Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group that are in my name—Amendments 78, 86, 88 and 89. Particularly perceptive Members of our Grand Committee will remember that, when they looked at the third Marshalled List, the Minister had signed my Amendment 89. I understood at the time that she had signed it not for the same reason that I tabled it—as we discovered at the last sitting of the Committee, the Minister did not move a whole set of government amendments. We will doubtless return to those issues later.

My amendments are all of a piece. The object is to dive into Clause 38 and remove those parts that relate to money that is received through fines for licensing offences from the hands of the Consolidated Fund to put it into the hands of the local weights and measures authorities or—as we might get to, in due course—the relevant authority, which is the trading standards enforcement authority. My proposition is a terribly simple one: we should prioritise the receipt of resources not only from fixed penalty notices but from the fines imposed for licensing offences and they should be made available to local authorities with trading standards responsible for enforcement.

The background is probably well known to Members of the Grand Committee. Trading standards is operating with substantially fewer members of staff than it did a decade ago. The Local Government Association has warned that trading standards may be unable to fulfil its statutory duties and the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers has warned of a growing gap between its statutory duties and the available resources.

Happily, today we meet with a realisation that this has not inhibited trading standards departments across the country from taking effective action together with the leadership of the National Crime Agency, which reported 2,700 premises—barber shops, vape shops and other trading establishments—operating illegally. Where vaping is concerned, which is our interest here, these are being used as a route for the sale of illegal vapes—without paying the appropriate duty or doing so in due course—including to minors, which is of particular concern for many noble Lords. There is also the employment of staff who are not properly able to work in this country.

A wide range of these issues requires enforcement. My purpose is to try to ensure that the resources that are clearly coming into the system are devoted to trading standards. We know, or at least it is estimated, that trading standards enforcement costs over the next five years will total something like £140 million. We know that the Government have provided a grant of £10 million to support trading standards. There clearly will be an income to local authorities from the fines relating to licensing to the extent that they will be able to recover their direct costs, as well as from the fixed penalty notices. We do not have an authoritative estimate of what that sum will be. If the Minister has a clear estimate of what the sums accruing to local authorities will be, it will give an opportunity to see how much of that £140 million cost over five years is likely to be met from penalties and fines.

This issue was debated in the other place and the Government, as is their wont, resisted the idea that money should be paid to local authorities from these fines, instead of being paid into the Consolidated Fund, because, as the Government put it, they did not want to create a perceived conflict of interest such that the enforcement authorities seemed to have an interest in pursuing fines. We should think of it the other way round. We want enforcement authorities to do their job properly. With these amendments, I am testing the proposition that the Government should increase the support for trading standards officers. If they find a provision that makes the revenue from fines to local authorities too much to bear, I should be supportive of a commitment by the Government—if not at this stage, then later—to assess the gap between the revenue that results from the fines and penalty notices and the costs to local authorities and to meet that gap by Exchequer grant, once they know what the Consolidated Fund revenues from these fines may be.

In addition to that request in principle to the Government, I have been looking at the impact assessment, which says in paragraph 1401:

“A new burdens assessment will be completed to assess costs to local authorities ahead of the Bill being introduced”,


particularly in relation to the enforcement of the new powers relating to vapes. I cannot find the burdens assessment—my research may be inadequate—but what does it say are the costs that need to be met by local government? That too should be something that we assess: to what extent is local government going to receive fixed penalty notices or fines that enable it to meet those costs? We do not want to be constantly adding statutory duties to local authorities without the corresponding resources.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, from whom we have not yet heard—but that is the way the order works. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I am slightly torn because the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just put forward a strong case. There are indeed huge problems with the funding of trading standards. I go to a recent report in the Financial Times in which the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute said that the underfunding of trading standards has left consumers open to rogue traders and fake goods. There is a huge problem there and, as the noble Lord said, the Government’s own impact assessment says this measure is going to increase the burden and they are already hopelessly overburdened.

However, Amendment 81 goes in a different direction, towards public health initiatives to be determined by local authorities. Either of these has a strong case. I prefer the public health case, because public health is something that I am gravely concerned about. There is a real logic to the money going from where damage is being done to public health towards dealing with damage done by illegal activity.

