Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsTuesday 3rd March 2026
(5 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (27 Feb 2026)
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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a change to ensure drafting consistency.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
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.
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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 17.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
“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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
(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.
Baroness Merron
““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.
Baroness Merron
““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.
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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
“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).
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
““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).
Baroness Merron
(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.
Baroness Merron
““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).
Baroness Merron
“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.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
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.
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.
Baroness Merron
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(iva) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
“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.
Baroness Merron
““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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
“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.
Baroness Merron
“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.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
““filter” has the meaning given by section 111;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendment to clause 132.
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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
“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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Baroness Merron
“(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(6 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsFriday 27th February 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Rare Cancers Act 2026 View all Rare Cancers Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 July 2025 - (11 Jul 2025)
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 ExcerptsWednesday 25th February 2026
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 View all Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 165-R-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Feb 2026)
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 ExcerptsTuesday 24th February 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-R-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (23 Feb 2026)
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.
Baroness Merron
“(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.
Baroness Merron
““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.
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.
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.
Baroness Merron
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.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsTuesday 24th February 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-R-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (23 Feb 2026)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for his amendments in this group and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important and lively debate.
Reducing smoking rates and, in particular, preventing young people from taking up tobacco, with its highly damaging and pernicious consequences, are goals that I believe command broad support across the House. My noble friend’s amendments present us with an opportunity to settle in our minds the best way those goals might be achieved. From our debates in Committee and again today, we know there is a dichotomy of views on that.
My noble friend has eloquently made the case for substantially lifting the age of sale such that the legal purchase of tobacco by anyone under the age of 21 would be rendered impossible. The Government, on the other hand, have proposed the much more radical step of initiating a complete ban on tobacco sales to anyone born after 1 January 2009, thus creating, year by year, a wider and wider cohort of individuals for whom access to cigarettes and other tobacco products in shops will be legally barred.
Neither of these proposals, whether that of my noble friend or that of the Government, provides an absolute block on young would-be smokers accessing tobacco; so long as cigarettes remain a legal product, nothing could. However, if the generational ban can be made to work as intended, there can surely be no doubt that the benefits to public health over the long term will be immense. My right honourable friend the previous Prime Minister arrived at that realisation during the last Government, and the present Government have seen fit to agree with him.
There are two main arguments against the generational ban: one relates to civil liberties; the other is that of practical workability. I will not repeat the points that have been made on those themes, but I acknowledge that what is proposed in the Bill is, by any standards, without precedent in our consumer law. For the first time, a permanent legal distinction will be drawn between two adults based solely on their date of birth. One person may lawfully purchase a legal product while another, perhaps a year younger, may not. This would be not because of any difference in capacity or circumstance but purely by virtue of when they were born. The question people ask is whether in a free country that is right.
Following on from that are the questions around enforcement and general practicability. There are major questions around verification. As the years go by, shopkeepers will need to satisfy themselves that the person in front of them seeking to buy tobacco is 42 as opposed to 41, and so on. That does seem very different from a straightforward age of sale cut-off, which is a rule that everybody understands. Would shops and customers get used to this rigmarole? How easy would it be? As my noble friend rightly said, a number of countries have chosen to adopt the course that he is advocating rather than the generational ban.
I must, however, declare my hand. This Bill, as I have said, is an opportunity—an opportunity to make a transformational change in an area of public health that successive Governments have agreed is one of the two or three most important and far-reaching in our midst. Indeed, I would say that it is the most important. I do not think that the civil liberties arguments stand up to scrutiny for very long when we are talking about the chance of preventing serious ill health across millions of our population. Smoking needs to be made deeply unfashionable. My noble friend’s amendments, although entirely well meant, are unlikely to achieve that scale of health benefits nor that kind of attitudinal change.
There is uncertainty in whatever we decide to do. I am content for my noble friends on these Benches to make up their own minds on these matters. My noble friend, whom I greatly respect, will urge colleagues to join him in the Lobbies if he chooses to divide the House. At the same time, I hope he will understand that it ill behoves me, as my party’s spokesman for health and social care and as a former Health Minister, to pass up what I see as a golden opportunity to do something imaginative and radical, which is why I support the Government in their excellent ambitions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I think we can safely say that there is no unanimity of view, as a number of noble Lords have commented. I am particularly grateful for the support from both Front Benches, as has been consistent throughout. I am also grateful for the support of a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Young, Lord Rennard, Lord Stevens and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and others.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Udny-Lister for their amendments in this group. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments and congratulate my noble friend on pressing the point.
Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, I will pick up the cogent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because this brings us to the broader question of age verification. Our debates in Committee demonstrated the genuine concerns among retailers that a strict “no ID, no sale” policy could become a serious flashpoint for violence and abuse directed at shop workers—an issue that, I am sure the Minister will agree, cannot be dismissed lightly. There is also a risk of confusion among customers, particularly where different age thresholds already apply across tobacco, alcohol and other age-restricted products; any new requirement must not add to that complexity. The process for purchasing these products should remain clear and readily understood by all members of the public and, crucially, shopkeepers.
Against that background, it would be extraordinary if technology were not to play a part in making that process easier and less potentially fraught. Can the Minister tell us anything about the cost and affordability of such technology? What specific consideration was given to these concerns during the Government’s consultations, and what assessment has been made of the potential impact on retail workers of what could become a cumbersome and confusing set of procedures with, as I have said, the added risk of threats and abuse to shopkeepers? At the very least, is any guidance planned to ensure that new verification requirements do not create a patchwork of conflicting obligations at the point of sale?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing back Amendments 3 and 12, which would change from negative to affirmative the procedure for making regulations to specify steps that may be taken to verify the age of customers.
In Committee I committed to returning with the Government’s response to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have carefully considered those recommendations and listened to the support within your Lordships’ House, and I can confirm that we are accepting the recommendations in full. Therefore, as noble Lords have observed, I have—I think we can say unusually—put my name to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I can only counsel the noble Lord not to get used to it. I am very pleased to support his Amendments 3 and 12.
I have tabled government Amendment 105. For consistency, I have also tabled Amendment 110 to Clause 76, which is an equivalent amendment that provides the power to specify age-verification steps for Northern Ireland.
Amendment 26, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, would require the Secretary of State to establish a financial assistance scheme for the acquisition of age-verification technology by producers and retailers of nicotine products. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord’s aim is to support retailers—something that I hope the noble Lord heard me saying on behalf of the Government—and to strengthen adherence to age restriction laws. But I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—it is important to clarify this point—that the Government have no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce age of sale.
Checking that a customer is over the age of sale is a well-established concept for retailers, and they should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell age-restricted products to anyone underage. To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that they can use, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age. This includes the types of digital identities that can be used.
On some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I know that other noble Lords are, rightly, concerned about this—I confirm once again that the Government will work with the retail sector, as we are already doing, to publish clear, workable guidance to support it with these legislative changes. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, understands the Government’s position, and I encourage noble Lords to support Amendments 3, 12, 105 and 110.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Concerning the debate about enforcement, as somebody who in the past had political responsibility for trading standards in a local authority, which is the mechanism by which enforcement of underage tobacco sales is achieved, and having sat through the whole of Report so far this afternoon, I am surprised that there has been no mention of trading standards. Perhaps we will get to this later, but trading standards will need some help as well, because a considerable burden is going to be placed on it if this mechanism of a generational age limit is to go ahead. With that, I am grateful for the support for my Amendment 3.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 13A and 14A only as a means of thanking the Minister very much for her Amendments 14 and 15 in this group. As a number of us argued in Committee, including in particular my noble friend Lord Moylan, there is a strong case for saying that, in a secure mental health setting where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated, and potentially to staff as well, as a knock-on effect. I am very glad that the Minister felt able to reconsider this issue in the way that she has.
I confess I am troubled by Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because, although its stated purpose is to future-proof the Bill, the signal that it sends is perhaps regrettable in the context of current public attitudes towards vaping as a means of quitting cigarettes. A substantial percentage both of the general public and of smokers mistakenly believe that vapes present a greater risk to health than smoking tobacco, extraordinary as that is. The NHS is unequivocal that vapes provide a far safer route to managing nicotine addiction than continuing to smoke. The prospect that they could at a later stage simply be swept into the same prohibition regime risks creating uncertainty, discouraging switching and undermining public health gains. We need to remember that the Bill already contains extensive regulation-making powers in respect of vaping and nicotine products—on advertising, flavours, packaging, display and sale—and those powers are wide-ranging and substantial. So adding a further power of this breadth is, I suggest, unnecessary overreach.
I am afraid that I think Amendment 16 is unnecessary as well. The Bill already contains extensive powers to regulate vaping products, from product standards and enforcement to environmental controls. The Government are already consulting widely and gathering evidence in these areas, and I am afraid I do not think there is any need for the creation of yet another statutory taskforce.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The Chief Medical Officer’s advice on vapes is quite clear: although vaping is less harmful than smoking and can be an effective quit aid for adult smokers, non-smokers and children should never vape. In the design of policy proposals, it is imperative, we feel, to get the balance right—I say this to noble Lords who raised this point—and we sought to get the balance right between protecting future generations from the risk of vaping and ensuring that vapes remain accessible for adult smokers. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in particular will welcome that.
Amendment 7 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would add a new clause to the Bill to provide a regulation-making power that could be used to add vaping and nicotine products to the smoke-free generation provisions in England and Wales. I understand the aims of the noble Earl in bringing this forward, but I have to say—again, I hope this will be helpful to noble Lords who expressed concerns—that there is a fundamental difference in safety between vapes and tobacco products.
Tobacco is uniquely harmful. Up to two-thirds of deaths in current smokers can be attributed to smoking —so vaping, while it is not harm free, is significantly less harmful than smoking. Given the current research on health harms, the evidence base does not support extending smoke-free generation provisions to vapes or to nicotine products.
