on advertising and sponsorship of nicotine products to ensure that they cannot be marketed in ways that appeal to children, but can be promoted to adults who smoke as a way to quit smoking. I've listened to the speeches that have been made in this group, and I the in my initial response in my head is that actually what we're facing here is an absolute explosion in vaping, particularly amongst our children and young people.

And actually, really, I don't think that the industry, the pub industry is going to survive on the back of vape advertising. And I don't particularly feel that we need more advertising for vapes. I listened to the argument on education, but education is not advertising, and I don't trust the industry to do the job of education because they're interested in one thing, and that is not education, that's profits. But responding to this group of amendments. I think there is a background problem here because actually we still have we already have too many loopholes in the system.

So, you know, it's perfectly possible on TfL on the side of buses to see huge adverts for nicotine pouches with tiny lettering on the, the, the, the health warnings. And you know, that's, that's really already we, we, we have problems with this. So the big tobacco knows that marketing works. They do it for one reason. And we need to be absolutely clear that the purpose of this bill is not only to bring about a generational ban, but, you know, to my mind, we don't want to replace tobacco with vapes.

Vapes are there to help people to stop smoking and support those people. Stop smoking. It's not a whole new revenue stream forevermore for Big Tobacco as a sop for them, for having stopped selling their products that kill everybody. So that's clear. So ash data on nicotine pouches has shown that this market is growing from 38 to 43% among young people in Britain between just 20, 24 and 25, and at nearly 4% of teenagers now report having tried nicotine pouches.

So this advertising is powerful and it does work. So it's it's it's that's why they do it. And this bill we feel actually closes the current regulatory loophole whilst still allowing nicotine products to be promoted as a cessation device. And we feel that this is the right place, the right place for the legislation to be striking a considered an appropriate balance to maximise the public health benefits, which is where our concentration needs to be. It doesn't need to be on the concentration of of promoting vapes or anything else.

This, this, this bill is about promoting public health. So just turning to the actual amendments, amendment 168 that would allow advertising of tobacco products in hospitality areas. No, we just this is not appropriate. These these are not the right settings. People gives a false impression that these are for recreational use and not for smoking cessation, and potentially creates a massive loophole in the middle of the bill that will be exploited mercilessly by industry. We've heard about their ever ready need to put forward legal claims, whether they're going to win them or not.

So I recognise some of the points, as I've already said, that no Baroness Fox is made and I congratulate her on having stopped smoking and I agree with her on the need to have availability of vapes. I agree with her on the need to have better education. I agree with her on the absolute need to maintain the flavours in vaping products for smoking cessation. But I have to say that I think there's a greater risk that with this amendment, that these products would be seen as recreational and not for smoking cessation.

And to my mind, that's that's where our concentration needs to be. On amendment 152. I mean, this was discussed at committee, and I thought the Minister explained that this the this mirrors the approach that's taken on existing tobacco advertising and promotions. And we were satisfied with that. Finally, on amendments 155157159161163 and 169. These aim to remove the powers to restrict advertisements of nicotine products and heated tobacco, unless there is a consultation with business.

Again, I have to say we don't support this. It's already illegal to advertise heated tobacco under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, and we we just don't support these amendments.
20:00
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for their amendments in this group? And let me begin with Lord Udny-Lister amendments. Many noble Lords have raised concerns about the unintended consequences of this Bill. Just yesterday, HMRC published data showing that legal tobacco sales in the United Kingdom fell by 52% between 21 and 2025. Now, that statistic will be welcomed by those who want to eradicate smoking, but there is still some way to go in encouraging smoking cessation and Lord Udny-Lister amendments.

Simply ask the question akin to that which was debated in Group five, namely, how far should we go when it comes to regulation of vaping and nicotine products, especially when we're trying to promote them as alternatives to smoking tobacco? Now, of course, some regulation is is certain to be necessary when there are products such as vapes. But we have to be careful that we can find them to responsible use. And we should also be careful not to use the sledgehammer when a nuanced approach might be a more effective way forward.

