Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

114B: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations made under Part 1: Windsor Framework(1) Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State must—(a) commission an independent legal opinion assessing—(i) the extent to which the implementation of this Act in Northern Ireland complies with the Windsor Framework;(ii) the likelihood of any increase in the illicit trade in tobacco products if regulations under this Act are made in relation to Northern Ireland otherwise than in England, Wales and Scotland;(b) publish that legal opinion;(c) consult any person they consider appropriate.(2) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this Part unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the legal opinion under subsection (1) demonstrates that the implementation of Part 3 of this Act (sale and distribution: Northern Ireland) is fully compliant with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations about the sale and distribution of tobacco in England and Wales until they have considered and demonstrated that to do the same in Northern Ireland would be fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Products Directive.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 138A, 200 and 201A. Before I go into them, I want to remind people that if this Bill goes through in its entirety as it is now, starting in February 2028, adults under the age of 21 in the Republic of Ireland will be barred from buying tobacco at home but will still be able to nip across the border to stock up in Northern Ireland. If the generational ban comes in, the cross-border relay will reverse, with 22 year-olds banned from buying tobacco in Belfast still free to nip over the border to Dublin. As the years go by, the legal uncertainty will get worse: 43 year-olds will not be able to buy a packet of cigarettes in Enniskillen legally, but a 44 year-old will; while just down the road in Donegal, both will be able to do so freely. It may sound amusing, but smugglers and so on will be absolutely delighted at being able to make such a lot of profit.

These amendments deal with issues that I sometimes think can be summed up as those that “dare not speak their name”, or, at least, those the Government seem to be putting their head in sand over. They all deal with the question of whether, because of the EU tobacco directive, the Bill can or cannot apply to Northern Ireland. According to that directive, states cannot limit the placing on the market of tobacco products. It was that which caused the Governments in Denmark and the Irish Republic to withdraw proposals to do more or less what this Bill is doing, because they would breach the European Union tobacco directive.

Before noble Lords say that Parliament is supreme and if it says that Northern Ireland is included, of course it will be, I remind them that under the Windsor Framework/protocol, Parliament no longer reigns supreme over one part of the UK: Northern Ireland,

“because Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 overcomes every other provision in any other statute, whenever enacted, that stands or would stand in its way.”

Those are not my words but those of John Larkin, KC, the former Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, who has provided a legal opinion on this Bill and Part 3’s compatibility with the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement made between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I should declare an interest. John Larkin acted for myself, the honourable Member for North Antrim, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others in the case which brought about the Supreme Court judgment stating that the Acts of Union had been suspended because of the protocol. Noble Lords will know that the legacy Act has also been affected by this ruling, as was the Rwanda Act. The Government gave brave assurances in respect of those Bills that they were content that this would apply to Northern Ireland, only for the courts to rule otherwise, as many of us predicted they would.

At Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, the honourable Member for North Antrim raised this question, as did I and other noble Lords at Second Reading in your Lordships House. When I referred earlier to the Government hiding their head in the sand, I was referring to the varying answers we get from Ministers on the Bill’s compatibility with the Windsor Framework/protocol. The word “intention” is used too often, and there is clearly confusion, if not downright silence.

The Minister said at Second Reading, at the very end of the long debate:

“I assure noble Lords that we are content that the measures intended to apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations in the Windsor framework”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 744.]


What I find very concerning is the way in which the UK’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, reacted. I wrote to him on 16 October enclosing the legal opinion of John Larkin and summarising the key conclusions of all the legal advice. I said that he and others had said that Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the Windsor Framework agreement in Northern Ireland. I mentioned the idea of the generational ban in both those other EU states where the common obstacle was the 2014 directive, and said that

“the 2014 Directive, taking effect through the WF and section 7A of the 2018 Act, is an insuperable obstacle to the effective enactment of Part 3 of the Bill”.

