NHS: Heart Valve Disease

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCabe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether NHS services for heart valve disease support healthy ageing and ensure older adults receive equitable access to timely treatment.

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

My Lords, to accelerate the 10-year health plan ambition to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25% and to tackle unwarranted variation across the country, this year we will publish a new cardiovascular disease modern service framework. It will support consistent, high-quality and equitable care while fostering innovation across the cardiovascular disease pathway.

[Lord McCabe (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. The guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery suggest that the UK is falling behind in terms of diagnosis and treatment for heart valve disease. Can she give an assurance that the new framework will take full account of these guidelines and pay particular attention to the diagnosis and treatment of older people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for his work in promoting the improvement of services for those with heart valve disease. I can say—it might be helpful—that we are driving down cardiology waiting lists. The number of people waiting over 52 weeks from referral to treatment was down 9% between the end of December 2025 and the end of January 2026. Yes, the modern service framework will accelerate this progress to reduce premature mortality and will set standards for the best evidence-based interventions.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, management of people with heart valve disease is truly a low-hanging fruit in reducing deaths due to cardiovascular disease. Some 400 people a year die on waiting lists for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. It is simple for people who have breathlessness or suffer from decreased exercise tolerance or chest pain. Even I, within five minutes, could diagnose whether they were at risk of heart valve disease or not—line them up and I will tell you.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am reassured that the noble Lord can assist within five minutes—we might consider engaging him. The serious point is that early diagnosis is important, and the modern service framework will build on the work that has already been done. I know that the noble Lord is aware of this, but just the use of a stethoscope is the way to make an early and initial diagnosis. We are upping our game here by bringing in AI-assisted stethoscopes, which will be a massive assistance for diagnosis.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to ask her supplementary question.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Resuscitation Council UK, the British Cardiovascular Society and the National Council for Palliative Care have excellent and sensitive joint guidance on the use of cardiovascular implants towards the end of life. My family’s experience in different parts of the country shows that not all cardiac surgeons take account of end-of-life care in patients. In one case, a patient was told that she would not be allowed to leave the hospital until she had a pacemaker, despite the fact that, at 88 years old, she did not want one and, two years on, bitterly regrets finally agreeing. Can the Minister say whether the review that she just mentioned will ensure that surgeons follow the guidance and work not only with patients but with their other clinicians?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear the experience that the noble Baroness describes. We are indeed seeking to have a whole-team approach to the whole patient. I absolutely agree with her that it should indeed consider where somebody is in their life stage.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord McCabe, referenced older people in particular in his Question—he did not say where he drew the line at old, but perhaps I will declare an interest. What happens, for example, when really older people need heart surgery but are considered to be an anaesthetic risk? With new developments in heart surgery, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what progress there has been in carrying out procedures without necessarily needing to have invasive surgery.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can privately share with the noble Baroness that I suspect that “older people” covers both of us: it is over 65. The point that she makes is important. The option of what is called a TAVI intervention is far less invasive than a surgical intervention, as she referred to. That activity has grown significantly year on year, with something like a 16% increase on 2024-25. That is a very welcome step forward as we move towards minimally invasive procedures.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is obvious that early testing for heart valve disease is an exemplary form of preventive medicine, which is where we all need to get to. The House owes my noble friend gratitude for organising heart valve testing through the Heart Valve Voice, which was extremely successful. Does my noble friend agree with me that, because of the absence of routine testing, we should look for opportunities to link heart valve testing with the other sorts of routine testing where there is a captive audience? These could include, for example, occasions when people go for cholesterol testing or possibly even flu vaccination, which are becoming more routine? If we could get that in operation at an early stage, it could make a significant difference.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend is right and, certainly, as we move through our 10-year health plan, the opportunity to make every contact count is very important. I refer my noble friend to the advances that we have made in services available in community pharmacies, because measuring blood pressure is hugely important. Our pharmacies, I am glad to say, have delivered nearly 4.2 million blood pressure monitoring checks since October 2021. We have more than 7,500 pharmacies now available in our high streets delivering this service. That is the kind of thing that my noble friend is looking for.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. The Minister made reference to AI stethoscopes aiding in the diagnosis of patients with heart conditions. The evidence for this was established in a very large trial—the TRICORDER trial—involving some 1.5 million patients and more than 200 general practices in our country. What it demonstrated was, compared to the use of the ordinary standard of care, a doubling of the rate of diagnosis for heart failure and a tripling of the rate of diagnosis for heart arrhythmias. The problem was that, subsequent to the trial, the diagnostic rate did not increase, suggesting that it is necessary to invest in training and the establishment of new working pathways to ensure that innovation can be properly established in routine clinical practice. Is His Majesty’s Government funding such activity?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to make the point that innovation research is one part of it, but it is actually its implementation that matters. However, the faster and more frequent detection of cardiovascular conditions is the key thing and training is certainly a part of that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me time for this question. She will be aware that studies analysed in around 155,000 diagnoses of aortic stenosis in England have found that women were significantly less likely to be referred to specialists and far less likely to receive valve replacement. This also applies to patients from deprived areas and in some ethnic minority groups. What assessment have the Government made of these disparities and what action are the noble Baroness’s department and NHS England taking to ensure that patients have access to heart valve treatment regardless of their gender, ethnicity or where they live?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right: women are underdiagnosed, they are undertreated and some ethnic minority groups face poorer access. That is why I very much welcome the fact that, in the framework to which I referred, dealing with inequalities will be absolutely key. Research, in which we are partnering with the British Heart Foundation, will focus on tackling inequalities in higher-risk groups as well as unequal cardiovascular disease outcomes. Inequalities and tackling them will be at the heart of all our acceleration of progress as well as our research.

Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.

Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.

Motion agreed.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, I will make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on this Bill. The Bill is UK-wide, and it has been developed in partnership with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. A legislative consent Motion was received from the Northern Ireland Assembly on 10 February 2025, from the Scottish Parliament on 29 May 2025 and the Senedd on 9 December 2025.

Following further amendments to the Bill on Report, supplementary legislative consent Motions have been sought from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. It has not been possible to complete this process before Third Reading. However, noting the strong support of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, we are hopeful that this process will conclude shortly. The Northern Ireland Executive has confirmed that their current legislative consent Motion is sufficient. I beg to move.

Schedule 16: Advertising etc: audiovisual and radio broadcasting

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

1: Schedule 16, page 169, line 39, leave out “(a) and (b),” and insert “—
(a) in paragraph (a),”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a structural change to facilitate my amendment to Schedule 16, page 169, line 40.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 1 to 5 are minor and technical, and stem from the amendments that the Government made on Report on advertising. The amendments ensure consistency across the advertising-related restrictions in the Communications Act 2003. In particular, they will ensure that a business which manufactures or sells more than one type of product, such as vaping products and nicotine products, is in scope of the restrictions on sponsorship of prohibited products. It was always the Government’s intention to capture any business which manufactures or sells prohibited products, no matter how many different types of product they sold or manufactured. The amendments therefore provide consistency across the advertising-related restrictions and prevent the creation of a potential loophole. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

2: Schedule 16, page 169, line 40, at end insert—
“(b) in paragraph (b), after “other tobacco products” insert “, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers (or of two or more of those products)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Section 368G(1)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, as amended, will refer to an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of cigarettes or certain other products. The amendment spells out that this covers an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture etc of two or more of those products (for consistency with other amendments).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to take this landmark Bill through your Lordships’ House. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health and tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year. While tobacco remains the greatest threat, this legislation is about protecting future generations from the harms of not only tobacco but nicotine addiction.

I extend my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed from right across the House: in particular, on the Front Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. My thanks go also to the Secretary of State for his leadership and support and to former Minister Ashley Dalton MP, who advanced this Bill to your Lordships’ House.

I also want to pay tribute, as many of us do, to former Prime Minister the right honourable Rishi Sunak for his ambition for a smoke-free generation. I also thank the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, for his expertise and unwavering focus, and all the officials who have played a crucial role, including the Bill team, policy teams, analysts, the Bill’s senior responsible owners, my private office and the Government Legal Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their invaluable contributions.

Finally, I pay tribute to Ministers and officials from the devolved Governments for their collaborative approach. This is genuinely a four-nations Bill which will ensure that we create a smoke-free generation and tackle youth vaping in every corner of our country. I beg to move.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, we have now reached the conclusion of what many will see as a landmark Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed throughout the various stages of its journey through your Lordships’ House, which began with its introduction as long ago as March last year. From these and other Benches, we heard a range of views on its various proposals and on the Bill itself. For some, it goes too far. For others, it does not go far enough. However, among all the disagreements, there were three points that I think noble Lords can agree on. First, smoking is bad for your health. Secondly, current evidence shows that vaping is less harmful than smoking tobacco. Thirdly, not vaping is healthier than vaping.

Beyond that, our debates covered a number of issues, from the evidence base to how to make vapes an attractive alternative to adults who wish to quit smoking while not appealing to children, as well as matters of individual liberty. We also debated the illicit sale of tobacco, the treatment of specialist retailers, cigarette filters, the compatibility of the Bill with the Windsor Framework and the enforcement of a regulatory regime of considerable complexity. We also probed the Government on the evidence behind some of the proposals, for example on the relative harm of heated tobacco compared with combustible tobacco for smokers who have tried vapes but did not like them, so reverted to cigarettes.

While we did not always agree, I thank the Minister and her officials for meeting my noble friend Lord Howe and me throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank her for the concessions made: we particularly welcome the amendment permitting vape vending machines in secure mental health settings. These are vulnerable people in restricted environments for whom access to cessation aids is not a luxury but a genuine health need and it was right that the Bill was amended accordingly.

Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I am glad to introduce these regulations, which will take effect from 31 March 2026. This statutory instrument is technical, relating to the preparation and administration of vaccines.

In autumn 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to support the rollout of the Covid-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. Three of these amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and are due to lapse on 1 April 2026.

These regulations look to retain several provisions within those amendments—which have been utilised in the Covid-19 and influenza programmes for five years—as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. They are designed to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as on the wider lessons learned during the pandemic and in recent polio and MMR vaccine catch-up programmes. I will briefly set out what each of these regulations does, and what amendments this instrument will make to them.

Regulation 3A(1) and (2) of the 2012 regulations enable trained healthcare professionals, or staff under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals, to conduct the final stage of assembly and preparation of Covid-19 vaccines without additional marketing authorisations or a manufacturer’s licence being required. This enabled bulk assembly of Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Given that we are no longer in a pandemic and have taken a more targeted approach to recent Covid-19 vaccination campaigns, this instrument allows these provisions to lapse from 1 April 2026.

Regulation 3A(3) and (4) permit holders of a wholesale dealer’s licence who do not hold a manufacturer’s licence to relabel Covid-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. This instrument retains these provisions as permanent legislation and expands them to include any vaccine against an infectious disease, which will helpfully support flexibilities in the supply chain now and in the future.

Regulation 19 allows Covid-19 and influenza vaccines to be moved between different NHS service providers at the end of the supply chain, without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. This instrument retains these provisions as permanent legislation and expands them to include any vaccine against an infectious disease, with relevant safeguards in place to regulate its use.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for participating in this debate. I appreciate the welcome for these measures and the acknowledgement of their importance from the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will turn to some of the questions. I will, of course, be very pleased to write to noble Lords on anything I am unable to answer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of provision of Covid-19 vaccinations and remarked that Covid is still very much with us; I am not quoting her directly but that is what I took from what she said. In answer to that, this is a big change, but it is now a relatively mild disease—I stress relatively—for, I stress again, most people. It can still be unpleasant, but I am glad to say that the rates of hospitalisation and death have reduced significantly since the pandemic. These proposals, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, are very much about building on the successes that we saw in the Covid-19 and the flu vaccination programmes. As I mentioned, they are about taking that best practice and ensuring that we have a vaccination system in the future.

The noble Baroness also asked about private vaccination services. It is still the case, of course, that the NHS offer of vaccination is there for all those who are at higher risk of serious outcomes; there are a number of such people and we want to ensure they are properly looked after. Private provision is also available, as the noble Baroness said, as with some other vaccines. The availability and price of any vaccines provided through the private market is a matter for the private sector and not something that we seek to regulate.

On travel vaccines, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, a number of such vaccines are available free on the NHS through GP surgeries. These are against polio, typhoid, hepatitis A and cholera. These vaccines are free because they protect the public against those diseases that are thought to carry the greatest risk if they were to be brought into this country.

[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.

Motion agreed.

Independent Commission on Adult Social Care

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care.