In particular circumstances and particular settings. And if we overdo the restrictions, we risk driving smokers away from quit Aids and alternatives such as vapes towards easily, easily available alternatives. Unfortunately, such as illicit tobacco, which we know is unfortunately still too accessible to some smokers, many noble Lords have spoken to their own experience in local authorities about illicit trying to tackle illicit tobacco. So in the right settings, advertising and indeed displays of vaping products can play a role in encouraging adult smokers to switch from cigarettes to less harmful alternatives.

And we know many are already doing so. So it's important, I think, for the government to to find the right balance. Let me also turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. There is really little I can add to the case that he has made so persuasively. The hospitality sector has faced sustained pressure in recent years. Rising energy costs and increasing the cost of taking on new employees, staff shortages in some areas and increasing regulatory burdens. And it is therefore reasonable that when we introduce further restrictions, we carefully consider the cumulative impact on licensed venues.

And if you look at my friend's amendment, I think it's tightly drawn. It would apply only within the curtilage of premises licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 only, where advertisements are not visible from outside, only in age restricted venues with a strict safeguards and explicitly excludes tobacco products. It also provides for regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and requires consultation and a full impact assessment, something very much in line with many of those who people, many noble Lords who believe in better regulation.

So that framework suggests a helpful, I think, attempt to strike a balance, maintaining strong protections for children and the wider public, while recognising that adult only controlled environments may justify a different approach. So it does seem reasonable to at least explore whether limited, carefully regulated flexibility of this kind could be accommodated without undermining public health objectives. I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will look favourably upon such flexibility.
20:04
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 to this debate. And let me begin with the amendments. In the name of the noble Lord. Lord Udny-Lister amendments 149151155157159161163 and 169. My Lords, survey data shows that there has been a significant growth in awareness of vaping promotion amongst young people, with 55% of all children aged 11 to 17 aware of promotion in shops. This figure relates to 2025. That is up from 37% in 2022.

So we are therefore delivering on our manifesto commitment to stop vapes from being advertised to children, whilst still enabling them to be promoted by public health authorities as a means for adult smokers to quit smoking, something that noble Lords have emphasised correctly. Once again in this group, tobacco advertising, including for heated tobacco products, is already prohibited under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and will remain so under the bill. Turning to the amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Sharpe, let me clarify that the advertising provisions do not restrict the use of or sale of products.

Sorry. Do not restrict the use of products or sale of products, and therefore should not overly impact on the hospitality sector. And I will come back to reference to the hospitality sector following the comments of the noble Lady Baroness Fox. When we get to the last and final group, which is coming up next, my Lords, evidence for tobacco has found that partial bans, as is referred to in this amendment, are not as effective as comprehensive bans in reducing tobacco consumption, and I therefore feel it's extremely reasonable to draw similar conclusions for vape advertising.

Under current legislation, there are already strict restrictions for vape advertising. We believe that the promotion of vaping to quit smoking is best led by the appropriate public health authorities, because they can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support. And and in response to the comments of the noble Lady Baroness Fox, the Bill does already include defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I outlined in the first day of report, following my prior assurances on public health campaigns, we are introducing a specific defence which will strengthen this capability by allowing businesses such as pharmacies and GPS, something that noble Lords rightly raised my attention to, to advertise non-branded vapes.

If it is part of a campaign agreed with the public authority for public health purposes, we are not considering further exemptions due to the risk of loopholes. The potential for poorly enforced entry rules, and the fact that evidence has shown comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising did reduce consumption. But partial bans, as I mentioned before, have had no significant effect. Turning to amendment 152, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, the language of has reason to suspect is standard practice and already included in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.

It. This wording is specifically designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those involved in the design of advertisements cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance. Where there are clear grounds for suspicion. And I say again, this is standard legal practice. Finally, moving to amendment 153, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, it is important that we recognise and respect the established criminal law system within each nation of the UK. Scotland does have, as noble Lords will know, a separate criminal justice system, and 12 months is the maximum penalty on summary conviction for this type of offence and is fixed in line with their criminal justice system.

