Health Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay for making the strong economic case for specialist palliative care and for these thoughtful amendments. I have added my name to several of them.

On Amendment 78, ICBs already have responsibility for commissioning palliative care. That came about following amendments to the 2022 health Act, which my noble friend Lady Finlay introduced, but there is insufficient accountability for whether and how they are meeting the needs of their local populations. The House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee’s recent inquiry found no clear standards or reporting requirements for ICBs for the provision of palliative and end-of-life care.

Geographic inequality is striking. In 2023, the proportion of people dying in hospital varied from 36% to 52% between ICB areas, and the proportion dying at home varied from 26% to 33%. Why are there so many differences between different areas? We cannot improve what we do not properly measure, and palliative care at the end of life is an essential component of healthcare, not an optional extra. This amendment would require annual performance assessments regarding the standard of palliative and end-of-life care provided.

Amendment 26 would require urgent investment in palliative care through a transformational fund. The Health and Social Care Committee considered the specialist palliative care workforce to be in a critical situation. It described 78 consultant vacancies and around 40% of hospitals not providing a seven-day face-to-face specialist palliative care service. More funding would support the Government’s intended move towards more care in the community and help to avoid needless prolonged hospital admissions.

Amendment 242 would ensure that NHS and hospice services can work together effectively, with timely information sharing and the access to beds, medicines, equipment and appropriately trained staff that patients need and deserve. At the moment, it is so fragmented; it is very hard for people trying to co-ordinate and manage their own end-of-life care at home, as I know only too well after my husband died last year.

The scale of the voluntary sector’s contribution is considerable. In 2024-25, hospices across the UK provided palliative and end-of-life care to 310,000 people, alongside direct support to 89,000 family members, friends and carers. But the financial pressures they face are significant, and of course they rely heavily on charitable donations and fundraising. However, voluntary sector providers are not peripheral to our health and care system; they are essential partners.

The Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons has estimated that 300 hospice in-patient beds have been lost due to lack of funding. It would be very timely to agree all these amendments and I give my wholehearted support to them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I commend all the amendments in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said when introducing it so powerfully, I attach my name to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 26, which would provide for a transformational fund for improvements in access to support service redesign by scaling proven models of care, supporting also the planned shift from hospital care to community care.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, alluded to, we have to consider this group of amendments in the context of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, generally known as the assisted dying Bill. I spoke at its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House and my noble friend Lady Jones covered Committee. It is worth noting that, the second time the Bill was presented in the other place, Andy Burnham said, in a very influential intervention, that before assisted dying is considered in England and Wales, the funding of palliative care should be fixed. That is what the amendments in this group, in their various ways, seek to achieve. The Government often say they will do this when legislative time allows. We have the opportunity before us at this moment.

We have covered many of the points already, but it is worth noting that, by 20 October, more than 100,000 people had signed a petition, which was delivered to No. 10, calling for sustainable hospice funding to be made a national priority. At that event, the Shakespeare Hospice chief executive said:

“Our ask is simple: a fair and sustainable long-term funding model that ensures everyone can access high-quality hospice care, regardless of where they live”.


The fact is, of course, that, in many ways, hospice care and provision is not only a postcode lottery but is going backwards in many parts of the country. On average, about 270,000 people each year receive hospice care, but only 40% of the funding comes from government sources: 60% of the funding comes from people—very often pensioners—standing at train stations rattling buckets. We have a reliance on charity shops, but that funding model is in significant difficulty, in part because of fast fashion and other changes. We have a cost of living crisis that means many people who may have made contributions before are simply not in a position to make contributions now.

I have spoken in your Lordships’ House previously about the very sad closure of the Richard House hospice in east London in 2025. I note as one further example the Queenscourt Hospice in Southport, which has been going for 35 years. In the middle of this year, it cut its in-patient provision by 50%, decreasing bed capacity from 10 to five. It also reduced out-patient services, therapies and hospice-at-home clinical provision. Associated with that was the loss of 20 full-time equivalent medical posts.

I note also that the Royal College of Nursing, at its congress in May, supported overwhelmingly a resolution that the RCN advocates for decent coverage of hospice care. That should not be necessary. We have before us a Bill that gives the possibility for the Government to put this into a legislative statutory framework to support proper palliative care, which the Prime Minister has said that he wants to do.

Patient Data: Research

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate. I declare something of an interest, in that I am just back from the ninth World One Health Congress in Lisbon, partially supported by DSAC.

I go to the UKRI to start with the basic fact that the social determinants of health determine up to 80% of health outcomes, with clinical care accounting for only 20%. We must not lose sight of this reality, particularly given that healthy life expectancy is down two years in the past decade. We do not need data to know that poverty, inequality and austerity have enormous health costs. Data collection does not really add to our understanding of a reality that includes the impacts of financial insecurity, poor housing, filthy air and discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke about economic growth having an impact on health. I would argue that we need a major redistribution of the resources in our society to tackle those things. Waving the magic wand of AI and saying we will fix it with that just does not satisfy.

However, when we come to health data, and there is no doubt it is extremely important and useful, we have a huge problem of trust: patients trusting the system and trusting the Government to govern if their data is handed over. If there are no transparent controls, patients are not going to allow it. I note that the Government themselves, in a letter to the chair of the Commons health committee, acknowledged that, in recent times, tens of thousands of patients have withdrawn their data from use in research projects, with very many of them expressing concern about the involvement of the US defence and health tech company Palantir.

There really is no wonder about that. We need to think about this. Peter Thiel and Alex Karp have said some very disturbing things, but I also go to Palantir’s UK head of operations, Louis Mosley, at last year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. He said Western civilisation was in an existential battle against the “armies of fact-checkers and experts”, lawyers, academics and journalists. Palantir is supposed to be supplying unbiased, fact-based data analysis for the NHS: this is the company that we are talking about.

We know that it had very little track record in health data before it enlisted the aid of the company of the former Member of this House, Lord Mandelson—Global Counsel—and secured this contract. The Government have a really important decision to make on health data and whether they continue with this contract. We must not allow ourselves to be trapped into using these companies. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, referred to in the last debate, we have to ask questions about their financial stability; if we rely on them and they are not financially stable, that is another issue as well.

