Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Baroness Merron Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, this is the first debate in Committee on this important Bill so I hope that the Committee will allow me to take a minute or two to set out the approach of the Official Opposition. As my noble friend Lord Kamall and I said at Second Reading, the Official Opposition have no collective view on this Bill. Although each Member of the Opposition Front Bench will have their own view on the Bill, we will support noble Lords across the House in their scrutiny of the Bill. We will also table a small number of additional amendments where we feel that parts of the Bill need probing further. We will not seek to delay the passage of the Bill, nor will we seek to hold up progress in Committee. Instead, we will seriously engage in detailed scrutiny of the Bill so that we can collectively deliver the best possible piece of legislation.
In that regard, I respectfully pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for demonstrating his openness to improving the Bill already by tabling amendments that we hope to get to today and which reflect concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. I speak for all my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench when I say that I look forward to working with him to ensure that we send a better Bill back to the other place.
The amendments in this group relate to the territorial extent of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Coffey is seeking to remove references to Wales in the Bill so that it would apply only to England. While I am not entirely persuaded that making this an England-only Bill is necessary per se, these amendments raise important questions about devolution. The core question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is why the Bill does not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom on the one hand or only to England on the other.
At the heart of this is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said—although various Acts of Parliament may put us to sleep, a speech by the noble and learned Lord never does; I was listening very carefully—that these amendments speak to the devolution settlement that we work with and the inconsistencies and confusions of that settlement. The noble and learned Lord used the word “complexity”. It is extremely complex. In this area, we have the problem that criminal law is not devolved to Wales whereas health is devolved. To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, with which I respectfully agree, declaring the appropriate interest, Wales should not be regarded as inferior to Scotland. That is a point of general application.
The Scottish Parliament, as noble Lords know, is currently considering its own legislation on this topic. I hope that noble Lords have picked up that the Scottish Bill is significantly different in key ways—most markedly in the definition of terminal illness. In Scotland, it lacks the “six months to live” test which, whatever view we take, is at the heart of the Bill before us. The definition of terminal illness in the Scottish Bill is:
“For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”.
I am not quite sure about “premature” in that context in all cases, but that is what the text says.
Leaving aside the point that those resident in one part of the United Kingdom will therefore have different rights to assistance under the law from those in another region of the United Kingdom should both Bills pass, I see the point that my noble friend Lady Coffey is making. If the people of Scotland may choose whether to have a law for terminally ill adults who wish to end their lives, why—I ask rhetorically, so to speak, looking forward to the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—should people in Wales not have the same choice? This is the key question that the noble and learned Lord has been presented with by this group of amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opening comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, which were helpful. I thank noble Lords for this debate.
I want to set out some points about the role of government Ministers. As noble Lords are well aware, the Government remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying and on the passage of this Bill. Whether the law in this area should change is absolutely and rightly a matter for Parliament. I and my noble friend Lady Levitt will speak in Committee as government Ministers responsible for ensuring that the Bill, if passed, is legally robust, effective and workable. To that end, I will not be providing a government view on the merits of proposed changes. Those are rightly a matter for noble Lords to decide. Throughout Committee, my remarks will focus only on amendments where the Government have significant workability concerns. I hope that this will be of assistance to noble Lords in their consideration of amendments. Where no comment is made, any workability concerns are less significant. The Government are unable to confirm at this stage that the current drafting of those amendments is fully workable, effective or enforceable.
Turning to the amendments in this group—
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware, as will your Lordships’ House generally, that Ministers have been absolutely consistent in setting out the right and proper role of officials, as is usual for a Private Member’s Bill. I will refer to that shortly. Also, if noble Lords have individual concerns, they are welcome to raise them with me.
The amendments in this group seek to restrict the eligibility criteria to apply to individuals in England only, rather than in England and Wales, as at present. These amendments would have minimal legal effect unless they are coupled with amendments to later clauses. Clause 1 is largely declaratory. This group of amendments would conflict with later operative provisions in the Bill unless consistent amendments are made to later provisions.
I will pick up a few of the points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised a number of points about engagement and I would be pleased to write to her further. I have done my very best to ensure that all the questions that she laid have been answered. I hope she will accept my apologies if that is not the case, but I have certainly endeavoured to do so. I will also review points made by other noble Lords in this debate, where they are relevant to the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised a question regarding legislative consent Motions. As would be expected, UK government officials have discussed these matters with Welsh government officials, and the management of the legislative consent process in the Senedd is, of course, a matter for the Welsh Government.
In closing, I will make a few general comments about engagement.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
On the LCM point, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in the Senedd has made a statement about it not having received enough information on the conversations between the UK and Welsh Governments about why certain clauses do not engage with the LCM process. Can the Minister respond directly to that point about why this information has not been shared with the Senedd?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will certainly look into the matter that the noble Baroness raised and would be pleased to write to her. However, the first point I wanted to make here was about engagement with the Welsh Government. Of course, Ministers themselves have not met with the Welsh Government in relation to this Bill, as again would be expected, as it is not a government Bill. I know that the sponsors have met with the Welsh Government to discuss the policy intent and to negotiate which clauses require a legislative consent Motion.
The sponsors are also leading engagement with Scotland and Northern Ireland while—on the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others—UK government officials are providing technical support to support the sponsor and are engaging with Welsh government officials to discuss technical matters in relation to clauses that require a legislative consent Motion or those to which Wales has requested that further changes are made. Officials have regular meetings; they can be as frequent as weekly, as was the case at some points over the last few months.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
The noble Baroness mentioned that the role of Ministers is to ensure that the Bill is legally robust, effective and workable, but surely safety has to play some part in that as well.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure it would be expected that safety is absolutely paramount. The point I am making—and I look forward to hearing from my noble and learned friend—is that our position in government here is not to deal with matters of policy. As I have said, we are restricted to areas to which any Government would be restricted.
We will absolutely work with the Welsh Government, NHS England and the NHS in Wales to understand the impact of any changes to the law and the provision of healthcare services in Wales, during the coming stages of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I make a declaration of interest: I have an assistant who is funded by Mr Bernard Lewis and who helps me on this Bill. I make a declaration that Dignity in Dying paid for the printing of the material that was circulated to Peers in my name before this process commenced.
I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the short way that she introduced the important issue. I very much hope that I can put to rest most of the misconceptions that were expressed during this debate.
As everybody agrees, criminal law is not devolved to the Welsh Senedd. Therefore, any change in criminal law has to come from the UK Parliament. You cannot proceed with assisted dying without changing the criminal law. Therefore, the UK Parliament has to provide a legislative change for that.
Healthcare is rightly devolved to the Welsh Ministers and the Senedd. The Bill makes provision in England for Ministers to produce regulations on how assisted dying will be implemented and regulated in England. Clause 42 requires Ministers to produce such regulations. It is wrong, as part of the devolution settlement, to require Welsh Ministers who are responsible for health in Wales to do that. It is for the Welsh Government to decide what provision to make. Unlike Clause 41, which relates to England, Welsh Ministers are given the option to introduce such regulations as they see fit. Those regulations will permit the assisted dying process to be introduced in Wales, in the National Health Service, and for Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Government to provide whatever provision for it in regulations that they see fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked why we are legislating for England and Wales but not Scotland at the same time. It is because we are doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Gove, asked me to do—and I am so glad he did—which is to respect the devolution settlement. Will the noble Lord let me finish? Then I will come back to him.
The way this structure works is that, first, we in this Parliament determine whether the criminal law should be changed. Secondly, the Welsh Government are given the power to introduce regulations. That power should normally be given to Welsh Ministers by an Act of the Senedd. Therefore, a legislative consent Motion has been proffered by the Welsh Government for the Senedd to decide whether it would be willing to give us consent to legislate in an area that would normally be legislated for in the Senedd.