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

My Lords, the independent commission is making strong progress, and its work is on track. Just last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set out early recommendations for the Government to consider and take forward. This was informed by the commission’s extensive work, which included engaging with people and their families and across political parties. Later this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will launch the national conversation and publish the phase 1 report.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said that the adult social care system was held together by “sticking plasters and glue” and said on the “Today” programme that the system was “horrendous”. She is due to complete the first part of her review this year—basically, looking at getting better value from the existing system—but the second part, which will look at the long-overdue reform of the adult social care system, will not be completed until 2028. That will be too late for this Government to pass the necessary legislation, making this Parliament the fifth to have ducked this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, completed her review of grooming gangs in four and a half months. If asked, she could complete the second part of this review by September 2027, which would give us adequate time for this to be done in this Parliament. Will the Minister ask her to do just that?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Lord pushes this point, and I am sure that we all share his view. It has also been said that there is not a lack of good ideas, but there has been a lack of good politics. That observation has been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is chairing an independent commission and she has made it clear how complex and deep-seated these challenges are, as the noble Lord described. The 2028 date is a “by” date; the noble Baroness may report sooner, but that is a matter for her.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, concentrates on workforce issues. I am sure that she and my noble friend agree that patients, families and carers do not care who is employing the social care worker, as long as they are getting support. Should we concentrate on a flexible workforce that works across both agencies without boundaries to meet the changing needs of the population?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is key in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. We need to better join up the NHS and social care workforces. We will have a workforce plan for the NHS in spring this year and we are also investing in developing our social care workforce to professionalise and respect it.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, last summer, local authorities came under pressure from the Department of Health to make people and their families go through assessments for continuing healthcare. From the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on 4 March, we now know that ICBs were at the same time employing private companies to make sure that their CHC payments went down. Will the Minister undertake to review all the applications for continuing healthcare to each ICB throughout this financial year and publish the results, showing how many were accepted, how many were accepted on appeal and how many families were sent on a runaround between the different agencies?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

What the noble Baroness describes—people getting the runaround—is, of course, unacceptable, and we have discussed this a number of times. I would be pleased to take back her suggestion to the Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, for what it is worth, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on her initial findings, which illustrate all too well how serious the situation is. The problem will be made worse by things such as, as the Minister just reported, the NHS workforce plan that will be produced in the near future. That is welcome as far as it goes, but it illustrates the separation between NHS services and local authority services. The reality is that there are very few people using adult social care services who are not simultaneously looking to the health service for their continuous needs. Will we continue to do everything possible to bridge the gap between the two services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, indeed. We have three core foundations in place in our government objectives for adult social care, one of which is—to the point made by the noble Lord—strengthening the join-up between health services and social care services, because people need to experience more integrated, person-centred care. I am glad that the noble Lord welcomes the immediate actions, set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the Government must take on adult safeguarding, dementia and motor neurone disease. We are not wasting any time in taking those recommendations forward.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, picking up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Laming, when we were in government, we published a White Paper on an integrated national health and care service, to be available for patients from birth to their later years. When the new Government were elected, as was their prerogative, the Secretary of State talked about creating a separate national care service, but we have heard little since. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether we will have to wait until the next stage of the Casey commission, in 2028, to get any further details at all, especially on how it will work in tandem with our healthcare system, or can we expect any clues or hints before then?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord does not have to wait because, in addition to the work by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which, as I have said, is independent, she has set out immediate recommendations, which we are working on. We have already made commitments on the disabled facilities grant for housing, so that people can stay in their own homes. We have announced a £500 million investment in the first ever fair pay agreement, and we are uplifting social care allowances to support disabled people more than they ever have been. Those are just some examples, and I would be very happy to direct the noble Lord to other ways in which we are already taking action.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, in 2023, the Archbishops’ Commission on Reimagining Care encouraged a conversation not only between provider and recipient but with all those involved in care and support, to create rounded and fulfilled lives. That includes the voluntary sector, community groups and faith groups, which provide befriending and bereavement support and acts of worship in care homes. What plans does the Casey commission have to ensure that all parties participate in the national conversation mandated in its terms of reference?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I said earlier, that will be a matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. But I have every confidence that all the groups the right reverend Prelate referred to will be included, not least because the noble Baroness and the secretariat have already met, travelled widely and had many conversations, including with some 400 groups and individuals, focusing particularly on those with lived experience.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, 83% of adult social care is controlled by private equity. Its business model includes high prices, profiteering, low wages, asset stripping and tax abuse. It has profit margins of between 20% and 40% from adult social care. When are the Government going to end profiteering in this sector and ensure that social care is provided by not-for-profit entities only?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Various sectors have their role to play, and that includes the private sector, the voluntary sector and the public sector. As I have mentioned, we are building a national care service. It will focus on a high quality of care, greater choice and control for individuals and joined-up neighbourhood services, exactly as noble Lords request.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

What can the Government do about bed blockers before the final report?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I assume that the noble and learned Baroness is referring to people who are staying in unsuitable settings, such as hospitals, for too long because an alternative is not available. We are looking at reforming the better care fund, which assists a greater joined-up approach, and we are bringing in neighbourhood services so that people can be cared for nearer home. We are also harnessing technology—I have witnessed many good examples of that—whereby people do not have to be in hospital but can be at home, and the money we are investing so that people can improve accessibility within their own homes will also assist people to get back home.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to this group of amendments concerning the proposed retail licence scheme for tobacco and nicotine products. We welcome the inclusion of a retail licensing scheme in this Bill. This is a significant and constructive addition to earlier versions. The proposal represents a major step forward in strengthening the regulation of tobacco and nicotine sales in the UK. It brings the sale of tobacco into line with established practice for alcohol. Tobacco, of course, remains the single most harmful product that is still readily available. It is the single biggest cause of preventable illness and early death in the United Kingdom. It therefore follows that the sale of these products should be subject to comparable regulatory oversight. Extending the oversight to vapes and other nicotine products will further assist trading standards in addressing non-compliant, unregistered and under-age sales. This combination of proportionate regulation and clear enforcement powers will help to protect both the public and responsible retailers from unscrupulous and illegal competition.

The principle underpinning this reform is simple: the right to sell products that carry health risks must come with clear responsibilities. We want a system that supports compliance, deters abuse and places public health at its heart. Amendment 21A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would ensure a minimum of a one-year gap between regulations being passed and coming into effect, allowing for a transition period. We entirely understand the wish to allow retailers, local authorities and other enforcement bodies adequate time to prepare for the new framework. Implementation must be orderly and practical. However, setting a fixed one-year time delay in primary legislation risks creating unnecessarily rigid constraints. Some elements of the scheme may be ready to begin earlier, while others might benefit from a longer period. The Government’s approach—to determine the precise timing through secondary legislation, informed by evidence gathered from those affected through consultation and negotiation—will ensure that that transition happens as smoothly and credibly as possible.

Turning to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115, I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, regarding how existing specialist tobacconists should be treated within the new regime, including on transitional protection and possible exemptions. We acknowledge that the Government have already made some considerable steps in these areas, and we fully recognise the intention here: to try to give certainty to small specialist retailers who have operated responsibly and reasonably within the law for many years. However, these amendments would, in effect, enshrine grandfather rights in primary legislation, automatically conferring licences or permanent exemptions from any future limits on the number or distribution of these outlets throughout the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations. That would effectively pre-empt the consultation process and remove discretion before any evidence has been gathered or assessed in any way.

It is important that all aspects of eligibility, transitional arrangements and the scope of any future caps or location-based controls are properly considered through consultation, considering not only the interests of existing traders but the wider objectives of public health, community protection and fair enforcement. Given that this applies to existing retailers, not new ones, it does seem that these points should be made within the consultation. We hope that the Minister intends to do that and is open and considerate to these small and normally very compliant retailers—a point that has been made several times. We imagine that the retail licensing scheme will differentiate between the different types of retailers; but given that all details have yet to be confirmed, these amendments feel premature to us.

Amendments 24 and 25 relate to national registers and a unified digital portal. Again, to us, it feels like these things will be necessary for any licensing scheme, and we therefore assume that these amendments are not necessary, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that. On Amendments 31 and 44 and alcohol licences, we believe that this is already possible, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.

I would like to pick up on one point that was made in the debate. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about how breaches made under one licence would be communicated and passed on to the people who are regulating the other licences, and how she feels these two licensing schemes would interact with each other, specifically where breaches have taken place.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as well as the engagement they have been good enough to give their time to before Report.

Let me start with the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The UK Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive are carefully considering the design of the licensing scheme. A recent joint call for evidence asked detailed questions about implementation. This included specifically inviting feedback on whether applications for existing businesses should be treated differently from those for new businesses, and whether factors such as the location and density of retailers should have a role in granting licensing. I know, particularly from the debate today, that the question about existing businesses is a matter of concern to noble Lords.

We are aware that, under reforms to alcohol licensing through the Licensing Act, existing compliant businesses were indeed brought on to the new system, as noble Lords have referred to before, using grandfathering arrangements. I can assure noble Lords that we are considering this carefully alongside the feedback from our call for evidence, and we will invite further feedback when we consult on our proposals. However, the main point I would like to emphasise—a number of noble Lords have asked about this, and rightly so—is that, as I have said before, the Government do not wish to create a scheme which arbitrarily puts law-abiding retailers out of business. That is absolutely not the intent of this policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, along with other noble Lords, raised questions about specialist tobacconists, which we have discussed, and rightly so, on a number of occasions. With regard to various regulations that we have spoken about, and on specialist tobacconists broadly, as the noble lord, Lord Johnson, acknowledged, I gave the assurances on day 1 of Report last week, and I hope they have been heard.

We want a scheme that is proportionate and fair, as I believe noble Lords do, particularly to the many existing businesses that operate responsibly—I emphasise that, because they deserve credit—but we also want to deter those who break the law, which was called for by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Again, feedback on our proposals will help us strike the right balance. While I cannot accept the noble Earl’s amendment, I hope I have provided some reassurance that we are considering the details of this scheme in a way that is sympathetic to his aims.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for tabling Amendments 24 and 25 and to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 21A. I am sympathetic to what noble Lords are seeking to achieve with these amendments. We agree with the need to introduce more rigour around who can sell these products and to minimise additional burdens on retailers and local authorities as far as possible. We also share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to ensure that retailers have enough time to prepare for the new licensing scheme. However, I believe these amendments are not needed as they are about how the scheme is implemented effectively. This is something we need to consider properly—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to this—through consultation.

I can confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as I have before, that we are in regular contact with retail associations on implementation of the Bill, including the design of the future licensing scheme. This work will continue.

I know how strongly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, feels about the point that he is raising. We have engaged with the UK’s main independent vaping bodies—the UK Vaping Industry Association and the Independent British Vape Trade Association—and that engagement will continue. We will continue to hear their considerations and those of their members, but ultimately our policy decisions on future regulations will be guided, as noble Lords are aware, by evidence to protect and improve public health. I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which is different from the one that I am suggesting, but I hope he can be reassured about our engagement directly with those bodies because we feel that is the right thing to do.

I want again to reference our call for evidence, which asked about what support retailers and local authorities may require. It encouraged feedback on what works for existing licensing schemes. It also asked a specific question about how long is required to implement the scheme. These are all things rightly of concern to noble Lords in this group. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a point about timings, how the timetable will go and including a lead-in time. We are considering these issues carefully and will reflect on the feedback that we have received before consulting on our proposals. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, understandably asked for an update on the feedback in the call for evidence. That is important because the feedback will, as the noble Earl knows, inform our proposals for consultation. I am not able today to provide the update that the noble Earl rightly seeks, not least because we are still considering the returns from the call for evidence, which closed at the end of last year. But I can say that in our view there is no need to introduce legislative requirements, as in these amendments, before consultation has taken place. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about the amendments being somewhat premature, but I know they have the best of intentions. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is fair and reasonable time for businesses to adapt to any new regulatory regime.

Turning to Amendments 31 and 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, I am again sympathetic to what he is seeking to achieve. Where a business is found to have not complied with tobacco and vape legislation, it makes sense to bring into question whether that business is acting responsibly in relation to other products. However, any action that licensing authorities take against businesses should, as we would all expect, be justifiable and proportionate. A decision to suspend or revoke a business’s licence might have a significant impact on its livelihood and should not be taken lightly. Noble Lords have rightly made that point in this Chamber.

We are talking here about different products; it might not always be the case that non-compliance with one licensing scheme means that a business is non-compliant with another. It is important that licensing authorities take decisions with evidence of the business’s capability to sell specific products in line with the objectives of the respective licensing schemes. However, I agree that breaching a tobacco and vape licence may indeed be a useful signal for licensing authorities to more closely investigate a business’s compliance with their alcohol licence or vice versa; this is something that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about. Licensing authorities can and should use their judgment and knowledge of a business’s track record to inform the level of scrutiny that they apply. This includes, where there are concerns that a business is not complying with one scheme, carrying out additional checks to ensure compliance with other licences that it may hold and taking appropriate action where needed.