Women’s Health Strategy

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The whole point about the strategy is to ensure that the last point about a postcode lottery does not apply. Access to NHS Online will help hugely with that because it will not matter where you are. If you are referred to the NHS online hospital, you will be able to access the best without initial travel. That will help hugely.

On women’s health hubs, we are building on the pilots that were established. We are now asking integrated care boards to integrate women’s healthcare properly into neighbourhood health centres. It is a big push in the 10-year health plan and, obviously, because this is aligned with it in the women’s health strategy, it is about neighbourhood health, which I know the noble Baroness is a strong voice for. We will also develop more guidance for integrated care boards about how they provide quality and the right amount of speedy and appropriate healthcare for women in neighbourhood settings, which may well be through women’s health hubs. They have taught us a lot. I think we can probably move even further than women’s health hubs, so in that respect the pilot has been extremely helpful.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in responding to the Front-Bench questions, the Minister referred to holding providers’ feet to the financial fire. I believe that she was referring to the part of the strategy that says it will empower women to have a stronger say by asking them to say whether, based on their experience, money should be withheld from providers or where it should be invested. This is returning to the idea of competition, which has done such damage to our health and education systems. Surely if a service is struggling, it needs support; taking money away from it is going to be a real problem. We know that services very often struggle in the most economically deprived areas. Does the Minister agree that reducing funding has never improved a medical system or made it safer, more accessible or better?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is an interesting invitation to consider. It would probably be helpful if I reiterate or explain better the points about the patient power payments. As I said in response to the Front Benches, its strength—by the way, I emphasise that it is a pilot—is that women’s voices are the voices that are least heard, and we know that creates the biggest problem in women’s healthcare. We know that just asking women what they think—we will be doing that, and we will be transparent in publishing the results, which will drive improvement—will not be enough. The reason for the financial point is that if the provider—it could be a private or a public provider—is not providing the right service then why can women not be heard on that? What will happen is not a cut in funding but the direction of an amount to go into the improvement of the service. In other words, at present there are no consequences for giving poor service. I do not see why women should have to put up with that.

NHS: In-house Software Capabilities

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That seamless movement is an important point generally, but the federated data platform does not centralise or sell patient data. Data remains firmly under NHS control, and access is strictly governed. It is fully auditable and used only for approved patient benefit and NHS benefit. Palantir operates strictly under the instruction of NHS England and it does not, as I said, own or control NHS data. That access is tightly governed. In response to the earlier question, I note that the federated data platform to which the noble Lord refers is cyber resilient and subject to rigorous contractual, legal and information governance controls.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question also relates to the federated data platform. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that more than 50,000 patients have written to their local trust boards asking not to have their data placed on it. The Greater Manchester ICB, serving 2.8 million patients, has said that this does not present value for money and is a big public trust issue. Palantir is of course owned by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, who are closely associated with the Trump regime and have very right-wing and anti-democratic views. Does the Minister acknowledge that this association with Palantir is damaging our NHS?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I would first look at delivery: the federated data platform has enabled nearly 100,000 extra operations, removed over 600,000 patients from waiting lists and reduced unnecessary bed days by 15%, as well as driving a 10% improvement in cancer diagnosis—so people are being diagnosed sooner because the system is working more efficiently, and that is important. This is a three-year contract given in 2023. I refer the noble Baroness to the comments I made to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about the rigorous contract due diligence for all commercial agreements, including with Palantir.

Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

To conclude, this instrument makes amendments to support permanently the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider range of vaccines. Most importantly, it will ensure that we have a vaccination system that is fit for the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument, and I express Green Party support for it. I echo the comments of the Minister in the House of Commons, who said that,

“after clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/3/26; col. 8.]

We need to say that and keep saying it, particularly in the current era. I am glad that, through this SI, the Government are making sure that we prepare ourselves for the next pandemic, because we know there will be one. I shall speak briefly about the vaccination situation and some of the changes relating to vaccination that occurred in our health system during the Covid pandemic. I have a question for the Minister; if she cannot answer it now, I will entirely understand and appreciate a reply in writing.

In her introduction, the Minister said that we are no longer in a Covid pandemic, but we are still seeing the extensive spread of the Covid disease. I declare an interest as someone who has the financial wherewithal and ability to have had—and will continue to have—regular vaccinations against Covid, although I am not in one of the Government’s target groups. I want to address this because we saw the development of a great deal more private medicine during the pandemic. Private clinics were set up, running Covid tests and offering vaccinations. We have seen a profound change in the ecology of the vaccination system.

In the context of this SI, I have looked at NHS travel vaccines. Typically, the NHS offers vaccination against hepatitis A, typhoid fever, diphtheria, tetanus and polio, if not previously received, and cholera. These are available for certain destinations, but a number of travel vaccines are not covered by the NHS, including for yellow fever, hepatitis B, Japanese encephalitis, rabies and meningitis ACWY. Many noble Lords will have seen the recent tragic case of travel-acquired rabies—the most hideous disease—acquired from the lick of a puppy on a beach, I believe.

My question is about vaccination as we move increasingly into an ecology where some people are able to afford to protect themselves against a wide range of risks, for travelling but also even if they are not travelling. I randomly selected a provider and saw that there is a huge range in prices. Vaccination against dengue fever and Japanese encephalitis costs £125 for each, and for typhoid it costs £40. I wonder whether the Government are taking into consideration the availability of these crucial health measures. Some people are able to afford a broad range of protection but some may not be able to afford or have access to protections that could keep them healthy and, eventually, save the NHS a great deal of money.

Through this SI, we are making sure that we are able to react quickly in crisis situations, but it would be interesting and important to hear from the Minister about whether we are looking at the broader ecology of all this. What are we are doing for public health in the new, increasingly privatised medical arrangements that we are seeing?

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Vaccination remains one of the most effective public health interventions available to us all. The flexibilities introduced during the pandemic enabled the rapid deployment of both Covid-19 and influenza vaccines at scale. It is understandable that the Government now seek to make certain arrangements permanent and extend them to other infectious diseases.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support a vaccination system that is resilient, agile and capable of responding to future public health requirements. Expanding the role of community pharmacies and broadening the vaccinator workforce may well assist in that aim, provided that safeguards are robust. However, it would be wrong to wave this past without scrutiny, as temporary powers become permanent.