I talked about how much trading standards is suffering. We all know that public health in the UK is in a terribly parlous state; when we compare ourselves with other countries that we might consider similar to ourselves, we are doing much worse in public health. I suspect that the Minister will get up and say, “Yes, but in February this year we gave £200 million to public health”, but that is to go towards smoking cessation programmes —which are very relevant to the Bill—along with addiction recovery, family and school nurses, sexual health clinics, local health protection services and public health support for local NHS services, and £200 million does not sound like quite so much when I read that list out.

There is a real logic to making sure that this is not just a small drop of money going into the ocean—the Treasury—and that the money goes to where the damage has been done, to public health. Trading standards would still be better than the money going straight into the Treasury. These are simple, logical ways to make sure that we stick some plasters on to some of the crises that are affecting our communities.

Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Lansley

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. This is my opportunity to express a personal welcome to him on his new ministerial responsibilities. I hope he enjoys them. For those of us who are veterans of the Trade Act 2021, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I—perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also counts in that category—the abstruse nature of the debates that we take part in can always be characterised as having a certain fellow feeling and enjoyment. This debate will doubtless be one of them.

As veterans of the Trade Act 2021 will recall, Section 2(10)(b) confers the power to extend the operation of the Act by a period of up to five years from IP completion date—31 December 2020—and, on more than one occasion, as specified under Section (2)(11). The Act provides for the powers to implement “an international trade agreement” or “a free trade agreement”, but it applies only to agreements to which the European Union and a counterparty were signatories prior to exit day—31 January 2020—so it applies only to those agreements that we referred to at that time as continuity agreements.

Those involved in the original legislation will recall that the regulations were expected to apply principally to procurement agreements and mutual recognition agreements for conformity assessments, as well as similar agreements known as agreements on conformity assessment and the acceptance of industrial products. That was in reference to what my noble friend Lord Grimstone—he of the famous Grimstone rule—enunciated in the passage of that legislation on 29 September 2020. I think it is correct to say that, since the passage of the Procurement Act 2023, further powers are available separately to the Government to include further countries to have access to the government procurement agreement by adding to the list in Schedule 9 to the 2023 Act, so there should be no further need for regulations under the Trade Act 2021 in relation to procurement.

I do not believe the same is true for mutual recognition agreements. One can see that powers in the Act have been used for this purpose. I found three: SI 2021/730, which was the mutual recognition agreement for the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Republic of Korea and Japan; SI 2021/1332, which extended the Canadian agreement to construction products; and SI 2022/1400, which applied to Switzerland. Are those powers still needed? I conclude yes, in so far as I can see there are three continuity agreements that include the potential for a mutual recognition agreement or an ACAA, but where such agreements have not been concluded between the European Union and those counterparties. They are the association agreements between the European Union and Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia respectively. Will the Minister say what, if any, ongoing work is being conducted to reach any agreement with any of those three states, or am I correct in thinking that we would implement such an agreement only if or when an MRA or ACAA is concluded between the European Union and one of those states?

I have one further question. Is it the Government’s intention to legislate for a power to implement mutual recognition agreements in free trade agreements in the future? The Trade Act applies to continuity agreements only, and clearly there is a wider question. Will the Minister explain what we might agree with Switzerland or Turkey that is covered by the Trade Act 2021 and regulations under that Act? I am not sure I understand what that would be.

Going outside continuity agreements, the UK-India agreement includes commitments to work on the joint development of technical regulations and can include the acceptance of conformity assessments, but it is not a full mutual recognition agreement. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership states, at Articles 8.5 and 8.6, that each party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territory of another party and may do so through a mutual recognition agreement; and that, at the request of another party, a party shall enter negotiations for the conclusion of agreements for the mutual recognition of the results of conformity assessment procedures. Among the member states of the CPTPP, Japan, Canada and New Zealand already have mutual recognition agreements in place with us, but other countries may request them. I take this opportunity to ask whether they have done so. On the assumption they have not, were they to do so, would the Government consider implementing legislation for the purpose of bringing mutual recognition agreements into force through statutory instruments, rather than waiting for primary legislation for the purpose?