For the reasons I have set out, I do hope that the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister will withdraw his amendment.
20:09
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to thank the Minister and thank her for the explanations and thank her for the explanations and I withdraw the amendment. >> Is it your. >> Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 150 Baroness Mone moved formally. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say content. The contrary, not content. The not contents have it 151. Lord Udny-Lister 151 253. Lord Udny-Lister not moved. 154 Baroness Merron moved.

Formally. The question is that amendment 154 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. 155 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. 156 Baroness Merron moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. 157 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. 158 Baroness Merron moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 159 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 160 Baroness Merron moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Member 161 Lord Udny-Lister not moved 162 Baroness Merron moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say content the contrary not content, the contents have it.

Amendment 163 Lord Udny-Lister not moved the amendment 164 to 167 Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that amendments 164 to 167 en bloc be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 168 Lord Sharpe of Epsom not moved. Amendment 169 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 170 to 188 En bloc Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that amendment 170 to 188 en bloc be agreed to, as many of that opinion say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Are amendments 189 and 199 90. Taken together Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 191 Baroness Mone moved formally. The question is that amendment 191 be agreed to, as many of that opinion say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 192. The Earl of Lindsey not moved. Amendment 192 a Lord Kamall.
20:12
None Portrait Amdt. 192A Earl Howe (Conservative)
-

My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment 192 A and we'll speak to amendment 194 A standing in my name. In committee, I raised a question relating to clause 136 of the bill, which I make no apology for raising with the Minister. Again, under the Health Act 2006, Ministers have a regulation making power to exempt performers and performances from the smoking ban, where doing so is justified by the artistic integrity of the performance. That provision, in effect, creates a presumption of legality that empowers producers, directors and performers to make a reasoned judgement about whether smoking is intrinsic to the artistic content of the work.

Now, I contend that clause 136 turns that structure on its head. Instead of a power to permit smoking for artistic reasons, it substitutes a power only to create a defence to the criminal offence. In section 72 of the 2006 act. That offence is clear. It says a person who smokes in a smoke free place commits an offence. In other words, under the current law, you do not commit an offence unless and until you are convicted of it. Whereas under the exercise of the power in the bill, you have committed an offence.

Unless you can prove in court that you haven't. Now those, it seems to me, are two very different things. And whilst the government maintained that they're merely rephrasing the current law to create the same legal effect, I haven't been persuaded by their explanation of that. The burden of proof has clearly been reversed. Let's not forget that we're talking about theatres. Many of them are small, many of them already operating on narrow margins. Some are fringe venues that are not organisations with legal departments on retainer.

And yet, as the bill currently stands, a theatre director who permits an actor to smoke on stage is thereby immediately in legal and financial jeopardy because he has rendered himself liable to arrest for an offence from which he can only be absolved by arguing his artistic case before a judge. That cannot be right. It cannot be right to oblige every director of a Noel Coward play to commission legal advice to protect himself in the event of his subsequent arrest.

Now, if clause 136 remains as it is, I do hope the Minister will tell me that its provisions will be the subject of guidance to the enforcement authorities, because at that, at the very least, is what is required. Turning to amendment 194 a my Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State before designating any place or vehicle as vape-free, to publish the evidence relied upon, and to be satisfied that exposure to vapour in those settings presents a health risk sufficient to justify the restriction.

And this is to ensure that where the state restricts behaviour and curtails liberty, it does so on the basis of clear and demonstrable evidence. The government has taken a robust approach to tobacco. The impact of smoking on public health from tobacco is clear. Decades of research have established the harms of both primary and second hand smoke. But vaping is not tobacco, and the two should not be conflated. Whilst vaping is not risk free, the available evidence on second hand vapour suggests that the risks to bystanders bystanders are at most negligible when compared with second hand smoke.