The introduction of a permanent vaccine group direction mechanism is a significant change. Flexibility must be matched by clarity. If a patient experiences a serious adverse reaction following vaccination under a vaccine group direction, where does the ultimate legal and clinical responsibility lie? Is it with the authorising body, the supervising clinician, the employer or the individual vaccinator? It would be helpful to have that clearly set out by the Government.

On workforce scope, the regulations expand the occupational health vaccinator provisions and align them with professions able to operate under a patient group direction. Can the Minister clarify the criteria used to determine inclusion? Were decisions based on professional registration, competence in administrating injectable medicines, workforce capacity or other considerations? I am sure all noble Lords agree that consistency and safety are paramount.

On public confidence and uptake, greater flexibility does not automatically mean higher vaccination rates, so how will the Government ensure that these changes actually translate into improved uptake among eligible and vulnerable groups? What benchmark will the Government use to evaluate the success of the measures?

A full impact assessment has not been produced. Although the stated impact may be minimal, these are system-wide changes. Reporting under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act occurs on a two-year cycle. Does the Minister consider that sufficient, or will interim data on safety, workforce, deployment and uptake be made available?

These are important questions to answer, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do indeed support a framework that is safe, proportionate and future-proofed, but one which has been properly stress-tested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

One of the vaccines on the list of those that are only available privately is against typhoid. There was a publication last week, I believe, looking at the spread of antimicrobial resistance to typhoid and the fact that antibiotics that we have been using against typhoid for decades are now increasingly not working. Can the noble Baroness assure me—again, I will understand if she wants to write—that the Government keep this constantly under review? Drug-resistant typhoid would be very serious; 10 or 20 years ago we might have thought that we could just treat people, but that may no longer be the case.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that effectiveness is kept under review. I know that she was not questioning this, but I also re-emphasise that typhoid vaccinations are available free on the NHS from GP surgeries. It is important to give that reassurance.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked where ultimate legal and clinical responsibility lies. An appropriate person has to be responsible for ensuring that only fully competent qualified and trained health professionals are individually authorised to use the most recently approved version of the VGD. That authoriser is usually a clinical manager or service lead. Authorised health professionals working under VGDs must understand their legal and professional responsibilities before they use VGDs. This follows the same principles set out in the NICE guidance. In that respect, I say to the noble Earl that this is not a new situation, but I accept it is quite right to ask about that.

The noble Earl also asked how we will ensure that changes translate into improved uptake. He will know our commitment to stabilising and improving uptake across the vaccination system, including, importantly, among those in underserved communities and groups that have historically lower vaccination rates. We have set out actions to improve uptake in our 10-year plan, as well as in our strategy Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life. We are also taking a multipronged approach, if I can put it that way, to improving vaccination uptake. That includes exploring whether there are other settings, such as community pharmacies and health visitors, who can assist in this. We also seek to continue to deliver clear messaging on the risks of disease and the benefits of vaccination. Importantly, we are investing in better digital services and data so that we know where we can target our efforts.

With regard to the question about community pharmacies having the necessary training and equipment if there are, unfortunately, adverse reactions, all providers and trainers have to ensure that those who are involved in vaccination have the right, high-quality training that enables them to deal with such reactions. I should say—I hope that this is a reassurance—that the amendment does not change the training expectations of those staff. Also, they are consistent: it does not matter where the service is being delivered.

A full impact assessment covering these amendments was carried out in 2023. It considered that making the relevant parts of the regulations permanent and expanding them is unlikely to create any significant additional impact. The amendments delivered by this SI are not controversial and do not reach the cost to business threshold; as such, a de minimis assessment was carried out and published on GOV.UK.

I hope that noble Lords will accept that, in amending these regulations, the Government are seeking to maintain important safety measures while increasing the effectiveness of the system’s supply chain and workforce. With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and questions.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

This is my attempt to find way forward on these issues. I hope the Government are listening. They may not like my way forward and they may have another suggestion, but this is an area where further work is needed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I will not go through them in detail, as I am sure she will, but I note that this is a lovely practical example, and all credit to the Government that their campaigning has worked. We heard in Committee from both Action on Smoking and Health and the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership about the need for an exemption in in-patient mental health settings for vaping vending machines. The Government have clearly listened, and this is an example of how this all should work, so let us applaud and highlight that.

I support Amendment 16, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just introduced. The ban on disposable vapes is clearly being widely, almost universally, got around. The noble Earl spoke about producer responsibility. Well, we have a profoundly irresponsible industry that is behaving in ways that have serious health and environmental impacts. I spent most of this afternoon hosting an event for the National Association of Local Councils. As soon as I said I was leaving to do the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the reaction was, “Waste!” That is understandable. Let us look at some figures from Biffa on three recycling facilities, in Suffolk, Teesside and London. Before the ban on single-use vapes came in, they saw an average of 200,000 vapes mixed in with general waste; after the ban came in, that went up by about 3%. There was perhaps a rush of material being sold in that immediate period, but from everything we are hearing, the waste problem is still enormous, and the risk of these lithium batteries exploding and catching fire in waste lorries and recycling centres is absolutely enormous.

We need more action on public health, too. I spoke to a young person today who said, “Well, I’m a bit confused about how vaping relates to health and cigarettes”. Young people are not getting a clear message, and they are being sold these things everywhere. This amendment is saying we need to keep a watch on this and be ready to catch whatever the industry does next, because we know big tobacco is profoundly irresponsible. As the noble Earl said, this is perhaps not the exact way to do it, but we need to make sure we hear from the Government that they are prepared to take action against big tobacco at any time.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome government Amendments 14 and 15, which create an exemption for vape vending machines in mental health hospitals. This was really good to see: it is a humane step and will be very beneficial to patients. It proves that the Government can listen and amend, and I hope there might be more listening and amending, and exemptions, even at this late Report stage. It makes our debates feel as though they can get somewhere. This was an important concession for the Government to make, so I am really pleased to see that.

I have grave concerns about Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There is a real danger here that we end up seeing this Bill as a vehicle for a relentless attack on anything to do with nicotine. Unless I am much mistaken, the Bill does not intend—even though this is its effect—to treat all nicotine products in an undifferentiated way. It is aware of Cancer Research’s statement that vaping is “far less harmful” than tobacco and is the most popular tool to help people quit smoking.