The conclusion I reach is that these regulations may be needed, if for no other purpose than that the European Union might fast-track agreements with Ukraine and Moldova, although probably not Georgia for the time being. If they are fast-tracked towards EU membership and would be compliant with conformity assessments for industrial products, we may arrive at a situation where we could extend our continuity agreements with them in like fashion. I therefore see the purpose, potentially, for an extension for the next five years.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in thanking the Minister for the introduction and repeat his welcome. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who led us so skilfully and bravely through some truly obtuse bits of the Trade Act in 2021, including questioning his Front Bench very strongly. I will aim not to be obtuse and to be brief. Just the existence of this SI reraises some of the big questions that we discussed in 2021 in the context of what has happened since then.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Lansley

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.

I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.

I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.

I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Lansley

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, briefly, I welcome Commons Amendment 1. It is very pleasing to see this Government, in contrast to the last Government, acknowledging that we have nations on these islands which have devolved powers that need to be respected. Indeed, when we are talking about the standards here, hopefully there is an understanding that devolution can also mean divergence in terms of democratic choices. Within the sometimes unfortunate limits of the internal market Act, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to lift to higher standards if that is what they want, and I hope this will help to facilitate that.

Since I am on my feet, I will make just a couple of short remarks, having been heavily involved in the Bill. I want to again thank the Minister and his team for the time that they gave for discussions with me about the Bill. I reiterate what I said then and stress to the Government that I hope they will keep three points in mind as this becomes law and it starts to be implemented, because most of this will not have any impact until we have the regulations.

First, where we are now is way behind the best global standards. This is an area where we should be talking about being world-leading for the health of our nation and of our environment. Secondly, I would like the Government to acknowledge that we are already on a poisoned planet and in an environment where our water, soil, air and indeed our food and our homes are saturated with far too many chemicals and other substances that are damaging to our health and, again, to environmental health. Thirdly, we have to start to consider the cocktail effect. With most of the testing of products, when companies go to put this product or that chemical into the environment, they say, “Look, what’s the safe limit for this product?” But all of our bodies, our young people and our environment are being exposed to rising levels of microplastics, pesticides and PFASs—all those chemicals and products—and when we consider what is allowed for the future, we have to remember that it is going out into that already poisoned environment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about Commons Amendment 2—I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing all the amendments and referring to the purpose of that amendment. As he clarified, Commons Amendment 2 takes Clause 9 out of the list of those parts of the Bill which will in due course be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. From my point of view, that is a substantive change as compared to what we saw previously in the Bill.

As the Minister explained, Clause 9 relates to existing product requirements, but it provides for a power to make regulations relating to existing product requirements as if they were product regulations for product requirements under this new legislation. Clause 9 allows for provisions described in Clauses 2(4), (6) or (7)—I am concerned with Clause 2(7)—that are able to be applied to existing product requirements.

What does Clause 2(7) tell us? It tells us that product regulations may be made by reference to relevant EU law. From my point of view—I will not rehearse all the debates we have had, but they are particularly important debates—this is a provision the use of which is significant. The occasions on which we choose to set our regulations and our product requirements by reference to EU law are important questions. As it happens, my view is that any use of Clause 2(7) should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but the Minister will no doubt remind me that that is not, nor intended to be, the case. I think it ought to be. The purpose of this is, in that sense, in my view, not technical but substantive. It means that existing product requirements can be amended in future by regulations which relate to relevant EU law and apply new product requirements or change product requirements by reference to EU law. I think that is significant, and my simple submission is that this is a significant change. I reiterate the point I made previously in debates: that the affirmative resolution should have been used in relation to any application of EU law in making our own product requirements.

We look forward with some anticipation to learning when and in relation to what this will happen. The noble Baroness, who was talking about chemical regulations, may be interested in this because, who knows, we have just seen reiteration of EU legislation relating to REACH. We do not know to what extent the REACH regulations are going to be reproduced in this country in the form in which we now see them in the European Union. The same may apply to AI. I have seen speculation that regulations relating to the European Union’s AI Act could be introduced and applied as product requirements in this country in product regulation using relevant EU law under AI as a mechanism. I do not know what is the Government’s intention. All I am saying is that I think it is a substantive change, and I wish that the Government, both in the original drafting of the Bill and in this respect, had used the affirmative procedure so that we could examine it when it happens.