That was on 16 October. On 2 November, I got an email back, signed not by the Attorney-General but by “Vicky”, who I think is the diary secretary to the law officers. It said: “Dear Baroness Hoey, apologies for the delay in getting back to you and thank you for the email and letter below. The Attorney is grateful for your letter; however, please can we politely suggest that you contact the Bill Ministers, the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, and Baroness Merron. They will be better placed to discuss the topics raised in your letter”. I find that quite astonishing and my admiration for the Minister has risen so much, because she is clearly now going to be able to speak on behalf of the Attorney-General and his legal team. I am absolutely surprised at that answer.

My Amendments 114B, 138A and 201A seek to ensure that these parts of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State commissions and publishes the findings of an independent legal opinion showing that these parts are fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the EU’s tobacco products directive. Amendment 200 provides a route to allow the Bill to apply in Northern Ireland, and this would be to exempt the tobacco directive from passing through the conduit that delivers EU law to Northern Ireland: namely, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Only then can we be confident that our Parliament decides the law for the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Great Britain. It is quite outrageous that our sovereign Parliament, despite the majority of the country voting to leave the European Union, cannot produce a Bill these days applying to the whole of the UK that we can be certain will do so. We will see legal action after legal action, and we see on other Bills that this is already happening.

This Bill, which is fundamentally about health in our country, may have some flaws, but surely it is not too much to expect that citizens in my part of the United Kingdom should be treated as equal citizens when it comes to such an important issue as health. John Larkin ended by saying:

“The Bill serves almost as a textbook example of how a measure advanced by a Government commanding a large majority in the House of Commons can run aground, as respects its Northern Ireland component, on provisions contained in the WF. Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the WF in Northern Ireland”.


That is an absolute disgrace, and I hope that more and more noble Lords are beginning to realise the actual, perhaps unforeseen consequences—although warned about at the time—of signing up under EU diktat to what is going to happen in part of our United Kingdom.

I hope that clarifies matters, and I greatly look forward to the response from the person standing in for the Attorney-General—I was going to say the “mini” Attorney-General, but that is the wrong word—on these legally very important issues that really affect the Bill. We could all be sitting here wasting our time, because this could end up, as so many other Bills will, in the Supreme Court. I beg to move.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my Amendment 216, which proposes a new clause that would provide accountability and oversight. In my submission, it would balance flexibility with constraint and ensure the approval of the next Parliament for this policy. It would also provide a check on ministerial power, encourage inclusivity in the process and provide transparency as to how the policy evolves. In doing so, it aligns with the better regulation principles so fluently outlined by my noble friend Lord Johnson in his speech to the Committee in our previous debate. The better regulation principles emphasise the regular review of laws, avoid unnecessary burdens in respect of outdated legislation and help to maintain proportional public policy.

Amendment 216 would ensure that the significant regulatory powers in the Bill do not continue indefinitely without political scrutiny. It would create a five-year period for a formal review and allow the consideration, after that period, of any new evidence about public health outcomes, compliance levels, market behaviour or unintended consequences. I refer to my remarks to the Committee in our first debate, when we discussed the impact of the Bill on the growth of the black market for tobacco products, particularly cigarettes.

The provision would also encourage policy flexibility and development, ensuring that it remains fit for purpose. As the Committee can see, it requires an impact assessment before a potential renewal of the policy, to ensure that it remains data driven. The impact assessment would require a full consultation, with two months to respond, on the draft regulations that would result from the consultation process. That would ensure that a decision to proceed or not takes into account the views of all stakeholders, including manufacturers and retailers.

The provision is flexible in that it gives the Secretary of State power to extend the life of the provisions by regulation to six years, or to shorten it to four years if necessary. That is a measure of proportional consideration that has been included in my amendment. Requiring the renewal of the regulations related to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure would allow Parliament to debate and approve the provisions and to determine whether they should remain in place. This measure requiring parliamentary approval to proceed would mean that this policy would then have political legitimacy in the next Parliament.