But, following on from the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not want to say simply that vaping can be considered positive only if it is used as a smoking cessation tool, because people will then undoubtedly—and they do undoubtedly—vape as a recreational habit. Is the Government’s aim, or this amendment’s aim, to tackle dependence on any substance whatever? Nicotine is the one that is named, but will caffeine be next? Where do we draw the line? As far as I am concerned, that should not be what this Bill tries to do.

I worry that this will lead to mission creep in the Bill, which will create a kind of pre-crime. I listened to the noble Baroness and I do not think that we should have a moral panic about vaping: that is the main thing. It is not appropriate for this Bill to start doing a pre-crime anticipation of all the things that might or might not go wrong in relation to vaping. That would be a disastrous outcome of this Bill. So I urge the noble Baroness to avoid the siren voices of those urging her to take it even further down the line of prohibition. I urge her to hold firm to the notion that, although there will be some suggested regulation of vaping, we should not and must not make vaping indistinguishable from tobacco in the public’s eye by treating them as equally problematic through the course of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I covered Amendment 17A, in my name, in Committee, so I will be brief.

Currently, the vast majority of cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate, and each cigarette butt contains around two straws-worth of plastic. Globally, around 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked each year, with 4.5 trillion butts being littered. In the UK, around 3.9 million cigarette butts are littered daily. That is equivalent to 6,000 cigarette butts being dropped in every parliamentary constituency every day. Each plastic butt can take up to 10 years to break down into tiny fragments or microplastics, and they have polluted the entire planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. Worryingly, according to recent scientific research, the level of microplastics being found in human brain tissue samples has increased by 50% since 2016 and is increasing in other organs. Local authorities in the UK spend around £40 million a year fighting a losing battle—money that many would argue could be better spent on vital front-line services. The industry could have made a change, but so far has not gone far enough.

Banning plastic cigarette filters is supported by the public, including smokers. In polling commissioned earlier this year by the Parliament News website from Whitestone Insight, a member of the British Polling Council, 2,000 people were asked for their views on this issue. When asked:

“Would you agree or disagree with these statements? Cigarette manufacturers should be required by law to switch from using plastics in cigarette butts to a fully biodegradable alternative”,


almost nine in 10, or 86%, agreed, while just one in 20, or 6%, disagreed. Interestingly, even among current smokers, the vast majority—77%—supported the change. Support was high across every age group, social group and region. In contrast, asked if cigarette manufacturers should be able to continue to use plastic filters, just 13% agreed. The survey also found that eight in 10 people support the government levy and additional taxes on cigarette brands that refuse to switch from traditional plastic butts, including 51% of smokers. Some 84% of UK adults would support cigarette manufacturers being fined for not switching to biodegradable butts, with the revenues going towards paying for cleaning up the environment.

I do not think that this is a party-political issue. It was discussed by MPs, who voted on an amendment that was supported cross-party, including by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Reform, independents and unionists. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept the change that was being put forward. If we are going to be serious about how we consider the environment, this could be an important change.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with whom I nearly always agree, but not on this occasion. The noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will know that concern about plastics, microplastics, nanoplastics and public health, including the way in which they are penetrating every corner of this planet and every piece of our body, is something I am gravely concerned about. As I will come to later, my amendment calls for banning filters altogether.

Very often in your Lordships’ House, I find myself acknowledging that something that is being proposed is not exactly what I want but would be an improvement. I am afraid that I am not convinced that the ban on plastic filters that the noble Baroness proposes would be an improvement. We had an extensive debate in Committee, which I am not going to reprise, but, basically, we have a problem, in that the term “biodegradable”, which is what is being proposed, is exceedingly unclear and is not defined. There is very clear evidence that these so-called biodegradable filters can take nearly as long to degrade as the plastic ones, leach harmful chemicals and remain in the environment for a long time. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. Although this might look like a small step in the right direction, I do not believe there is the evidence to actually take us in that direction.

Amendment 77, in my name, as was extensively canvassed in Committee, proposes to end the environmental and health harms of so-called cigarette filters, compelling the Government to act now and ban all cigarette filters, which have no health benefits, reasonable evidence of health harms and, of course, huge environmental harms, whether they are plastic filters or the so-called biodegradable ones.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Liberal Democrats for Amendment 76, which explores a consultation on this subject. I am absolutely delighted, for the second group in a row, to say to the Minister that the series of amendments that she has tabled, which mean that the Government are preparing the way for banning filters in the future, is a significant step forward.

However, I want to keep my amendment on the paper to make the case for why this action must be taken now. The problem of so-called guilt-free littering makes the littering problem even worse. Companies that manufacture so-called biodegradable filters continue to make profits only if people continue to consume tobacco; the biodegradable filters proposal is essentially coming from the tobacco industry.

This country has never been afraid of leading the world when it comes to tobacco control. We could be—we hear the phrase world-leading so often in your Lordships’ House—the first country in the world to ban so-called cigarette filters. We could use this as an opportunity to reverse the damage done by decades of industry marketing, raise awareness of the harms of smoking and incentivise smokers to quit.

The World Health Organization has said that it believes a ban on filters would have a significant impact on discouraging consumption. A 2023 randomised controlled trial found that those smoking filterless cigarettes consumed less, and filtered cigarettes were perceived to be better tasting, more satisfying, more enjoyable, less aversive, less harsh, less potent and less negatively reinforcing than unfiltered cigarettes.

I recognise that in Committee the Minister said that she would like more evidence and modelling on this behavioural point. There are now academics working on that very point. I am sure they will be reaching out, and I will make sure that the noble Baroness hears about that as well.

While I agree with the Minister that the long-term solution here is to eliminate tobacco use—that is obviously the ambition that pretty much everyone can sign up to—with 5.3 million smokers still in the UK, 75% of whom admit to littering their butts, there is a strong case for action. I am glad to see that the Government’s position has again shifted on this since Committee. I thank Action on Smoking and Health and my colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, as well as the academics who have been highlighting this issue and moving this forward.

