Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Harlech

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel I might lower the tone, especially after the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston. This is absolutely not my world; I am much more on the grubby vaping/smoking side of the fence, to be honest. However, the world of cigars and other tobacco products is also not the world of the nation’s youth. There just is not an epidemic of teenage pipe-smoking—not that I am aware of, at least.

These amendments are incredibly important to the Bill because they are all about evidence and the Bill’s attitude to it. I am concerned not to have a situation whereby “tobacco” is used as a scare word that blinds us to facts, medical science and what is actually happening in terms of real harms and risks. The speech from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, helped explain the distinction between cigarettes and vapes in terms of the consumer-based demographics, usage patterns and risk profiles for these other tobacco products. If you just lump them all into a one-size-fits-all, we shall behave in a disproportionate, unevidenced way, based, to a certain degree, on prejudice.

Can the Minister also explain whether there is new evidence to explain this new approach? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, explained, previous legislation has successfully been used to differentiate in the regulation of these particular tobacco products. What is new that means that the Government now want to treat them all as though they are indistinct? I appeal to the Minister to add some nuance to the Bill, because we really must stop conflating things that are not comparable. We should stop conflating tobacco with nicotine, as I have argued, and we must stop conflating cigarettes with all the various tobacco products without differentiation.

I added my name to Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, but, as he does not appear to be here to speak to it, I shall speak to it briefly instead. This amendment asks for evidence of the potential harms posed by heated tobacco compared to cigarettes. Again, this is important to me. Heated tobacco devices are being used by cigarette smokers to quit smoking cigarettes. It is perfectly proportionate and reasonable to ask for evidence of whether they carry the risk of any kind of significant harm. So far, the Government have not come up with any arguments for why they should be treated as though they are indistinguishable from cigarettes.

It speaks to a certain carelessness, if you like, around evidence—and, indeed, around liberty—if specific activities carried out by adults are all treated the same on the basis that a one-size-fits-all approach to public health means that we can all forget the details. However, as scrutineers and legislators, we should never forget the details and always think about the unintended consequences, regardless of our attitude to smoking fine cigars; that is irrelevant to why we should support these amendments.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to his group of amendments far more eloquently than I can, and other noble Lords spoke about the evidential and ethical case behind them. But I want to make one point and give one example, at this time of remembrance and with society’s understanding of mental health developing—and, indeed, given the Minister’s role for mental health. A great number of veterans and serving personnel come together to talk about their mental health and their experiences through the medium of cigar clubs. It would be a great tragedy if those communities were lost due to the unintended consequences of the Bill, and I hope that the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care are listening to the arguments that have been made this afternoon.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Harlech

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I support in the strongest possible terms my noble friend’s Amendment 67A. After the backstop issue, this is the most important issue in the Bill. For the fans of some teams, the ability to play in Europe and their clubs’ fortunes there are more important than what happens with the national side. We are being asked to consider something so fundamental that we cannot do it with this proposed legislation unless the Government publish the letter and any subsequent conversations that they have had with UEFA. Otherwise, we cannot really take into account the full ramifications of what the Bill may do.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up best when he said that it was the risk of the breakaway league that caused the Bill to come into consideration in the first place. I humbly request that the Minister shares with the Committee everything that UEFA has said in relation to the Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, earlier there was a tetchy mood in which it was suggested that some of the contributions were simply time-wasting—and the word “filibustering” was used. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I could see eyes rolling and people thinking that he was reading out an endless list and just time-wasting. But I think he did the Committee a great service by doing that, because he reminded us of the enormity of the powers that the Bill is affording a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, earlier made the point that it is just a regulator and that it is independent, and said, “What is your problem with this? We can trust them—they won’t do anything malign”. But this House and Parliament are telling that independent regulator what powers it has and determining what political interventions it can made. At least some of us have been concerned less about the financial situation but about the creeping politicisation of the number of powers that have been given precisely because it will not be a light-touch independent regulator, as I am sure the Government want it to be. That list was therefore very important.

It is our responsibility to make sure, first, that no unintended consequences come from the Bill and, secondly, that the Government are absolutely transparent about every single thing, including letters from UEFA. They should tell us what they fear and what the risks are. People keep talking about grown-ups in the room in politics. If we are going to be grown-ups, we want to know straightforwardly what the Bill risks. The idea that the only opposition to the Bill is from people who are ideologically opposed to regulation per se is malign. It is not true. Some people may be—but it is because of football that we need to know these things, and that is all.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Harlech

Report stage
Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 184 in my name—

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, the guidance in the Companion states that Peers who were not present for the opening of this debate last week should not speak in the debate today, so I will have to ask the noble Baroness to reserve her remarks on this occasion.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Harlech

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. I will certainly feed that back to the department in terms of the review.

To conclude, the Government already have the means to act on this issue and have made a clear commitment to do so if necessary. We are clear that we first need public consultation and an evidence base before determining the right course of action on this matter. I therefore request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the Minister for that response. I will not keep noble Lords long. What the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said about self-censorship was important. I mention that because I am worried that the Government are underestimating the climate that financial services providers are embroiled in relating to ESG and EDI. This is a warning shot that we recognised around PayPal, but I did not confine it to PayPal. It is just one example. There are sadly lots of recent examples, with organisations such as GoFundMe refusing to accept certain people because of their views and so on. I know that is not strictly within the remit of this Bill, but I know that the Government understand that there are tensions here. I do not want them to be too narrow and technocratic in the way they approach it by saying “Oh, there are only three examples, so what is there to worry about?” We have seen this internationally. I note that the Chinese social credit system lurks around this debate as something we want to be careful of. Big tech financial companies do not have regard for free speech as their terms and conditions will often cut against what is required in equality legislation here. That was the point I was making.

I hope that this short debate will be taken note of in that consultation. I also hope the Government do not feel that they can just deal with it simply through the consultation but will keep a close eye on what could be a dangerous and nasty situation of financially powerful organisations having an impact on individuals, frightening them into thinking that if they say the wrong thing they will not get banking. That is not the sort of society that we would like to end up with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.