The LCM—legislative consent Motion—in the Welsh Senedd covers the following. I give these details for noble Lords to consider them at their leisure: Clause 40, which gives Welsh Ministers power to issue guidance; Clause 42, which gives Welsh Ministers power to regulate how this is to be introduced in the health service in Wales and with what regulations; Clause 51, which gives the Welsh Government power to talk about and make regulations about the Welsh language; Clause 54, which gives them a general power to make regulations; and Clause 58, which gives the Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Government power to introduce certain of the provisions.
The sponsor in the other place and I have discussed this arrangement with the Welsh Government, and by that I mean Welsh Ministers and Welsh officials. We have done what the Welsh Government would wish us to do to respect devolution. We have taken these powers in the Bill, subject to Parliament, so that there is not a position where, after this Bill is passed, Welsh Ministers lack the power to introduce regulations if they choose to do so.
I have listened to this torrent of points about Wales saying it has not been thought out. I say with suitable humility that we have thought it out and sought to reflect what good devolution practice would require. I do not invite people to come back, but please think about what I have said and consider—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I would be grateful if any advice that has been given to the noble and learned Lord by officials is shared with the Committee. It is helpful, when determining legislation, to understand that, and it would be especially helpful if the Government, who have said they are getting involved only on legality and practicality, were to express their view. They will not even tell the Welsh Government what their view is, and that is very concerning.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I just emphasise my previous comments. I think it would be extremely helpful for this debate if I were to write to the noble Baroness setting it all out as she requires, following my previous Answers to Written Questions that have been laid.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I hope that the department will take a better attitude in determining things such as freedom of information requests. We have already had from the Cabinet Office whether it is now in the public interest to declare information that it holds. I hope the Government—I can see that the Deputy Chief Whip is on the Front Bench—will take this away, because it is a serious matter. This is one of the most important Bills that we will consider in this Parliament, and it is important that we have transparency and a full understanding that is shared across the Chamber. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
As a final point, I agree with the noble Lord. As Government Chief Whip, I take my job very seriously. I love the House, and I want to do this properly. I assure the Committee that I hear noble Lords’ sentiments. I know how long it has taken on the Bill. I know that views are sincerely held on both sides. I will work in the usual channels to deal with these matters.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions that have been made to this debate. I will be very concise on the point. In summary, it is our view that workability concerns are less significant, although the Government are unable to confirm at this stage that the current drafting is fully workable, effective or enforceable. As noble Lords will understand, the amendment has not had technical drafting support from officials.
On this point, if the amendment is passed in isolation, it is likely to have minimal legal effect, as Clause 1 is essentially declaratory rather than operative. The remainder of the Bill would refer to the capacity to make a decision, which, as noble Lords will be aware from the Bill, is to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
I anticipate coming later to discussions on amendments to Clause 3, as noble Lords have referred to, as those amendments would change the operation of the Bill. I will comment on proposals when we come to the relevant debate. These issues are, of course, rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider, deciding which test is to be used.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I will deal first with the central issue in this debate, which is the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The wording currently mentions:
“A terminally ill person in England or Wales who … has the capacity to make a decision”.
The noble Baroness proposes that “capacity” should be changed to “ability”. From what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, says, I understand that we should read that with Amendment 115, although there is another amendment that the noble Baroness proposes in relation to Clause 3. But I accept what the noble Lord says in relation to Amendment 2.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, she is suggesting that we remove “capacity” and replace it with “ability”. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, put his finger on it when he said that “capacity” is well known to the law. You could not possibly have a Bill that did not refer to capacity because what it means, in the eyes of the law and of people in practice, is the ability to make the decision. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, if you do not have capacity, you cannot make the decision. That applies right across the doings of human beings, and the law recognises that. If, therefore, you replace “capacity”—
Goodmayes Hospital Mental Health Facility
Baroness Merron Excerpts(3 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of failings at Goodmayes Hospital mental health facility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, what happened at Goodmayes Hospital was totally unacceptable and I offer my sincere condolences to Alice Figueiredo’s family and loved ones, who have suffered an unimaginable loss. The trust failed in its basic responsibilities to Alice, and I expect—and we are working to ensure—that it will prioritise the safety of its services. I understand that the trust has taken steps to improve services and reduce risk, including changes to ward environments, better training in suicide prevention and investment in recruitment and retention.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I thank the Minister. It was back in July of 2015 that Alice Figueiredo took her own life using a bin bag from a shared bathroom. She was just 22 years old. Recently leaked documents reveal that, just four months later, another young woman from the same ward attempted to harm herself in an almost identical manner. However, these are not isolated incidents. In 2023, three women died in a Priory psychiatric hospital within two months. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what are the Government doing to ensure that therapeutic care is provided, and lessons are really learnt, so that we do not see any further tragic loss of life from any aspect of the mental health in-patient estate?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this in this way. National guidance is being developed, which is expected soon—in January—on plastic bag use in mental health settings. The Thirlwall inquiry has also recently reviewed progress against the important recommendations of the report of Professor Williams, which were very much addressed at the role of healthcare regulators of NHS bodies and the CPS. In addition, the NHS national oversight framework now gives a transparent assessment of the performance of every trust in England, which means that those with the greatest challenges or concerns will receive enhanced support. In addition, it means that the CQC, as we move it to a new intelligence-led model, is able to conduct rapid response inspections where concerns are identified, so that we can get on top of problems before they produce the tragic consequences my noble friend refers to.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that, while it is 10 years since Alice Figueiredo died, we know that resources in mental health services in-patient units—in terms of human resources particularly, but the number of beds they have access to as well—have deteriorated dramatically? We heard very potent evidence during the passage of the Mental Health Bill this year of the serious consequences that have arisen from this. What are we going to do to improve the quality and quantity of resources available to mental health units, so that occurrences like this do not recur?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, I take a broader approach. The current in-patient model is totally outdated and cannot address adequately the inherent risks in the mental health in-patient system, so we have to move to new models of care which are integrated in the community. Those changes will be made as part of the 10-year plan. Importantly for me, that will mean a new era of transparency as well as that rigorous focus on patient safety and care and also hearing and acting on patient and staff voices.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we also send our condolences to Alice’s family and loved ones. Considering that the judge noted that North East London NHS Foundation Trust’s finances were in an “absolutely parlous state”, what assessment have the Government made of the direct link between severe financial distress in NHS mental health trusts and the ability to maintain fundamental patient safety standards, such as ensuring rapid environmental de-escalation and adequate staffing levels?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Of course, these matters are extremely important. On the specific trust, I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that there are particularly unacceptable issues that have been happening there. I gave the Answer straight off to my noble friend that it is in fact totally unacceptable. Looking to the future, following this terrible tragedy, the trust has replaced its leadership and is making improvements to services. The most recent CQC inspection found that services were well led and that they have improved. However, acute adult wards remain in the category of requiring improvement, as does its overall rating. I assure the noble Lord that we are continuing to work with the trust to raise its game.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join in sending condolences. I am pleased that the Minister identified improving the performance at the CQC as an important step in preventing these tragedies from happening in the first place. She will know that Penny Dash reviewed the performance of the CQC and made a number of recommendations particularly relevant to mental health providers. Some progress has been made against that, including establishing a chief inspector for mental health, but there are still steps that need to be taken. The single assessment framework is at the moment still too input heavy and inadequately addresses outcomes in mental health. There are still expertise gaps and recruitment is challenging, and there are backlogs in risk, with persistent delays in reinspections for high-risk mental units. Can the Minister say, given today’s outcome and discussion, what steps she will take to address these very serious issues?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
These are very serious issues, and we continue to work on them. We are also very grateful to the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, whose reports highlight extremely important concerns and safety recommendations, with an aim to help us improve in-patient mental health services. Therefore, I can say to the noble Baroness that we are in the process of formally responding to those recommendations made within this report, in addition to the changes I have referred to. As the Mental Health Minister, I am invested in making sure that we continue to drive forward improvements to patient safety and accountability.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, given the testimony presented by my noble friend Lady Berger, what assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide to your Lordships’ House to underpin the Mental Health Act by way of financial spend, to ensure that it is protected for mental health services to deal with all the challenges that have happened over the last number of years and into the future?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Mental Health Bill, which is, I hope, within touching distance of Royal Assent, is absolutely crucial. It is a reform of an Act which was 41 years old; it will undoubtedly be crucial. I am grateful to many noble Lords for their participation in getting us to the right place. It will deliver on our government commitment to modernise the legislation. I hope my noble friend is aware that implementation is absolutely key, but there are rightly a number of points within the Bill—which I hope will become an Act—which will take effect only when services are in the right place. It would be wrong to do so without it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the incident at Goodmayes Hospital, and others raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, such as the tragic case of Kate Szymankiewicz after her daughter’s death at Huntercombe Hospital in 2022, all raise profound concerns about the treatment of vulnerable patients. Families have described the care that their loved ones received as cruel and more akin to the treatment of prisoners than that of patients. The Minister has spoken of guidance, regulation and new models. Given all these concerns in hospitals such as Goodmayes and Huntercombehlh, I ask the Minister: what conversations is the department having with trusts and ICBs to instil a culture where patients are treated with compassion and dignity and, where it is safe, patients have proper access to their families?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is absolutely at the core. I will just say, as an example on this particular tragic case, that NHS England still meets regularly with the trust, and the last meeting took place two weeks ago—it conducted a mid-year review. There is also a recommendation for a memorandum of understanding on investigating healthcare incidents where there is suspected criminal activity, which is something we have really got to consider. That will mean that there can be action following incidents such as this, where there is reasonable suspicion. Again, having a handle on it, monitoring it, keeping accountability and having the guidance are key to prevention as well as improvement after these terrible and tragic events.