As noble Lords can see, proposed new subclause (2) in the amendment concerns the provisions of Part 3 of the Bill relating to sales in Northern Ireland. I draw the Committee’s attention to the answer given by the Minister to a question I raised on the first day in Committee. I asked her the following:

“The Minister has not yet touched on the issue of Northern Ireland. Is it right that the Windsor Framework precludes the generational smoking ban coming into effect in Northern Ireland?”


She replied:

“The Bill is UK-wide, as the noble Lord will be aware. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the intention is that the measures in the Bill will apply across the UK. I assure him that, in preparing the Bill, the Government considered all their domestic and international obligations and the Bill does comply”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 166.]


Given what we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on the careful and considered opinion of John Larkin, KC, the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, it appears that the Minister’s position was misplaced. Given what we have just heard about the correspondence that the noble Baroness has had with the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, it seems that he is keen to wash his hands of the issue and refer to the experience of the Minister.

That is perhaps slightly unusual, given that there is a position called the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland—it was provided for in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and created upon devolution—but that senior Northern Irish legal post is held by one noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. Can the Minister give us a clear answer on whether the intention really is to apply these provisions to Northern Ireland? If it is not, is not the whole generational ban in some difficulty?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am most grateful for the discussion that we have had today on this group of amendments.

Let me start by turning to Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a review; it picks up on the points that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just made. I can say, as I have said on previous days in Committee, that the Government will assess the implementation of the Act. This is completely consistent with best practice for primary legislation and for measures implemented by secondary legislation; the department will, of course, publish post-implementation reviews as appropriate.

Similarly, I turn to Amendments 195 and 196 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would require the Secretary of State to publish two reviews on the operational impact of the Bill. These would need to be published when the first group of individuals impacted by the smoke-free generation policy turned 21, then 25. I hope that the noble Earl will be pleased to hear that I am glad to agree with at least the principles behind the amendments. It is crucial that the Government review the impact of any legislation—we are keen to do so—but we need adequate time for policies to be implemented and for their impact to be realised before undertaking a review. As I have said, we have discussed this matter at some length previously.

I agree with noble Lords that we must monitor the effectiveness of our policies in reducing smoking rates and narrowing health inequalities. We have good data on smoking prevalence and differences between groups through sources such as the ONS annual population survey. Also, the department actively monitors uptake and outcomes of our smoking cessation programmes through NHS England data. This allows us to adapt and target our interventions. It also demonstrates how these services can contribute significantly to reducing smoking and addressing health inequalities. We will continue to monitor this data closely as measures are brought in by the Bill. I refer the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to HMRC estimates on the size of the illicit market. These estimates are made through tobacco duty gap estimates. We will continue to monitor data on the illicit market following the introduction of new policies in this Bill.

Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would mean that large parts of the Bill, including age-of-sale and sponsorship provisions, would expire after five years. Also, to avoid the expiry of provisions, it would require the Secretary of State to consult on and lay new regulations each year, and that any regulations made under the Bill regarding packaging and displays would also expire after five years. We had a long debate on the very important matter of impact assessment earlier in Committee. I will not repeat the points that I made there.

However, as noble Lords have heard throughout this debate, smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill-health, costing our society some £21.3 billion every year in England alone. I also remind the Committee that this landmark legislation will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation. Our intention is to protect children from harm and break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage. The amendment would mean that large parts of the legislation would automatically cease after five years, and at one-year intervals following that. That could result in gaps in the law, creating legal uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike, and leading to harmful and highly addictive products becoming widely accessible.