Finally, and briefly, I express Green support for Amendments 10, 204 and 133, and particularly for the suggestion in Amendment 133, which I spoke on extensively in Committee, for warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette papers. Again, this is a place where we would not quite be first in the world, but we would certainly be in the leading pack of doing something that has been shown to have positive impacts in reducing smoking, which is what we are all after.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 204 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank them for their support for this important amendment. This amendment proposes a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, ensuring that those who profit from one of the most harmful products in human history contribute to repairing some of the immense damage they have caused. The principle is simple and widely accepted: when an industry causes profound harm and reaps extraordinary profits, it should help to meet the costs of addressing that harm.

Given the unambiguity of that harm, it is only right that those who are responsible contribute to putting it right. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, within two years of Royal Assent, to establish a levy on companies deriving income from the manufacture of tobacco products. Its receipts would form a dedicated fund within the Department of Health and Social Care used solely for smoking cessation, tobacco control and healthcare for those suffering from smoke-related illnesses. Regulations would be made under the affirmative procedure to ensure proper parliamentary oversight.

This is not a new charge on consumers. It draws on the vast profits of an industry that for decades has taken far more from the public purse and the public’s health than it has ever contributed. Four companies control over 95% of UK tobacco sales, enjoying monopoly-like power and profit margins averaging 50%, some five times the UK manufacturing norm. Together they make almost £900 million a year in UK profits, and they often pay little corporation tax here in the UK.

Compare that with the cost. Smoking drains £43.7 billion a year from society in England, including a cost of £1.8 billion to the NHS and far more in lost productivity, social care and human suffering. Tobacco duty and VAT raise barely £6.8 billion—only a fraction of the real cost of these harms. The “polluter pays” principle already underpins environmental law and is embedded in gambling reforms, where a statutory levy funds prevention and treatment. It is only logical to apply the same reasoning to tobacco, a product that kills nearly 74,000 people every year in England.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her highly engaged approach to these issues facing small specialist tobacconists in the niche handmade, hand-rolled cigar industry. I also appreciated the assistance of her officials at the Department of Health, who have been sitting through a very long debate and must be wondering when it is going to end; I think this is the last group. They demonstrated a high level of understanding of cigars, their impact on health and the effects this Bill could have on the people involved in the specialist industry. I really do appreciate that. We have had a hugely successful, open dialogue around what is a very important issue.

I believe from my conversations with the Government that they do not want to destroy this important cottage industry of mainly small family-owned firms—which, I might add, attract a huge amount of tourism to this country and are world class in their standards of service and compliance. They sell a product which is not associated with childhood smoking, and they are not at risk of contributing to the remorseless rise of vapes, snuses and other nicotine delivery products. Wonderful shops like Davidoff, Fox, Sautters and Cgars, to name a few, employ hundreds of people and give satisfaction and happiness to thousands more.

It is very important that we accept the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay to protect these stores, especially those in the cluster of St James’s Street. I know we will come on to this later, but I would particularly welcome comments from the Minister on guidance to local authorities in this area, which reflects a number of the points in these amendments, as well.

The issues around packaging are also surprisingly important to the industry. We are not asking for anything other than a commitment to the continuation of existing legislation, which protects how speciality tobacconists display cigar products and can trade new and, importantly, vintage cigars. These products have to be stored and distributed in cedar or cedar-lined wooden boxes, which cannot be changed at source. It is important for noble Lords to understand this; they have to be transported in a certain way, in a certain type of box. It is not simply about moving them into some other type of packaging; and the packaging cannot be changed at source, since they predominantly come from important trading partners such as Cuba or the Dominican Republic, which do not have the capacity to change the packaging to enable us to have plain packaging.

By the way, the boxing and labelling system also helps ensure authenticity. This follows the discussion we had about counterfeiting earlier.

It is also important to recognise that these boxes and how the cigars are packaged are a far cry from packaging that advertises or that is targeted at children. It should be noted that health warnings are already applied to all these boxes. I stress that we are not looking for a carve-out or loophole with these amendments; we are looking simply for the continuation of a sensible policy to allow a niche industry of speciality tobacconists, with important trading partners, to exist and continue its trade as planned. This fits in with the express quotes from the Minister that, in effect, preserving the status quo as it stands today and rolling it forward is part of the Government’s agenda. We respect that and find it enormously helpful.

There is overwhelming evidence that going back on this original legal commitment would mean the end of the specialist cigar industry, so if we introduced plain packaging, it would be devastating for this important area of our economy and would have no benefit to the overall plan of making Britain smoke-free either.

I went to inspect the offices of Hunters & Frankau, which is the main importer of Cuban cigars, to see how a ban on ordinary box packaging could be implemented. If your Lordships saw the hundreds, if not thousands, of product lines in this Indiana Jones-like warehouse—I must say, when I had a chance to tour those storerooms, it was a very happy moment for me—your Lordships would see that it is totally impractical to bring in some type of plain packaging, given the way these authentic handmade products are sourced and distributed.

Canada and Australia have been quoted as having brought these measures into place. They are very different markets, so I do not think they are comparable in reality. In actuality, it has led to the almost total collapse of the handmade cigar industry as a result of the reduction of lines from many hundreds down to a few tens. The effect has not been on large multinationals or big tobacco; it has been the closure of many small businesses. Family-owned tobacconists and specialty suppliers have closed as a result. Needless to say, the consumer also suffers.

Finally, I would be grateful to hear confirmation that the Government have no plans to go back on previous legislation that allowed for a very small number of sampling rooms in this country—I believe the number is fewer than 30. These are not to be confused with so-called cigar lounges, of which there are many, which are predominantly outdoor areas, albeit with some type of heating and sometimes roofing. The investment in these humidors, which is what they are, with sampling rooms attached, has been significant. Several major hotels have integrated them into their business model. They are part of the supply chain of handmade premium cigars and to disestablish them would cause significant unnecessary harm.

I reassure noble Lords that at no point will these actions create a loophole for big tobacco. I am very aware that that has happened in the past, with flavourings, cigarillos and so on. Protecting these characteristics will not see an increase in youth smoking. I think we are all agreed on that. No one I have met, even those who are most fanatical about this Bill—some people are, and I do not disrespect that—wants to see an end to our specialist tobacconist industry today.