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Reports
Baroness Merron Excerpts(3 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of learning disabilities mortality review (LeDeR) reports in improving life outcomes for people with learning disabilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to reducing the health inequalities faced by people with a learning disability and autistic people. Through our 10-year health plan, we are working to improve access to, and quality of, care, delivering holistic, place-based support. LeDeR annual reports support this aim by compiling insights from local reviews into the deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people. These insights help ICBs and providers to make improvements to care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
As the Minister will know, the learning disabilities mortality review was commissioned a decade ago, yet people with learning disabilities still die more than 20 years younger than the general population, and 42% of those deaths are avoidable—twice the rate of the general population—so it is evident that the LeDeR process is not creating the systematic changes required. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to meeting me and a small group of people to explore what new enforceable systems are required to end these tragic and unacceptable early deaths?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
These are indeed tragic deaths, and avoidable in a number of cases, as the noble Lord rightly says. I can do better than agree to meet him and his colleagues—I have already got agreement from Minister Zubir Ahmed, who is responsible for this area and will be very pleased to meet them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, will the Government commit to working further with the National Mental Capacity Forum? One of the leads that comes out in this report is a failure to implement adequately, particularly in giving support to people. Parents are often very important in providing support to a person with learning difficulties, but when that person is an adult they can feel excluded, and they are often very worried as to what will happen after they have died and the person remains alive.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes—it is quite right. We will continue to take account of and work to support parents and those they care for in the way that she describes. Certainly, I will also discuss with the Minister continuing the work with the organisation to which she refers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to slightly widen the Question, would the Minister look at the fact that anybody who has a communication problem has historically had very bad results, compared with the rest of the population, when dealing with the National Health Service? Those with a hearing impairment would be a classic example. Will the Government have a good look across the whole spectrum of those who have some form of communication difficulty and try to get those medical professionals briefed in different forms of communication for that very important interview?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I certainly accept the important points that the noble Lord is making. It is unacceptable that there are health inequalities and poorer life outcomes. Indeed, action could be taken. That is why our 10-year health plan recognises these inequalities and identifies particularly those with disabilities as a priority group for more of that holistic, ongoing support. Key to that will be the development of neighbourhood services, where such groups will be prioritised.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for shining a light on this really important issue and for repeating the stat that people with learning disabilities and autism in England die almost 20 years younger than the rest of the population. That in itself is shocking, whatever your views.
The charity Mencap has cited a number of barriers that are stopping people with learning disabilities getting good-quality healthcare. These include failures to recognise that a person with a learning disability is unwell and staff having little understanding about learning disabilities in themselves. Could the Minister update the House on what specific steps the Government are taking, and with which partners they are speaking, to address these concerns?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It bears repeating that it is shocking that people are dying on average up to 20 years earlier. As I have said, that is unacceptable. We work very closely with Mencap and other organisations, but what we are doing already is, for example, to the point that the noble Lord raised, improving identification of people with a learning disability on GP registers. In particular, a reasonable adjustment digital flag is being implemented in care records to make sure that support is appropriately tailored. In other words, if we do not know who people are and where they are, we cannot provide the support. That is an unacceptable reason.
The Lord Bishop of London
I thank the noble Lord for giving way.
My Lords, according to the learning disabilities mortality review of adults with a learning disability who died in 2023, 25.6% had a care package that did not meet their needs. We know that local authorities continue to face significant challenges to providing adult social care services. Can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to support local authorities as they respond to more complex needs to make sure that every person, including those with learning disabilities, has the correct care plan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the right reverend Prelate says—or is it the most reverend Primate?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that all this will be clarified—but I will be delighted to change my reference. Indeed, this is extremely important, which is why we have a learning disability improvement standard to support NHS trusts, why each ICB has an executive lead on a learning disability and autism and why, among other things, we are rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I was not sure who I was giving way to, but I am glad that God is on my side. Does my noble friend agree that, as part of that neighbourhood approach, two things should happen? The first is joined-up services, including good training for support workers where supported housing is concerned. Secondly, the major changes in abolishing NHS England should retain services at place level, rather than have the bureaucrats overseeing them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the points that my noble friend raises. Indeed, local provision is the responsibility of local trusts. I assure him that a huge part of our work is about improving care pathways and seeing people as a whole person. Part of the failing previously, I think, has been not to see those with learning disabilities and/or autism as whole people with a range of needs, just like anyone else, with those needs being specific to them. Certainly, moving from hospital to community under the 10-year plan will be a great assistance in that.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, everybody knows that this subject is dear to the Minister’s heart but, from my experience over many years, the workforce gets very nervous of having disabled people working with them. Employers and other people will give support, but the employees themselves have to feel comfortable with having disabled people working alongside them. Is the Minister able to do something about that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes good points and I am glad that he does so. I have just had a word with the Minister from the DWP, who has confirmed—I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome this—that the DWP is working with employers on this. I can also say that, among staff generally, over 3 million people have completed the first part of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training, which is the Government’s preferred package. I am sure—in fact, I know—that that training is making a considerable difference in meeting the point that the noble Lord raises.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, one of the problems the Minister has talked about in developing pathways is identification and data sharing. Could she be specific about the improvements that are being made within the 10-year plan to ensure that people with various learning disabilities—it is a huge umbrella term—are better identified and that that identification is shared across different health and care services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
First, the learning disability improvement standard supports trusts in setting out the guidance on safe and—I emphasise—personalised high-quality care provision as a general umbrella, but specifically the reasonable adjustment digital flag is going on to care records, which makes sure that people receive the right tailored care. For example, by improving the identification of those with a learning disability on GP registers, which I think is key, we are promoting an uptake of annual health checks, which are absolutely vital for identifying undetected conditions early. That means that there can be health action plans following these checks.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsThursday 13th November 2025
(3 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-V(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (12 Nov 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the discussion that we have had today on this group of amendments.