I hope that noble Lords have been reassured not only today but in the engagement that we have had prior to today, and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

27: Schedule 1, page 125, line 8, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e)
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes combined authorities etc from the list of local authorities that can be licensing authorities (since where a county or district council is a licensing authority its functions can be given to a combined authority under other legislation).

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group were tabled in my name for Committee but were not moved at the time. Government Amendments 67, 69 and 74 are also needed as part of these changes. However, as these amendments are also required for changes that the Government are introducing to the use of proceeds from fixed penalty notices, they will be debated as part of the next group.

At the moment, the Bill places responsibility on trading standards to enforce the future licensing scheme. However, the licensing authority for the scheme will be set out in regulations. The licensing authority may sit in a different tier of local government from trading standards and therefore, as the Bill is currently drafted, would not be able to enforce the scheme. Feedback from stakeholders has suggested that enforcement of the licensing scheme would be stronger and more seamless if those responsible for administering the scheme could also enforce it. These amendments will therefore ensure that whoever is designated as the licensing authority for the scheme will have the powers to do so. In any scenario, trading standards officers will still be able to enforce the scheme alongside the licensing authority. These amendments will help the licensing scheme achieve its aims of supporting legitimate businesses while tackling those who disregard the law, and, in doing so, will support public health.

I turn to government Amendments 144 and 145. Amendment 145 was tabled in my name in Committee but was not moved. It has now been necessary to also table Amendment 144, which is connected. These amendments seek to resolve an issue which has arisen during the passage of the Bill. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals certain enforcement procedures and provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. As currently drafted, Clause 103 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which rely on these provisions. Therefore, without amendment, there is a risk that we may not be able to confer the necessary powers on enforcement authorities.

Amendment 145 allows for the provision of equivalent powers to fully enforce regulations made under Part 5 without referring to the Consumer Protection Act. In doing so, it ensures that regulations made under Part 5 are fully enforceable. Amendment 144 allows for flexibility in the penalties that can be imposed by regulations under Part 5. This flexibility will enable regulations creating new offences to replace certain offences from the Consumer Protection Act and to provide for the lesser penalties associated with them. The amendment retains the maximum term of imprisonment that the Bill currently provides for as a safeguard.

Government Amendment 49 corrects a minor drafting error in the Bill; it does not reflect a change in policy. Finally, government Amendments 208 to 215 are consequential, as a result of changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to this group of minor and technical government amendments, which relate primarily to enforcement and regulation-making powers. I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of these technical and complex but necessary clarifications within the Bill. Briefly, our Benches appreciate the explanation given but we fully support what the Government are doing in these amendments and have no particular concerns with them. In the interest of time, I will avoid going into the detail, but we have no objection to any of these amendments.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will also be brief. I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As I stated in my opening speech, these amendments serve to strengthen the overall enforcement of the Bill, as well as the processes for future regulation—something that I know is of concern to both Front Benches, as well as all noble Lords. For this reason, I beg to move the amendment.

Amendment 27 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

28: Clause 18, page 10, line 29, after “authority” insert “or relevant district council”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clause 18 and Schedule 2 allow a licensing authority that is a district council but not a local weights and measures authority to impose financial penalties for breach of licensing conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

32: Schedule 2, page 125, line 24, at end insert—
“(2) In this Schedule “relevant district council” has the meaning given by section 18(6).” Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

49: Clause 31, page 16, line 36, leave out “and” and insert “or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a change to ensure drafting consistency.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

50: Clause 32, page 17, line 27, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England and local weights and measures authority in Wales”
Member’s explanatory statement
My amendments to this clause, clauses 33 and 35 to 39, 44 and 47 and my new clauses inserted after clause 39 collectively ensure that the licensing provisions may be enforced in England concurrently by local weights and measures authorities and by district councils that are licensing authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

52: Clause 33, page 17, line 35, leave out “local weights and measures” and insert “relevant enforcement”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

53: Clause 35, page 18, line 33, leave out “local weights and measures” and insert “relevant enforcement”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

54: Clause 36, page 19, line 3, leave out “local weights and measures” and insert “relevant enforcement”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

55: Clause 37, page 19, line 10, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

61: Clause 37, page 19, line 37, leave out “local weights and measures authority” and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

64: Clause 38, page 20, line 17, leave out subsections (1) and (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 25, requires fixed penalties imposed in respect of licensing offences in England to be used as set out in clause 38(3) rather than being paid into the Consolidated Fund. The provision for Wales is moved to a new clause after clause 39.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, in an earlier group I spoke about the importance of fixed penalty notices in the Bill, as they provide trading standards officers with an additional enforcement tool to bring retailers into compliance without taking up court resource. I have carefully considered the points raised by noble Lords in Committee about the proceeds of fixed penalty notices issued for licensing offences, including those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

I am therefore pleased to have tabled these government amendments because they will allow local authorities in England and Wales to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing fixed penalty notices for enforcement purposes, rather than having to return proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. That will enable local authorities to reinvest proceeds into strengthening the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation—something that noble Lords have asked for.

In addition, we are investing up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2028-29 to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes, and to help to enforce the law. This funding is being used to boost the trading standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England, and we will continue to provide funding to support the apprentices over the next three years as they complete their training.

Trading standards plays an essential role in ensuring compliance with tobacco and vape legislation. The enforcement provisions in the Bill, further strengthened by this amendment, will give them the tools they need to carry out that role. Proper enforcement of the law will protect the public from potential health harms and help to realise public health outcomes from policies in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66 and 68 in my name. These provide that the money collected by trading standards in small fines imposed by fixed penalty notices for offences other than those related to the licensing regulations should go towards smoking cessation services provided by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for this since the Bill was first introduced to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I was very happy to give way to my noble friend to allow him to heap more praise on to the Minister. Sometimes Government Ministers cannot always be assured of receiving praise from other Benches.

My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome these government amendments and are grateful to the Minister and Department of Health and Social Care officials for reflecting constructively on our debate in Committee on fixed penalties.

On Amendments 66 and 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, while I do not disagree with the sentiment, which is admirable—since in theory hypothecation of taxes, public fines and penalties would lead to more transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent—there is also a strong argument in favour of more fiscal devolution to local authorities, and whether we should use legislation to tell local authorities what they should be doing with the funds they are responsible for. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to those amendments, and I thank her and the Government once again for their amendments.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that there are no limits to the amount of praise that can be received by Ministers on this Front Bench, and noble Lords should feel free, at any time, to heap praise. We will always be grateful.

I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—we are very pleased to see her back in her place in good health—and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. On the noble Baroness’s Amendments 66 and 68, I have heard the call for, as she described, a broad approach. We recognise the importance of local smoking cessation services, which is the very reason we are investing an additional £260 million pounds over the next three years within the public health grant. This will mean that at least £150 million is ring-fenced for stop smoking services every year. The funding is protected, as the noble Baroness seeks, and cannot be used for other public health initiatives. It provides assurance and stability for these essential services.

In addition, we have extended the national smoke-free pregnancy incentive scheme for a further three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29, with funding worth up to £15 million—£5 million per annum. We are also committed to integrating opt-out smoking cessation services into routine care within all hospitals, as set out in the 10-year health plan.

I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about how committed we are to providing support for smokers to quit without the need to fund services using proceeds from fixed penalty notices. Instead, as your Lordships’ House has heard, we believe that proceeds can be better used by local authorities on the enforcement of the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. It is important that local authorities are able to retain the proceeds to cover their costs in issuing fixed penalty notices and reinvest any remaining funds in enforcement. Strong enforcement of the measures in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation will help ensure that we deliver our ambition to achieve a smoke-free UK and to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. In other words, on the very important points that the noble Baroness is pursuing through her amendments, that ultimately is the best way of reducing smoking.

Government amendments 64, 65, 67, 69 and 74 will support this by allowing local authorities to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing offence fixed penalty notices as well as the £200 fixed penalty notices in the Bill, which goes further than noble Lords were originally requesting. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support these important amendments.

Amendment 64 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

65: Clause 38, page 20, line 25, leave out from “a” to end of line 27 and insert “relevant enforcement authority in England in pursuance of a fixed penalty notice must be used in connection with any functions they have”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

67: Clause 38, page 20, line 32, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

69: Clause 38, page 20, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 21
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

70: Clause 39, page 21, line 5, leave out “by local weights and measures authorities in England”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

73: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Fixed penalty notices: Wales(1) A local weights and measures authority in Wales that has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under, or under regulations made under, any of the following may give the person a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence—section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);section 2 (purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others);section 6 (age of sale notice at point of sale: Wales);section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);section 11 (purchase of vaping or nicotine products on behalf of under 18s);section 14 (displays of products or prices in Wales);section 15 (free distribution and discount of products);section 20 (offences in connection with retail licences: Wales).(2) A fixed penalty notice is a notice offering a person the opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction for the offence to which the notice relates by payment of an amount specified in the notice within the relevant period. (3) The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence under section 20 must be an amount equal to level 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences.(4) The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice in respect of any other offence must be £200.(5) For the purposes of this section “the relevant period” is the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the fixed penalty notice is given.(6) A fixed penalty notice must explain—(a) that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed the offence, and why,(b) the effect of subsection (7), and(c) when and how payment may be made.(7) Where a fixed penalty notice has been given to a person (and has not been withdrawn)—(a) no proceedings may be instituted for the offence before the end of the relevant period, and(b) the person may not be convicted of the offence if the person pays—(i) the full amount of the fixed penalty in the notice before the end of the relevant period, or(ii) 50% of that amount before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the relevant period starts.(8) Where proceedings are instituted for the offence after the end of the relevant period, that period is to be disregarded for the purposes of calculating the period mentioned in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.(9) A fixed penalty notice given under this section may be withdrawn by the local weights and measures authority that gave it at any time before a payment is made in pursuance of the notice.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

83: Clause 44, page 22, line 26, leave out “section 37(1) and (3)” and insert “section (Fixed penalty notices: Wales)(1) and (3)”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

84: Clause 45, page 23, line 4, after second “to” insert “—
(a) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Part 1 that applies to tobacco products.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

86: Clause 47, page 23, line 28, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);” Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 45.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

88: Clause 47, page 24, line 1, at end insert—
““relevant enforcement authority in England” has the meaning given by section 32(1A);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, advanced a strong case for a review focusing more directly on the Bill’s economic effects and its effect on markets. At the heart of her case is a fact that I think we are all aware of, which is that the economy is, at its heart, about the allocation of scarce resources, which have alternative uses. When we regulate or prohibit products in a particular sector, we impose compliance costs, as she rightly pointed out, and that can affect investment decisions, supply chains, employment and innovation. That does not mean that regulation is wrong, but it does mean we should be honest about its wider consequences, so I did think that the noble Baroness’s proposal was one which merited considerable thought.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which have covered a number of important areas. I will start with Amendment 202, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—it was also spoken to by a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As noble Lords are aware, there is already a duty on government to review most secondary legislation and to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of primary legislation, and we take these obligations very seriously. For Amendment 202 specifically, the point must be reiterated that this Government are committed to achieving a smoke-free UK, and we recognise that this work will absolutely not be over when this Bill receives Royal Assent.

However, I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and it is for that reason that I have tabled Amendment 205, which introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act within four to seven years of Royal Assent and to lay a report before Parliament concluding the findings of that review. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Young, that this includes looking at the impact on communities where smoking rates are currently the highest. I hope that this is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to monitoring progress against our smoke-free ambition.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and others have said that this Bill is not about assisting people to quit. In the last group, noble Lords will recall, I addressed our determination, and laid out the resource that we have committed, to help people to quit smoking now, and that absolutely is a key aspect.

Amendment 205, which I tabled, will ensure that this Government and—I emphasise this—any future Administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence-based review of the Act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations. However, the amendment is set out as it is—it provides the necessary flexibility on timing—because we want to ensure that evidence is in place before conclusions are drawn. We do not want this to be a tick-box exercise.

I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that independent evidence will indeed be central. Most notably, it will include the living evidence map commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which will collate UK-based and international evidence on vapes and nicotine products for the next five years. This will include things such as any published research evaluating the impact of the Bill, and regular summaries will be publicly available to outline emerging trends and evidence gaps. I am pleased to say that this tool was published on 18 February.