Also, to respond to the amendment, the Government should assume new powers only where there is clear justification for future regulatory change. Certainly, introducing a vape-free generation power, as suggested, would be a major step not currently supported by evidence. An age of sale restriction of 18 for vaping and nicotine products is therefore considered proportionate to protect children and young people, particularly as they may be more susceptible to the risks from nicotine use, including addiction.
On Amendment 16 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and to the points raised alongside this by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I hope that I can provide a reassurance that the Government are already delivering a comprehensive programme to tackle youth vaping, strengthen enforcement and reduce environmental impacts, and have the relevant expertise required on these issues. It is our contention that it is not necessary to put this on a statutory footing.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked how we would deal with the environmental impact of vapes. That is an extremely important area. What I can say is, as part of our upcoming circular economy growth plan, to which the noble Earl referred, the task force will consider circular design. That means including cross-government approaches such as would fit this Bill; it will consider regulation of product features and support increased recyclability—and I think that is the right place for it to be dealt with. We have to remember that last June we banned the sale and supply of single-use vapes, and from 1 October this year we will introduce a vaping products duty, which we know is effective at dissuading price-sensitive young people. Furthermore, we have a range of measures in this Bill that will tackle the drivers of youth vaping and allow us to take action on advertising, packaging, flavours and display. To support the development of future regulations, importantly, we have recently conducted a call for evidence to gather views on issues such as flavours, nicotine limits and tank sizes. There are differing opinions on all of these, so I think the call for evidence is the right approach.
The Bill also strengthens enforcement with powers that will enable us to introduce a licensing scheme and product registration scheme. Through our £10 million enforcement programme with National Trading Standards, which I referred to in the previous group, we will fund the vaping expert panel to provide valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations.
We are also commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. This includes a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies and a five-year long living evidence review that will collate the latest research of vaping. Additionally, last year, we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health impacts of vaping on young people’s health. I consider that all these will greatly build on to the knowledge base and evidence base that we have.
Amendments 13A and 14A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seek to exempt sales from vape vending machines in mental health hospitals for patients and staff aged 18 and over. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. As I am sure the noble Lord realises, we believe that the Government’s amendment covers what he is intending to achieve—and I am glad that he is indicating his agreement on that point.
I listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee on patients in mental health facilities—something particularly close to my heart, as I am the Minister for Mental Health. These patients’ liberties may be restricted in terms of their being able to access vaping products to meet the public health need of helping them to quit smoking or manage nicotine addiction. Adults with a long-term mental health condition have much higher smoking prevalence rates than the general population, and this exemption takes into consideration the concerns that were raised by Peers, for which I am grateful, related to helping those people with a long-term mental health condition to quit where needed and it is appropriate.
In my reflection on these concerns, I am pleased to say that is why I have brought forward government Amendments 14 and 15, and I am very pleased to have the welcome of both Front Benches, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Fox. These government amendments provide an exemption from the ban on vape vending machines for adult mental health in-patient facilities in England and Wales. To be clear, the wording of the exemption has been very deliberately chosen. It is tightly defined to include only adult mental health in-patient settings and only in areas intended wholly or mainly for in-patients. By its nature, that means that staff will also be able to access these machines, but the exemption would not extend to areas that are not mainly for in-patient use, such as a visitors waiting room or a staff room. I hope that gives some indication to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on how this might work.
We are retaining the wider ban on vending machines to prevent young people from accessing age-restricted products, and to protect the next generation from being hooked on nicotine. I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I am thankful for all those who have spoken in this debate and for the Minister’s detailed response.
On government Amendments 14 and 15, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for bringing the issue forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening and bringing forward the Government’s own amendments. As the Minister has commented, they have been welcomed across the House; they are compassionate and sensible measures, so they are very welcome indeed.
On my Amendment 7, I tried to explain the journey that I had been on in terms of a general purpose clause. It might be that the wording of my amendment was still a little bit clunky. I want to be absolutely clear: it is not a relentless attack on nicotine, and I am not anti-vaping. The question is where we draw the line on these issues, which is probably for another Bill in future. I absolutely recognise the role of vaping in smoking cessation, but what I do not want is a new product line for big tobacco to create new nicotine addicts and to create future revenue. Where we sit between those two points is perhaps a matter for another Bill, but those issues will at some point need to be addressed. That should not be done in a way that is overly restrictive, but it should also not be done in a way that is overly free in allowing big tobacco to exploit young people and get them addicted to nicotine when that does not need to happen.
Turning to my Amendment 16, I listened to what the Minister said and I welcome the fact that the Circular Economy Taskforce is looking at these issues. We will look at those recommendations closely when they come forward. The Government say they have banned single-use disposable vapes. I must admit that, to my mind, to all intents and purposes, in the real world that is simply not the case. They are still single-use products. All that being said, I welcome the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I will start by addressing the government amendments tabled in my name. The issue of filters, as we have heard in this debate, has been raised throughout the Bill’s passage, both in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum.
However, there has not been a consensus on a single approach, and it is that that we have sought to deal with. That is why we are taking a suite of powers to enable secondary legislation to regulate filters, should evidence suggest that it is necessary. Although these powers could enable the banning of filters in the future, they also enable us to regulate filters in other ways, such as regulating their packaging, advertising, display in stores and free distribution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to, there is evidence that people incorrectly believe that some cigarette filters make cigarettes less harmful. There is absolutely a risk that this could influence smoking behaviours. The fact of the matter is that cigarette filters provide no protection from the health risks of smoking.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the Government’s intention to take action. On that point, and more broadly, the evidence base about the direct health impact is still in formation. We will explore commissioning further research to understand the harms and, based on that, consider further consultation. For these reasons, we are not able to accept Amendment 76 from the noble Earl.
Since we are taking these powers on filters in the Bill, Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are therefore not required—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Should we choose to ban filters, we would indeed be the first country in the world to do so. It would be a significant step, and noble Lords will understand that, before making any such decision, we need to interrogate the issue fully and ensure that all potential consequences are considered. However, we will now have the powers to act through these government amendments if and when the evidence emerges.
Specifically on Amendment 17A, evidence currently suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable can still leach harmful chemicals into the environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. There is also evidence to suggest that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them, as noble Lords have said.
I turn to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I am sympathetic towards attempts to increase transparency of the tobacco industry. I therefore understand why she brought this forward. However, Clause 95 already provides powers to make regulations that could require producers or importers to provide specified information. This could include sales data, as well as market research, from producers of any relevant products within the scope of Part 5, not just tobacco products. This clause also enables us to make provision about when and how the information must be provided, and the publication of any such information. I reassure the noble Baroness that we will consult on these requirements as we develop the necessary regulations.
I am sympathetic to the aims of Amendment 204, tabled in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Crisp. However, as I said in Committee, again in answer to the point the noble Earl raised, we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco in the form of tobacco duties. The UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation at the Autumn Budget 2025. This duty raises about £8 billion a year.
I appreciate that the amendment proposes combining a levy with regulating prices, but the reality is that, because of the ongoing structural decline in the UK tobacco market, we are sceptical that there is the suggested level of profit available in the system. Regulating pricing would also be a complicated and resource-intensive policy to design and implement, and which we believe is unlikely to be successful in meeting its objectives, such as raising additional revenue. It would be challenging to design restrictions that industry could not circumvent, for example, by shifting focus to products not included in the cap or avoiding tax through international transfer pricing. Therefore, as I stated previously, our preference is to continue with tobacco duties—an understood approach which incentivises those who currently smoke to quit and generates revenue that can be put back into a full range of public services.
Finally, Amendments 129 and 133 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for strong tobacco control. However, with respect to these amendments, we already have the ability to regulate the information provided on products which could enable us to mandate health warnings in the future. We already have some of the most stringent regulations in the world on cigarette packaging, emphasising health harms. They include the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. We have announced that we are introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. Therefore, we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, did acknowledge in his contribution, the Government will continue to monitor the evidence.
I hope that this provides reassurance to noble Lords that the Government are committed to evidence-based policy to tackle the harms from tobacco use and that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this is a vital Bill, even if we are seeking to improve it further. We have clearly made progress on filters and there are a number of other areas where progress can be made under the Bill. I note the Minister’s encouraging words in relation to my amendment on data and transparency. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsMonday 23rd February 2026
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 View all Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 165-R-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Feb 2026)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for leading the debate on his amendments, which seek to establish a new prioritisation hierarchy that puts UK medical graduates first, ahead of those in the priority group who are not UK medical graduates. I should have prefaced my speech by reminding the House of my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.
We debated this proposal in Committee, when other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Coffey, tabled amendments that sought to introduce a different prioritisation hierarchy. I understand fully the case that the noble Lord is making and I agree that UK medical graduates should have a much fairer crack of the whip in access to medical specialty training places. Fairness has been our primary concern throughout our scrutiny of this Bill. However, I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The Government have had some hard choices to make.
In an ideal world, where the House had been given more time to consider these matters in the round, we might have been able to improve on the approach that Ministers are taking. For example, there is surely a place for guidance to make clear that the prioritisation process should incorporate considerations of medical and academic excellence, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has consistently made.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, for putting the decisions made by the last Government into their proper context. However, given where we are, we accept that Ministers have introduced this as urgent legislation with a specific purpose. In that context, having accepted that the Government’s approach will have the effect that they are seeking to achieve, we are satisfied that the Minister’s proposed method of prioritisation is acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords across the House for their considered contributions to this group of amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his introduction to this group. I have a third reason to be grateful—namely, for the understanding of the challenge that this Government are facing and the need to take action. I do not take that for granted. We are not able to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I will go through the reasons.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the Bill already sets clear priority groups without any further ranking within them. This is a binary system: applicants are either prioritised or they are not. It might be helpful to your Lordships House to say that the priority groups set out in the Bill have been agreed across the four Governments of the nation. They are best placed to support moving to what we all want—a sustainable workforce to meet the health needs of this population.
As I emphasised in Committee and at Second Reading, prioritisation does not mean exclusion. Non-prioritised graduates will still be able to apply, and they will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers. For specialty training, there are likely to be opportunities in general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, which, historically, attract fewer applicants from the groups that we are prioritising for 2026.