Let me start by turning to Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a review; it picks up on the points that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just made. I can say, as I have said on previous days in Committee, that the Government will assess the implementation of the Act. This is completely consistent with best practice for primary legislation and for measures implemented by secondary legislation; the department will, of course, publish post-implementation reviews as appropriate.
Similarly, I turn to Amendments 195 and 196 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would require the Secretary of State to publish two reviews on the operational impact of the Bill. These would need to be published when the first group of individuals impacted by the smoke-free generation policy turned 21, then 25. I hope that the noble Earl will be pleased to hear that I am glad to agree with at least the principles behind the amendments. It is crucial that the Government review the impact of any legislation—we are keen to do so—but we need adequate time for policies to be implemented and for their impact to be realised before undertaking a review. As I have said, we have discussed this matter at some length previously.
I agree with noble Lords that we must monitor the effectiveness of our policies in reducing smoking rates and narrowing health inequalities. We have good data on smoking prevalence and differences between groups through sources such as the ONS annual population survey. Also, the department actively monitors uptake and outcomes of our smoking cessation programmes through NHS England data. This allows us to adapt and target our interventions. It also demonstrates how these services can contribute significantly to reducing smoking and addressing health inequalities. We will continue to monitor this data closely as measures are brought in by the Bill. I refer the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to HMRC estimates on the size of the illicit market. These estimates are made through tobacco duty gap estimates. We will continue to monitor data on the illicit market following the introduction of new policies in this Bill.
Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would mean that large parts of the Bill, including age-of-sale and sponsorship provisions, would expire after five years. Also, to avoid the expiry of provisions, it would require the Secretary of State to consult on and lay new regulations each year, and that any regulations made under the Bill regarding packaging and displays would also expire after five years. We had a long debate on the very important matter of impact assessment earlier in Committee. I will not repeat the points that I made there.
However, as noble Lords have heard throughout this debate, smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill-health, costing our society some £21.3 billion every year in England alone. I also remind the Committee that this landmark legislation will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation. Our intention is to protect children from harm and break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage. The amendment would mean that large parts of the legislation would automatically cease after five years, and at one-year intervals following that. That could result in gaps in the law, creating legal uncertainty for businesses and consumers alike, and leading to harmful and highly addictive products becoming widely accessible.
Turning to Amendment 200, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, unfortunately I will disappoint her by repeating what I said at Second Reading—which she faithfully quoted—and which I have also said on previous days in Committee. The Government are content that measures in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland are consistent with the obligations under the Windsor Framework. On the broader sovereignty points raised by the noble Baroness, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Dodds, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I undertake to write to them about these important matters. However, we are concerned that this amendment would put us in breach of international law. Although I am repeating myself, it is important to say that the Government’s position remains that the Bill will apply across the United Kingdom. It has been developed in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also tabled Amendments 114B, 138A and 201A. While I am sure that I do not need to reiterate this to noble Lords present, I hope the Committee will forgive me for reminding us all about the harms of tobacco. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health reports that tobacco claims around 2,100 deaths per year. That is why all four nations are committed to creating a smoke-free generation, so that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. As others have done earlier in the Committee, the noble Baroness raised the point about countries having different age restrictions in respect of sale. It is the case that all countries, not just those making up the United Kingdom, have different age restrictions. As I have outlined, our aim in the Bill is to protect future generations and, specifically, to have a complete change of culture in how smoking is regarded, while breaking that cycle of disadvantage and addiction.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, again, I am aware that I am repeating myself, but it is important to do so. The Government consider that in drafting the Bill, they have considered all their domestic and international obligations. We know the tobacco industry has a history of arguing that EU law prevents the adoption of tobacco control measures. That is a very common tactic in disrupting tobacco control legislation.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the point she made about legal opinions. Legal opinions indeed abound, and I understand why noble Lords are raising them, but it is not for me to engage in discussion about their merits or otherwise.
I can confirm that we expect the Bill to complete its passage within this parliamentary Session. There has been reference to the TRIS system, and I should emphasise that it is not an approval process, but I can confirm the point about the progress of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her response. I am not sure that I got a reply on the legal aspects. This is not about how terrible smoking is in Northern Ireland; it is about whether we can have the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Minister, while being very gentle, attempted to answer some of the points about the legal situation. It is absolutely clear that we need an official government legal opinion. If we cannot even get the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to respond to a letter and say something, what is the point?
I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for reminding me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, has the position of Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. I looked up what his role is, and it says he is the chief legal adviser to the Government of the United Kingdom on Northern Ireland law, yet he seems not to want to talk about this. I genuinely find it amazing. I just hope that the Minister will take this issue back. I presume that she has seen the legal opinion by the noble John Larkin, KC—he should be noble but he is not. Has she read his legal opinion?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I have not taken a legal eye to it because I do not have a legal eye to do so. I would not wish to inflate my legal expertise in this regard; it is a matter for my colleagues to do that.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I fully understand that the Minister does not want to do that. However, I would have thought that, if the Attorney-General is telling me that I have to refer to her on this, he would at least have sent her the document.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. To reiterate what I said at the beginning, I am very pleased to write to noble Lords about the broader points being raised. I will of course attend to the points that the noble Baroness has raised.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, through these amendments my noble friend has issued a challenge to the Government which I think is extremely welcome. The challenge is to explain why the objectives the Government are seeking to achieve through Clauses 89 and 93 are achievable only via the heavy hand of prescriptive regulation rather than by less burdensome means. Is there a role for guidance as a substitute for regulation, and might there be merit in challenging manufacturers and others in the supply chain to take direct responsibility for the design of their packaging within certain parameters?
The Minister will probably say when it comes to the tobacco giants—whose ways, alas, we know from of old—that that kind of aspiration is a somewhat forlorn hope. But what if regulation, instead of being enacted willy-nilly, were used by the Government as a sword of Damocles hanging over the various arms of industry? Has anyone actually spoken to manufacturers of nicotine products or vapes to see whether they would entertain the idea of avoiding regulation by agreeing a responsibility deal with the Government whereby, in designing their packaging, they did so ethically, in a way that avoided including imagery of obvious appeal to young people, or colours and fonts that serve to glamourise the product contained inside? That idea sounds a whole lot less complicated than drafting regulations in inevitably minute detail, which could easily become quite a difficult exercise. A certain amount of commercial freedom would thereby be retained by manufacturers, along with some scope for market competition, which would be another incentive for playing by the agreed rules.
My noble friend’s amendments return us to themes we have touched on already during Committee: questions of proportionality, consultation and the need to ensure that the framework we create is both evidence-based and appropriately targeted. I am particularly supportive of Amendment 140E, which again highlights the importance of engaging with retailers and manufacturers before new provisions are introduced. It is an amendment which reminds us that we are not dealing with a single homogenous group of products. There is a wide spectrum here, from combustible cigarettes through to heated tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products, and as each of them carries a different level of relative harm, those differences should be recognised, both in consultation and in how the law ultimately treats each one of those products.
I therefore hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the intent behind these amendments, and that the Minister can set out how the Government are meeting the challenge my noble friend has issued: the need to explore whether we can achieve a set of desired ends by the least burdensome route, by proper engagement with stakeholders and by recognising the distinctions between products that the Bill has chosen—rather too often, I am afraid—to lump together.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for bringing these amendments forward, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.
I should start by providing clarification that I hope will be helpful to the Committee. The Secretary of State is already able to issue guidance in these areas. However—I particularly make this point to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who I listened to closely—here is the problem. Guidance is not enforceable, as he is aware. Instead, we would have a voluntary system that industry could choose whether to comply with. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support in the arguments I am about to make.