Turning to Amendment 200, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, unfortunately I will disappoint her by repeating what I said at Second Reading—which she faithfully quoted—and which I have also said on previous days in Committee. The Government are content that measures in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations under the Windsor Framework. On the broader sovereignty points raised by the noble Baroness, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Dodds, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I undertake to write to them about these important matters. However, we are concerned that this amendment would put us in breach of international law. Although I am repeating myself, it is important to say that the Government’s position remains that the Bill will apply across the United Kingdom. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also tabled Amendments 114B, 138A and 201A. While I am sure that I do not need to reiterate this to noble Lords present, I hope the Committee will forgive me for reminding us all about the harms of tobacco. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health reports that tobacco claims around 2,100 deaths per year. That is why all four nations are committed to creating a smoke-free generation, so that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. As others have done earlier in the Committee, the noble Baroness raised the point about countries having different age restrictions in respect of sale. It is the case that all countries, not just those making up the United Kingdom, have different age restrictions. As I have outlined, our aim in the Bill is to protect future generations and, specifically, to have a complete change of culture in how smoking is regarded, while breaking that cycle of disadvantage and addiction.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, again, I am aware that I am repeating myself, but it is important to do so. The Government consider that in drafting the Bill, they have considered all their domestic and international obligations. We know the tobacco industry has a history of arguing that EU law prevents the adoption of tobacco control measures. That is a very common tactic in disrupting tobacco control legislation.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the point she made about legal opinions. Legal opinions indeed abound, and I understand why noble Lords are raising them, but it is not for me to engage in discussion about their merits or otherwise.

I can confirm that we expect the Bill to complete its passage within this parliamentary Session. There has been reference to the TRIS system, and I should emphasise that it is not an approval process, but I can confirm the point about the progress of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am not sure that I got a reply on the legal aspects. This is not about how terrible smoking is in Northern Ireland; it is about whether we can have the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Minister, while being very gentle, attempted to answer some of the points about the legal situation. It is absolutely clear that we need an official government legal opinion. If we cannot even get the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to respond to a letter and say something, what is the point?

I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for reminding me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, has the position of Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. I looked up what his role is, and it says he is the chief legal adviser to the Government of the United Kingdom on Northern Ireland law, yet he seems not to want to talk about this. I genuinely find it amazing. I just hope that the Minister will take this issue back. I presume that she has seen the legal opinion by the noble John Larkin, KC—he should be noble but he is not. Has she read his legal opinion?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not taken a legal eye to it because I do not have a legal eye to do so. I would not wish to inflate my legal expertise in this regard; it is a matter for my colleagues to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I fully understand that the Minister does not want to do that. However, I would have thought that, if the Attorney-General is telling me that I have to refer to her on this, he would at least have sent her the document.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. To reiterate what I said at the beginning, I am very pleased to write to noble Lords about the broader points being raised. I will of course attend to the points that the noble Baroness has raised.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I will not push that any further; it speaks for itself.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Dodds, for their support. It is important that we get to the crux of this very soon, because it will end up in the Supreme Court if something is not sorted out quickly. I appreciate that the Minister has said the strongest words yet, saying, “It will apply”; I do not think anyone else has said that before. I hope that she will be able to get us a proper opinion as to why the Government think it will apply when everyone else—most legal experts—seems to think that it will not. Then, we can look at this again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 114B withdrawn.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, another major difference between mass-produced cigarettes and handmade cigars is the quantities consumed. Desktop research shows that the average cigarette smoker smokes 11 cigarettes a day, whereas figures for cigar smokers are impossible to come by because they are such an infinitesimally small group of people. Retail evidence from repeat customers suggests once a month—a bit more in summer and a bit less in winter, as it is largely an outdoor pursuit. Tellingly, cigar smokers feel no need ever to smoke a cigar again because they are not addictive, but they hope they will smoke a cigar again because they are often smoked in celebration of happy events such as weddings or anniversaries.

If the primary purpose of the Bill is to stop young people from starting to smoke, I am pleased to tell the Committee that cigar smokers are comparatively a much more elderly cohort and that there is no evidence at all that someone who has smoked their first cigar at any age then goes on to smoke any type of mass-produced cigarette; in fact, I am sure that the chemicals and additives would make them feel quite sick if they tried to do so. If the purpose of the Bill is to stop young people smoking, handmade cigars should certainly not be one of its targets, as it simply does not apply.