Alongside UK graduates, the Bill prioritises graduates from Ireland—this reflects, as I have spoken of before in this Chamber, the special nature of our relationship with Ireland—along with graduates from Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, which reflects our obligations under international trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association countries to treat their graduates no less favourably. The amendments would mean that we would not be honouring these arrangements as we would be prioritising UK medical graduates over applicants from these countries.
The agreements with EFTA countries precede this Government. The agreement for Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein was made in July 2021, and for Switzerland in 2019. The bottleneck issues that this Bill is designed to address were primarily driven by the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020. I know noble Lords will understand the need to uphold these international obligations, albeit we receive very low numbers of applicants from EFTA countries. As I noted in my recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and to give noble Lords some idea of scale, there are a total of two applicants from EFTA countries for foundation and specialty training in 2026.
For specialty training, the amendments would mean we would be prioritising UK medical graduates over applicants with significant NHS experience. That would undermine the effective delivery of our policy intention, for which there is much sympathy in this Chamber, to prioritise applicants with significant experience working in the NHS. The Government have rightly committed to prioritising those who have made a considerable contribution to our health service because they better understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked how many more students in the priority group would be able to enter specialty training. I will be pleased to write to the noble Lord on that matter.
My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, called for improvement of the broader approach to medical training, and that is something with which I would definitely concur. We have published phase 1 of the medical training review, which identifies the key challenges and the areas for improvement across postgraduate medical training, as noble Lords are inquiring about, and asks what is working well. Phase 2 of this work is already under way, and will focus on exploring those issues and developing options for change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked that I give an assurance that Oriel would, as an appointment process tool, have what she described as a more subtle way of looking at NHS experience. I can confirm that we will be engaging with stakeholders on what the best definition is and what is most appropriate for NHS experience. That will then allow us to update the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about merit-based selection and made a valid point about the quality of applicants. I assure your Lordships’ House that the Bill does not replace in any way a merit-based selection. Existing recruitment processes for foundation and specialty training already assess applicants against rigorous, merit-based criteria, including competence, performance and suitability for training, all of which I know are of concern, and rightly so, to the noble Baroness. The Bill sits alongside that process, not instead of that process.
The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Clement-Jones, asked about specialty training places. In the 10-year health plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, referred to, our commitment is to create 1,000 new specialty training posts over the next three years, focusing—importantly, in my view—on specialties where there is the greatest need. The Bill will not delay this process. There are some programmes and regions already at capacity for delivering properly supervised training posts. Expanding that training capacity will therefore need to be done gradually to ensure that placements remain of the high quality that we need and that appropriate supervision is in place to support it.
I hope that I have dealt with the main questions raised. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, has reprised proposals he made, and which we debated, in Committee. In Committee, the Minister emphasised a point that I must say resonated particularly strongly with me. She pointed out that the delay proposed in Amendment 3 sets the Government back in their timetable to address the bottlenecks in medical training. Although I acknowledge all that the noble Lord said about fairness, I must accept that a delay of a year would set the Government back significantly in their plans. Given our support for the main principle underpinning the Bill, we cannot, I am afraid, support that amendment.
However, I reiterate that prioritisation is only part of the solution to the problem we have been talking about. It is a logical and sensible step, but the bottlenecks in medical training, which are having such a pernicious effect on the future opportunities of young doctors, will not be ameliorated until the number of training places is increased significantly. The Minister’s answer in the previous group to the question about training places posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, was helpful. However, can she go any further and indicate whether the Government consider that the additional training places which have already been announced are likely to be sufficient, or is there a possibility that more may be announced in the coming months?
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, made a strong case for Amendment 7, and I endorse the powerful comments made not only by him but by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Can the Minister provide us with further information on the Oriel system? There is a sort of fog surrounding this subject.
When we last debated this issue, I was surprised that the Minister was unable to give clarity on the number of individuals who have demonstrated an established commitment to the NHS but do not have leave to remain. It seems to me essential that we have clarity on the number of doctors that this amendment would affect. Has she had the opportunity to look into this in more detail between Committee and Report? If we are not able to get greater clarity on the issue today, will the Minister at least give a commitment to look at any cases where a doctor has demonstrated that commitment but does not have indefinite leave to remain, so that we can ensure that any injustices that may arise as a result of this emergency legislation are resolved swiftly at ministerial level?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions today. I turn first to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. As I explained in Committee, this is not an amendment that we are able to support. As has been emphasised, including today, a key aim of this Bill is to address the severe bottlenecks in medical training that have built up over recent years. These pressures are having real consequences, evidenced most starkly, I believe, through the most recent industrial action, where concerns about stalled career progression and training opportunities have featured and continue to feature heavily.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, rightly spoke about the concerns of applicants mid-cycle, and I do recognise the concerns about this group and the impact on them, particularly where applicants did not know how prioritisation might affect them. But, although I absolutely understand the concerns, which we have discussed, these have been carefully considered and, at the end of it all, we have to make decisions about what it is we are trying to do. There will be people who are affected in ways that none of us would have chosen, but it has not been possible to make a change in legislation, particularly at this pace, without some effect on some groups. So, yes, it is a choice, and it is one that we have made. But I acknowledge of course the impact on those who are in the middle of a cycle of application.
With regard to the proposal in the amendment, I can only endorse the comments by the noble Lord Earl, Lord Howe, that another year of inaction would only deepen the frustration felt by UK-trained doctors and further destabilise the workforce. I do not think that is something that any of us want to see. So, we do believe that applying prioritisation to the 2026 intake is both necessary and justified. If we wait, as this amendment suggests, until 2027, it is projected that competition ratios will have risen even further. That would mean more UK graduates unable to progress their careers on time, with greater risk to the long-term sustainability of the NHS workforce, and protecting the long-term sustainability of the NHS workforce, protecting patients and protecting patient care and services is what this Bill is all about. That is why we are not able to accept another year’s delay, although I understand why the noble Lord put his amendment forward.
In addition, there is a difficulty in terms of the drafting in respect of this amendment, because it would create two clauses related to the prioritisation of applicants to specialty training programmes for 2027, and each would have a different approach to prioritisation. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to create operational confusion or undermine legal certainty, but I thought it important to point that out.
I turn to Amendment 7, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. First, following our conversation earlier—I am grateful for the noble Lord’s flexibility in that regard—I want to reassure him and your Lordships’ House that we are absolutely committed to recognising those who have worked in the NHS for a significant period. There is a very good reason for this: as well as it being the right thing to do, those individuals are much more likely to stay in the National Health Service for the long term, and they are much better equipped to understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. Again, that is a core driver in this Bill. It is our intention to prioritise those with significant NHS experience for specialty training. However, we are unable to support Amendment 7, for a number of reasons. I appreciate that the amendment was changed, but I want to refer at this stage to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; I discussed these matters with him earlier today.
While the NHS Oriel recruitment system holds some information about an applicant’s NHS experience, it cannot be used consistently or fairly for the 2026 round. The data has been collected on the basis that it would be checked by employers before appointment, not for retrospective automated assessment. It is indeed the case that applicants enter their employment history on Oriel as free text, but with no consistent format. Yes, there is a tick-box to indicate NHS experience, but I have to emphasise that it is self-declared—and that is the problem. There is no mechanism for verification to confirm that the employer listed is an NHS organisation, or any other relevant detail. That is why I spoke about this in Committee: it would require a manual review of tens of thousands of applications. That means a high risk of error, potentially delaying offers and start dates: again, nothing that any of us would wish to do. It would of course be destabilising for applicants and trusts, so it is not operationally feasible and nor would it be fair.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked for more information on the Oriel system. I would welcome speaking to him at great length about it as, having looked into it in a practical sense, I can absolutely see the limitations. In my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I have placed in the Library, more detail has been provided on the system, which may be of help to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. But if the noble Earl would like a more in-depth acquaintance with the Oriel system, he and other noble Lords are most welcome to benefit, as I have done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of voluntary experience as a possibility for being NHS-significant experience, and I understand why she raises this. On this point and also to the point about the amendment, there is currently no agreed threshold for what constitutes significant NHS experience. The fact is that views on this differ widely, as evidenced today by the noble Baroness. That is why we have committed to full engagement on this issue for future years, rather than rushing through the changes for 2026. Once we have agreed the parameters around experience, the Oriel system will be updated to ensure that data is collected in a consistent, verifiable format—that is the key—to support fair assessment in future recruitment rounds. Our aim is to have this in place in time for the next specialty training round, which will open for applications in autumn 2026.
For the current recruitment round, the Bill uses a set of carefully chosen specified immigration statuses, as this is a practical and proportionate proxy for identifying applicants most likely to have significant NHS experience. After careful consideration, we have concluded that this is the best approach for the 2026 recruitment round.
On the question from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the potential for additional training places and the likelihood that the ones I referred to earlier will be sufficient, we are keeping the numbers under review, as we always do. The noble Earl asked me to look at particular cases, and I am always happy to do that. We should bear in mind that it is often difficult to comment on very specific individual cases, but I am pleased to look at the broad point that he makes.
On the basis of the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords from across the House for their thoughtful contributions in this group. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, reminded us to come back to the prime focus in respect of Amendment 11, which I will start with. It is about supporting and being fair to UK medical graduates in whom we have invested, but that is also a group from whom we seek so much, and we are grateful to them. It is also about providing safe and appropriate care.
I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, but the Government are unable to support it, for the reasons I will outline. The Bill, as noble Lords will be familiar with, prioritises applicants based on certain specific immigration statuses for specialty training in 2026. These statuses have been carefully chosen for the reason that I have said a number of times: as a practical and proportionate proxy for applicants who are most likely to have significant NHS experience. I reiterate, as I have said a number of times, that the Bill is not about exclusion of any groups or individuals but about prioritisation.