And that distinction matters. It's the difference between proportionate regulation and prohibition for prohibition sake. If the government believed that exposure to vapour in particular places genuinely presents a material risk to health, then they should have no hesitation in publishing the evidence that supports that conclusion. So the request that I would make is for the Minister to confirm that any designations of premises that are made under the powers in this clause will be based strictly on published evidence of risk to health and not, for example, on the precautionary principle or a desire for regulatory symmetry with tobacco.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 136, page 78, line 11. At the end, page 78, line 11. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. The. I'd like to thank the noble Lord Earl Powell, for moving those Lord Earl Powell, for moving those amendments so well and explaining some of the concerns. I'm particularly pleased that he
20:18
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
brought back the point about artistic freedom and so on, because I thought that was very well made. But anyway, I'm going to talk more broadly about the amendments in this group, because I do think they do think that they sum up the dangers of mission creep inherent in the bill, but also highlight the pitfalls in allowing the Secretary of State to have such leeway away from democratic scrutiny to change the goalposts. Granting Ministers the power to extend smoke free areas, including outdoors, to include vaping and indeed, heating tobacco use is actually something that should not just be nodded through, and it would mean that the use of the power of secondary legislation to allow the banning of, for example, smoking or vaping outside in a beer garden, in a pub to ring fence off whole swathes of outdoor uncovered spaces such as outside health and social care facilities or education settings.

And it is worth remembering that that would mean that front line workers, from teachers to care workers, never mind patients or residents, it could be illegal for them to go and have a vape outside their workplace. And we have to ask, is that reasonable? Is that proportionate? It's one thing if the workplace is designates that they shouldn't. But for the law to intervene, I think is is is more dangerous. Yet once more, this effectively conflates smoking with vaping, undermining the perception that vaping is relatively safer, as I've endlessly, boringly repeated.

But also I did want to just say something about smokers, because in this relentless bid to banish smoking, there is a danger that we end up demonising smokers. That's millions of our citizens who can be punished for indulging in a rescue but legal habit and kind of saying, we don't want to see them anywhere in the public sphere. I don't know if that's the kind of society that the government have in mind, because even Cancer Research UK warns that, quote, it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their home, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them.

So again, those unintended consequences as part of the justification for many of these kind of outdoor bands is this notion of modelling and normalisation theories so popular in academia that says that we need to protect children and but we do the protecting of children so that they never see adults smoking or vaping so that they don't copy adults, that it's never normalised. And I just want us to think about what that would mean if we go along, that that's the reason why we can't ever have adults vaping outside where children might see them.

But if we're actually saying that children might copy adults who vape or smoke, isn't that a green light for the state to start seizing children from their parents and leading public health home invasions to reduce children from to rescue children from their vaping parents? I'm frightened to say that because it might give the Minister some ideas, but the amendments in this group that I put my name to, largely in the name of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, again because he put in some brilliant amendments, it seems to me, are entirely proportionate and sensible, and they help keep the Bill on track and to focus on its own stated aims instead of being a vehicle for outlandish overreach.

That's not evidence based, because the arguments in favour of restricting vaping and smoking outside venues seems to hinge as much on a sort of prohibitionist personal distaste for the habit, rather than any sense of evidence based policy. And that's why I think that the issue around passive vaping and the lack of evidence in relation to it is worth highlighting here because, again, Cancer Research UK and I stress this because Cancer Research UK support this bill, but keep putting out warnings in their briefings that you have to be careful, you don't go too far and they say is is sensible to note that while further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping, they do say that.

But then they say, however, quote, there is currently no good evidence the second hand vapour is harmful, and given that evidence indicates that vaping is far less harmful than smoking, it's likely the second hand vapour is far less harmful than second hand smoke. Meanwhile, Doctor Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at UCL's Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, explains quote Second-hand exposure also differs. Smoke comes both from the burning tip of the cigarette and exhaled smoke, whereas e-cigarettes release aerosol only when exhaled, resulting in far lower bystander exposure.