The reality is that industry is already able to choose to package its products in a way that does not appeal to children; it could already be doing that now. There are some companies that are to be credited for following this line of not appealing to children, but the fact is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, that we see far too many vapes marketed alongside cartoons and other imagery that can only be described as focused on young people. It is therefore appropriate and necessary for the power to make regulations to remain.
The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, referred to heated tobacco. We had an extensive debate on the tobacco products in scope, including heated tobacco, on a previous day in Committee, so I will not take up any more of the Committee’s time on that.
As for consultation, Clause 109 already requires the Secretary of State to consult before making any regulations in Part 5. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that we intend to consult on introducing restrictions on tobacco, vaping, which she spoke of, and nicotine product packaging as soon as possible next year. The consultation will be open to all, and we will listen very carefully to the views and evidence put forward by stakeholders.
Amendment 147B is also not needed. Clause 93, on non-compliant images, is intended to stop images being published of products that do not meet the packaging and product design requirements that could be specified under Clauses 89 and 90 respectively. Those clauses already allow the Secretary of State to restrict the use of imagery such as cartoons and images that would appeal to young people. There is therefore no need to amend Clause 93, on non-compliant images. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I shall return to this argument in a later group, so I will leave it at that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who tabled amendments in this group. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.
I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is unwell, and I am sure we all wish him well. On his Amendment 142, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, restrictions currently set a 2-millilitre tank size limit, and a 10-milliletre refill tank size limit for vaping products. Over recent years, manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill tanks are attached to the device itself. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords that the Bill already contains powers that allow us to regulate the nature and amount of substance that may be released into the body of a person using a relevant product, which includes vaping devices and the emissions released by such products. This includes restricting not only the nicotine in the tank but the nicotine that can be emitted in the vapour.
My next point is key to a number of points made in the helpful debate today: on 8 October we launched a call for evidence, which runs until 3 December. That, to me, is crucial in informing the development of future regulations under the Bill, which noble Lords are correctly asking for. We are seeking evidence to ensure that all nicotine-containing products have safe and appropriate levels of nicotine.
I understand the spirit in which Amendment 144, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 146, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have been tabled and the points that were made. I also heard clearly the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We agree that descriptions of flavours are part of the appeal of vapes to children. The Bill allows us to regulate flavour descriptors. However, evidence suggests that children are attracted to the fruit and sweet flavours of vapes, both in their taste and smell, as well as how they are described.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister tell me exactly where in the Bill the power to regulate flavour descriptors is to be found?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that I will be able to do that, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue in the meantime.
What we do not yet know is the long-term harms of certain ingredients or flavours. This is why we need to be able to limit the flavours themselves, with the ability to respond to emerging evidence or scientific advances in the future, as well as how flavours are described. I can refer the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the point that he raised to Clause 91, which says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—”
et cetera. I hope that will be helpful to him.
I understand the concerns that were raised about how restrictions on flavours can impact former smokers who have switched to vaping. We absolutely recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for adult smokers, and we will carefully consider restrictions to avoid any unintended consequences for those who seek to quit smoking. Our aims for future regulations on vape flavours, as well as for the wider regulations on vapes, are to reduce the appeal of vapes to young people while ensuring that they remain a viable quit aid for adult smokers. I heard the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about ensuring that the legislation is right. I am sure that all noble Lords share that view.
The published call for evidence includes flavours of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, to ensure that we are considering the best available evidence. We will also review the approaches taken by other countries, to learn the lessons and to consider whether they are appropriate for the UK. I give an assurance, as I have done before, that we will then consult on specific proposals before making regulations.
On the point about international comparisons—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a certain aspect of them—there are varied determinations on what a flavour is. For example, in the Netherlands, there is a specified list, and, in Finland, there is a restriction on all characterising flavours. That is why the call for evidence and the subsequent consultation are so important.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister refers to “characterising flavours” in Finland. That sounds to me like a descriptor, rather than anything about the composition. I know that these appear to be subtle distinctions but they are not—how something tastes and how it is described are two very different things. The question of characterisation seems to fall into the same confusion that the Government are in.
Perhaps this is an appropriate moment, so that I do not interrupt again later, to add that the confusion is evidenced by what my noble friend Lord Lansley and I have found in reviewing Clause 91; I am not very good at these things, but my noble friend is a former Secretary of State for Health and, as I have seen on many occasions since joining your Lordships’ House, a consummate legal draftsman. I suggest that the Minister’s support team does the same, because there is absolutely nothing in the clause that does what the Minister thinks it does. There is no reference to the description of flavours. There is reference to the flavour itself and to determining what the flavour is, but there is nothing about descriptors in that clause. I would have felt rather foolish tabling an amendment to the clause if the content of my amendment was already there.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps I might assist by referring noble Lords to Clause 89, which obviously precedes Clause 91 and covers descriptors. I am very happy to review the points made by noble Lords in this regard; I will of course write to them in order to provide clarity.
Earl Russell (LD)
I apologise but I, too, want to make a brief point. I welcome the fact that the Government are conducting a review and collecting evidence; that is good. I hope that those things will be used to make fundamental, good policy. However, there is a tension here because we could have a situation where flavours are appealing both to children, whom we do not want to take up vaping, and to ex-smokers, whom we do not want to go back to smoking because we have taken flavours away. What I have not heard the Minister say is that there will be an examination of price in that gathering of evidence. Doing more to raise the price of vapes, keeping them out of the territory of pocket money, is important in making sure that young children do not get access to these products. I encourage the Government to include that in their call for evidence.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords. On that last point, made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, respectfully, I feel that we have covered that area at considerable length. I understand how strongly he feels about it.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, currently, it is the MHRA that regulates vapes.
More broadly, I reiterate that I will be pleased to write to noble Lords to clarify still further what I have said. Overall, I emphasise that what noble Lords are raising in general are the exact reasons why we have a call for evidence and why we will consult. It is not the right moment to be categoric, but I take the point about noble Lords being concerned about what is permitted in the Bill. On that point, I will be very pleased to write.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I say again that my noble friend Lord Lansley and I have scanned Clause 89 as far as we can. It appears to give the power to regulate almost anything to do with the packaging of vapes other than the description of what is inside it. Brand differentiators, but not flavour differentiators, are covered—that is,
“the markings on packaging (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos)”—
but a mango is not a brand, trademark or logo. The Minister is doughtily defending the text that has been given to her, but it deserves more careful thought before Report. I am grateful that she will write.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree that it needs more careful thought, which is exactly why, rather than discussing the merits of a mango, a raspberry or any other matter, I will be pleased to look at the points about which noble Lords are concerned; I want to assist in this regard. I am grateful for the reflections of noble Lords in looking at the Bill, as I have done. However, the best thing at this stage would be to commit this to writing.
I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I cannot put it better than the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has just done in relation to the recommendations about Allen Carr’s Easyway, which has been warmly endorsed by NICE in its guidelines. This is one of the four interventions that NICE recommends. The content of those guidelines should now be underlined for NHS smoking cessation clinics, to ensure that, exactly as the noble Baroness said, there is an option for those who do not want to remain addicted to nicotine when they elect to stop smoking.
I hope that the Minister will take this amendment away with her; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising this issue. I say to him that there is probably another dimension to his amendment, if one takes literally the wording around what constitutes an appropriate level of nicotine in vapes. We have heard from the Minister that there is a power to regulate this in the Bill. However, again, we have a tension here: on the one hand, there are obvious arguments in favour of limiting the strength of nicotine in vapes that are used recreationally; on the other hand, we want vape dosages of nicotine to be strong enough to satisfy the addictive craving of someone who is hooked on smoking tobacco and who does not wish to go down the Allen Carr route. If you make the dosage too weak, the patient will simply revert to their former harmful habits.