These are small, family-owned businesses, which behave impeccably, are drivers of tourism, create income for the Exchequer and behave extremely effectively in providing a niche community with cigars. To have clear commitments about these important matters from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would allow the industry to continue to be a highly responsible part of British retail. It would allow these small, family-owned stores to continue to drive footfall and income for this country. It would be a fair way to treat the adult, free-choosing, occasional cigar smoker into the future too.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as we have already heard, the amendments in this group seek to carve out exemptions for specialist tobacconists, particularly when it comes to cigars. I will focus primarily on Amendments 126, 127, 147 and 192. I begin by focusing on what cigars actually are. They are often described—and we have heard them described—as luxury or artisanal goods, but they are, first of all, carcinogenic tobacco products that are harmful to human health.

I support the Government’s approach, as the Bill stands, to comprehensive tobacco control regulation that ensures that future generations do not become addicted to any form of tobacco. We have heard arguments that their use is infrequent and primarily among those over the age of 25. Indeed, the absolute numbers show that the majority of cigar smokers are over 25, but that reflects population size. In reality, among smokers—this is a really important point—the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be smoking cigars. Toxic influencers such as Andrew Tate actively promote cigar use to a young, predominantly male audience, linking cigars with power, wealth and success. We know how quickly this kind of influence can spread and be taken up if we leave loopholes for it.

As we have already heard, cigars have traditionally benefited from carve-outs of regulation on things such as pack size, flavours and packaging. Were we to change that now it would open the door to future innovations, as some of the proponents of these amendments have already acknowledged, with, for example, cigarillos. Action on Smoking and Health data shows that these are popular among young people who smoke: 35% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried them in 2024 and 2025. We must not leave space in the Bill for innovation by the merchants of death, which I am afraid these amendments do.

Although I understand the intention behind the amendments that refer to plain packaging, I do not support them. The suggestion is that plain packaging will be fatal to the industry. I note that New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay all apply standardised packaging to all tobacco products, including cigars. Data from Canada shows that, since that has come in, there has been only a very minor drop in the sale of cigars, in line with traditional long-term trends.

It is also important to note that the power to introduce plain packaging for cigars is not new. It already exists under regulations introduced in 2015 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and implemented by a subsequent Conservative Government. The Government issued a call for evidence on this in November 2024.

Finally, I will touch very briefly on smoke-free places and cigar lounges. I do not support Amendment 192. Yes, the customers may choose to be in that space, but the staff may not have a realistic practical choice about being there; it may be the only job they can get. We do not want workers exposed to second-hand smoke under those kinds of conditions.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsley signed Amendment 126, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred. It seeks, above all, to ensure that all small retailers are treated fairly. I am sure the Minister will be addressing this.

Moving on to cigars and cigar lounges generally, I do not see why these should be exempt. In Committee, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, about a new cigar lounge in Sheffield which has opened near a school. A public health team at the council made representations saying that it had serious concerns about the impact of the lounge, particularly in an area where smoking causes great health inequalities, but it was powerless to stop this. As we have just heard, having staff working indoors in these lounges seems to go against the very intention of the original smoke-free legislation, which was to protect staff from the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful answers she has given to the various points my amendments have raised. I am also grateful for the time she allowed for discussions between Committee and Report to understand the issues better; my thanks to her. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Kamall for the support they have offered for these amendments.

Before coming back to what the Minister said, I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Northover, that there is quite a lot of confusion over the statistics relating to cigars as a generic category. I remind both of them that my amendments deal solely with handmade cigars, not with cigars as a single generic whole.

As I said, handmade cigars are not inhaled. They are relatively expensive compared with other smoking options. A lot of cigars out there on the market are machine made; some of them are small enough to be cigarillos. The statistics about young people indulging in cigar smoking almost wholly relate to people who are smoking not handmade cigars but other types of cigar.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am very aware of the hour, but I just had a quick look online and saw “Andrew Tate’s favourite cigars”—exactly the kind of very expensive products that the noble Earl is talking about. That is what is being promoted to young men in particular.

Baby Milk Powder: Cereulide

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have identified any systemic issues following the discovery of the toxin cereulide in baby milk powder sold in the UK; and if so, what steps they plan to take as a result.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, Nestlé and Danone launched product recalls of certain infant formula products because of the possible presence of cereulide toxin. This is a live incidence and it is too early to identify any systemic issues.

The Food Standards Agency is working across agencies and with the Department of Health and Social Care to manage the incident response. The FSA has published information on the product recalls on its website, including advice for consumers.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, but I would posit that there is very clearly a well-identified systemic problem that non-mandatory ingredients such as arachidonic acid, which is the source of the current contamination in Nestlé and Danone products, place a burden on infant metabolism and create multiple potential points of microbial and other contamination in the manufacturing process by the four companies that supply the vast bulk of infant formula in this country through complex, for-profit global supply chains. Are the Government going to look into further action on this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Obviously, we are very concerned about toxins and ensuring that there is no damage done to people: that is the reason for the product recall. The effect of this is that it creates bacteria, so it is like food poisoning in that respect.

With regard to what the noble Baroness has said about ARA oil, the concern of the FSA is very much about safety. What has happened here, as I understand, is that ARA oil is a very common ingredient, but this one appears to have had some contamination, which has affected certain batches, and it is those that are being recalled.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend will be aware that we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about to whom, when, and where jabs are available on a range of matters, including Covid. The committee keeps that constantly under review. Our immediate threat is in respect of flu and RSV; in particular, flu cases are rising, which is why we are closely monitoring the situation, as well as having prepared more extensively and providing more additional support than we have ever done before.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, when it comes to influenza, the focus is often on droplet transmission, but there is also evidence of aerosol transmission, with the deeper lung deposition resulting in greater potency in initiating infections. That means that ventilation and air filtration are hugely important. How would the noble Baroness assess the levels of air ventilation and air filtration in hospitals and other medical settings, and, more broadly, in schools? Are the Government looking to improve that to help deal with all the respiratory infections that we face?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, but I will be very happy to write to her. She will know how much improvement needs to be made to the estate. She will also be aware of the extra money that the Government have committed. Those decisions are local matters, but she raises a much wider and national matter, and I will be pleased to write to her further.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to address a couple of these amendments in a broad sense. Amendments 182 and 187 would ensure that all schools and colleges were vape-free and would require them to proactively implement policies as such. I draw here on my own experience from the Learn with the Lords scheme. I had a shadow from that scheme here in Parliament—a young woman of about 16 or so. She had been with me for about an hour when she said to me, in tones of total desperation, “I need a vape”. I confess that that is not something within my personal experience, and I am not entirely sure about where I took her, although it seemed an appropriate place and I did my best. But I think that we have to acknowledge that schools, colleges and other similar institutions will encounter people who have started vaping and are experiencing great difficulties with addiction to that vaping. I would want to keep it so that the school can make its own decisions on what is best for its own situation and its community, rather than trying to apply a blanket ban. We know what the ideal would be, but we have to think about the reality for head teachers and others who have to deal with that practical situation.