And other research from UCL has found that people exposed to second-hand vapour absorb around 84% less nicotine than those exposed to second-hand smoke, and while not zero, exposure from vaping, they say, is far lower than from smoking and the level of toxicants is even lower. So they're basically saying, hold on, keep a sense of proportion. And that's all that we're talking about here. So I'm hoping that the government will seek out such voices in its smoke free, heated, tobacco free, vape free places in England consultation, which was announced on the first day of recess on Friday the 13th of February.

Of course, these free places will be anything but free, as they'll deny individuals personal freedoms and also impinge on the freedoms of a great many venues, both private and public. On the one hand, then I would urge the noble Lady, the Minister and her department to widely and loudly advertise that consultation so that as diverse a group of respondents can be encouraged to feed in beyond the usual suspects, NGOs and lobbyists. I especially hope she will encourage the hospitality industry and individual venues to respond because, as we've already heard, the British Institute, the the hospitality industry are under the cosh, the British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that 62% of their members feared that these kind of bans will negatively impact their trade, and 20% believe it would lead to the closure of their pubs.

Now, sometimes when we discuss issues in this bill, we view all aspects of society only through the prism of public health. It can be a rather joyless, arid and sanitised version of the good life, in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the world of pubs and pub gardens or nightclubs or eating or music venues, overregulation will kill them off. Not just in terms of the, you know, they'll kill off the atmosphere, never mind kill off the financially. The truth is, if we if if you look at the research, 49% of regular pub goers are smokers, even though smokers only account for less than 15% of the UK population.

And more and more, of course, are vapers. And that is not a crime or a problem. Funnily enough, a lot of people who go to pubs also like to have a drink as well. Yet bizarrely, they are in trouble for that. Too many in hospitality worry that this bill would be used as a blueprint for alcohol as well as anything else, because indeed, the Department of Health are considering banning under 18 seconds, purchasing no alcohol or alcohol free drinks in pubs.

That because they say it would encourage alcohol uptake in the future. And then there's a discussion about adding health warnings in imagery and and plain packaging and everything in relation to alcohol bottles. So it's no wonder that all of those different hospitality organisations that the noble Lord Sharpe quoted earlier are actually saying that they're worried about the actual impact of this particular bill and its provisions in relation to trade, customers behaviour and operating costs. And I mean, to be honest, it's no wonder that many Republicans have banned Labour MPs and their locals.

If you consider everything that's been added on. Right. Because tonight, hospitality venues at present do presently put up their own restrictions. In other words, they ban people they don't want. They've got rules. And that's because they are they they deal with their clientele with absolute common sense, and they have rules and so on. But there's a fear that such proportionate self-regulation by sensible people who run the hospitality industry in this country will be trampled on by this bill.

Now, finally, sadly, trusting small SMEs in hospitality to act responsibly is not a feature of amendment 199 in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Northover and Baroness Walmsley. And it seems apt in my final speech in this bill to note how shocked I am. Shocked, I tell you that the Liberal Democrats benches are neither liberal nor Democratic on this issue. They want to inveigle through amendment 199 local councils into compliance by using this law to only issue future payment licences as smoke free.

So, so much for localism or for encouraging a thriving high street or cafe society, or supporting local autonomy. I mean, I really do think it's a step too far. I think a few things are, but that really is the limit. So I'm hoping the noble Lady, the Minister, can reassure me that the government are not as liberal as the Liberal Democrats. I won't necessarily hold my breath.
20:28
20:29
20:30
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Oh. >> Oh. >> Oh my Lords, despite the comments of the last two speakers, I would like to speak to amendment I would like to speak to amendment 199, purpose of which is simple. It's to make every future and a new pavement licence issued by local authority smoke free. My Lords, you will recall that pavement licences first appeared during the pandemic, when indoor hospitality was restricted and they gave cafes, pubs and restaurants a lifeline. It seemed obvious that these spaces should follow the same rules as indoors.

No smoking. The LGA supported this, saying, quote it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has the public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second hand smoke. And they welcomed this national policy because it stopped the stupid situation of having people allowed to smoke in a pub pavement area on one side of the road, but not on the other side. If a local authority boundary ran down the middle of the road and they had different policies.