My noble friend’s amendment is also useful in the sense that it would enable us to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to reconcile those dual objectives and the potential difficulties that face policymakers in attempting to regulate nicotine strengths. This short debate has brought us to an interesting point in the smoking cessation arguments. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing forward Amendment 147 and thank noble Lords for their reflections on this amendment.
I start by giving the reassurance that the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to continue making provisions about the amount and nature of substances that may be released into the body by vaping and nicotine products. Regulations made under this power will apply to products sold on the market and to those provided through stop smoking services. We will consult before making regulations and will consider restrictions carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking cessation, which I know is of great concern to noble Lords.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for bringing forward these amendments in Committee. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for observing that the industry has failed to self-regulate—a view that I share.
Amendments 148B, 148D and 148E seek to impose specific requirements so that regulations pertaining to the testing, study and standard of products and their ingredients take into account the potential to reduce harms, relative to smoking. I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that regulations recognise that vapes and nicotine products are less harmful than tobacco products. As we have discussed a number of times, ensuring that vapes remain an accessible smoking cessation tool has been, and absolutely continues to be, a key consideration in the development of this Bill and future regulations. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that the use of powers under Part 5 of the Bill is subject to consultation, to which the industry is of course welcome to respond.
However, the purpose of the powers in relation to product standards, testing and studies pertains to compliance with product standards and safety. As I believe the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it is critical that the public can trust that the products on the market are what they say they are and do not pose a risk to health—and that quick action can be taken if they do. I am sure the noble Lord would agree that, for example, vapes on the market must not contain faulty or illicit elements and that if they do, whether they are safer than cigarettes is not the critical issue.
Amendments 148A to 148E speak to the ongoing call for evidence that we launched in October to support the policy development of regulations to be laid under the Bill. This includes seeking evidence on elements of the new product registration scheme, as I have referred to, including on the role of the responsible person and who that responsible person might be. The future registration system will play an important part in enforcing our rules on product requirements to ensure the consumer safety that noble Lords seek, while improving retailer confidence in the products that they are selling, which is also important. We want to hear the views of respondents and consider those carefully before bringing forward more detailed policy proposals. I hope the Committee understands that I do not want to pre-empt the call for evidence and how future consultation might pan out before deciding on the right approach. We need that call for evidence to be met and for the consultation to take place.
On Amendment 149A, I understand the noble Lord’s intention. I can reassure him that any sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I mentioned, there is a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under Part 5 of the Bill. I also remind noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the Government’s stance on whether research on the harms of products is sufficiently robust. We obviously seek that robustness and continue to monitor the evidence before us. Perhaps most importantly, our commitment to research on harms is crucial. For example, the department has commissioned significant pieces of research into vaping and nicotine products through NIHR. Notably, this includes a living evidence map bringing together international evidence on vapes and nicotine products, including their health harms, trends in use and emerging evidence on cessation. However, I share his interest in ensuring that research keeps up with what we seek to achieve, and we are committed to doing so.
With that, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
That is a very helpful clarification; I am grateful to my noble friend. There is a good parallel with the Portman Group, which is recognised, as he said, in statute and has a well-understood relationship with government. That is an appropriate parallel for the Government to consider.
In the same vein, Amendment 198, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, seeks to establish an industry forum. The bringing together of Ministers, supply chain representatives and officials would ensure that policies are based on not only principle but real-world experience. I return to the theme of evidence-based policy and there is a parallel here too. As the Minister knows, there are already industry forums for pharmaceuticals and for medical technology, each of which I used to chair as a Minister. Each provides a mechanism for government and officials to engage with those who work day-to-day in the vape and nicotine industries. For the vaping and nicotine industries, it would be a very effective way of making sure that the real world was reflected in future policy-making.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moylan, for tabling these amendments, and other noble Lords for their considerations today.
Turning first to Amendments 154 and 154A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I understand the noble Lord’s intention and the comments that he and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, clarify that he is talking about co-regulation. I understand his intent, but as I have said on a number of occasions—other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have supported this—the industry has failed to self-regulate. Vapes are branded and advertised to appeal to children and rates have more than doubled in the last five years, with one in five 11 to 17 year-olds having tried vaping.
In addition to Part 5, the requirements set out in regulations are the best way to stop future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine. As I have previously said, we will consult on regulations where they are made under Part 5. The vaping industry and other bodies are welcome to respond to this consultation. We will return to advertising in more detail when we reach a later group, but despite existing restrictions on vape advertisements and the opportunities that the industry has had to self-regulate, evidence shows that vape advertising continues to appeal to young people. It is unacceptable that, in too many cases, vapes are being deliberately promoted and advertised to children.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I keep hearing that the evidence shows that the advertising is appealing to children. Can the Minister send me details of that evidence, because I cannot find it? I have seen lobbying material from organisations that do not like vaping but no evidence as such.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will of course be happy to do that for the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord’s amendment also seeks to allow a self-regulatory body to exercise functions established in regulations under Parts 5 and 6. I point out that Clause 104 already provides for legislative sub-delegation where required. It allows the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 5, to delegate functions to other people, which will allow decisions to be made by the most appropriate body. For example, it may be appropriate to delegate functions under Clause 98 on testing, so that a body with specific technical expertise—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to this—can carry out tests on products and determine whether they comply with product requirements.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I just gently correct the Minister? I did not ask why the Government adhered to their international obligations; I understand why a Government will, in general, want to adhere to their international obligations. The dilemma I raised was why the Government would continue to adhere to international obligations when the practical necessities of engaging with the industry would suggest that there is a case here for not doing so. It would be legal in domestic terms not to do so; indeed, this amendment would give sufficient warrant to anyone who doubted it would be legal not to do so. The question is, in a sense: how long will the Government go on ignoring reality because they prefer to adhere to a non-binding international obligation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the clarification from the noble Lord and am grateful for his question. In my language, it does not give us a problem to abide by these obligations; they chime with our experience, with the evidence and, as the noble Lord is aware, with all previous practice. I will come on to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about my ministerial colleagues in this regard, but this is also our government approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan—I hope that I am quoting him correctly; I know that he will correct me if not—asked about the treatment of vaping firms with tobacco industry links in respect of the consultation. When responding to the call for evidence, and with regard to any future consultations, we ask that respondents declare any direct or indirect links to, or funding received from, the tobacco industry. Input from those vaping companies that have links to the tobacco industry will be summarised with regard to the requirements of Article 5.3, and responses from those parts of the vaping industry that are independent of the tobacco industry will be considered alongside the contributions and evidence of other regulations.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the DBT Minister, Sir Chris Bryant, I can tell her that the award ceremony to which she referred followed the historic signing of the UK-India trade deal. It has previously been attended by Ministers to celebrate the small businesses that are, as we have spoken about regularly, the backbone of our high streets and are delivering economic growth. We are acutely conscious of government guidance; I assure the noble Baroness that no bilateral or brush-by meetings with representatives of the tobacco industry were held.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Did the Minister know who was sponsoring that event?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
To my knowledge, he did not. I return to the point about consultation. There is a requirement to consult before making regulations under the majority of the powers in the Bill. At the risk of repeating myself, which I will do, we published a call for evidence on 8 October. The evidence is—I am sorry for pausing, but I have a cough. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would like to take advantage of that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I will give the Minister a moment to drink a glass of water.