As the Bill’s impact assessment outlines, we would not, in all honesty—I know noble Lords understand this—expect to see the full, transformative impact of the Act for some time. It is for that reason that the impact assessment used a 30-year appraisal period for the smoke-free generation policy. Our modelling found that the Bill will save tens of thousands of lives over the next 50 years. None the less, we expect that this review will capture any early indicators and operational progress.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is no limit on consultation just to the devolved Governments because, as I set out on previous groups, we are keen and committed and have already set out how we will consult many. We will continue to commission a substantial package of high-quality independent research on what is world-leading legislation.

On Amendment 207 by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I appreciate her intention to ensure that the impact of the Act receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, as I hope she has heard me say throughout every stage of the Bill. As she is aware, the Government already published a thorough impact assessment of the measures in the Bill on its introduction. Where possible, this has covered estimated impacts on businesses across the tobacco and vapes supply chain, including impacts for manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers.

For measures delivered through secondary legislation, in particular product standards, flavours and packaging, further detailed impact assessments will be undertaken. I have also spoken about government Amendment 205, which will include consideration of economic impacts where evidence allows. I must also emphasise that we will not prioritise the profits of businesses over protecting children from the risks of tobacco products, vaping and nicotine.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that there is no evidence to suggest that changing the age of sale of tobacco would have any relation to drug use. Indeed, we can look at our experience that, when the age of sale went from 16 to 18, drug use decreased.

I turn to Amendments 91, 120, 201 and 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I hope that these comments, in particular my opening remarks, will be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because I will start with an update to your Lordships’ House on the notification of the Bill under the EU’s Technical Regulation Information System, known as TRIS. The UK Government have notified certain provisions in the Bill related to Northern Ireland on TRIS. This is an absolutely standard process; it is not an approval process. The Commission and member states may indeed comment, but they do not play a role in approving the UK’s legislation in respect of Northern Ireland.

It is the case, as noble Lords have said, that certain EU member states issued opinions setting out their concerns about the compatibility of the smoke-free generation policy with EU law. It is not unusual for member states to submit opinions on TRIS notifications. To give just one example, several member states also wrote to France recently when it proposed a ban on nicotine pouches, despite several other member states already having introduced such a ban.

The Government have provided a comprehensive response on the opinions they have received. The response sets out the strong public health justification for the policy and explains why the smoke free generation complies with EU law as it applies under the Windsor Framework. The Commission has also now responded, noting our response, and this concludes the TRIS process.

On the points raised by noble Lords including the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and, in a different way, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about legal opinions, your Lordships are probably far more aware of this, but it is worth restating: legal opinions, to state what is obvious, can and do differ. I emphasise that it is not unusual for the tobacco industry to argue that government measures are incompatible with the law. My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke to this very point. Experience tells us that this has happened many times: to give but two examples, on the introduction of standardised packaging in 2016 and on the regulations made under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.

Amendments 91, 120 and 216 are not required: the Government have already published their response to the Commission, setting out why measures drafted in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with obligations under the Windsor Framework and EU law. I referred earlier to the Government’s published response on TRIS, following detailed opinions from EU member states. I strongly urge all interested Peers to read this if they have not had the chance to do so already, because it sets out in detail why the Government believe that the smoke-free generation policy and other measures in the Bill are compatible with EU law. It covers the Bill’s compatibility with Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EU tobacco products directive, and the public health justification for measures in the Bill.

Finally, I note that we cannot accept Amendment 201 as it could put us in breach of international law by undermining compliance with our obligations under the Windsor Framework. To this point, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her observations. With that, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. We had this discussion a few times in Committee. I tabled these amendments to make sure that all noble Lords are fully aware that no matter how much time we spend on the Bill, and whatever happens, it could end up in the EU ruling that it cannot apply to Northern Ireland. That is just a fact. There may be different legal opinions; I certainly have not relied on just the legal opinions of the tobacco industry. I am just disappointed as, once again, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General seems to be very quiet on this and does not want to engage or produce anything that shows us the legal opinion.

However, as has been said many times before, there is obviously agreement between the two Front Benches. Although I welcome the very sensible probing of this by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, there is clearly a consensus that the Bill is going to go through whatever because other Bills are probably more important. I therefore just warn noble Lords that we have been right before when we warned about legal opinion and what was happening in the Windsor Framework, and I think we will be right again. Having said that, I will withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

99: Clause 62, page 33, line 19, leave out “is” and insert “will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

100: Before Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Alignment of definition of “filter” etc(1) Section 35 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3) (interpretation of Part 1) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”.(3) In subsection (2), for “cigarette filters” substitute “filters that do not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product”.(4) In subsection (3), after “order” insert “amend this section so as to”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This adds a definition of “filter” to section 35(1) of the 2010 Act, amends the definition of “smoking related product” so as to attract that new definition and adjusts the power to modify the latter definition to allow amendments that are not confined to the text of section 35(2).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

102: Clause 67, page 35, line 22, at end insert—
“(b) if not falling within paragraph (a), a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by sections 9A to 9C in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows Part 1 of the 2010 Act to be amended so as to extend to filters provisions relating to tobacco products. It also allows the Scottish Ministers to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

105: Clause 68, page 36, line 10, leave out from “Regulations” to end of line and insert “may not be made by the Department under paragraph (2)(a) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations about age verification to be subject to approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

110: Clause 76, page 40, line 3, leave out from “Regulations” to end of line and insert “may not be made by the Department under paragraph (2)(a) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations about age verification to be subject to approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

111: Clause 80, page 42, line 21, leave out “is” and insert “will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

112: Clause 82, page 43, line 34, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 85(1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

116: Clause 85, page 48, line 9, after “to” insert “—
(a) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Part 2 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 that applies to tobacco products.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

119: Schedule 14, page 160, line 19, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 85(2).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

121: After Clause 88, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of section 88 to filters(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 88 for the purpose of extending it to a relevant offence that involves possession of a filter with intent to supply it to another in the course of business.(2) In subsection (1)—“filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);“herbal smoking product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco;“relevant offence” means an offence created by virtue of regulations under—(a) section 45(1A),(b) section 34A(3A) of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Act 2010 (asp 3), or(c) Article 6B(1A) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1907 (N.I. 26));“tobacco product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause confers power to extend clause 88 to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

122: Clause 89, page 50, line 12, at end insert—
“(da) filters;” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but, unless it is designed as a probing amendment, I fear I am not drawn to Amendment 123. In essence, it would tie the Government’s hands on the rules around the packaging and display of vapes. If the amendment were accepted, it would make any prior consultation and legal advice completely pointless. Measures of this depth and scope, mandating plain packaging for all vaping products and prohibiting point-of-sale display in all circumstances, would represent a major intervention in what is currently, and will certainly remain, a lawful market, and not only a lawful market but one that serves a significant therapeutic purpose in a public health context. The extent to which the powers in the Bill relating to the packaging and display of vapes need to be exercised must surely depend on decisions by Ministers following full and proper consultation with the businesses, manufacturers and retailers that would be directly affected.

Some regulation in these areas is almost certainly going to be necessary, particularly if we are to protect young people. However, regulation must be proportionate and evidence based. Vapes are not the same as tobacco, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out. For example, there needs to be scope for product differentiation by consumers. If consumers are denied choice, that will kill off any incentive on the part of manufacturers to pursue beneficial innovation. That consideration is important if we believe that vapes are likely to occupy an important place as a smoking cessation tool for adult smokers over the medium to long term.

On Amendments 125 and 134 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I hope to hear the Minister make some positive comments. As my noble friend has argued, both today and in Committee, it is not just the flavour of a vape that gives it an appeal but the flavour that it purports to have, and we know that the flavour descriptor can affect the purchasing decisions of those inclined to use vapes as a recreational toy.

In relation to Amendment 136A, there are clearly a number of considerations that must be weighed carefully. On the one hand, higher-capacity devices may be important for some adult users who rely on vaping as a smoking cessation tool. For those individuals, practicality and product functionality can make a real difference in supporting a transition away from combustible tobacco. On the other hand, there remains a legitimate concern, which my noble friend rightly voiced, about whether larger-capacity devices could increase appeal to younger people or facilitate greater nicotine consumption, with implications for addiction.

I suggest that those are finely balanced issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the evidence base underpinning the proposal and how the Government intend to strike the right balance.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this debate. Amendment 123 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Clause 89, which I will refer to later as well, already gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate packaging, while Clause 13 already provides powers on display that can set requirements as to where products can be sold.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about evidence. There is evidence that removing branding and standardising packaging reduces a product’s appeal to young people, as the noble Baroness alluded to, while having little impact on adults. However, I can say that we will consult on proposals before making regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred to this issue a number of times and I agree, because we are conscious of the need to ensure a balance between dissuading young people from taking this up while not dissuading adult smokers from quitting.

On the point about research, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we continue to fund high-quality research, including research on the packaging of vapes and nicotine products, and I am glad to say that that is due to conclude later this year. While I understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to reduce the appeal and visibility of these products, and I acknowledge her concerns, her amendment does seek to set the requirements in the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, we have a statutory duty and we would be wise to consult on these issues, because we need to ensure, as the noble Earl said, that any restrictions are proportionate and evidence based. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that these are areas on which we will be acting.

On Amendment 136A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, vaping products, as has been referred to in this debate, are already limited to 2 millilitres for tanks and 10 millilitres for refill containers. Over recent years, some manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill containers can be attached to a single device as a means to circumvent the legislative requirements and restrictions.

I want to assure the noble Lord that Clause 90 provides the powers to amend or place additional requirements and limits on vape tank sizes and the size of refill containers. It is vital that we undertake the necessary consultation, because we wish to make sure that our regulations are based on the best possible evidence related to tank capacity limits and that we do not have unintended consequences for adult smokers who use vapes as a quit aid, something I know is of concern, and rightly so, to noble Lords. It is therefore more appropriate for such detailed technical measures to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our recent call for evidence sought views specifically on tank sizes to better understand current market practices and we are, as I mentioned in an earlier group, currently analysing responses and will consider our proposals for consultation post Royal Assent.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 125 and 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I begin by assuring noble Lords—and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested I would do this—that Clauses 89 and 90 already provide powers for the Government to regulate information on vape devices and packaging, including flavour descriptors. I draw the attention of noble Lords particularly to Clause 89(3), which is a non-exhaustive list of the kind of provision that regulations could make, including in paragraph (b),

“the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”.

I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by noble Lords about potential unintended consequences of implementing flavour restrictions too rapidly or stringently, and I understand the points that noble Lords have made about the role that flavoured vapes can play in helping adult smokers quit, something the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, did a very fine job of inviting us into the world that he has experienced in this regard. In that spirit, I can confirm the Government’s commitment to consult on regulating flavour descriptors as a first step before considering broader restrictions on flavoured ingredients. This commitment reflects our intention to adopt a proportionate approach, again as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me to do, supporting adult smokers in their efforts to quit while also working to reduce the appeal of vaping products to children.

However, and on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I have to be clear that it is essential that we retain the ability to go further in line with the evidence, which the noble Baroness referred to. Flavourings are added to vaping products and that can increase their appeal. Hundreds of flavoured ingredients are used in vapes and, although some are considered safe when ingested, we do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, said, know the long-term health effects when they are inhaled, particularly in respect of children. Some initial data drawn from the limited research available is concerning and indicates that certain chemicals may be harmful if inhaled. For this important reason, we must have the flexibility to restrict flavoured ingredients in the future to protect public health. We have sought further data on flavours as part of the call for evidence conducted at the end of last year and we are reviewing those responses. In addition, we are exploring commissioning further research on the health impacts of vape ingredients when inhaled.

I hope that all this reassures noble Lords that the powers in the Bill already provide a comprehensive framework to act on these issues and that our approach will remain balanced and evidence-based to strike a necessary balance between reducing youth appeal and ensuring that adult smokers continue to have access to products that may help them quit. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I will touch on two things that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. First, I was previously in the European Parliament and worked on a number of technology regulations, and we can never be absolutely certain that we have legislated for the future or completely future-proofed anything. The only way to do that is to ban everything, frankly. We therefore often find regulation having to keep up with technology when it is far behind it, but we can put certain provisions in place. We can predict certain things but we cannot predict all innovation completely. Secondly, I hope the noble Earl will not mind me gently reminding him that not all vape companies are connected to big tobacco. A number of vape companies have nothing to do with big tobacco, and it is important that we understand that distinction.

