Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Lord Young of Cookham

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lord, I want to add a brief footnote to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Lansley asking for this independent expert panel on vaping.

It seems to me, from looking back at history, that we used to have exactly such a panel because, when we had Public Health England, it published a series of reviews on vaping with precisely the terms of reference that my noble friend mentioned; Public Health England was replaced in 2021, I think, by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. At that point, the series of reviews seemed to come to an end because, in September 2022, the OHID published

“a final annual update in the current series of evidence reviews about health harms of vaping by leading independent tobacco experts”.

However, if you look at that final report, it makes the case for what my noble friend has said.

First, it refers to the limited evidence on flavourings, clearly implying that more research should be done there. The final point was in its overall conclusion, which was that

“more standardised and consistent methodologies in future studies would improve interpretation of the evidence”.

It is not quite clear to me who will actually do that.

I note that, at the end of Second Reading, the Minister referred to some studies. She said that the Government had

“already commissioned a 10-year study to investigate the long-term effects of vaping on the health of 100,000 young people”.—[Official Report, 23/4/25; col. 743.]

I am not sure, however, that that is quite the same as what my noble friend asked for.

There seems to be a gap now, in that we no longer have the PHE/OHID reviews. We may have to wait 10 years for the study I just mentioned. The case that my noble friend has made for an independent panel on vaping seems to fill that gap; I hope that the case he made will have support from the Minister.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my support for this amendment, which seems very sensible. When we have an amendment in the names of both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we should all be looking at it very seriously indeed.

I have never smoked and never vaped but I remember, when vaping started, being absolutely delighted because it got rid of the smell of smoke whenever you went to places. There was a general feeling that vaping was better than smoking. I still feel that very strongly, but I accept that there is no evidence to tell us what is going to happen in the long term. I also think that things change; there is more research going on in all sorts of areas to do with vaping, and it just seems sensible that we have some form of expert panel.

I very much accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the word “experts”. We need to look carefully at who would be the experts on this but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, this might be something on which there could be discussion before Report so that there is agreement on the kinds of expert that we want. What we do not want is for them all to come from the same aspect of research in a particular academic area. As we come to the end of this Bill, I really do think that the Minister should see this as something that she could accept and which would be very sensible.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I applaud the fundraising initiative of my hon. Friend’s constituent. The National Screening Committee is currently scoping out a review for screening for spinal muscular atrophy, and once the review has been completed, it will be put on the NSC’s website for consultation. I know that the NSC would welcome an input from my hon. Friend, and, indeed, from those who are raising funds for this worthwhile cause.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the way in which we treat the staff of the House, particularly the very loyal staff on the switchboard, many of whom are my constituents and many of whom have been here for more than 20 years? They have been told that they will have to move to Southampton next May because Capita has taken over the running of the service. Can we really not look at the way in which we treat our own staff?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is right to draw the House’s attention to the debt that we owe to all those who work for the House and provide such a high-quality service, often in challenging circumstances. I understand that the contract for the switchboard operation has been awarded to Capita as part of the initiative of the House of Commons Commission to reduce costs. The hon. Lady’s concern is not primarily a matter for the Government, but it is a matter for the Commission, so I will raise it with the Commission and see whether there is a role for us to play in minimising the dislocation of her constituents.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

When can we have a debate, and indeed some action, on the shocking situation whereby Sinn Fein MPs, who refuse to recognise this Parliament or Her Majesty the Queen, still get their huge allowances and travel expenses? When will we accept that if they will not accept this Parliament’s rule, they cannot accept British money?

[Sir George Young]

The Government’s view is that all hon. Members who have been elected to the House should take their place in it. We see no reason why that should not happen. As I said in business questions last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland with a view to bringing that unsatisfactory situation to a satisfactory conclusion.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Lord Young of Cookham

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Clearly, we want to make progress on appointing the new members of the Electoral Commission. Of course, the House is entitled to scrutinise the proposals that are on the Order Paper, either by debate on the Floor of the House or through the appropriate Committee.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Given that many people in the country are having to take a pay cut, and that the coalition Government wish to reduce the cost of politics, will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 453?

[That this House recognises that the economic situation means that many people are taking pay cuts; acknowledges that the Government has stated that it wants to reduce the cost of politics; appreciates the work that Select Committees do but notes with alarm that there are 35 such committees where the Chair can receive £14,582 a year on top of their Parliamentary salary, a total of £510,370 a year; and believes that this cost is becoming untenable.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider holding a debate on the fact that Select Committee Chairs are paid £14,500 over and above their MP’s salary? No matter how good a job Select Committees do, that might be an opportunity to review whether such payments are tenable under the current economic circumstances.

[Sir George Young]

We had quite a long debate about that in the previous Parliament, and the House decided that it made sense to have an alternative career structure in the House so that the Government did not hoover up all the talent on the Back Benches. A salary for Select Committee Chairmen was seen as part of the development of an alternative career. We have no plans to change the remuneration of Select Committee Chairmen. Speaking from memory, I think that that is now a responsibility of the Senior Salaries Review Body.