Referring to the request by my noble friend Lady Lister, which was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, perhaps I could make one point to remind your Lordships’ House. For 2027 onwards, those statuses will not automatically apply. Instead, there will be the power to make regulations to capture and prioritise persons with significant NHS experience based on other criteria or by reference to immigration statuses. I reassure my noble friend that we have already committed, and do so once again, to a proper engagement process—subject to the Bill’s passage, of course—to ensure that any future definition is fair, evidence-based and deliverable.
Amendment 11 would prioritise groups with different immigration statuses which are not an appropriate proxy for significant NHS experience. This is not consistent with the aims of the Bill. The amendment would also have the effect of permanently prioritising applicants on the basis of immigration status for foundation and specialty training. The applicants with the immigration statuses listed in the amendment who are not otherwise prioritised are—as I have already said, but it bears repeating—not excluded from applying for foundation or specialty training. They may still be offered a post, if there are places remaining, once all prioritised applicants have been allocated posts. They also remain eligible to apply for locally employed doctor roles. On this basis, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to Amendments 12, 13 and 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, as many of us do, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her work in bringing these amendments back in the way that she has on Report, having heard the arguments previously in Committee. I appreciate her work on them, both inside this Chamber and outside, and the way in which she made her case so clearly and powerfully, as other noble Lords have said. I know the noble Baroness is aware, as I emphasised in my letter that I sent out to Peers, that the Government are unable to support these amendments.
Let me explain to your Lordships’ House why this is the case. The Bill rightly prioritises doctors for foundation and specialty training based on where they are trained. It also prioritises internationally trained doctors with significant NHS experience for specialty training. We are doing this because these doctors are more likely to work in the NHS in the long term and to be better equipped to deliver healthcare that is tailored to the UK’s population, because they will better understand the UK’s health system and epidemiology.
On my noble friend Lord Hunt’s point, which I believe he also spoke to in the previous group, while assessments and course learning at overseas campuses may well be the same—I accept that—as in UK-based medical schools, students will not have undertaken the same number of clinical placements in the NHS in the United Kingdom.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, argued in her email to all Peers—or to a number of Peers, I am not quite sure which—that her amendment would not widen eligibility for prioritisation beyond the Government’s intentions. This is not the case. To reiterate, the Bill intends to prioritise home-grown doctors and put them at the front of the queue for training posts. It is unashamed, for the reasons that I have explained and noble Lords understand. Doctors who have trained here and undertaken their placements in our hospitals and health settings will have more familiarity with the NHS and the needs of the patients they serve than a doctor who has studied the same curriculum but not in the UK.
However, the Bill recognises that this experience can be gained without spending the entirety of one’s degree in the UK. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere and, where the majority of a degree has been studied outside the UK, it is right that those graduates are not prioritised equally alongside UK-trained medical graduates.
To pick up the point about future-proofing that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised, we recognise the risks of this creating a loophole in the legislation if medical schools purposefully change their curriculum to ensure that their graduates come from within the priority status. However, as we discussed earlier today, this risk would exist at whatever threshold we set. I can, however, assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to monitor the data carefully in future years, for all the important reasons that the noble Baroness said.
The Bill prioritises all graduates of UK medical schools who have studied for their degree in this country. That is the right thing to do for our health system, because we recognise that these doctors are well prepared to work in that system and are more likely to stay. It is also right and fair to do this for graduates of our medical schools. It treats all graduates as equals, regardless of where they are from.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, noted, prioritising graduates from overseas campuses would also undermine—these are my words, not the noble Lord’s—our aim of greater social mobility and access into medicine. We need dramatically to improve access to this profession for those from disadvantaged backgrounds across our communities in order that our medical practitioners can be more representative and serve the communities from where they come. The campuses that we are speaking of are commercial ventures and students are generally self-funded. Including these graduates in the priority group would undoubtedly undermine the efforts of the Bill to support home-grown talent.
I will make a number of points to deal with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised. I understand that the proposed amendments seek to restrict future eligibility by prioritising only those campuses that are extant on the day the Act is passed, and also to create a power that would enable us to limit the number of eligible applications under this provision. However, the establishment and operation of these overseas campuses sit outside the UK Government’s workforce planning and commissioning decisions. We have previously set out that we expect that all eligible prioritised applicants for the foundation programme in 2026 will get a place. So, accepting these amendments, even with the suggestion of capping the numbers that could be prioritised from these campuses, would mean we would have to fund more foundation programme posts than we need.
There has been talk—not just in the Chamber, but outside—about figures. Let me clarify that current UK foundation programme applications for 2026 show almost 300 applicants from overseas campuses of UK and Ireland medical schools. This is a significant number and to prioritise all of this group would require substantial additional expenditure for these posts. A rough estimate is around £25 million over two years. This is funding which, if it went in this direction, could not be spent on other priorities, including increasing specialty training places, which I know is of great interest to noble Lords.
In addition, the proposed amendments would not have any effect on overseas campuses of Republic of Ireland medical schools, so would conflict with provisions in the rest of the Bill, which treat Ireland graduates on the same basis as UK graduates, reflecting the unique relationship between the two countries.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Mohammed, for their contributions in this group of amendments.
I turn first to Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. As I stated in Committee, we are unable to support this amendment. It might be helpful to your Lordships’ House if I am clear about our intention. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill sets out on its face the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. The delegated power about which we are speaking is limited to adding to this list by referring to the significant experience of working as a doctor in the health service or immigration status, so it is, in my view, tightly drawn.
Similarly, we have set out in the Bill the specialty training programmes excluded from the prioritisation scheme. Again, I give the reassurance that the delegated power about which we are speaking is limited to amending this list and gives necessary operational flexibility for future changes in recruitment, training and workforce needs—something that noble Lords raised in an earlier group.
As I hope noble Lords are aware, I am always supportive of parliamentary scrutiny. However, due to the very limited scope of these powers, we believe that the negative procedure is appropriate, not least as the regulations will not have the effect of excluding anyone from applying for a training post. I hope it is helpful to remind noble Lords that the Bill has been assessed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and no suggestion was made that the negative procedure was inappropriate for such regulations. With that explanation, I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Turning to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in Committee I spoke to why, as he said, we cannot support this amendment: because it removes an important element of operational flexibility. Let me say at the outset that I completely understand why the noble Lord has raised again the points he raised previously. He mentioned a tension; yes, in lots of ways there is a tension and that is what we are trying to manage.
As I stated previously, the commencement provision in the Bill is absolutely not a mechanism for delay. We want to proceed with this as soon as possible. That is the non-specific answer to the noble Lord’s very reasonable questions, but I think he will understand that not knowing the timetable on which I am commenting or the possibility of strike action means that I am not readily in a position to give exact answers; I wish I were. The main thing is that it is absolutely our intent to commence the Bill as soon as possible. That is why we are dealing with it on the planned timescale.
The commencement clause is a safeguard. It is to ensure that all the planning, capacity and systems are in place before the Act is brought into force, because it will be impossible to do it otherwise. Noble Lords will also appreciate—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised this—that the question of whether it is possible to proceed if industrial action continues, given the strain that strikes put on the system, cannot be ignored.
Although preparations for the implementation of the Bill as introduced have been progressing and are undergoing quality assurance testing, should the Bill be amended it could impact on operational readiness that could delay offers and disrupt staffing preparations. We have to avoid such disruption; although we do not expect such issues to arise, it is important that we retain what we regard as a fail-safe provision.
Any Secretary of State would be right to take all the circumstances, including operational readiness, into account in deciding when the Act should come into force. I cannot restate often enough that the intention is to bring this in as soon as possible; that is what we all want to do and that is what we need to do. For the reasons I set out, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Given what I have heard from the Minister, both in the Chamber and in my previous conversations with her, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsThursday 12th February 2026
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 View all Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 165-I Marshalled list for Committee - (10 Feb 2026)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, deserves our thanks for opening our Committee debate in a cogent and powerful way. He is absolutely right: in this country, we train some of the very best doctors in the world—at great expense to them and to the taxpayer—but too many are choosing to leave the training process because in the now expanded competitive scrum they cannot access the training places they require. Each year many remain unemployed. That is a serious policy challenge, and Ministers are right to seek to address it. We need a long-term and fair solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is seeking to ensure that UK medical graduates are prioritised for training places first before those in the priority group are offered places. There would then be a third tier of prioritisation for any other eligible applicants. This would put UK medical graduates, as defined by Clause 4, ahead in the queue for training places. I do not think we can fault the noble Lord for his logic. If we believe there is currently a massive and disproportionate injustice being meted out to UK medical graduates, we owe them the best chance we can give them to enter further training pathways in this country.
However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, the Explanatory Notes confirm that those who have trained in Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have been included in the priority group because
“existing agreements require us to recognise their qualifications and offer parity in access to the profession”.
Can the Minister please confirm whether the reordering of prioritisation, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would cut across the existing agreements that the UK Government are bound by?
Secondly, I think many of us agree that emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible, but where it is necessary, it should be simple and straightforward. On the face of it, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would make the Bill a bit more complicated by adding a further tier of prioritisation. If that is so, I am sure he would argue that the extra complexity is well worth it. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether such an additional tier of prioritisation would make the process more complex to manage.
Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens first, then those persons in the priority group and then UK medical graduates who are not British citizens. The category of other eligible applicants is not included. Perhaps it is an inadvertent omission; I do not know. Again, this would create a three-tier prioritisation process, where the Government are currently proposing two tiers, with the added dimension of drawing a distinction between different categories of UK medical graduates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am uncomfortable with that as a matter of policy. On the face of it, the amendment presents a more complex set of arrangements than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, so it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government view my noble friend’s suggestions, including their ready workability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. Amendments 1, 3, 6 to 8 and 12 to 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seek to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and specialty programmes. Taken together, they would require places to be allocated to UK medical graduates in the first instance, and then to applicants in the other prioritised categories specified in the Bill. As noble Lords have observed, the Bill sets clear priority groups, but it does not make rankings within these groups, and that is what we are looking at.