I also want to speak against Amendment 182A, which would allow vaping products in places where it is reasonable to expect that everyone present is over 18. I should declare another interest here. I must admit that I really do not enjoy walking down the street and getting a face-full of vaping fumes through no choice of my own. Many of the pubs, clubs and bars that are likely to be in this situation are already voluntarily vape-free. We do not want to force them to change the circumstances of what works for their patrons.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall start with Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, which replaces his withdrawn Amendment 180A. It seeks to specify that vaping should be allowed in locations where it is “reasonable to expect” that only people over 18 congregate. I believe this would limit the Government’s response under their powers in the Bill if future evidence emerged that action would be desirable. Given that parts of the Bill seek to limit any action that opens the way to under-18 vaping and to discourage those aged 18 to 24 from vaping, except as a smoking cessation tool, this amendment would appear to be in opposition to that objective, which I share.

I have commented before that many young people slip undetected into over-18 places—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has just accepted that that does happen now and then—so the amendment could undermine the Bill’s objective, which could be why the noble Lord has reworded it. However, many indoor settings already voluntarily designate their premises vape-free, and they may do so because many non-smokers find vaping as well as cigarette smoke offensive because of the smell. I am sure they would not have done that if it were bad for business. Any change in this situation would require further consultation, so perhaps that is what the Minister might say.

Going back to the beginning of the group, Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seek to restrict the Government’s ability to act in future to three specific locations. I am glad that the noble Lord did not specify that hospitals should be designated vape-free, because vaping may be a valuable quit-smoking aid to patients. However, it does not seem to me that these places need to be specified in the Bill. There is going to be a lot more consultation, and I hope that evidence will come from the call for evidence.

Amendments 182 and 187, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, are unnecessary as schools already have the power to ban students bringing vapes on to their premises as they cannot have been obtained legally if the students are under 18. However, it is sad that many of them either do not do so or find it hard to enforce their ban, if they have one, for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has just mentioned. One has to have sympathy with young people who have managed to be hooked on nicotine so badly that they have to say, “I need a vape”, as she put it. I hope that schools in particular, where the pupils are under 18, will see it as their duty to discourage vaping among their pupils. In support of that, I would be sorry to see staff vaping on the premises because it is a very bad example.

There is a major problem with young people buying unlicensed vapes, some of which have been adulterated with THC or the drug spice, which is a dangerous development. The latter is particularly addictive and harmful, so I hope that schools would be active and vigilant on this matter. However, I think the Minister may tell us that more consultation is taking place on this issue, so I am content to wait for that.

I support the principle of Amendment 183, from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would prohibit the Government designating mental health trusts as vape-free. We must recognise the use of vaping in mental health and smoking cessation, alongside treatment, so the trusts should be able to make their own decisions about vaping on their premises. I very much hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government do not have any intention of designating mental health trusts as vape-free areas. For all those reasons, and those given in previous debates, I would not support removing Clause 138 from the Bill. The public strongly support their opportunity to go into vape-free places, and many businesses have understood that already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My amendment seeks to allow ministerial discretion for heated tobacco products. As I have said previously, we know that vapes and heated tobacco products are much safer than smoked tobacco products. We need a regime of regulation that promotes switching where smokers are unable to stop. This small change may shift the dial in favour of switching. I hope that Ministers will consider this amendment in the constructive way in which it is meant.

I am trying to make a consistent point across all my amendments to improve the number of smokers switching to safer alternatives. We all know our doctors are often harsh in their advice; they will tell us that drinking alcohol is always unhealthy, even though many of us drink socially and are not unhealthy. The fact is that we need a system that encourages people to make healthier choices without riding roughshod over their personal liberties. That is what I am trying to propose. By allowing discretionary powers on spaces where everyone is reasonably expected to be over 18 in respect of heated tobacco, Ministers will be able to nudge people to make healthier choices, when they have found it impossible to quit smoking. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly against all the amendments in this group. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about our understanding of heated tobacco products. I am drawing here, as I have been throughout Committee, on the excellent briefings from Action on Smoking and Health. I note its conclusion, that there is not currently good-quality evidence on the health harms of heated tobacco devices or their efficacy as a smoking cessation tool. Therefore, in that context, we need to be very cautious of the potential health impacts. The Bill as it stands is in the right place.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. In Amendment 184A, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to exclude heated tobacco from the smoke-free generation objective of the Bill, to allow it in places where everyone is over 18. For this reason, and because of my lack of confidence that any location can be sure it is really only used by over 18s, I cannot support this amendment.

In Amendment 185, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exempt heated tobacco from being banned in uncovered hospitality areas, which parallels an earlier amendment about vaping. As smoking gradually declines, the Government may very well seek to make further restrictions, as the public will almost certainly become used to the lack of nicotine products in their environments, and they may rather like that situation. Therefore, the Government must be free to use their powers in the Bill to respond to the public’s changing attitudes on these issues.

Removing Clause 139 would prevent the Government from designating heated tobacco-free places at all. Many businesses have done this already, and any evidence that these products are being used as smoking cessation tools is likely to decrease over the years as the number of smokers decreases. That would therefore not be a good reason to prevent the Government from acting if they saw fit.

--- Later in debate ---

With that context, I hope the Minister will not want to be associated with the unintended consequences of bankruptcies, retail job losses, more violence in retail outlets and even more decimation of local high streets. As we reach the end of Committee, I put in a sensible plea that, in order to mitigate against that, the Government really pay attention to this section of the retail industry that has up until now been more or less ignored and sidelined.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this group. I will speak in specific terms against Amendment 188 and very strongly against Amendment 200A.