So since then pavement licences have become a permanent fixture. But after some lobbying from some parts of the hospitality industry, the requirement for smoke free was removed without proper consultation with health authorities. In 2021, this House supported a regret motion from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, noting the missed opportunity to make all licences smoke free. So amendment 199 seeks to honour that vote and ensure that this health protecting measure is applied consistently. Currently, there is a requirement for some seating to be smoke free, a distinction which actually means very little when you're talking about a very small bit of pavement.

More than ten councils have made smoke free a condition of obtaining a pavement licence, including Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Northumberland County Council and Durham. Not outstandingly Liberal authorities, as far as I can tell. Feedback shows that customers and businesses actually welcome the change. In Liverpool, a survey of premises found that 74% of those asked expressed support for the scheme, including many smokers. And councils, of course, are also aiming to reduce cigarette litter with this initiative, making outdoor seating areas into cleaner, more welcoming environments.

Second hand smoke, my Lords, is harmful at any level. It worsens asthma and other respiratory conditions and contributes to heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Smoke free spaces are also popular with the public. Polling from ash shows that 59% of people support banning smoking in outdoor areas of pubs, cafes and restaurants. Indeed, 40% said they'd be more likely to visit these venues if smoking were banned outside. And that's more than double the number of people who say they'd go less often, debunking the idea that smoke free means customer free.

Making outdoor areas smoke free is not only sensible, it's what the public want. So I do regret that this issue is not covered by the recent consultation on smoke free places. It is a shame that the government felt that they were not able to include hospitality in that consultation at all, falling into this false narrative that smoke free is somehow an economic threat to hospitality, less than 12% of the population smoke. So the financial viability of the hospitality industry is clearly not dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco, including outdoors.

Indoor smoke free legislation was a far more drastic intervention, and we heard many of these arguments from those opposed then. However, a survey in 2012 of over well nearly 5000 pub customers reported that more than 1 in 5 visited the pub more often than before. Smoke free legislation. I do hope that the Minister will in future consider looking at the pilots for smoke free pavement licences to assess the economic relationship between the hospitality sector and smoking. As prevalence continues to fall, we must be at a tipping point soon where these spaces will naturally become smoke free.

Which brings me to amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the potential impact any restrictions will have on hospitality, but in any case, the government would consult on any use of smoke free powers as they are doing currently. Moving on, I welcome amendment 194A from the noble Lords Carmel and Earl Howe. There is no doubt that the public are keen to see more places where smoking and vaping are prohibited.

However, this policy must be pursued not merely to cater to the things that people dislike, but also ensure that it is addressing matters that are harmful to the public. Clearly, reducing children's exposure to second hand smoke passes that test. So while the evidence of exposure to second hand vapour remains unclear, I think we can agree that reduce any possible risks around children must be prioritised following careful consultation. In that respect, I don't support amendments 194 and 195 from the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister that removes these powers altogether.

However, there is a challenge in all of this given the high level of public misunderstanding about the difference in harms between vaping and smoking. As the noble Lady Lord Fox of Buckley has said, and she's quite right, how do we ensure that in creating vape free places, we do not exacerbate those misconceptions? I talk to a young man the other day who was talking about. He said, what are you doing? The House of Lords? And I explained about this bill and he said, oh, all my friends vaping.

He said, and but he said, I think it's just as harmful as smoking, isn't it, QED? Of course it isn't. Anyway, I welcome the commitment in the public consultation to treat vaping differently from smoking, where it is providing support to smokers to quit. I'm on the same side as Baroness Fox on that score, but will the Minister say more about how this policy will be communicated to improve public understanding that vape vaping is less harmful than smoking, how will any exemptions to indoor vaping regulations be used to best effect? To encourage more smokers to see vaping as quitting Aids? Finally, it is disappointing to see only council run playgrounds included in the ban on smoking in playgrounds.