I welcome my noble friend Lord Darzi, not least because the review that he undertook for the Government in 2024 recommended that we should prioritise medical training, for all the reasons given by the noble Lords who support it. I will return to this whole area when we debate a later group, but on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—this will perhaps also be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—alongside UK graduates, we are prioritising in the Bill graduates from Ireland and the EFTA countries. This reflects the special nature of our relationship with Ireland—specifically, our reciprocal rights of movement and employment—and our obligations under international trade agreements with the EFTA countries, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, that require consistent treatment of these graduates in access to medical training. The amendments that we are looking at would mean that we could not honour these agreements. That, by its nature and definition, would create huge difficulties.
On specialty training, these amendments would also mean that we could not effectively deliver on our policy intention to prioritise applicants with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. It might be helpful if I summarise this by saying that the Bill sets out what I would regard as a binary system where applicants are either prioritised or not. Clearly, once that prioritisation has happened, the normal processes will apply to establish who the appointable applicants are, to fill the posts, and so on.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to create tiered categories of prioritisation for the UK foundation programme and to prioritise UK medical graduates who are British citizens above all other applicants. The Bill as drafted prioritises all UK medical graduates who meet the criteria, regardless of their citizenship status. It might be helpful to the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, to restate that what matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they are born. UK-trained medical graduates have undertaken curricula, clinical placements and assessment standards aligned to the NHS, and are therefore best prepared to move directly into NHS practice.
The Government are committed to prioritising those doctors who have already spent a significant part of their education within the NHS and understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population, not least because—this is an issue that we have discussed many times—these doctors are more likely to remain in the NHS for longer, supporting the sustainable medical workforce for the future that we are all looking at.
As I set out in relation to the previous set of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, this amendment would also mean that we would not be honouring the special nature of our relationship with Ireland and obligations under trade agreements with EFTA countries. I emphasise again in the Chamber today that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. All eligible applicants will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers, which we expect to be the case particularly in certain areas.
My noble friend Lord Winston raised a question about the Bill in respect of highly skilled overseas doctors and particularly referenced clinical academics. As I have said, it is not exclusion from applying—it is prioritisation. It may be helpful more broadly for me to emphasise that there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, because historically they attract fewer applicants from the groups that we are prioritising for 2026. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but we have to focus on the core purpose of the Bill. With that, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
Obviously, the Minister is not accepting my amendment, but she makes the point that all the priority groups will be treated in the same way—whatever the definition is of people in the priority group, they will all be grouped together as a priority, and that would include UK medical graduates. What assessment have the Government made of the effect that it will have on UK medical school graduates to include all the others in the priority group? What disadvantage will that put UK medical graduates to? Will it be minimal, medium or a lot?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We do not anticipate that that is going to cause a problem. The noble Lord did not specifically refer to the EFTA countries, but I should like to. Some of them will not produce any suitable people who are likely to be included, so in our modelling we do not anticipate that there will be a problem. What matters is patient care and getting people with the right training who understand what the NHS is about, understand the culture of the NHS and provide as best as they can. That is what the whole Bill is directed at doing and prioritising.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I accept that the Minister is not predisposed to accept the amendment from my noble friend Lady Coffey, and she has made a clear case for that, but is she in a position to reassure the House that the issues raised by my noble friend and others about the relative take-up of specialty training places in less popular disciplines, such as anaesthetics or paediatrics, will be looked at by the department? I did not get the opportunity to make this point, but one point was that prioritising British medical students—not excluding others—would have a positive impact on those particularly hard-to-fill disciplines. Is the department taking that into account generally in its workforce planning?
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
Can I ask about applications from overseas? I know from the paperwork that has been shared online that everybody has been grouped together as the rest of the world. With the applications that we have had this time and last year, it might be helpful to share the data of the breakdown by each country rather than just lumping it all together as the rest of the world. Then we could see how many applications there are from the nations that we have an international agreement with.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, no matter which amendment they spoke to, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his strong support for my amendment. More importantly, he said that UK medical graduates need to be prioritised and should not have to enter into competition with others whose graduation is not from this country. I know that the Minister was not able to say that UK graduates would be seen to be prioritised; I understand that. Of course, these debates help, because the outside world is interested in what is said here. I hope that particularly those who make decisions about interviewing or selecting for interview for training programmes will get the message, take note of this debate and bear in mind what it was all about. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I offer our strong support for Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and Amendments 5 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mohammed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his Amendment 4, because it, in essence, sets the theme of this group, which is the dashing of legitimate interests for this year, which a number of noble Lords explored.
Before I address the specific mechanics of these amendments, we need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and other noble Lords who highlighted at Second Reading the whole question of the protracted failure in long-term workforce planning. For years, we have seen a disconnect between the number of medical school places and the number of specialty training posts. There is a bottleneck of our own making: 12 applications for one post is a disaster. My late wife trained in the 1970s and became a registrar at Barts. I have no recollection of it being anything like on this scale, and we risk dashing the expectations of many of those currently in training.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, noted at Second Reading, the Bill does not widen the bottleneck; it simply reshuffles the queue. Although we on these Benches accept the principle that UK graduates should not face unemployment after taxpayer investment, we must ensure that, in correcting one failure, we do not commit a second failure of fairness against those have served our NHS in good faith.
These amendments address one of the greatest injustices in this Bill: the decision to implement major changes mid-cycle for 2026, using the blunt instrument of indefinite leave to remain as a proxy for experience. The Government claim that assessing actual NHS experience is “not operationally feasible” for the 2026 rounds. Since Second Reading, we have received compelling evidence to the contrary. As my noble friend says, we have heard from doctors currently using the system who confirm that the Oriel recruitment platform already captures data on “months of NHS experience”. The question is there; the data exists. The claim that this cannot be done is a choice, not an administrative necessity.
By refusing to use this data, Clause 2 creates a perverse experience gap. It excludes doctors who have served on our NHS front lines for two or three years but who have not yet reached the five-year threshold for settlement. We have received hundreds of emails detailing the human cost of this decision. We heard from a mother who lived apart from her one year-old child for seven months to study the MSRA exam, only to find the rules changing days after she sat it. We heard from a neurosurgery SHO with two years of NHS service, who notes that this mid-cycle change renders his sunk costs unrecoverable. We have heard from a British citizen whose wife, a doctor on a spousal visa, is deprioritised, despite being a permanent resident.
Amendments 9 and 11 offer the Government a lifeline. They are permissive—my noble friend’s amendments mandate the Government. The bottom line is that the Secretary of State should use the data we know Oriel possesses to prioritise those with significant NHS experience in 2026, just as they intend to do in 2027. To reject this is to choose administrative convenience over natural justice.
I see the amendments at this stage as a probing opportunity. We need the Minister to explain in specific, technical detail why the existing Oriel data fields regarding employment history cannot be used to filter applicants for this cycle. If the Minister cannot provide a satisfactory technical explanation today, and if the Government resist this flexible approach, we will be forced to conclude that this is a choice, not a necessity. In that event, we may well need to return to it on Report.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This group of amendments relates to the implementation of prioritisation of posts starting in 2026. I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this. It is a very important area, as noble Lords have said, and I have listened closely, as ever, to the points made.
Beginning with prioritisation for the UK foundation programme, Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to prevent prioritisation applying to offers for the foundation programme that were confirmed before 13 January. To clarify, the Bill will impact only offers for places made after the Bill is passed and becomes law. The Bill will therefore not have any impact on offers to the foundation programme made before it becomes law. In our view, the amendment is therefore not necessary. In any event, no such offers exist, other than for a very small and specific group.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about those who have already been allocated. The only individuals who have already been allocated foundation programme places for 2026 are those who deferred last year for statutory reasons, such as maternity leave or sickness absence. These individuals have already been assigned to posts, and this year’s allocation process does not affect them in any way.
On a more general point, as I referred to in the earlier group, and as noble Lords will recall, the 10-year plan, which was published in July 2025, confirmed that it was the intention of the Government to come forward with the Bill we are speaking of today. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about the time it has taken since that date in July 2025. I can only say to the noble Lord that this is linked to our careful listening, which he will be aware of, to resident doctors and our understanding of the pressures that they are facing. The Bill is about action now. It is about acting decisively and introducing legislation for 2026, because, as noble Lords have kindly acknowledged, we need to start reshaping the workforce pipeline and show our commitment to easing the bottlenecks in training places.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could say what proportion of those who wrote were disappointed with the Bill versus those who wrote supporting it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give an exact proportion, as the noble Lord is aware, but I have noticed that the proportion has changed as the Bill has progressed. As we have approached Committee, I have certainly seen more email traffic urging a non-amended Bill rather than an amended Bill. I would imagine that that is reflected in other emails. The noble Lord is indicating that it is not. I can see differing responses, but that has certainly been my impression.
The application of prioritisation to the 2026 intake is necessary and justified. If, as I referred to earlier, we waited until 2027, competition ratios are projected to rise even further, meaning that more UK graduates would be unable to progress their careers on time, with a greater risk to the long-term sustainability of the workforce. For these reasons, another year’s delay is not an option, and we cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also seeks to change categories of people who would be prioritised for specialty training places, starting in 2026, by virtue of having significant NHS experience or by reference to their immigration status. We cannot accept this amendment on the basis that the effect would be to prioritise every individual who applied for specialty training places in 2026 because all applicants are, by necessity, already registered on Oriel. This amendment would in practice nullify prioritisation for 2026 and render the legislation ineffective. It would not address the severe and growing bottlenecks in specialty training that the Bill aims and is designed to tackle.