My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lord Lansley. Before the Minister speaks to them, we also very much welcome the two government amendments in this group, which we think respond very helpfully to the issues raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We believe that adding these provisions is a good way of future-proofing the Bill, as much as any Bill can be future-proofed, without necessarily compromising any decisions that Ministers may wish to make in the short term—but also without committing the Government or a future Government to any specific technology solution or to one company’s specific solution. With that in mind, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 130 and 132 provide a power that would allow the Government to regulate the technological features of vaping products and tobacco-related devices, and the software associated with those features, to address emerging risks and to protect children. While the Bill already provides powers to regulate various device features, such as colour, size and shape, I listened carefully to the points raised in Committee about vape technology and the need to future-proof the Bill in order to respond quickly to new risks. I appreciate the support of both Front Benches on this point, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how far one can ever go when future-proofing. I can assure him that we are not planning to ban everything, but I thank him for the interesting suggestion.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke to concerning examples of the emergence of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people. As he said, some can now come with gaming functionality and others can be linked to what are called puff leaderboards and reward systems, so the more you inhale, the more credits you build up. Emerging evidence suggests—and it is worrying—that these interactive and gamified vaping features may heighten their appeal to children. This raises serious public health concerns around their potential to escalate dependence on nicotine. Our amendments therefore ensure that such emergent technology features can be appropriately regulated to reduce the appeal to children.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 131 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Let me first reassure him, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with regard to Amendment 124, that the powers in the Bill already enable us to regulate markings, which could include digital markings such as QR codes, to be used as part of a system to authenticate products. On Amendment 131, with reference to the device itself, I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s suggestions and his contributions on how best to future-proof the Bill, including on age-verification technology.

While it is not the Government’s policy to verify age at the point of use, and we have no intention to do so at this time, we recognise that need, as I have said, to be able to regulate technology to protect public health and respond to evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, acknowledged. It is for this reason that we are introducing the new regulation-making power on technology to which I have just spoken. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

The Minister referred to QR codes on packaging, which are obviously covered by the terminology of the Bill as it stands. But the example I used was smart tags, which effectively incorporate an electronic feature into the packaging of a product for monitoring. I would like to be assured that smart tags, too, are covered by the existing powers in the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I would be happy to write to confirm that point, but we feel that the Bill covers what we need to cover now. Our amendments talk about future-proofing, which is the key thing, but I would be pleased to write further.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Kamall. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 124.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

128: Clause 90, page 51, line 4, at end insert—
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

130: Clause 90, page 51, line 13, at end insert—
“(g) any technological features of a tobacco related device or vaping product.” Member’s explanatory statement
This allows regulations under clause 90 to make provision about the technological features of a tobacco related device (such as a heated tobacco device) or a vaping product.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

132: Clause 90, page 51, line 16, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1)(g) may include provision about software for use in connection with technological features to which the regulations relate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows regulations under new subsection (1)(g) about the technological features of a tobacco related device or vaping product to include provision about related software.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

135: Clause 91, page 51, line 30, at end insert—
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

136: Clause 92, page 52, line 8, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

137: Clause 93, page 52, line 36, at end insert—
“(da) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

138: Clause 94, page 53, line 8, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

139: Clause 95, page 54, line 9, at end insert—
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

140: Clause 96, page 54, line 32, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

141: Clause 97, page 55, line 9, at end insert—
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

142: Clause 99, page 56, line 16, at end insert—
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

143: Clause 100, page 56, line 33, at end insert—
“(iva) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

144: Clause 102, page 57, line 27, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Regulations under this Part creating an offence—(a) may provide for it to be punishable with a term of imprisonment or a fine (or both);(b) may not provide for the maximum term of imprisonment to exceed 2 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 102 currently requires offences created by regulations under Part 5 to be either way offences with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. The amendment allows more flexibility so that summary only offences with lesser maximum penalties can be created.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

145: Leave out Clause 103 and insert the following new Clause—
“Enforcement(1) Regulations under this Part may include provision about enforcement.(2) The provision that may be made about enforcement includes—(a) provision conferring functions on the relevant enforcement authorities;(b) provision for the appropriate national authority to—(i) direct, in relation to cases of a particular description or a particular case, that any function conferred on a relevant enforcement authority by virtue of the regulations is to be carried out by the appropriate national authority and not by the relevant enforcement authority;(ii) take over the conduct of any proceedings from a relevant enforcement authority in respect of an offence under this Part.(3) The provision that may be made about enforcement includes—(a) provision conferring on a relevant enforcement authority the power to prohibit a person, for a period of up to 6 months, from supplying a product, if the authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been a breach of regulations under this Part in relation to that product;(b) provision for the forfeiture of products—(i) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, by court order;(ii) in Scotland, by order of a sheriff;(c) provision similar or corresponding to section 88 (HMRC seizure powers). (4) Provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) may include—(a) provision for compensation to be payable by a relevant enforcement authority in specified circumstances;(b) provision about the resolution of disputes about compensation.(5) Regulations under this section may include provision conferring jurisdiction on a court or tribunal, including—(a) provision conferring jurisdiction to order a person to reimburse a relevant enforcement authority’s expenditure in specified circumstances;(b) provision about appeals.(6) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State,(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, and(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Health;“relevant enforcement authority” means—(a) in relation to England, a local weights and measures authority,(b) in relation to Wales, a local weights and measures authority,(c) in relation to Scotland, a local weights and measures authority, and(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, a district council;“supplying” includes—(a) agreeing to supply;(b) offering or exposing for supply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is intended to replace clause 103. Clause 103(2) allows regulations to apply enforcement provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals those provisions. The new clause recasts, and narrows, the powers in a way that avoids referring to the 1987 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

146: Clause 111, page 60, line 36, at end insert—
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to Part 5 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

148: Clause 113, page 62, line 31, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for their amendments in this group. I begin with the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. Many noble Lords have raised concerns about the unintended consequences of this Bill. Just yesterday, HMRC published data showing that legal tobacco sales in the United Kingdom fell by 52% between 2021 and 2025. That statistic will be welcomed by those who want to eradicate smoking, but there is still some way to go in encouraging smoking cessation. My noble friend’s amendments simply ask a question akin to that debated in group 5—namely, how far we should go with regulation of vaping and nicotine products, especially when we are trying to promote them as alternatives to smoking tobacco?

Of course, some regulation is certain to be necessary with products such as vapes, but we have to be careful that we confine them to responsible use. We should also be careful not to use a sledgehammer when a nuanced approach might be a more effective way forward in a particular circumstances and settings. If we overdo the restrictions, we risk driving smokers away from quit aids and alternatives such as vapes towards easily available alternatives—unfortunately, such as illicit tobacco, which we know is still too accessible to some smokers. Many noble Lords have spoken to their own experience in local authorities about trying to tackle illicit tobacco. In the right settings, advertising and displays of vaping products can play a role in encouraging adult smokers to switch from cigarettes to less harmful alternatives, and we know that many are already doing so. It is important for the Government to find the right balance.

I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. There is really little that I can add to the case that he has made so persuasively. The hospitality sector has faced sustained pressure in recent years, including rising energy costs and an increase in the cost of taking on new employees, staff shortages in some areas and increasing regulatory burdens. It is therefore reasonable that when we introduce further restrictions, we carefully consider their cumulative impact on licensed venues.

My noble friend’s amendment is tightly drawn. It would apply only within the curtilage of premises licensed under the Licensing Act 2003; only where advertisements are not visible from outside; only in age-restricted venues with appropriate safeguards; and it explicitly excludes tobacco products. It also provides for regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and requires consultation and a full impact assessment, something very much in line with better regulation, in which many noble Lords believe. That framework suggests a helpful attempt to strike a balance, maintaining strong protections for children and the wider public while recognising that adult-only controlled environments may justify a different approach. It seems reasonable to at least explore whether limited, carefully regulated flexibility of this kind could be accommodated without undermining public health objectives. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on such flexibility.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, Amendments 149, 151, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163 and 169.

Survey data shows that there has been a significant growth in awareness of vaping promotion among young people, with 55% of all children aged 11 to 17 aware of promotion in shops. This figure relates to 2025, and that is up from 37% in 2022. We are therefore delivering on our manifesto commitment to stop vapes from being advertised to children, while still enabling them to be promoted by public health authorities as a means for adult smokers to quit smoking, something that noble Lords have emphasised correctly, once again, in this group.

Tobacco advertising, including for heated tobacco products, is already prohibited under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and will remain so under the Bill. On Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I can clarify that the advertising provisions do not restrict the use of, or sale of, products, and therefore should not overly impact on the hospitality sector. I will come back to reference to the hospitality sector, following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when we get to the final group, which is coming up next.

Evidence for tobacco has found that partial bans, as referred to in this amendment, are not as effective as comprehensive bans in reducing tobacco consumption. I therefore feel that it is extremely reasonable to draw similar conclusions for vape advertising. Under current legislation, there are already strict restrictions for vape advertising. We believe that the promotion of vaping to quit smoking is best led by the appropriate public health authorities, because they can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support.

In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the Bill already includes defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I outlined on the first day of Report, following my prior assurances on public health campaigns, we are introducing a specific defence which will strengthen this capability by allowing businesses, such as pharmacies and GPs—something that noble Lords rightly drew my attention to—to advertise non-branded vapes, if it is part of a campaign agreed with the public authority for public health purposes. We are not considering further exemptions due to the risk of loopholes, the potential for poorly enforced entry rules, and the fact that evidence has shown that comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising have reduced consumption, but partial bans, as I mentioned before, have had no significant effect.

On Amendment 152, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the language of “has reason to suspect” is standard practice and already included in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. This wording is specifically designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those involved in the design of advertisements cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance where there are clear grounds for suspicion. I say again, this is standard legal practice.

Finally, on Amendment 153, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, it is important that we recognise and respect the established criminal law system within each nation of the UK. As noble Lords will know, Scotland has a separate criminal justice system, and 12 months is the maximum penalty on summary conviction for this type of offence and is fixed in line with its criminal justice system. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

150: Clause 114, page 63, line 20, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

154: Clause 115, page 64, line 4, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

156: Clause 116, page 64, line 32, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

158: Clause 117, page 65, line 18, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

160: Clause 117, page 65, line 33, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

162: Clause 118, page 66, line 22, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

164: Clause 118, page 66, line 38, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

165: After Clause 118, insert the following new Clause—
“Exceptions for internet service providers (conduits, caching and hosting)(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118 by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118 by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information— (i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) upon knowing of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are—(a) that the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network;(b) that access to the information has been disabled;(c) that a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118(1) by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it was or contained a relevant advertisement, and(b) upon knowing that the information is or contains a relevant advertisement, the provider promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(6) In this section—“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet;“relevant advertisement” means an advertisement whose purpose is, or effect will be, to promote—(a) a tobacco product,(b) a herbal smoking product,(c) cigarette papers,(d) a vaping product, or(e) a nicotine product;“user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.(7) In the definition of “internet service provider” in subsection (6), a reference to the internet includes a combination of the internet and an electronic communications service (as defined by section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003).”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates exceptions to the advertising offences in relation to mere conduit services, caching services, and hosting services.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

166: After Clause 119, insert the following new Clause—
“Advertising defence: public health campaigns(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under any of sections 113 to 118 in relation to an advertisement whose purpose is to promote vaping products or nicotine products in general, or a category of such products, it is a defence for the person to show that they knew or reasonably believed that they were acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority. (2) A public authority may only make such arrangements for the purposes of promoting or protecting public health.(3) Where in accordance with subsection (1) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to show a particular matter, the person is taken to show that matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(4) A reference in this section to a “category” of vaping products or nicotine products does not include a brand.”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates a defence to the advertising offences created by the Bill for public health campaigns. The defence is available only where a person knows or reasonably believes that they are acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

167: Clause 120, page 68, line 29, leave out “or effect is” and insert “is or effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

170: Clause 122, page 70, line 18, leave out “or effect of the use is” and insert “of the use is, or the effect of the use will be,”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

171: Clause 123, page 71, line 13, leave out from “purpose” to end of line and insert “of anything done as a result of the agreement is, or its effect will be,”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

172: Clause 124, page 71, line 39, leave out from “purpose” to “to” in line 40 and insert “of anything done on or after the specified date as a result of the agreement is, or its effect will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

173: Schedule 16, page 162, line 20, at beginning insert “In”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

188: Clause 132, page 75, line 12, at end insert—
“(za) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

191: Clause 134, page 76, line 17, at end insert—
““filter” has the meaning given by section 111;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendment to clause 132.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, despite the comments of the previous two speakers, I will speak to Amendment 199, the purpose of which is simple: to make every future and renewed pavement licence issued by local authorities smoke-free.

Your Lordships will recall that pavement licences first appeared during the pandemic, when indoor hospitality was restricted. They gave cafés, pubs and restaurants a lifeline. It seemed obvious that these spaces should follow the same rules as indoors: no smoking. The LGA supported this, saying that

“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke”.