Why should children playing in settings not run by councils not be similarly protected? There are also other places, such as transport hubs, where the public and workers are regularly exposed to other people's smoke. So is the government planning to commit to look at these two? Amendment 192A from the noble Earl. Lord, how is very interesting. But we don't think actors should have to smoke at work. And I think it was pointed out at committee that there are alternative products that can depict smoking for artistic purposes.

In particular, the National Theatre, I believe, has a device. Well, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. And actually Wales doesn't have this exemption in place and it hasn't harmed Welsh theatres. Amendment 193 well, we don't think this is appropriate either. Most venues are vape-free anyway, the laws just really catching up. And amendment 197 and 198 on heated tobacco. I don't think it should have special exemptions at all. Only 1% of the population use it and it's not recommended by Nice for cessation.

However, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister about heated tobacco devices because I've I've had a letter expressing some concerns that the law is not terribly clear. The advertising offence in the bill applies to any advert, quote, whose purpose or effect is to promote, unquote, a tobacco product. So can the Minister confirm that heated tobacco devices, not the sticks, the devices will be caught under this definition, as advertisement of the device might constitute promotion of the tobacco products.

Now, I see that in clause one three, two, the government explicitly takes the power to extend provisions in part six to tobacco related devices. So I understand this is to future proof the advertising restrictions against any innovation in this space. As we know, the tobacco industry is likely to use any loopholes. So can I ask the Minister why heated tobacco devices are explicitly included in clause one three, two? Is it because of the difficulties they've had recently with two big supermarkets advertising heated tobacco products? Is it just the devices they're there advertising, or are they simply breaking the law about advertising? The tobacco sticks themselves? A little bit of clarification would be most welcome if the Minister could please.

Thank you. you.
20:40
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions in this last group of amendments. It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships House that on 13th of February the government published its consultation on free from places, and we are consulting on making outdoor public places, including children's playgrounds, hospitals and schools, smoke free and heated-tobacco-free. Additionally, we are consulting on making outside playgrounds and schools vape-free with regard to indoor spaces that are currently smoke free, we are consulting on also making these heated tobacco and vape free.

And I do want to emphasise and I hear different opinions on this within your Lordships House, but the consultation does not consider extending these proposals to outdoor hospitality, and I do hope this addresses the concerns raised under amendments 194 and 197, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, as well as amendment 196 from the noble Lord Lord Sharpe. With regard to amendment one, 93 from the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister, the vast majority of people, around 90% of those over 16, do not currently vape just because someone is present in an over 18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to second-hand harms, and this would be of particular concern concern to those who are medically vulnerable, whose conditions may not always be visible.

Additionally, under the proposals brought forward in the consultation, those who wish to vote would still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings. And I should say that we've been pleased to meet with various stakeholders, including hospitality UK and the Beer and Pub Association, and we've welcomed their input. Furthermore, a number of establishments, as we are all aware, I'm sure have already introduced their own policies restricting vaping indoors. And so these proposals provide consistency and clarity for for the public and for businesses.

And that's crucial if we are thinking about legislation. Turning to the evidence, amendments 195 and 198, in the name of Lord Udny-Lister question, the need for the vape-free places and heated tobacco free places clauses. And also I'd like to refer to amendment 194A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmel. We have already published a draft impact assessment alongside the consultation on free from places and to the noble Lord House points. This does set out the evidence base for the proposed policies, and I would encourage noble Lords to review the document, which is a thorough document, if they haven't had the chance to do so already, I can say we will reassess the evidence after the consultation has closed, and we will consider any additional evidence identified before deciding on final policy positions and publishing a final stage impact assessment alongside regulations on vaping.

The Chief Medical Officer's advice has always been and is clear it is. Whilst it's less harmful than smoking and vapes can indeed, as we have discussed, be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, non-smokers and children smokers, non-smokers and children should not vape on heated tobacco. As I have set out in my comments on earlier stages, I will I will simply summarise. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all tobacco products are harmful and that includes heated tobacco products.