The proposal to prioritise those who have demonstrated a professional commitment to the NHS also presents workability problems as there is no clear or objective definition of what such a commitment looks like, nor any reliable way to assess it for tens of thousands of applicants at this stage. Attempting to do so would be unmanageable in a practical sense and would introduce inconsistency, delay and uncertainty for applicants.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
One objective proposition that has been suggested is two years of NHS experience, which, it is said, would be readily trackable on Oriel. Can the Minister confirm whether that would indeed be possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Although I cannot be specific about what is technically possible, I can say that, as the noble Lord is aware, the arrangements for 2026 in the Bill can change for 2027, and that will be the subject of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to get the best definitions we can. We know that currently, because of the time pressure, we are going to have to use—I think the noble Lord used the word “proxy”, in my view correctly. So that is where we are.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister criticised Amendment 10 from my noble friend on the basis that, in a sense, it is technically not doing what it attempts to do. But she has not really addressed the key argument at the core of this, which is that the Oriel system is capable of assessing precisely the kinds of two-year experience that so many of these deprioritised doctors will have. Is the Minister saying that it is absolutely not possible to use the Oriel system for that purpose in this context?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My recollection from my discussion with officials about this very point is that, with no criticism of the Oriel system, this is about what we are trying to do now and what we have available to us. It would require—I am looking for the right words—not just using that system but manual attention to thousands of applications. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with further technical advice on the matter, but that is the situation of which I have been advised. The whole point about the way the Bill is designed is to make it workable. If we change it, we know we cannot deliver in the way the noble Lord might wish.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for that. I hope that, despite the recess, there will be time to get all the information we need. There is a real problem here with the credibility of the Government’s position. There are many of us who hope that it will be possible to do something different, particularly since, in a way, the boot is on the other foot. The Government have had since last July, as we keep being told, to get the Oriel system fit for purpose in order to supply the information for 2026.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is ambitious on workability, beyond what I can honestly confirm is possible. Noble Lords would not wish me to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that, having looked at all we could do, the situation is anything other than that this Bill is a workable option. I can assure him that, as always, all noble Lords will get the information they are promised in a timely fashion. I also hope that the all-Peers letter and the letters I subsequently sent in respect of various areas of concern were helpful to noble Lords. I will of course ensure that anything further is there.
The issue with Amendment 10 is also that there is not that clear objective and definition of what a commitment looks like; it makes reference to it but does not explain it. By contrast, the Bill uses a set of carefully chosen, specified immigration statuses as a practical and proportionate proxy for identifying applicants who are most likely to have an established professional commitment to the NHS, which I believe is what all noble Lords are looking for. After careful consideration, we have concluded that for the 2026 recruitment round, that is the best approach. The amendment would remove any practical effect of prioritisation, which of course is at the heart of the Bill.
Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, seek to create a regulation-making power to define additional persons with significant NHS experience to be prioritised for specialty training in 2026. We cannot accept these amendments. As already stated, the Bill sets out the most suitable criteria for prioritising specialty training places in this year. Under the existing Clause 2(2), for specialty training places starting in 2026, immigration status will be used as a practical proxy for NHS experience to allow prioritisation to begin swiftly. This proxy is being used because applications for posts starting in 2026 have already been made. Therefore, we need to prioritise based on the information already captured, and which can be assessed.
To build on what I was referring to in the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—I know this is also of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—while NHS experience is captured in the Oriel recruitment system, using it as an assessment criteria for the 2026 allocation round would require a manual review of tens of thousands of applications, “manual review” being the words I was looking for earlier. This is just not operationally feasible. There is no current agreed threshold for what constitutes a meaningful level of NHS experience. Stakeholders offer very different views on this, which is why we have committed to a proper engagement process, subject to the Bill’s passage, to ensure that any future definition is fair, evidence-based and deliverable.
The Bill already gives us flexibility to ensure that we take the best approach to prioritising those with NHS experience for specialty training posts in subsequent years. For posts starting in 2017 onwards, the immigration status category will not apply automatically. Instead, we will be able to make regulations to specify any additional groups who will be prioritised by reference to criteria indicating significant experience as a doctor in the health service, or by reference to immigration status.
For the reasons I have outlined, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 20 and 21 and in support of the other amendments in this group.
My amendments are intended to work together and to return us to one of the salient themes of our debates at Second Reading, a theme which has been persuasively developed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and other speakers. At the heart of their concerns is why the Government have chosen to adopt a definition that threatens to undermine high-quality workforce capacity in the NHS, that jeopardises the sustainability of medical education delivered overseas by UK institutions, and that runs completely counter to the Government’s stated ambitions on promoting British standards of education internationally.
The Bill prioritises graduates based on strict geographic criteria, rather than on the provenance of their qualifications. UK academic institutions such as Queen Mary University of London and Newcastle University have campuses respectively on Malta and in Malaysia which train doctors to GMC-approved standards, using the same curriculum and the same assessments as those employed on their campuses in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, has eloquently made the case for Maltese-trained students. I can add little to that. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Mendelsohn, and Lord Forbes have also spoken very powerfully on the same theme. The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, speak of the two qualifications—in other words that gained in Malta and that gained in London—as being identical in character. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, uses the word “equivalent”. I would go further by saying that the degree issued by the Queen Mary University of London Malta campus is not merely equivalent to a UK degree: it is a UK degree.
Not only that, but Queen Mary University is able to state that cohorts of its students trained in Malta frequently outperform their contemporaries who have studied and trained on the London campus. The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has confirmed that that is not an isolated claim. The same claim could be made of many graduates of Newcastle University’s campus in Malaysia. These are excellent doctors, so there is not an issue of quality here.
Nor should there be an issue around numbers. In total, as we have heard, the number of these overseas-trained graduates is modest in comparison to the overall NHS training intake in a given year. The numbers really ought to be treated as de minimis. We have heard from Ministers that, if they were to flex the rules in the way that I and others are proposing, there would be no way for them in the future to control the total numbers of eligible applicants from these sources. My question is: why? It would seem perfectly possible to grant Ministers a power to cap total numbers at a figure corresponding to recent experience. It would then be up to the relevant universities concerned to collaborate year by year to ensure that the cap was not exceeded. That is what my Amendment 21 is intended to do.
Finally, we return to the issue of legitimate expectations. For all the reasons that I have given, students trained on overseas campuses of UK institutions have never dreamed of questioning whether the status of their qualification would differ in the slightest from the status of the qualification gained by their student colleagues in London. They are, in consequence, not to put too fine a point in it, appalled that, through this Bill, they are suddenly to be regarded as less deserving of a medical career in the NHS. I ask the Minister to think again.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate, as I have been grateful for the time that noble Lords have given to discussing their concerns about various aspects of the Bill in advance of today. I can say to both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that I always reflect on what they and other noble Lords say. Indeed, I reflect on what every noble Lord says—it is true that I may listen to some more than others, but that would be telling. I am genuinely grateful. In my view, it really does assist the passage of legislation and I take it very seriously. I will of course reflect, as I have before, not just on what is said in the Chamber but on what we have discussed outside.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said previously that people will be watching and reading this debate, and I absolutely agree and am glad that they do. So I must emphasise the point that this is not about excluding people from their applications; it is about prioritising. The reason we are in this position is the removal of the resident labour market test in 2020, which changed the whole landscape. In 2019, there were 12,000 applicants; now, there are nearly 40,000 applicants, which means four resident doctors for every specialist training post. I believe that noble Lords understand the scale. Internationally trained doctors make a huge contribution and will continue to do so. We are aiming to bring forward those internationally trained doctors who have significant NHS experience for training posts in the future, which I think is absolutely right.
Let me turn to the amendments in this group: Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada; Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forbes; and Amendments 20 and 21, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Each of these amendments seeks to ensure that graduates of overseas campuses of UK medical schools are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I understand why this is being raised, and it is quite right to probe this whole area, in my view. While I appreciate the intention behind these amendments, and the manner in which they have come through, the Government are unable to accept them.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I want to come in on the point about whether or not the UK Government would lack the ability to control the expansion of international places in the grandfathered campuses. Is it not the case that, in fact, the UK Government do have such a tool at their disposal, through the Office for Students? The OfS has to agree the number of undergraduate medical places that a university can operate here in the UK and can cap those, and could therefore introduce an off-setting mechanism so that any additional place created outside the UK would see a reduction in the UK authorisation. That would be incentive enough, I suspect, to ensure that universities did not behave in the way that the Minister is concerned about.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord kindly raised this with me before, and I did test it out. I am grateful that he has given thought to this, because it is an important point. However, I am advised that, unfortunately, the solution that he has come up with would not deal with all the concerns we have and would still give us difficulty. The noble Lord talked about the thin end of the wedge, and I fear that we are still in the same place. I am happy to write to the noble Lord, and to make that letter available, to explain further detail. I am grateful that he has given consideration to a solution for what is undoubtedly an issue.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I understand the comments that the Minister has made to my noble friend Lord Stevens. Would she consider wording in the primary legislation that expands on the fact that the campus must be extant and includes that the number of students studying medicine for the UK degree must be the same as when the Bill passes? That would provide rigid guidelines in primary legislation and would not rely on another body, where a quota could possibly be negotiated.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I understand that the noble Baroness is coming forward with a solution and I appreciate her thoughts. I always reflect on what is said, but my initial reflection is that that does not deal with the fact that we already have a number of people. I asked this very question about continuing to prioritise them. It is significant even currently and that is part of the problem, although I understand what she is suggesting.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will take one more intervention, but it might be helpful to hear all that I have to say.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sure that it will, but I just wanted to follow up the Minister’s pledge to deliver a letter to us in which she will set out precisely what her concerns are. Will the timing of that letter be early next week so that there is time to table amendments for Report to meet some of those concerns?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I always do, I will seek to engage in sufficient time before Report. I will not promise the beginning of next week, but we all know the deadlines that noble Lords are working to and I am very respectful of that.
Amendment 17 could create the loophole I have referred to and risks existing international overseas campuses expanding their intakes further. I am grateful that noble Lords acknowledge the concern and are considering how to deal with it. That would be outside any UK workforce planning.
Amendment 21 would provide a regulation-making power to limit the number of applicants who could be prioritised from these overseas campuses. Going back to my earlier comments, it is not clear how such a requirement would be implemented effectively and fairly in practice but, in any event, it would not provide an appropriate safeguard for UK workforce planning.