If I may presume to ask a pointed question, I am looking for Ministers not to say, “Well, you didn’t do it in the past, therefore you can’t be expected to do it in future”, but to have a conversation with the industry about what this new regime will be, how it will work and how we can—most effectively, with the least interference in how an industry operates and with the lowest compliance costs—arrive at something that is flexible and effective. This may mean that the industry comes together to do something that it has not done in the past, but I do not think that we should exclude the possibility that the industry is capable of doing that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that. I refer to my previous comments about Clause 104 already providing for legislative sub-delegation, although I am aware that the noble Lord has raised a broader point and drawn on the interests of the alcohol industry. I understand the point he is making. However, at the risk of repetition, our concern is very much based on our experience and the evidence of the industry. I realise that the noble Lord does not agree with that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If I may intervene, since this is Committee and we cannot interrupt each other on Report and have this conversation, the point I am making is very simple: the past is not a necessary guide to the future. The fact that the industry did not do something in the past does not mean that it is not capable of doing it effectively in the future. As the Minister knows, the department’s experience is that, in relation to the alcohol industry, the Portman Group is an effective instrument for coregulation, so we should not exclude that possibility. I acknowledge that it is not simply a question of what powers are in the Bill; it is about how one structures the regime, and that conversation should happen now.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be very happy to write further to the noble Lord, referring to the points that he raises, but I feel that he and I are at risk of repeating the same points to each other. My concern is that the industry has had much opportunity and not taken it. Indeed, it has been extremely creative—I am being polite—in working its way around legislation. Noble Lords will have heard my resistance to setting up more loopholes, and that is also for this very good reason. Although in theory I can understand the point the noble Lord is making, I am afraid that my reality does not bear it out. But I will gladly write to him. I appreciate that he is seeking to be constructive and draw on good practice elsewhere, which I understand. I thank him for the break that he gave me.
Finally, as I said, we published a call for evidence on 8 October on issues where more evidence is needed before we consult on specific proposals. That allows all stakeholders, including those relevant to Amendments 154, 154A and 198, to contribute their views. I hope that, with this, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I had plenty of opportunities to respond as we went along during the debate, so I simply take this opportunity to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 154A.
Telemedical Abortions
Baroness Merron Excerpts(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Loan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent proposals to extend access to telemedical abortions, and how they will ensure women’s safety and informed consent in the absence of in-person medical consultation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
Before I respond, I join the Lord Speaker—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—in extending our condolences sincerely to the late noble Baroness’s friends, family and loved ones. We will miss her greatly.
The Government have no plans to extend access to telemedical abortions. As with other matters of conscience, abortion is an issue on which the Government take a neutral stance. It is for Parliament to decide. The safety of women accessing abortion services is of paramount importance. All providers are required to have effective arrangements in place to ensure women’s safety and to obtain informed consent.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, before I ask my supplementary, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who was so brave and effective in all she did in this House and in her work for victims after the murder of her beloved husband, Garry. Helen had such compassion and courage, and she really was such a lovely person that she will be sorely missed, not only by her family, to whom I am sure we all send great sympathy, but by so many of us in this House and in the world beyond. We were indeed blessed by her presence among us.
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman’s privacy, to ensure that she is not being coerced, or to verify that the woman seeking the medication is actually the person who will take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking. Government stats show that, since 2020, 54,000 people have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from abortion pills. Last year alone, some 12,000—over 6% of women taking such medication—required hospital treatment. To safeguard women and girls, will the Minister take action to restore the requirement for face-to-face consultations? Will she also assure the House that there will be no extension of the time limits for access to medical abortions?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the evidence base for telemedical abortion is sound. It has been thoroughly evaluated and it is recommended as safe by the World Health Organization, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and NICE’s evidence-based guidelines. There are no plans to do what the noble Baroness has requested, and I have to say that I do not recognise the statistics she raised, although I would be interested to hear more about them. But I assure your Lordships’ House that telemedical abortion is and must be carried out in line with clinical guidelines published by the royal college.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the changes voted in to the Crime and Policing Bill in the Commons do not extend the provision of telemedicine, and that the 10-week limit remains? The introduction of telemedicine has meant that 40% of abortions now occur at less than six weeks’ gestation, in comparison to 25% previously. Does the Minister agree that the earlier that women can access abortion, the better it is for their health and well-being?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly can confirm that the changes voted into that Bill involve no change to the provision of telemedicine. To the noble Baroness’s other point, we would need to review the data, including the available data in respect of her question about health and well-being, on which I would be pleased to write to her further.
Baroness Barker (LD)
We on these Benches would like to note that the dedication of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to sticking up for victims applied no matter who was in government at the time, and that was a very laudable thing to witness in this House.
Does the Minister agree that all the peer-reviewed evidence suggests that women who are in vulnerable situations find it easier and safer to access abortion services on the phone, and that study after study has shown that professionals employed in those services are very well attuned to finding out what, if anything, is happening to the person on the end of the phone, particularly if they are under duress?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I most certainly can agree with the points the noble Baroness has rightly made. There is a very clear pathway to providing safe care. The provision of telemedicine in this regard came in in 2022, and it has given safe abortions further ballast, so it is nothing other than a safe procedure, as I mentioned earlier.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself and these Benches with the kind tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She was a fierce campaigner, particularly after the sad and premature death of her husband—in fact, her death could be seen as premature, and we will all miss her greatly.
As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, much of the clinical evidence shows that telemedicine is just as safe as administering medication in a clinic. However, whatever your views on abortion, there are clearly some concerns about the coercion of women. Can the Minister repeat her assurance to the House that telemedical abortion consultations will include robust safeguarding assessments carried out by trained clinicians? Can she assure us that, if there are any concerns about the safety of women, or that women may be being coerced by an abusive partner into seeking an abortion, they are referred to an in-person appointment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly can confirm that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for emphasising the point. Two doctors have to certify that in their opinion, the abortion meets the grounds of the Abortion Act. For a telemedical abortion, the doctor must also certify that in their opinion the pregnancy has not exceeded 10 weeks at the time when the first pill is taken. Let me also say that, if there are any concerns, the woman will be asked to attend an in-person appointment.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister ensure that, whatever the umbrella of this legislation is, it will cover women in a variety of circumstances? We all know that, unfortunately, many women live in situations where they do not have much control over their own lives. There is also, of course, the circumstance where a woman might happily find herself pregnant, only to discover a couple of months later that something else has happened and it is going to be a disaster. We need to ensure that, whatever the different circumstances that women might find themselves in, the legislation will enable them to access whatever is right for them and their families.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I do understand the point my noble friend makes. I can indeed assure your Lordships’ House that, while the Abortion Act is at the heart of this, we have other Acts of Parliament and, as I said at the outset, it is right that Parliament makes that decision. In addition to the groups my noble friend refers to, we commissioned, for example, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to develop new safeguarding guidance for children and young people under 18 who are accessing medical abortion services, so we understand her concern and are acting on it.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the extension of the regulations to enable early medical abortion to be provided without requiring in-person medical consultation was a significant change. We have heard about the tragic cases of early medical abortion pills being provided outside the law and women being put at risk as a result. We are now three years on from this change. What data has been collected in that time and what does it tell us about the workability of the new system in providing safe abortions within the law?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The data available does not point to concerns about the provision of telemedicine. I should emphasise that, of course, abortions can take place only in an NHS hospital, in a place approved by the Secretary of State, or via telemedicine at the woman’s usual place of residence. Approval has to be given by the Secretary of State, and there is inspection by the Care Quality Commission, which inspects providers. The data thus far does not flag a difficulty in respect of telemedicine. In fact, all aspects of this are saying that this ensures that this safe procedure is assisting the situation for the women concerned.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsTuesday 11th November 2025
(5 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-IV(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (11 Nov 2025)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, taken together, this group of amendments focuses on the question of how the new fixed penalty notice regime will operate in practice, how enforcement will be resourced and how local authorities will be supported in carrying out their duties under the Bill. Those are all important themes.