Like many of the amendments in this group, this one calls for an impact assessment on the effect of including handmade cigars in the Bill, as they were totally ignored in the Government’s initial impact assessment, having not been mentioned once in 294 pages. The Bill’s packaging proposals in particular would collapse affected businesses in three to five years, because they would be caught in the cross-fire of a Bill that is aimed at a very different type of tobacco product.

A further objection to the inclusion of cigars is a diplomatic one. The Minister has no doubt seen the letter to the Prime Minister jointly signed by the UK ambassadors of Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic expressing their concerns regarding the Bill, which

“could disproportionately impact cigar-producing countries through measures that are not justified by evidence”.

The letter compares evidence that supports its case, most recently from the US Food and Drug Administration and conducted for it by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and it compares that with the evidence provided by the Government to support the Bill, which, as the authors say,

“uses a single UCL study, which has been widely criticised for methodological limitations that undermine its reliability as the foundation for sound and solid evidence-based policymaking”.

That is the much-derided study that claims a fivefold increase in the use of non-cigarette tobacco in the last decade but conveniently forgets to mention that it includes sheesha and heated tobacco, makes no mention at all of handmade cigars, pipe or nasal tobacco and has everything to do with the changing demographics of the country.

The letter highlights the socioeconomic and cultural damage that would be done to the sector in their economies:

“Cigars are produced predominantly in small and medium size companies, sustaining the livelihoods of more than 400,000 people, many of them women and smallholder farmers in rural communities. For our countries the industry represents not only a source of dignified employment and economic stability but also a vital element of cultural heritage”.


I am sure the Committee will agree that it seems bizarre that those three countries are recipients of our foreign aid on the one hand, yet what we are proposing with the Bill is to cause them serious economic and socioeconomic damage on the other for, as the letter says, no proper evidence-based reason. The ambassadors’ letter to the Prime Minister finishes with the crux of the matter:

“There is a clear precedent for this approach”—


that is, an exemption—

“in previous tobacco related legislation in the United Kingdom, where the unique characteristics of cigars have been recognised and proportionate exemptions granted. The rationale for these exemptions remains just as relevant today”.

The precedents they refer to relate to packaging and display allowances in specialist tobacconists, where any change to the current regime would be particularly damaging to these small, independent businesses which rely on handmade cigars for the bulk of their income. It would be impossible operationally, and suicidal commercially, for these Caribbean cottage industries to comply with the UK-only proposed plain packaging requirements, designed for multinational, mass-produced cigarette manufacturers. It also shoots the fox which says that the proposed legislation will make no difference to current cigar smokers. Of course, it will, because it means they will have nowhere legal from which to buy them if there are no cigar retailers because the cigar producers cannot comply with this unique UK legislation.

The only similarity between a mass-produced cigarette and a handmade cigar is the word “tobacco”—not the content called tobacco, which is radically different between them. No, we are talking here about a word, not a reality. But Bills are made of words, and, occasionally, reality gets caught in the crossfire—hence the need for defined exemptions for these handmade, artisanal products made in friendly countries and sold by small businesses across the country.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was going to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, but I will go ahead. I was not intending to speak on this. I also wanted to sign the amendments, but such was the popularity of them that there were too many signatures. I support completely what the noble Earl and the two noble Lords who have spoken have said. I think they have covered practically everything that could be said about this issue. If the Minister is listening—and particularly if her officials in the Department of Health and Social Care, where I expect this has been pushed, are listening—I really cannot see why she would not consider, even at this stage, just dropping the whole thing about cigars.

I am particularly concerned about the issue of cigars and handmade cigars. I really do not understand why this is happening now, after all the years when there has been other legislation about tobacco—cigars have been left out and not included. Parliament has always recognised the unique aspect of this. I would hope that, after this debate in Committee has finished, the Minister will go back and recognise that taking this out now would solve a lot of problems with timing and getting things through quickly, given this whole debate. I would certainly support that.