The Bill rightly prioritises those whose education and placements the UK taxpayer has supported, who are most likely to work in the NHS in the long term—I emphasise this point—and are better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population because they understand the UK’s epidemiology. However, I hope my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, will take back to the university that graduates from international overseas campuses are not excluded and will continue to be able to apply to the foundation programme and specialty training.
Amendment 18 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, relates to the prioritisation of medical graduates from institutions in Ireland. The Government cannot accept this amendment, and I thought her own assessment of it was most honest and helpful. Throughout the development of this Bill, we have been clear that graduates from the Republic of Ireland are prioritised on the same basis as UK medical graduates. This reflects the long-standing and unique relationship between our countries, including the arrangements under the common travel area, which supports reciprocal rights of movement and employment. It also ensures coherence in workforce planning across both jurisdictions, where medical education and training pathways have been closely aligned for many years.
Introducing different criteria for graduates from the Republic of Ireland, as this amendment proposes, would risk disrupting those shared arrangements. It could also create an uncertainty in the provision of postgraduate training in Ireland.
Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, seeks to add Malta to the list of prioritised countries set out in Clause 4. This would require that those who hold a primary medical qualification from any institution in Malta, irrespective of their nationality, are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I address this particularly to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, to whom I listened closely, as I did to the noble Baroness, but we cannot accept this amendment.
I refer particularly to the European Free Trade Association countries, as they have been mentioned a number of times, including by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others. Those countries listed in Clause 4 are those with which the UK has signed agreements that include offering parity of access to the workforce. I have looked back at when those agreements were made: for the EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, the agreement was made in July 2021, and Switzerland was in 2019. I make these points because they certainly precede this Government. In practice, as I have said before, not all these countries will have eligible applicants in any case.
The 1975 UK-Malta reciprocal healthcare convention will continue and is not affected by the Bill. I emphasise that that agreement is wholly related to reciprocal access to healthcare, not access to training or employment related to medical training. I hope it is helpful to say that the Bill includes a power to amend the list of countries in Clause 4 to reflect any future international agreements that the UK may enter into. As I have also stated previously, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. I emphasise that there is no disrespect intended here and we very much value the long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare, and that will continue to be valued. However, prioritising international graduates would undermine our ability to keep foundation training numbers aligned with the NHS workforce that we are planning for and manage those bottlenecks in specialty training, about which there is concern across the Committee. This is about focusing on patient care and ensuring that those whose education and experience best prepares them to practice safely and effectively in the NHS are the ones who are prioritised.
For specialty training, prioritising these individuals would not support our aim to prioritise doctors with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. I reassure the Committee that this Bill will not affect existing fellowship arrangements with Malta, and the affiliation of the UK foundation programme and Malta foundation programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, referred, will still stand. Senior officials in my department have met with the high commissioner of Malta to the United Kingdom to assure him of this and last week I received a positive letter of acknowledgement from the Health Minister in Malta.
To be absolutely clear, individuals with a primary medical qualification from Malta will still be able to apply for foundation and specialty training places, and they will be considered for any places that are left after prioritisation. But it would still be the case that it would be at odds with the aim of the Bill for them to be prioritised for these places. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
The NHS is a complex organisation which is going to be rapidly changing, with increasing issues regarding its employees and all sorts of new technologies that will develop in a way we have never seen before. In view of that, does the Minister think there might be some reason for the Government to consider looking at this situation in, say, five years’ time to see the effect of the Bill on the health service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the pace of change, and many of the changes we cannot even imagine as we discuss this today. We keep the impact of legislation under review, and the Bill will be no different to any other Bill in that regard.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I do not want to put the Minister too much on the spot now, so could she clarify in her letter whether Clause 4(3)(b) means that the Bahrain campus is within the allocation for prioritised places, whether any other Irish campuses are, and how the limit would be held on other campuses developed from Ireland, given that the response we have had seems to exclude Malta and Newcastle?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am happy to set it out in a letter, but I can say immediately that graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s Bahrain campus are not necessarily prioritised just because part of their programme takes place in Ireland. The Bill is clear that prioritisation applies to graduates of Irish medical schools who complete the majority of their medical education in Ireland, but I am happy to add to that in my letter.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which she has addressed my amendments. I will be very brief. I must say I am disappointed, and I have a few points.
I will address Malta first. These are not international medical graduates; these are UK-trained doctors training in a UK university, albeit overseas. As I said, they are trained for the NHS. The Minister mentioned several times that it is not exclusion, it is prioritisation. I have already had emails from two doctors, one of whom is being excluded from applying for a postgraduate examination until the UK cohort has applied. I will not say their specialty, because it might identify them, but it means that the tiny island of Malta will not have this particular specialty because this doctor cannot finish his training until he does that. They are already being excluded from fellowship posts that have been long standing over decades—that is of last week.
Given the fact that the Bill is being taken through the House at such pace, as well as writing a letter—which I understand we will get in our post next week—would the Minister be willing to meet me and several Peers who have already raised some amendments so that we can explore this in more detail and work constructively towards a solution? I am sure these issues will be considered further on Report but, in the light of the Minister’s reply today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. He absolutely made the case but, having heard what the Minister had to say on the previous group, I have a terrible certainty about what her response will be.
I assure the Minister that many of us want to find solutions, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentions. The principles of the Bill are supported across the Committee; it is some of the detail that is in contention. We must be honest that the Bill deals with the symptom—competition ratios—not the cure, which is the bottleneck of insufficient specialty training places. I go back to the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, used at Second Reading. We are simply reshuffling the queue.
This amendment places a necessary duty on the Secretary of State to review the adequacy of training places. We have received warnings from doctors in shortage specialties such as psychiatry and general practice, who fear that the Bill will drive away the international talent that we rely on. We need to know whether this legislation will succeed in retaining UK graduates or whether it will inadvertently exacerbate shortages by signalling to the global medical community that the NHS is closed for business. We cannot manage what we do not measure.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the debate that we have just had and I appreciate the support for what we are seeking to do, particularly from both Front Benches, as in the other place. I am most grateful for that.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act within six months of Royal Assent and to require that that review is published and laid in Parliament. I understand the intent behind this amendment, but we do not feel that there is a need to accept it because the Government have already set out their impact-monitoring and evaluation plans within the published impact statement on 14 January.
The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies requirements that are not compatible with how recruitment cycles operate. He will understand that I want to report to your Lordships’ House only on the basis of proper information, as he would expect. However, data as specified in the amendment would not be available to allow us to meet those requirements or to allow sufficient time and flexibility for the investigation of impacts. However, I give the assurance that, should the Bill be passed, the Government will ensure that appropriate data is collected and investigated to facilitate the already proposed impact evaluation. I hope that this will be helpful.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his amendment and his very helpful introduction. From these Benches, we have consistently raised our concerns about the downsides of emergency legislation. The Constitution Committee chairman, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, wrote in his letter to the Minister that the Constitution Committee has
“repeatedly raised concerns about the fast-tracking of legislation, highlighting in particular the need to ensure that effective parliamentary scrutiny is maintained”.
We are all of us, I hope, doing our utmost in the short time available to scrutinise the Bill fully, but, with such a short period of time available, we cannot discount the possibility that this legislation will have unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, posited one particular example in his speech during the last debate.
It is true that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not brought anything in the Bill to the attention of the House. However, in the light of the fact that the Bill has been fast-tracked through Parliament, there is, I believe, a case for making all regulations under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing for additional future scrutiny. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful not just for this brief debate but for the efforts of noble Lords to expedite this legislation. I acknowledge the short timeframe—it is not as short as in the other place but, nevertheless, noble Lords have been most co-operative, and I value that.
Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require that all regulations made under the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure. This is an amendment we are not able to accept. To reiterate our intention, the Bill sets out the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. I reassure the noble Lord that the delegated power is limited to adding to this list by reference to significant experience working as a doctor in the health service or immigration status.
Similarly, we have set out in the Bill specialty training programmes excluded from the prioritisation scheme. The delegated power is limited to amend this list, and it gives necessary operational flexibility to respond to future changes in recruitment, training and workforce needs—something that I know noble Lords are very attuned to the need for.
I am sympathetic to the desire for parliamentary scrutiny and I always try to ensure that it is provided but, because of the limited scope of these powers, we believe that the negative procedure is appropriate. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just referred to, the Bill has been assessed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and no suggestion has been made that the negative procedure was inappropriate for this regulation.
I have spoken in a previous group to why we are dealing with emergency legislation. I hear what is said about the downsides, but we have to balance that with the scale of the problem and the urgency that it demands. That is why we decided to introduce emergency legislation.
The noble Earl spoke about the Constitutional Committee letter. We will be responding formally to the committee to address its concern. With that, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for that timely response. I particularly welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the principle that I was trying to establish. However, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26 and 27 on commencement, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I confess that we are conflicted on these. This brings us back to the tension at the heart of the Bill. We have UK graduates urging immediate implementation to resolve their uncertainty; conversely, we have international medical graduates asking for delay or transition because the rules are changing mid-cycle. If the Government eventually accept the amendments in group 2, providing a fair transitional arrangement for those with NHS experience, then immediate commencement becomes less punitive. However, if they persist with the blunt ILR proxy for 2026 then rushing to commencement simply accelerates an injustice.
I urge the Minister to clarify when precisely the regulations for the 2026 cycle will be laid if this Bill passes and whether they will include the transitional protections we have argued for. I am somewhat pessimistic on that. Certainty is needed, but it must not come at the expense of fairness.