On the point the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley made about devices. Whilst as this isn't, this isn't relevant to this particular group of amendments, but I will be pleased to write to the noble Lady on that point. Turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, as Amendment 199, we have made it clear that now would not be the right time to consult on extending smoke free places to outdoor hospitality settings in England, and that same principle applies to making pavement licences smoke free.

Under existing legislation, there is already a requirement for pavement licences to have reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted. Local authorities can already go further to make it a condition of pavement licences at the whole area is smoke free if they so wish, and we've seen that done in a number of areas. For example in Greater Manchester. Turning to amendment 192 A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmel, and spoken to by the noble Lord Earl Howe, the bill recasts, as the noble Lord referred to recast an existing regulation making power that was found in the Health Act 2006.

Currently, the exemption for performers to smoke in a smoke free place relates to the premises. For example, a theatre or film set. In recasting this power, the government wishes to make it clear that the new defence relates to a person only rather than the premises. If this defence is relied on in court. And I would like to emphasise this because I hope it will be helpful, the defendant would only need to produce minimal evidence as to whether smoking was justified for the artistic integrity of the performance.

The burden is then on the prosecution to disprove the defence. Therefore, this would not amount to an additional burden. Burden on performers and. It might be helpful if I say also to the noble Lord Earl Howe. It is anticipated this will have no practical difference for production companies or performers, and I can also say we'd be very happy to work with organisations such as trade bodies or membership organisations to clarify this position. Finally, let me speak briefly to Government amendment 200.

This is a minor and technical amendment to address a drafting inconsistency in clause 104 relating to the persons responsible for signs in heated, tobacco free premises in Scotland. It aligns the wording with that used in the equivalent provisions for smoke free and vape free places in Scotland. I hope the noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment, and that the noble Lord Earl Howe will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
20:48
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As regards my amendment 192, I welcome what the Minister had to say. The key, though it seems to me, must be for clear guidance to be issued to enforcement authorities to ensure that the heavy hand of the law is not laid inappropriately on those in our entertainment industry. From what the Minister said, I am reasonably confident at least that that will not be a consequence.

I, I recognise I welcome the fact that the government recognised the importance of acting on the basis of evidence, where powers exist to designate spaces as vape-free, it is right that they are exercised proportionately and on the strength of clear and published evidence of risk. I was glad to hear the Minister's response to the amendments. In the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe and Lord Udny-Lister, especially in relation to hospitality settings. I also hope that, as the government consider how these powers may apply more widely, there will be full and proper consultation with those sectors potentially affected.

I think in particular once again, of theatres and performance venues where there may be specific artistic or practical considerations. It's important that such institutions are consulted appropriately and that we don't create unnecessary burdens or unintended consequences for them without good reason. My Lords, as we conclude this Report stage, I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister and her officials for their willingness throughout the passage of the bill to engage with us and other noble Lords on its provisions, and for the changes and undertakings that she has been prepared to make in response to concerns put forward at various stages.

The bill is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better bill as a result, and with that, I beg leave to withdraw amendment 192. A is. It your.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It your. Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 193 and 194 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. 194 Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 194 a Lord Kamall not moved. Amendment 195 Lord Udny-Lister. Amendment 196 Lord Sharpe of Epsom not moved. Amendments 197 198. Taken together, Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Amendment 199. Baroness Northover not moved. Amendment 200 Baroness Merron move formally. Move. Formally, the question is that amendment 200 be agreed to.

As many of the many of that opinion say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 201 Baroness Hoey not moved. Amendment 202 Lord Young of Cookham not moved. Amendment 203 Baroness Northover not moved. Amendment 204 Earl Russell not moved. Amendment 205 Baroness Merron moved. Formally. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed to. As many of that of that opinion say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 206 Lord Lansley not moved.

Amendment 207 Baroness Fox of Buckley not moved. The amendment 208 215 Baroness Mone moved formally. The question is that amendment 208 to 215 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 216 Baroness Hoey not moved. Amendment 217 to 219 Baroness Merron moved formally. The question is that amendment 217 to 219 en bloc be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content there contrary not content, the contents have it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 220 Lord Murray of Blidworth not moved. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page