It welcomed this national policy because it stopped the stupid situation of allowing people to smoke in a pub pavement area on one side of the road but not on the other if a local authority boundary ran down the middle of the road and they had different policies. Since then, pavement licences have become a permanent fixture. However, after some lobbying from some parts of the hospitality industry, the requirement for smoke-free was removed without proper consultation of health authorities.

In 2021, this House supported an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, noting the missed opportunity to make all licences smoke-free. Amendment 199 seeks to honour that vote and ensure that this health-protecting measure is applied consistently.

There is currently a requirement for some seating to be smoke-free, but the distinction means very little when you talk about a very small bit of pavement. More than 10 councils have made smoke-free a condition of obtaining a pavement licence, including Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Northumberland County Council and Durham—not outstandingly liberal authorities, as far as I can tell. Feedback shows that customers and businesses welcome the change. In Liverpool, a survey of premises found that 74% of those asked expressed support for the scheme, including many smokers. Councils also aim to reduce cigarette litter with this initiative, which would make outdoor seating areas cleaner, more welcoming environments.

Second-hand smoke is harmful at any level. It worsens asthma and other respiratory conditions, and contributes to heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Smoke-free spaces are also popular with the public. Polling from ASH shows that 59% of people support banning smoking in outdoor areas of pubs, cafés and restaurants; indeed, 40% said that they would be more likely to visit these venues if smoking were banned outside. That is more than double the number of people who say that they would go less often, debunking the idea that smoke-free means customer-free. Making outdoor areas smoke-free is not only sensible but what the public want.

I regret that this issue is not covered by the recent consultation on smoke-free places. It is a shame that the Government felt that they were not able to include hospitality in that consultation at all and that they fell into this false narrative that smoke-free is somehow an economic threat to hospitality.

Less than 12% of the population smoke, so the financial viability of the hospitality industry is clearly not dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco, including outdoors. Indoor smoke-free legislation was a far more drastic intervention, and we heard many of these arguments from those opposed then. However, a survey in 2012 of nearly 5,000 pub customers reported that more than one in five visited the pub more often than before smoke-free legislation. I do hope that the Minister will, in future, consider looking at the pilots for smoke-free pavement licences to assess the economic relationship between the hospitality sector and smoking. As prevalence continues to fall, we must be at a tipping point soon, where these spaces will naturally become smoke-free.

This brings me to Amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the potential impact any restrictions will have on hospitality, but in any case, the Government would consult on any use of smoke-free powers as they are doing currently.

Moving on, I welcome Amendment 194A from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There is no doubt that the public are keen to see more places where smoking and vaping are prohibited. However, this policy must be pursued not merely to cater to the things that people dislike, but also to ensure that it is addressing matters that are harmful to the public. Clearly, reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke passes that test. While the evidence of exposure to second-hand vapour remains unclear, I think we can agree that reducing any possible risks around children must be prioritised, following careful consultation.

In that respect, I do not support Amendments 194 and 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would remove these powers altogether. However, there is a challenge in all of this. Given the high level of public misunderstanding about the difference in harms between vaping and smoking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said—and she is quite right —how do we ensure that in creating vape-free places we do not exacerbate those misconceptions? I talked to a young man the other day who asked me, “What are you doing in the House of Lords?” I explained about this Bill, and he said, “Oh, all my friends vape”. He said, “I think it is just as harmful as smoking, isn’t it?” QED. Of course it is not.

I welcome the commitment in the published consultation to treat vaping differently from smoking where it is providing support to smokers to quit. I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that score. Will the Minister say more about how this policy will be communicated to improve public understanding that vaping is less harmful than smoking? How will any exemptions to indoor vaping regulations be used to best effect to encourage more smokers to see vaping as quitting aids?

It is disappointing to see only council-run playgrounds included in the ban on smoking in playgrounds. Why should children playing in settings not run by councils not be similarly protected? There are also other places, such as transport hubs, where the public and workers are regularly exposed to other people’s smoke, so are the Government planning to commit to look at these too?

Amendment 192A from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is very interesting, but we do not think actors should have to smoke at work. I think it was pointed out in Committee that there are alternative products that can depict smoking for artistic purposes; in particular, I believe that the National Theatre has such a device. If it is good enough for that theatre, it is good enough for me. Moreover, Wales does not have this exemption in place, and it has not harmed Welsh theatres.

We do not think that Amendment 193 is appropriate either: most venues are vape- free anyway, and the law is just really catching up.

On Amendments 197 and 198, I do not think that heated tobacco should have special exemptions at all. Only 1% of the population use it and it is not recommended by NICE for cessation. However, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister about heated tobacco devices, because I have had a letter expressing some concern that the law is not terribly clear. The advertising offence in the Bill applies to any advert,

“whose purpose or effect is to promote … a tobacco product”.

So can the Minister confirm that heated tobacco devices—not just sticks—will be caught under this definition, as advertisement of the device might constitute promotion of the tobacco product?

I see that in Clause 132 the Government explicitly take the power to extend provisions in Part 6 to tobacco- related devices. I understand that this is to future-proof the advertising restrictions against any innovation in this space, as we know the tobacco industry is likely to use any loopholes. I ask the Minister: why are heated tobacco devices explicitly included in Clause 132? Is it because of the difficulties they have had recently with two big supermarkets advertising heated tobacco products? Is it just the devices they are advertising, or are they simply breaking the law about advertising the tobacco sticks themselves? A little clarification would be most welcome if the Minister could provide it, please.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this last group of amendments. It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House that, on 13 February, the Government published their consultation on free-from places. We are consulting on making outdoor public places, including children’s playgrounds, hospitals and schools, smoke-free and heated tobacco-free. Additionally, we are consulting on making outside playgrounds and schools vape-free.

With regard to indoor spaces that are currently smoke-free, we are consulting on also making these heated tobacco-free and vape-free. I want to emphasise—and I hear different opinions on this within your Lordships’ House—that the consultation does not consider extending these proposals to outdoor hospitality. I hope that this addresses the concerns raised under Amendments 194 and 197, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as well as Amendment 196 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

With regard to Amendment 193 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the vast majority of people—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is present in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to second-hand harms. This would be of particular concern to those who are medically vulnerable, whose conditions may not always be visible.

Additionally, under the proposals put forward in the consultation, those who wish to vape would still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings. I should say that we have been pleased to meet various stakeholders, including UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, and we have welcomed their input.

Furthermore, a number of establishments, as I am sure we are all aware, have already introduced their own policies restricting vaping indoors. These proposals provide consistency and clarity for the public and businesses, and that is crucial if we are thinking about legislation.

I turn to the evidence. Amendments 195 and 198 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, question the need for the vape-free places and heated tobacco-free places clauses. I also refer to Amendment 194A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

We have already published a draft impact assessment alongside the consultation on free-from places. To the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, this sets out the evidence base for the proposed policies. I encourage noble Lords to review the document, which is thorough, if they have not had the chance to do so already. I can say that we will reassess the evidence after the consultation is closed, and we will consider any additional evidence identified before deciding on final policy positions and publishing a final stage impact assessment alongside regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

200: Clause 144, page 91, line 18, leave out “occupies or is concerned in the management” and insert “has management or control”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the person responsible for displaying signs about heated tobacco-free premises in Scotland is the same as the person responsible for displaying no-smoking signs and no vaping signs.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

205: Before Clause 158, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation of this Act during the relevant period, and(b) prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of that review.(2) In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) consider any evidence as to the economic or health impacts of the Act, and(b) consult—(i) the Welsh Ministers,(ii) the Scottish Ministers, and(iii) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.(3) In this section “the relevant period” means such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate being a period of not less than 4 years, nor more than 7 years, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Bill and lay a report before Parliament setting out the conclusions of that review.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

208: Clause 165, page 119, line 2, leave out “or orders”
Member’s explanatory statement
This and my other amendments to clause 165 reflect changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025, which introduces the concept of a Welsh statutory instrument and makes related provision about procedure. There are no significant substantive changes to the procedure for regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

217: Clause 167, page 120, line 33, leave out from “force” to end of line 34 and insert “on the day on which this Act is passed”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for clause 63 (alignment of definition of “tobacco product” in Scottish legislation) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill currently provides for it to come into force 2 months later.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

218: Clause 168, page 121, line 13, at end insert—
“(za) section 131 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;” Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for clause 131 (alignment of definition of “tobacco product” in old legislation) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill currently provides for it to come into force 2 months later.

NHS: Violence Against NHS Staff

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rafferty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce violence against NHS staff.

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

My Lords, the department and NHS England are working with NHS employers and trade unions to prevent and reduce violence in the NHS by improving prevention, security, reporting and investigation, as well as enhancing training and post-incident support. As announced in the 10-year plan, the Government will strengthen existing measures by introducing this spring a new set of staff standards to ensure that NHS organisations are held to account for improvements.

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her, as ever, detailed and insightful response, but I am sure she is also aware that certain groups are disproportionately affected by violence in the workplace. Black and Asian nurses make up over 30% of the total number of registered nurses in England yet report higher exposure to both verbal and physical abuse than their white counterparts. How are the Government supporting NHS trusts to protect staff from all forms of violence and racism?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend that racism, violence and abuse in the NHS, and indeed anywhere, are quite unacceptable and there is clearly so much more that we have to do. The Government’s progress is about the establishment of the workforce race equality standard, which measures NHS organisations against nine indicators, including bullying and harassment. The report about the standard was published in June of last year. We also have the equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which again identifies six high-impact areas for employers, and this is expected to be strengthened by the introduction of a new staff standard on tackling racism, which is due in April.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the level of violence towards staff in healthcare settings which the Minister has just mentioned is unacceptable. The 2024 NHS staff survey found that violence had increased since 2023, with a quarter of the workplace reporting harassment. Given that staff safety is essential to the functioning of the NHS, what specific funding is being made available to trusts for preventive measures, such as de-escalation training, alongside direct protections such as increased security personnel?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right about the increase as reported in the staff survey, and it is indeed shocking and totally unacceptable. The reporting of incidents of physical violence has also increased and, while I do not want to see more violence, if it is there, we need to know about it. On funding and NHS organisations, it comes within their general budgets. We are guiding and supporting those organisations to ensure they use the money in the most appropriate and effective way.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I have had reason to visit St Thomas’ Hospital on a number of occasions recently to visit the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I assure the Chamber that she is progressing well and thanks everybody for their messages of support, which have come from all sides. Just across the river, I have witnessed on two occasions levels of violence against the staff which I have never witnessed in some of the toughest parts of London or other cities. Nobody who has not experienced what the staff in NHS hospitals have experienced can appreciate the threat that is regularly meted out, to the extent that, last week, I had to act as a witness on behalf of a member of staff at St Thomas’ because he was having to fight off somebody who was trying to beat him up in the hospital.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is a terrible thing that the noble Lord reports, and I appreciate him drawing your Lordships’ House’s attention to it. I can only reiterate the unacceptability of growing violence, bullying and harassment towards staff. Our work is to retain, recruit and get the best out of staff—I know this is a matter of interest to noble Lords—but we cannot do that in this environment. It is absolutely key that staff do not just feel safer but are safer in the workplace.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, when working as a district nurse in 1981, I worked with an elderly male patient who had a rat in a cage as a pet. I made a rookie mistake that I would not make now: I said I was frightened of it. The next time I visited, when I drew back his bedclothes to give him a bed bath, the rat leapt out at me. I just draw attention to that, but can the Minister explain how and what statistics are kept on the sickness and absence of healthcare workers who work in the community as a result of physical and psychological aggression from patients?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Again, I am very sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness had and should not have had. Sadly, I am sure that she was not—and is not—alone in having had such experiences. We have zero tolerance towards violence, bullying and intimidation, and I would regard that as being an instance of that. We need to improve our data and our recording. We are developing a common reporting framework for violence prevention and reduction which will support the adoption of more consistent approaches to dealing with it and improve comparability across not just systems but services. The noble Baroness’s point about community-based violence is as valid as points about hospital-based violence: violence is unacceptable wherever it is.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of the General Medical Council. I was very sorry to hear the example given by the noble Lord; unfortunately, we have all heard too many such examples. If a healthcare professional is the subject of violence in the workplace, the police may be required, sadly, to arrange for a forensic physician to examine the victim. That experience can be stressful and daunting for the member of staff in question. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what steps are being put in place to support those practitioners in such instances?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I think I understand my noble friend’s question; if I have misunderstood, I will gladly write to her. The point here, I think, is about not just practice but culture. We need to see good leadership. We need good organisational culture to improve staff engagement and staff responsibilities when faced with dealing with such incidents. Again, our NHS working cultures need to be more compassionate and more inclusive, and they need better support, including around occupational health and staff well-being. Practitioners are part of the solution, and of course we give them our full support.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, in advance of this Question, the Medical Defence Union wrote to a number of noble Lords, for which we are grateful. It outlined that if a healthcare professional is the subject of violence in the workplace, the police may be required to arrange for a forensic physician to examine the victim. This experience of course doubles the terrible experience that the individual has been through and is daunting for them. Can the Minister confirm what steps or guidance the department and NHS England, as long as it continues to exist, are putting in place to support medical staff in such instances?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point. All NHS staff have access, for example, to a helpline for support and to Practitioner Health for when they need more complex mental health support. Of course, anyone who is experiencing violence or abuse should report it to their line manager so that it can be properly investigated, including reporting it to the police. These are very difficult situations for the person who has suffered abuse and for members of the team who have to support them. I take the point about forensics; forensic investigation can worsen it, but it is also necessary to secure conviction where necessary.