In that context, as we are at the end of Committee, I must ask the Minister to confirm that she is going to meet the cross-party group of those of us who have spoken at Second Reading and in Committee before Report takes place. I have kept my diary free for the Monday before Report and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, mentioned that earlier. We would all welcome a face-to-face meeting with the Minister. She talked about us being co-operative, and we all realise the Government’s desire for speed, particularly in the context of the industrial dispute, but, quite frankly, it takes two to tango.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s advice in his last comment.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, spoke about what I am going to call the tension between emergency legislation and the commencement clause. I will start on that point. I hope he is aware that our intent is, of course, to commence the Bill as soon as we possibly can, subject to its passage through Parliament. That is why I am so grateful to noble Lords and to Parliament more broadly—both Houses—that they have agreed to expedite the progress of this Bill.
I will come back on to this later in a bit more detail but, as I have already stated, there is a genuine question about operational feasibility, if strikes are ongoing, due to the strain that they put on the system. I am sure everybody in your Lordships’ Chamber would understand that. I will now refer to the amendments, and I have some other points to answer some of the questions that were raised.
Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, relate to the date upon which the Act comes into force. Both would remove the provision that allows the Secretary of State to appoint the commencement date.
We cannot accept these amendments, as they remove an important element—and I emphasise this point—of operational flexibility, should it be needed. The commencement provision within the Bill is not a mechanism for delay. It is, we believe, a necessary safeguard to ensure that systems planning and operational capacity are in place before the Act is brought into force. Noble Lords will also appreciate that it is a material question, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how possible it is to proceed if industrial action continues, given the strain that strikes put on the system.
It is our intention to commence the Bill as soon as we are able, but it is essential that the Secretary of State is able to take all the circumstances, including operational readiness, into account when deciding when the Act should come into force. I think that it is honest to say this. Amendment 26 also seeks to require the Act to come into force one month after it is passed. Specialty training offers must be made from March. Delaying commencement by even one month would leave insufficient time to implement prioritisation for this year’s application round. In short, fixing a commencement date one month after Royal Assent, as Amendment 26 suggests, would create a situation where the Bill comes into force too late to tackle the bottleneck problem that we seek to resolve—the one that it is designed to remedy for the 2026 year—while also removing our ability to commence the Act only when systems are ready to deliver it effectively.
On the comments about industrial action made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I reconfirm that the Government have been in intensive and constructive discussions with the BMA resident doctors committee since the start of the new year. The aim is to try to bring an end to the damaging cycle of strikes, and to avoid what is undoubtedly further, unnecessary disruption for patients and NHS staff. We continue to hope that those talks result in an agreement that works for everyone, so that there will be no more strike action by resident doctors in 2026.
With regard to the noble Lord’s request for more detail on operational readiness, I know he understands that introducing reforms to such a large-scale recruitment process is a big undertaking. We do not want the risk of creating errors that could lead to further uncertainty for organisations, for educators and, most importantly, for our trainees. An effective commencement demands clear processes for delivery across the health system. The reality is that industrial action will put this at risk because it is a diversion of resources, as it always is.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about further engagement. I have already had engagement with a number of noble Lords, including both Front Benches. If it is possible to do so before Report, I will write again. Time is extremely short, so while I am always glad to do so, if the noble Lord will allow me to look at that in a practical sense, I will be pleased to. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that considered response to the discussions. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, not only to this group of amendments, but today. I also thank the staff for being here to look after us while we stay to this hour.
I should perhaps clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that when I laid the amendment it was with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Howe in mind. If we can address some of the perceived injustices or unfairness in the system, we should implement as soon as possible. I was not seeking to create a tension there.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there are operational issues. I think that it would help the Government, and help this Bill to go forward, if the Minister were able to explain in a letter to noble Lords some of those operational issues, because sometimes it may be that we think that it is quite easy. I know, having been in government, that there are a number of issues. I can see that the Minister is looking forward to spending her Recess formulating that letter with her officials. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, talked earlier about a holiday, but I do not think that Ministers ever get a holiday. I am giving the Minister a challenge during the Recess to explain some of the operational challenges that lead to the Government not being able to accept this amendment to implement the Bill as soon as possible.
With that, I thank the Minister for her response. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill [HL]
Baroness Merron Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 and 18, Schedule 2, Clause 19, Schedule 3, Clauses 20 and 21, Schedule 4, Clauses 22 to 40, Schedule 5, Clause 41, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 42 to 64, Schedule 8, Clause 65, Schedule 9, Clauses 66 to 83, Schedule 10, Clause 84, Schedules 11 to 13, Clauses 85 and 86, Schedules 14 and 15, Clauses 87 to 126, Schedule 16, Clauses 127 to 140, Schedule 17, Clauses 141 to 145, Schedule 18, Clauses 146 to 151, Schedule 19, Clauses 152 to 156, Schedule 20, Clauses 157 to 159, Schedule 21, Clauses 160 to 170, Title.
Better Start Longitudinal Programmes
Baroness Merron Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, and if so when and how, the learning from the results of the Better Start longitudinal programmes will become pregnancy and early years policy and be implemented.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the valuable learning that is emerging from the five Better Start partnerships and we look forward to the national evaluation report in the spring. The programmes provide important insights into early-years support in highly disadvantaged areas. Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies already deliver a place-based prevention focus model. We will consider Best Start evidence, alongside other evaluations, as we develop policy to deliver a new neighbourhood health service and raise the healthiest generation of children ever.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that and declare an interest: my sister, Gill Thornton, is the director of Better Start Bradford, which is part of the £250 million programme funded by the National Lottery, with local funding too, for the last 10 years. The model, which places children and family at the heart of service design, focuses on the first 1,001 days, which is critical because of the developmental window from conception to a child’s second birthday. I would like to hear how the Government will integrate this into their Best Start for Life programme.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The work in Bradford is to be commended. I can assure my noble friend that, through Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies, local authorities will be expected to do exactly what the noble Baroness says is happening in Bradford: that is, to establish very inclusive and diverse routes for parent and carer participation. We want families to shape how services are set out and I absolutely agree that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life is a crucial and critical developmental window.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister may not have had the time that I have had to read the first report from this programme, which is called Exploring School Readiness. These projects have been going in five different areas, with 16 different programmes. In going through all 16 programmes, does she share with me the slight concern that there is only one mention of mobile phones and screen time? That was in Nottingham, where adults were asked to leave their mobile phones outside an area where their children were learning how to play, in order that the adults could concentrate and pay attention to their children, rather than pay attention to their phones. Given the rising concern generally in the country about the effect of screens and phones, not only on the very young but on the ability of parents to be parents, could that not be integrated and taken into account as this programme is taken forward?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is an important point that the noble Lord raises. This is being dealt with by the Government’s proposal to have a three-month consultation, so that we get it right in terms of acknowledging the concerns and challenges of screen time for children. So, I take the point that the noble Lord has made. This is of course a matter for DSIT. I will ensure that it is aware of the noble Lord’s comments, as well as the relevant departments—my department and the Department for Education—in respect of the programme that we are talking about.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome today’s announcement about protecting special educational needs funding, I would like to ask about support for very young children with special needs and those with physical disabilities. Parents often find it difficult to find an early-years place or childcare suitable for these special children. Can the Minister point them towards any real, properly funded, properly resourced help from people with the right training looking after these special children?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hope I can be helpful to the noble Baroness. In the Best Start for Life strategy, we committed that each Best Start Family Hub will have a children and family services practitioner to support children and families who have additional needs. I feel that this new offer will help parents to understand their child’s development and identify emerging needs sooner. Importantly, it will also support vital join-up across the services, keeping children who have particular needs at the very centre.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister confirm what the Department of Health and Social Care has taken from the Better Start work to inform its maternity and baby strategy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, we are absolutely focused on improving quality and consistency of care for women throughout pregnancy, birth and the critical months that follow. That is why we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to lead an independent investigation and why the Secretary of State will chair a maternity and neonatal taskforce to address the recommendations of the investigation. It is very much part of our work to give babies the very best start in life.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has expressed the commendable ambition of raising the healthiest generation of young children ever. So why have the Government done nothing to condemn and educate about, if not prohibit, cousin marriage, the babies from which suffer twice the number of birth defects as those from non-cousin marriage?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My recollection from debating that point previously is that we are looking at the evidence and the best way to tackle the issue that the noble Baroness raises: in other words, what best supports children to have that healthy and best start in life? We are looking at this in the round and I am sure that we will return to it, but I will also be pleased to follow up in writing to the noble Baroness.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, many noble Lords would support the objectives of the Better Start longitudinal programme, with its focus on improving children’s diet and nutrition, social and emotional development, and speech, language and communication skills. But can the Minister explain how, rather than with a top-down, Whitehall or Westminster-knows-best attitude, it is working with local civil society organisations, such as BRITE Box, which works with families and local communities to help them learn how to cook healthier meals on a budget to improve their nutrition and well-being?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This will not be a top-down approach. We are ensuring that Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies are in every local authority area. That is a major development, because from April it will reach more than 500,000 more children. It will also help us transition to neighbourhood health services. However, all of this will, as ever, be more successful by working together with other groups, including third-sector organisations such as BRITE Box.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that we would have had much healthier children if the previous Government had not shut down all the Sure Start centres and caused the poverty that they did?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think I heard what my noble friend said: I got the gist. What matters is not just that we are in a position where children’s health and well-being is not where it should be but that we are pulling together all the best examples of practice, including Sure Start and family hubs, and investing in provision, services and information. This will take us forward to a situation where we genuinely have the healthiest generation ever. That is not something we have now, particularly in the more disadvantaged areas.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry if I sound like a broken record, but what are the Government doing to ensure that we retain the health visitors and midwives that we have? There are not sufficient midwives or health visitors in the service and they play a vital role in supporting young mothers and fathers in the care of their babies and children.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
They do: I completely agree. That is why they are very much part of our delivery plan. It is part of the move from hospital to community: part of the neighbourhood service model. We will be publishing the workforce plan in the spring; that will take account of it. This is a multidisciplinary approach. We are seeing more midwives. We are also seeing more consultants in obstetrics, for example, although I know that the noble Baroness was not referring particularly to that. We are also developing stronger health visitor teams. They all matter, because they bring the care closer to home in a way that will make the greatest impact.