The Government’s own impact assessment has been mentioned. It does not mention handmade cigars at all, and it mentions cigars very little, so I do not think any of us can really feel that a proper impact assessment has been done on the effects of cigars. I share the concern that has been expressed. I have also seen the letter from the three ambassadors—from the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Cuba—to the Prime Minister. Up until last week, there had not been a response. It was sent on 20 October, and I know that the Prime Minister has been quite busy recently, but I hope that they will get a full response to it, because it is very much going to have an effect. We always say that we care about what is happening to poorer communities across the world, and here we are going to have a situation that, without doubt, will lead to a real effect on smallholder farmers in rural communities. It is also very much a cultural thing in those countries. We should be taking that into account, apart from just the effects.

I have yet to see a 16 year-old, a 14 year-old or a 12 year-old standing around smoking a cigar. Now, maybe I have missed out, and maybe the Minister has seen that. I do not think that this is an issue about age—well, it is, in the sense that it is older people. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Apart from the cost of it, young people do not think of cigars as something that they would want to smoke. So it will make no impact whatever, in my view, on the health situation.

Years ago, in 1968, during my radical student days, I visited Cuba to plant coffee. I never went back to see whether the coffee that we planted actually grew—but we came back from Cuba, and of course in those days I brought lots of Che Guevara T-shirts and Cuban cigars. Sadly, people were more interested in having a present of the Cuban cigars than the Che Guevara T-shirts. So my interest in cigars goes back quite a long way.

But seriously, this proposal is really not sensible. It is not necessary and is not going to affect the health of one single person, but it will really affect those lovely, niche, small tobacco shops. There is one in Belfast, in Church Lane, called Miss Morans, which is visited by tourists because it is tiny and historic—I think it was started in 1870. Those are the kinds of shops that are going to be affected. People will be put out of jobs, not just in the handmade cigar places but in those kinds of shops. It is just not necessary. Although I recognise that the Minister perhaps cannot withdraw the whole clause today and take cigars right out of this, I hope that she will reflect on what has been said today, which is a very strong case for why cigars should not be part of this Bill.

[The Earl of Liverpool (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the first time that I have risen to speak on this Bill, I should immediately declare an interest, as shown in the register: I am a member of the Commons and Lords Pipe and Cigar Club. It may be no surprise to the Grand Committee that I strongly support the amendments that have so far been spoken to.

This is an industry that goes back 6,000 years—some people would say 6,000 but maybe 1,000 years will do. It is a very specialised business and, as my noble friend Lord Johnson said, cigar consumption and the purchase of cigars in this country is of great benefit to our tourist industry. People really do come to look at what we have to offer in St James’s Street and elsewhere. It is a wonderful thing, and I offer my full support to these amendments.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I well understand the good intentions of this Bill. The Government want to be seen to be doing something about public health rather than just talk. The last Government introduced a very similar Bill, but I am afraid that this very draconian Bill goes so much further. Very worryingly, it gives the Secretary of State huge powers to change things as they feel in the future, using delegated legislation. That is something that your Lordships will want to examine.

We all want fewer people to become addicted to smoking. I have never smoked. I had very well-intentioned parents who taught me very early on that smoking would not be good for my health. Most of all, I hated the smell in my clothes, as someone else has mentioned, after you had been in the company of a smoker. But no matter how good the intentions of this Bill, there are consequences that need addressing. I hope they will be addressed in Committee.

Like others, I had a meeting with the Federation of Independent Retailers. I was genuinely shocked to hear just how difficult its job already is in stopping those under the age of 18 buying tobacco. It has a genuine concern about the difficulties it will face in trying to assess the age of older people. There has been an increase in attacks on workers in small shops more recently. They face regular abuse and physical threats; ID checks already cause a lot of verbal abuse. The idea that our shop workers will bear the brunt of this new legislation seems very unfair. That is not even counting the extra costs of the proposed new licensing arrangements that, without doubt, will threaten the viability of some of our local family-run shops.

Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, said, I have yet to see any evidence that the Bill will not simply cause a growth in illicit trade, as was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Even now, a large percentage of smokers will admit to purchasing tobacco from under-the-counter dealers or other underground places. The real winners from the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will be the organised crime gangs, which no doubt are already gearing up to benefit. They certainly could not care less about the age of anyone who is buying from them. I wonder whether the Government have thought through any strategy to deal with this.

Part 3 of the Bill, Clauses 68 to 87, deals with the changes to apply the Bill in Northern Ireland, which the noble Lords, Lord Dodds of Duncairn and Lord Naseby, have already spoken on. The European Union tobacco directive applies to Northern Ireland and, under the protocol through Section 7A of the 2018 Act and the directive, forbids the type of proposition in the Bill. I and many others, including many learned KCs, fail to see how the Bill can apply in Northern Ireland while the tobacco directive applies.

The Minister in the other place sought to dismiss this, but then the Government dismissed similar points on the legacy Bill, only to have the Northern Ireland High Court rule against, and now we are awaiting a hearing in the Supreme Court. The very welcome Supreme Court ruling last week on sex and gender has also raised concerns about whether that judgment can apply to Northern Ireland, as we are under EU law. The tobacco directive is one of some 288 other EU laws that, through Section 7A of the EU withdrawal Act, are applied as being superior law to UK law in Northern Ireland—law that we here in the UK Parliament cannot disapply. As has been mentioned, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland attempted to put through similar generational smoking bans but could not. There is no doubt that if this Bill goes through, the tobacco industry will judicially review whether it can apply to Northern Ireland. It will end up in the Supreme Court. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to see whether the rather head-in-the-sand approach taken in the other place has been changed, because this will certainly be an area where amendments will be tabled.

I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, raised something that I wanted to raise. Why are the Government turning a blind eye to police forces that are going soft on cannabis use in public and in private? Cannabis is an illegal drug. The stronger versions of it such as skunk are, according to research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College, known to increase the risk of psychosis by three times compared with non-use. There is an increasing burden on our mental health services, and I see this as just as important a risk to health as tobacco. Does the Minister agree? What do the Government intend to do to deal with this?

Finally, I am concerned about the whole generational risk, as it has been put by other noble Lords, in differentiating in age between adults. One of the fundamental principles of a free society must be personal and family responsibility. The more that the Government ban and regulate, the less that families and people feel they have to make their own decisions. The state getting involved too much causes the influence of families, and individual responsibility, to be taken away. I hope that in Committee we can deal with these issues and get a better Bill to come out at the end; I think we all agree with its aim.

Northern Ireland Dentists: Amalgam Fillings

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that dentists in Northern Ireland will still be able to use amalgam fillings when the EU ban their use from January 2025.

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

My Lords, on 19 July, as a result of constructive work between the UK Government and the EU, the EU published a notice that recognises the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and the representations that have been made by the UK Government. It set specific arrangements in place for Northern Ireland, providing an additional 10 years to still use amalgam fillings, or until an earlier time is agreed by the Minamata convention, to which the UK is party.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which will be very much welcomed by dentists in Northern Ireland, but does she understand that there is a fundamental issue here? There are many more health and other regulations that will need that kind of begging of the EU to make a difference, because Northern Ireland is still under the Windsor Framework and the protocol. Will she commit to working to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, as a fully integrated part of the United Kingdom, is restored, and that this Government will do what they can to make that happen as soon as possible?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness is more than aware, the Windsor Framework is exactly about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s integral position in the union and the UK internal market. I can assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith. This is a particular set of circumstances and the first opportunity to secure such arrangements, so it is important to see it in this light. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomes this action by the Government; it is certainly intended to serve the good people of Northern Ireland, and I am glad to be able to present that today.