Rare Cancers Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay, for the skill and care with which she has steered this Bill through your Lordships’ House. This is a measured and important piece of legislation that has attracted cross-party support. It addresses an area of clear and long-standing need, and it does so in a way that reflects the lived experience of patients and families, particularly those affected by rarer and less well-understood cancers, who too often feel overlooked within the system.

Throughout the Bill’s stages, we have heard moving contributions from noble Lords with personal experience of these issues. We congratulate the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, on braving a skydive to raise money for her teacher’s charity. Every individual contribution from people who work tirelessly to combat cancer and support those living with its impact makes a real difference.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, Dr Scott Arthur and the Bill itself, and we look forward to seeing it receive Royal Assent.

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

My Lords, I am delighted to reaffirm government support for this important Bill. It will make a real difference for rare cancer patients and, as my noble friend Lady Elliott said, it stands as a real tribute and an amount of change to the memory of those we have lost, including our noble friends Baroness McDonagh and Baroness Jowell.

I have been touched to hear that charities have referred to this as a Bill of hope, and I hope that is what it will be. It aligns with our ambition to strengthen the UK’s research landscape and improve outcomes for all those affected by a rare cancer. It also complements the recently published national cancer plan, which will drive improvements in prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research across the country.

I am pleased to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the new brain tumour research consortium will be led by the Royal Marsden hospitals, as well as working with hospitals all across the country. It is certainly expected that they will be consulted when we are looking for the person who will be the specialty lead.

I am most grateful to all those who contributed throughout the passage of this Bill, in particular to my noble friend Lady Elliott for her committed leadership and sensitivity to this matter in bringing this important legislation forward. Many noble Lords engaged so constructively at Second Reading and I wish to thank them all, as well as those advocates in the other place, including Dr Scott Arthur, who led on the Bill. This Government are determined to go further for everyone diagnosed with a rare cancer. I am delighted that we are supporting this Bill and that it has been so strongly supported across Parliament, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, NHS staff told us through the 10-year health plan engagement that they were crying out for change. This Bill is but one step in delivering that change. It will ensure a more sustainable and resilient medical workforce. It will ensure that we make the best use of the substantial taxpayer investment in medical training, and it will give our homegrown talent a clear path to becoming the next generation of NHS doctors.

The issue of bottlenecks for postgraduate medical training has been growing since the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020. I am most grateful to Parliament for expediting the passage of the Bill to tackle this problem, while giving it the careful scrutiny it deserves. I express my gratitude to noble Lords across the House for their constructive engagement throughout its passage. I wish to thank and credit noble Lords for passing the Bill unamended. My thanks are also due to officials and leaders from the devolved Governments for their support and commitment to ensuring we have a process that works for all of the United Kingdom, and for their determination to ensure that all legislative requirements were met within what was, and is, a challenging timeframe. I thank my officials in the department, as well as our lawyers, for their tireless work over these past few months.

We are clear that this Bill does not and cannot resolve all the workforce issues within our National Health Service. It sits alongside a range of action that the Government are taking to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places, with the right skills to care for people when they need it. The changes that the Bill introduces for foundation specialty training are a crucial step forward and will lead to a more sustainable medical workforce that can meet the health needs of our population.

I again thank all noble Lords who contributed their knowledge and insight during the Bill’s consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, although this was emergency legislation, we have had detailed and constructive debates on prioritisation. We have also had the opportunity to debate some of the deeper issues around the supply of medical specialty training places, and I am grateful to the Minister for her letter. We will continue to hold the Government to account on the delivery of these places over the coming years. As we have said previously, the Bill is not a complete solution to the problem, as the Minister graciously acknowledged. We accept that it is a step forward.

During our debates, we touched on a number of issues, including whether UK citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools should be given first priority. We discussed the issue of international medical graduates who chose to contribute to the UK system of healthcare rather than go to another country, but who may now find themselves at the back of the queue. We discussed graduates of overseas branches of UK medical schools, some of which follow the same curriculum as UK medical schools, and whether some could be granted so-called grandfather rights. We also pressed for secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We understand why the Government have come to their position and why Ministers have not been able to take action on these points in this emergency legislation. However, given more time, I hope Ministers will continue their work to resolve these concerns, which were eloquently set out by a number of noble Lords from all Benches.

There was some debate about whether this was really emergency legislation or whether, in reality, it was simply giving the Secretary of State a bargaining chip in negotiations with the BMA. That may be no bad thing in itself, but the question remains of whether emergency legislation should be used to give Ministers bargaining chips.

Before I sit down, I thank the Minister and her officials for all their engagement throughout the Bill. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we look forward to working closely with the Minister as the Government press ahead with its implementation.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has tabled a number of amendments on heated tobacco products. Although there may be some concern about what is behind them, they raise important questions that I am afraid the Government have yet to answer with any real precision.

As I noted in Committee, there appears to be some evidence that individuals who switched from conventional cigarettes to heated tobacco products show lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who continue smoking. I am just comparing them to cigarettes, not to vapes. To be clear, I do not suggest that this settles the question of harm—these are relatively new products, and the long-term evidence base is still developing—but it means that the Government cannot simply treat heated tobacco products as interchangeable with conventional cigarettes without explaining why they refuse to consider their relative harm compared to cigarettes. I am talking about not absolute harm, but relative harm.

There is also the practical question of where these products may be used. The position on indoor and outdoor spaces remains, as far as I can tell, unclear. Heated tobacco does not produce combustion or sidestream smoke in the conventional sense, and yet it is not obvious from the Bill how the Government intend to address that distinction—if they intend to address it at all.

More fundamentally, can the Minister explain what specific evidence underpins the decision to include heated tobacco in the generational ban? I am sure all noble Lords accept that current evidence shows that vapes are relatively safer than smoking. It may be that vapes are relatively safer than heated tobacco, but as yet, we have not seen definitive evidence. Unfortunately, as noble Lords have said, much of the research on heated tobacco is funded by the tobacco industry. I can understand the concern there. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there is no definitive independent research on the relative harms of heated tobacco. If there is definitive research, can the Minister write to noble Lords with links to the relevant academic papers? I think we saw one link to a meta study that was not very good, but there has been no meaningful in-depth research.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend, who told me that when they tried vapes to quit smoking, it unfortunately did not do the job for them. When they went back to their doctor, he said that he was not supposed to do this, but he suggested heated tobacco as a relatively less harmful alternative. While he hoped his patient might have switched from cigarettes to vapes, since this had not happened—we do not live in a perfect world—he preferred his patient to use heated tobacco to going back to cigarettes. Once again, this was a practical approach based on relative harms.

I completely understand the concern that, if we overpromote heated tobacco, we might find that smokers switch to it rather than vapes. Given that the policy rationale rests substantially on reducing harm—we should be looking at absolute harm and relative harm— I would welcome clarity on whether the Government are satisfied that the case for treating heated tobacco like cigarettes is proven. It will be interesting to see that distinction between heated tobacco and cigarettes. Is the science still sufficiently uncertain to warrant a more cautious approach?

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

My Lords, I appreciate the contributions made in this debate. I will start by addressing government Amendments 217, 218 and 219, tabled in my name; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support.

The Bill updates the definition of a tobacco product in legislation relating to promotion and advertising, and in Scottish legislation, to

“a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way”.

Those last few words,

“consumed in any other way”,

are the key ones. What does this definition do? It ensures that all forms of tobacco products, regardless of how they are consumed, are captured by this legislation, including—this is important to the points raised by noble Lords—any future novel tobacco products.

These amendments bring forward the commencement of this updated definition to the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent. That is because the Government’s view is that all tobacco products currently on the market are already captured in the current definition, so it is appropriate for this future-proofing amendment to come into force at Royal Assent because there is no change to the law for which notice would be required.

Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seek to redefine how heated tobacco products are captured within the Bill so that they are no longer treated in the same way as other tobacco products. These amendments also seek to prevent provisions being extended to heated tobacco devices in the future.

On the points raised by the noble Lord, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the Bill deliberately defines tobacco products expansively and includes heated tobacco. The reason for that is that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all forms of tobacco are harmful.

On the points raised about evidence, there is evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco in laboratory studies; the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices contains carcinogenic compounds. Unlike vapes, there is limited evidence that heated tobacco can support smoking cessation, despite what is claimed by the tobacco industry. On the matters of evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as has been set out by all four UK Chief Medical Officers in a technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that heated tobacco products are safe or should be promoted as quit aids in some way is entirely misleading.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are funding high-quality research into tobacco products. Between 2020 and 2025, £25 million was invested in a NIHR research programme to research tobacco control, and that will help us develop the evidence base. Exempting heated tobacco products from the smoke-free generation policy and other provisions in the Bill would simply allow the tobacco industry to continue to find a way to addict future generations to harmful and addictive products. The Bill is completely geared to go the other way.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about heated-tobacco-free places. We will return to the whole issue of tobacco-free places when we come to group 16, so I am sure that that will be debated then. I hope that I have been able to clarify the Government’s position for noble Lords, and that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, she talked about research that was done on tobacco products between 2020 and 2025. In that time, was any specific research done on heated tobacco as part of tobacco products?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The specific definition is “tobacco control research”, so it would be strange if it did not include what we know about already, which includes heated tobacco. I will be glad to confirm that to the noble Lord in writing.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reassurances, although I am afraid that I do not agree with her. However, I accept that we have taken this as far as we can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

14: Clause 12, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) But subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a vape vending machine made available for use in a mental health hospital if the machine is in an area that is intended wholly or mainly for inpatients.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an exception to the offence of having management or control of premises on which a vape vending machine is made available for use. It applies where the vending machine is in a mental health hospital in an area intended wholly or mainly for inpatients.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

15: Clause 12, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
““mental health hospital” means an institution (or part of an institution) maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of inpatients who—(a) are aged 18 or over, and(b) are suffering from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983);”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my first amendment to clause 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister benefited this debate by coming forward with their amendments in this group based on their extensive experience in local government. I warmly welcome Amendment 17; counterfeiting nicotine products is not a victimless crime. It undercuts legitimate businesses that are already operating under considerable regulatory and financial pressure.

Let us be clear that the cumulative burden placed on small businesses, regulatory or otherwise, is already substantial. These businesses, as other noble Lords have said, are already playing by the rules. They pay their taxes and comply with an ever-increasing, complex regulatory framework. It is simply not fair that they should find themselves undercut by operators selling counterfeit products outside that framework entirely.

Beyond the commercial harm, there is a serious consumer safety dimension. Counterfeit nicotine products are unregulated, untested and potentially dangerous. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government share the view that the robust criminal penalties for counterfeiting are not only appropriate but essential. I would be grateful to hear what steps are being taken to ensure that enforcement capacity exists to make sure that these penalties are meaningful.

At earlier stages of the Bill, I know there were some concerns about the capacity of trading standards, for example. The sum that the Government have made available for local trading standards is to be welcomed, but some still wonder whether it will be enough or whether it is a drop in the ocean.

My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendments reflect a sensible approach to fixed penalty notices. A step penalty structure that treats a first offence differently from repeated non-compliance is surely right. While some local authorities may already have discretion to issue a warning instead of a fixed penalty for first-time offenders, as my noble friend has raised, it is important that first-time offenders are not treated unduly harshly given the complexity of some of the regulations that these small retailers will have to face. I hope the Minister, if she feels that she cannot accept the amendments as they stand, can say some positive things about them.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a helpful debate on an issue that concerns us all in this Chamber.

On Amendment 17 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I agree with his desire to take robust action against counterfeit products—I am sure we all do—but I cannot accept the amendment simply because I do not believe it is necessary, not because of specific objections. I heard his invitation for me to continue as I started, but, unfortunately, I cannot do so for this amendment. We believe it is not necessary, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, because protections against trademark infringement are already a matter for existing legislation.