Starting with Amendment 188, I declare my position as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service. I note the terrible figures from the Institute of Customer Service earlier this year—these are from people who work in all areas of public-facing customer service—which showed that 43% of those surveyed had faced some incident of customer hostility in the previous year. That figure was up nearly 20%. Some 21% of the people surveyed had also faced physical threats while they were doing customer-facing roles.

As the noble Earl said, we have a real problem with shoplifting, but we also have a problem across the board. I do not think the best way to approach this is to look specifically at retailers of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. There is a need for government action, and I have been working with the Institute for Customer Service more broadly, as I have in the past on other legislation, to tackle this. It does not make a lot of sense to regard this as a discrete problem; it needs a much broader angle of attack.

I am very strongly against Amendment 200A, which would establish a government grant scheme to subsidise the cost of age-verification technology to reduce the financial burden on smaller retailers. I absolutely agree that the burden should not fall on smaller retailers. However, I point out that—this is based on work earlier this year by the Social Market Foundation—the big four tobacco companies make £900 million in profits annually and that their average profit margin, looking at the cost of producing and distributing tobacco products versus the price they charge to whole- salers, is 50%. There is no other product that has anything like that kind of return.

Due to being involved here, I have not had a chance to look closely at what happened in the Budget today but, so far as I have been able to discover, a fairly standard increase in tobacco duty is coming in at 6 pm today. However, the Chancellor has not, it seems, followed the recommendation of the Social Market Foundation to put a levy on tobacco products on some of those windfall profits. At the time, that was suggested for health measures, but it could indeed go into such a measure as this. It is very clear that the merchants of death should be paying for the costs associated with their products much more broadly than this. But, certainly in the context of this amendment, they should meet any burden of compliance so that it does not fall on the smaller retailers.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to interject at this late stage of Committee, but I just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who had concerns that many of the organisations giving evidence previously on the retail question were from health-related charities, and I declare my own non-pecuniary interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK.

I just inject a note of caution about relying too heavily on some of the trade associations for the small retailers that she describes, given that they have some financial vested interests. The organisation that she cited, I noticed on their website, has received a sponsorship support from Japan Tobacco International. Another major retail association declares on its website that it has received funding from Philip Morris, Japan Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco. Therefore, notwithstanding the need to consult retailers directly, I think that some of these trade associations may have a conflict of interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have not always historically been an enthusiast for experts dictating policy, but I am enthusiastic about this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Particularly in relation to policy or legislation related to public health, there is an awful lot of evidence swapping, people citing data, and so on and so forth, then accusations of not being able to trust that data. It would be very helpful to have a genuine independent academic body looking at some of these things, that we could maybe all trust a little—or even look sceptically at—but which actually digs into the evidence. Many of my friends are academics; any research can be advocacy research. None the less, it has to be there in the public arena for us to examine it. It is not just data and numbers.

This is important because earlier today, the Minister rightly said that we are going to follow the evidence, yet we had a serious conversation about whether there should be regulation to ban second-hand vaping fumes. The explanation for the fact there is no evidence of that being harmful was that it is evolving evidence, evolving evidence being the unknown, unknown approach, as far as I can see. I want to Cancer Research here because this is what you do when you are not quite sure how to counter somebody saying this is evidence. It said:

“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping”,


which I accept,

“however”,

there is currently no good

“evidence”,

that

“second hand vapour is harmful”.

However, we have managed to have a conversation as though, even though there is no evidence, it probably is, or it could be. I think that discredits the notion of evidence-based policy. There are also different kinds of academic studies. I was pleased to hear the idea of behavioural studies. At Queen Mary University, for example, they have done a lot of work on vaping, and all their studies suggest that vaping is not a gateway to smoking. I think that the Government need to consider such things. There are a large number of qualified specialist academics who are researching not just the health impacts of vaping but a whole range of how vaping is used. I would like that somehow to be acknowledged in the Bill and for that group of people not to be ignored.

As we are at the end of Committee, sometimes in this Bill I have argued in defence of vaping as a smoking cessation tool, because that is how I have used it. However, I have felt a little uncomfortable about the way that it is assumed that, unless it is a smoking cessation tool, there is something wrong with it. I wanted to query whether that is true. Have the Government got a view of a recreational habit? Why would the Government choose to try to overregulate something that is just a recreational choice? Some people might start vaping who have not smoked. It might be that, by vaping, they will not start smoking.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I just think we must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a highly addictive product and there is a role for the Government in ensuring protection from giant multinational companies trying to hook people on highly addictive products that we know do them harm.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I want to say that I understand some of the addiction points in relation to young people in particular. I asked in an earlier group in Committee if this Bill was tackling addiction per se as a problem. There are things that we know are addictive—for example, nicotine. I am simply asking the question about what it is we are trying to tackle. I am asking this because, when we are talking about adult freedoms and choices, it is not just enough to cite medical evidence. That is why I want the expert panel to really assess the medical evidence and behavioural points. That is where I was going. I am cautioning against seeing everything through the prism of expertise as medical expertise.

As it is the last time I will speak in this stage, I thought I would end on some behavioural insights. Since we last met, the BBC has rewritten its Christmas adaptation of Julia Donaldson’s book over its fears that it would encourage children to smoke. It is The Scarecrows’ Wedding, which as noble Lords will know, features a villain scarecrow called Reginald Rake who, lighting a cigar, accidentally starts a fire. There has been something of a kerfuffle, and the BBC decided that this had to be rewritten. It sounds like some Daily Mail story—how ridiculous, PC gone mad and all the rest of it.

For the purposes of this amendment, a colleague of mine who works in media literacy made the point that the irony is that The Scarecrows’ Wedding is a perfect example of a book for young people that puts people off smoking. Betty O’Barley, who is another scarecrow by the way, is so horrified at the villain, Reginald Rake, smoking that she keeps saying to him “smoking is bad for you”. The whole point about Reginald Rake is that he is the villain of the story. The irony of this is that a media literacy expert makes the point that the BBC’s rewriting of this is completely counterproductive in relation to messaging. I say that because I think it is a bit more complicated than just swapping numbers around. An expert panel, looking at the unintended consequences of well-meaning policy, would not do any harm as we finish Committee on this legislation.