On the point about necessary legislation addressing counterfeit products, which I accept, I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Trade Marks Act 1994, as we have heard, already provides significant penalties for breaching these rules. They include: on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. These are significant penalties.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

In terms of duplication, I argued on the Crime and Policing Bill that it was probably not necessary to legislate for assaulting a shop worker to be against the law, as assaulting anyone is. I asked why there was a specific point about shop and retail workers and was told that this would make a special case of shop workers to emphasise their vulnerability. The point about duplicating laws has never held the Government back before, because they keep doing it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I must admit that I have a different view. Where we already have legislation covering the specific points we are talking about, as we have here with the Trade Marks Act 1994, there is no reason to go further. The legislation is already working. It is fair to raise the example that the noble Baroness gave, but I do not share her view on that duplication, as it was important specifically to identify shop workers. Maybe we just need to disagree on the duplication or otherwise of legislation.

While trademark protection is not a matter for the Bill, powers in Part 5 will enable the Government to introduce regulations relating to packaging, product safety and product registration. Those who breach these regulations following their implementation may face significant penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both. The penalties broadly mirror the penalties provided by the noble Lord’s amendment, albeit I accept he proposes a slightly higher maximum term of imprisonment of three years instead of two.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised legitimate points about the scale of the illicit market and also potential connections to other illegal activities. On that point, HMRC and Border Force’s joint illicit tobacco strategy sets out the continued commitment to tackle and disrupt the organised crime groups behind the illicit tobacco trade, a commitment supported by over £100 million of new funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s excellent and persuasive arguments in support of the amendments in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who is not in his place, cannot be bettered, so I shall not try to, except to say that I support them.

Regardless of one’s attitude to smoking, there is a general recognition of the important role that specialist tobacconists play. They are small, highly regulated businesses that serve a discerning adult clientele. They are not engaged in the mass-marketing of cigarettes, nor are they driving youth uptake. Specifically, handmade cigars are not cigarillos. Premium handmade cigars are luxury products, purchased occasionally at a considerable cost by informed adult consumers. I was surprised to learn in Committee that they attract overseas visitors, who spend huge amounts of money here in the UK because these handmade cigars are packaged and marketed in a way that is unique to the United Kingdom. It is difficult to see how such establishments constitute a meaningful threat to the Government’s stated objective of reducing youth smoking and creating a smoke-free generation.

I stress that many of the criticisms made of cigars are made of cigarillos, but it is important that we distinguish between cigarillos and the unique products that are artisan cigars, whatever one thinks of them. I do not smoke; I think smoking is a disgusting habit. I do not drink alcohol; I think drinking alcohol is a terrible thing. But I am a liberal and I do not seek to impose my views on other people. It is important to distinguish between handmade crafted cigars and mass-marketed cigarillos, which may well be attractive to young people. I believe that cigarillos should be seen in the same light as cigarettes.

Since the introduction of the Bill, there has obviously been enormous anxiety among specialist tobacconists around the country about what the Government might choose to do to their day-to-day businesses. These amendments will, I hope, provide the Minister with an opportunity to reassure the sector. There is real concern that if plain packaging regulations were to be imposed on hand-rolled cigars, this would constitute an almost instant death for every specialist tobacco business. We heard about other countries where plain packaging has been imposed, but the UK continues to attract people who want to buy the packaging and all the marketing around it, whatever we may think of it.

For the good reasons already stated, these businesses enjoy special dispensations from the provisions of the law which apply to the generality of tobacco retailing. These dispensations are well founded, well understood and respected across the supply chain. As far as I am aware, they have not been abused. Many of the complaints about the uptake of cigar smoking are in relation not to these types of cigars but to cigarillos. This area of tobacco retailing is so niche that it is irrelevant to the vast majority of smokers. There is no reasonable case for the Government to choose to exercise powers to impede, restrict or otherwise alter the day-to-day lives of those involved in this specialist sector.

To be clear, I am talking about packaging. I am not referring to any of the amendments concerned with cigar lounges. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about workers who may not wish to be exposed to cigars but have no choice but to take that job and be exposed. I am talking about specialist tobacco manufacturers and retailers. Obviously, any attempts to restrict these businesses would involve some consultation with the Department for Business and Trade, so I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government have no intentions to restrict the specialist manufacturers in this way and to make their businesses unviable.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. On Amendments 127 and 147, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and Amendment 126, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have listened to the points that have been raised by noble Lords, not just today in the Chamber but in engaging outside the Chamber, which I have been pleased to do, and I have listened to the calls for handmade cigars to be exempt from packaging provisions in this legislation.

I remind the House, as I have had to remind noble Lords in other discussions, that the powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products are not new; they already exist. They were first introduced under the coalition Government as part of the Children and Families Act 2014. At the time when the powers were introduced, the Government of the time rightly recognised the need to ensure that these powers applied to all tobacco products, future-proofing the legislation, so introducing an exemption for handmade cigars now would weaken what is in effect long-standing legislation. I remind noble Lords that one of the points about the Bill is to bring together legislation that is in other areas into a Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which is what we are doing.

As I have said on a number of occasions, all tobacco products are harmful. That includes cigars and those marketed as premium or handmade. When burned, all tobacco products release toxic compounds that pose a risk to the user. In fact, research has found that some toxicants, including carbon monoxide and certain carcinogens, are higher in cigar smoke than cigarette smoke, and of course the toxicants that are found in tobacco smoke in cigars increase the user’s risk of developing diseases such as cancer, heart disease or respiratory disease. As the four Chief Medical Officers of the UK set out in their technical note to noble Lords, any suggestion that cigars are substantially safer than other tobacco products is not accurate.

Given the health harms of all cigars, it is appropriate that they are in scope of the legislation and that the Government retain our current ability, introduced in 2014, to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products. Moreover, exempting product categories is likely to lead to exploitation by the tobacco industry, which will always find a loophole to exploit. For example, following the ban on menthol cigarettes in 2020, tobacco companies began marketing cigarette-like menthol-flavoured cigarillos.

I shall provide some assistance on the points being raised today. As I said, I have heard concerns from noble Lords about future packaging restrictions that could impact specialist tobacconists more significantly than other retailers, and concerns about potential unfairness arising from that. I can say, as I have said before, that it is absolutely not this Government’s intention for any future packaging requirements to put any small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, out of business. Our intent is that any future packaging regulations make the health harms of these products clear while minimising the impact on businesses.

The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, asked about future regulation on packaging. If that is to be the case, further impact assessments will be prepared in advance, including the economic impact of any proposed regulations. The policy proposals for any packaging requirements will be a matter for consultation, and all businesses—including, I am sure, specialist tobacconists —will want to respond and will be welcome to. I want also to be clear that the Government will consider the impact any policy proposal has on small businesses, including specialist tobacconists, via future published impact assessments, as I just said. It is important, however, despite these points, that the Government retain their current powers to regulate the packaging of all tobacco products, as any carve-out would potentially create loopholes for exploitation, as other noble Lords have expressed concern about.

Amendment 192 from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seeks to maintain the existing exemption to allow individuals to sample cigars and pipe tobacco indoors in an enclosed and ventilated area in a specialist tobacconist shop. The Government are, as noble Lords know, committed to protecting people from the harms of second-hand smoke, which is why we launched a consultation on expanding smoke-free places on 13 February.

On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made, there are a number of exemptions to the current smoke-free legislation, including an exemption for sampling rooms—not smoking lounges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to—in specialist tobacconists, providing certain criteria are met, as outlined. The Government do not intend to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists. The consultation explicitly states our intention for the exemption to remain.

Finally, Amendments 18 and 19, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seek to maintain the existing exemption for specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products. There are several exemptions to the current tobacco display legislation, including an exemption for specialist tobacconists. In England, this allows specialist tobacconists to display tobacco products as long as they are not visible from outside the premises. The Government’s intention is not to remove this existing exemption for specialist tobacconists. This will be reflected when we consult on future display regulations later this year.

It is important that the Bill balances the public health aims with any disproportionate impacts on businesses, including specialist tobacconists. However, we will continue to monitor this niche market to ensure that it is not targeting young people or exploiting the existing exemptions. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

20: Clause 15, page 8, line 14, leave out “is” and insert “will be”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my amendments to clauses 62, 80, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123 and 124, would ensure that the effect of a person’s action is considered by reference to what it will be, rather than what it currently is (for consistency with the mental element of these offences).

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are government amendments relating to the advertising provisions. They are in large part technical in nature, but they have a clear and important purpose: to stop the advertising and promotion of products that risk addicting a new generation to nicotine. They also ensure that the regime is clear and capable of being enforced fairly and consistently across all settings, whether online or offline.

We know why we are here today. In 2025, more than 1 million children reported having tried vaping. We have seen the brightly coloured and cartoon advertisements that have clearly appealed to young people. The Bill delivers on this Government’s mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children while continuing to support adult smokers to quit.

Government Amendments 20, 99, 111, 148, 150, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 167 and 170 to 172 are minor and technical amendments. They simply update the wording across the clauses that create offences relating to free distribution, advertising, brand sharing and sponsorship. These amendments will ensure that the offence is committed, for example, as soon as an advert is published, which may not have been the case in some circumstances. That means that, for example, if a leaflet with an advert is put through a letterbox, the offence arises when it is delivered, not when the resident eventually reads it.

I have also tabled Amendment 165, which restores specific exceptions that already exist in current law. These make it clear that intermediaries—companies such as TalkTalk or BT—that provide passive internet services such as internet access cannot be liable for advertising offences in certain circumstances. This does not reflect a change in policy. The Bill does not intend to change the circumstance in which passive service providers may be liable. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, these amendments explicitly protect providers of passive services who have no ability to control, publish or remove adverts if they satisfy the circumstances prescribed in the exceptions.

Government Amendments 173 to 174, 179, 180 to 183, and 185 to 187 make it clear that the product placement provisions in Part 6 are not retrospective. They restate the existing law in relation to tobacco, and ensure that the new restrictions apply only going forward and do not affect programmes made before they came into force. This means that broadcasters or on-demand programme service providers will not be required to review or edit existing programmes. Finally, Amendment 184 removes now redundant amendments to video-sharing legislation that was repealed by the Online Safety Act 2023.

I turn to what is perhaps the most substantive amendment in this group—Amendment 166—and Amendments 175 to 178 on the public health defence. In Committee, I explained that the Bill already allows public health authorities to take certain steps to promote vapes as a means to quit smoking. Noble Lords raised important questions about how this applies to pharmacists, pharmacies and GP practices that both support smoking cessation and operate as businesses. I listened carefully to these concerns and, in response, I tabled an amendment creating a specific defence to provide clarity on how this will work in practice. This amendment allows businesses to promote non-branded vapes and nicotine products where it is done in arrangement with the public authority for public health reasons. In practice, this means that public authorities will continue to be able to partner with businesses such as pharmacies to run effective public health campaigns that promote vaping for smoking cessation.

We have also replicated this exception for on-demand programme services to ensure that public health authorities can continue to work with businesses to promote vaping for smoking cessation through these platforms. I hope this provides reassurance to noble Lords that healthcare professionals, including pharmacists and GPs, can continue to display smoking cessation materials. It also ensures that others, such as design agencies commissioned by public authorities, will not be caught inadvertently by the offence provisions when supporting this work.

I know that all these matters were of concern to noble Lords; I am therefore, as I said, glad to put forward amendments to tackle these very real points. I look forward to hearing the views and contributions of noble Lords in this debate, and I hope I can count on their support.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

From these Benches, the Minister can count on our support.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late and, given that some of my noble friends have left the Chamber—no doubt to enjoy a very expensive handcrafted cigar—it is left to my noble friend Lord Effingham and me to offer the opposition. If I had any temptation to call a Division, I can see that I am outnumbered.

I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. I know that many of them are technical, but some are very important. I particularly welcome Amendment 165, which provides sensible protection for internet service providers acting merely as conduits, caching services or passive hosts. They are not really active in this space. They do not initiate, select or modify the content transmitted across their networks, and it would not be fair or practical to render them criminally liable for material of which they have no knowledge and over which they exercise no control.

Similarly, Amendments 166 and 178 ensure that legitimate public health campaigns are not inadvertently caught out by the advertising offences in the Bill. Where a person is acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority and for the purpose of promoting or protecting public health, it would be wrong for them to face criminal liability.

Finally, we welcome Amendment 183 because it ensures that the new restrictions do not apply retrospectively to programmes that were already in production before the new rules came into force. I suppose this is all a very long way of saying that we welcome the amendments from the Government.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am delighted to receive the support of both Front Benches, either in a few words or in a few more words. This is to fulfil a mandate to stop the blatant advertising of vapes to children, while continuing to support adult smokers to quit. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment 20 agreed.