Amendment 74 in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister proposes a stepped approach to fixed penalty notices reflecting the number of times a person has been issued with a notice. That makes a lot of sense to me. The first time somebody commits an offence should surely be treated differently from the fourth or fifth time. I hope that enforcement officials will want to do this anyway, but such an approach would help strike a balance between giving people the benefit of the doubt—particularly as this will be, at the beginning, a complex new framework of rules—and ensuring that repeated non-compliance is dealt with properly.
That spirit of proportion and fairness also underpins Amendment 77, which would give local enforcement authorities the discretion to issue a formal warning notice to first-time offenders in lieu of a fixed penalty. I hope that the Minister will recognise the constructive intent behind both proposals.
I turn to the series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seek to ensure that the proceeds of fixed penalty notices arising from offences under Clauses 17 and 20 are used to support trading standards teams directly, rather than being absorbed into the Consolidated Fund. Like my noble friend, I can see no real reason why the proceeds of fixed penalty notices arising from those breaches should not be treated in exactly the same way as the proceeds of other fixed penalty notices or fines. Trading standards officers are at the forefront of enforcing the Bill’s provisions.
There is, perhaps, a debate to be had about whether hypothecation along those lines creates an incentive for enforcement officers not to exercise the kind of discretion favoured by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. However—I admit that this is entirely guesswork on my part; I hope the Minister can illuminate us further— I do not think we should expect the yield from fixed penalty notices to be all that great in the scheme of things. This means that the incentive for overzealousness is likely to be more theoretical than real, so on balance I can identify with my noble friend’s argument that the resources generated by enforcement officers through their activity should be reinvested to strengthen their own capacity.
Amendments 81 and 83 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would instead direct the revenue from fixed penalty notices towards local public health projects. This idea has considerable merit. There are some practical considerations because such a funding stream would, by definition, be inherently unreliable—and, in the context of a local authority budget, it would probably be very small beer—but, in any case, as the noble Baroness said, we hope that the number of penalty notices issued under this part of the Bill will start at a low level then decline even further as we go along.
Nevertheless, the noble Baroness asked an important question about how enforcement and public health objectives can be more closely aligned. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government see the relationship between enforcement activity and public health outcomes—specifically, how enforcement might be used not only to punish but to deter and to prevent the behaviours that lead to such offences in the first place. If the Minister can convincingly join the dots, as it were, I will have a better basis for assessing the merits of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 204 tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This is a welcome and sensible amendment. It highlights the central role of local authorities in delivering and enforcing the provisions of the Bill. It is no secret that local authorities are already under significant financial strain, as has been said, and yet this Bill leans heavily on them for its success. I think it is fair that they are given certainty that the additional duties and regulations imposed on them will not leave them further out of pocket. With that, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the debate we have had on this group of amendments, which address the issues relating to penalties and enforcement of the Bill. Let me start with Amendments 74 and 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to penalties. I understand the noble Lord’s interest in providing tougher deterrents for repeat offenders and in taking a proportionate approach to first-time offenders in relation to certain measures in the Bill. However, I feel that the Bill already strikes the balance in this regard and has taken this into account.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made some good points about fixed penalty notices and their literal value. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that we have focused, as we did on an early group, on supporting those who carry out their business legally and correctly, which is most people. We want to make that possible and streamlined, and we want to crack down on the illegal. This brings us to the point about how in an ideal world we would not be seeing fixed penalty notices because everyone would be playing by the rules. That is an ambition, but what I am trying to say is that it will not be a good measure if we are issuing so many fixed penalty notices without a decline. I think that is what noble Lords are saying, and I certainly share that view. I think that is a very helpful and practical point about how we see the proceeds from fixed penalty notices.
When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, local trading standards already take a proportionate approach. They choose appropriate action to achieve compliance, and in many cases this already involves the issuing of warning notices, which can be effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties. Enforcement authorities will continue to use warning notices where appropriate.
Amendment 74 would increase the values of fixed penalty notices introduced by the Bill, with the highest penalties for repeat offenders. I understand why the noble Lord is putting that forward. The Bill is introducing fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to complement our existing sanctions and to strengthen what is already available to trading standards officers. I know noble Lords are aware—I hope it is obvious, but it is worth restating—that we have been in close conversation and will continue to be so to ensure that any concerns or points that trading standards officers wish to raise in respect of the Bill are heard.
On the point about complementing existing sanctions and strengthening the toolkit that is already available, that is something that trading standards has called for, because it wants to be able to take swift action, as we all want it to, to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations. Setting the fine at £200 is believed to be proportionate and the most popular level for the penalty that came through in the 2023 consultation on creating a smoke-free generation. It is also in line with the current fixed penalty notices in Scotland and is similar to the situation in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his almost intervention on that very point. I shall try to get the tense right here. As is standard government practice, a new burdens assessment will be conducted and shared with the Local Government Association. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that the additional net cost to local authorities in England will be considered in line with the new burdens doctrine. In summary, I hope that, for the reasons I have given—
Lord Lansley (Con)
None the less, the impact assessment, which I quoted, says:
“A new burdens assessment will be completed … ahead of the Bill being introduced”.
The Bill has been introduced so, clearly, the impact assessment was incorrect in that respect. I also reiterate to the Minister the request for her to say that the Government will be willing to look not only at the costs —there is an estimate of those—but at what the revenues from fixed penalty notices turn out to be, in case there is a gap between the cost of enforcement and the revenue from fixed penalty notices. Even if they continued to receive money into the Consolidated Fund, would the Government be willing to consider making additional Exchequer grants beyond the £10 million to meet any such gap?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. We will of course keep these matters under review. I will certainly look again at the impact assessment and at the point made by the noble Lord; I would be happy to write to him further, if needed, once I have had a look at all of that. On his specific point, we will keep an eye on the revenue, but, again— I am not sure that this is exactly the point that the noble Lord made; perhaps I can provide that bit of cover—in our earlier discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, both acknowledged, as I did, that we are not seeking to get enough from fixed penalty notices to fund this. That is not our intention; in fact, we all hope that the revenue will decline as this Bill becomes increasingly successful in its impact. Let us also remember why we have this Bill: to introduce a smoke-free generation and drive down the demand for consumption. That changes the whole landscape. This is literally a generational change. So I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made today. This has obviously brought a lot of interest to this group of amendments. Let me start by turning to Amendments 106, 108, 109, 112 and 156 to 159, which have been tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The effect of this would be to remove handmade cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco from the definition of tobacco products in Parts 1, 5 and 6 of the Bill.
One of the things that the noble Earl asked about was distinguishing between products that pose, as he described them, negative health risks and those which do not. It is probably helpful, in view of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I am glad to hear his acceptance of the health arguments—that I am very clear, because this has come up throughout today: all tobacco products are harmful. Tobacco smoke from cigars and pipes leads to the same types of diseases as cigarette smoke. Like other forms of tobacco, nasal tobacco contains chemicals that can cause cancer. I will develop this further as we continue. It is right that these products can be subject to the same restrictions as other tobacco products.
I have listened to the arguments about the scale of consumption and a number of other comments. However, I want to refer to the core of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke to this and it is important we remind ourselves, although I do not wish to stray into Second Reading territory, that the core of this is about the protection of young people. It is not about stopping existing smokers, whether of cigars or any other products. It is also about creating not just a culture but a practice of a smoke-free generation so that those who born on or after 1 January 2009 will not be able to legally purchase tobacco products, whatever they may be.
I want to emphasise the broad point about creating a culture in this country whereby young people, as the years go on, do not want to smoke, and those who currently smoke want to give it up. That is the important point to which I refer a lot of noble Lords. Again, the Bill does not prevent current tobacco users buying these products. I know a number of noble Lords have spoken about their own interest and consumption. The Bill does not affect that.
However, as has been referred to, exempting some tobacco products would create loopholes; the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, spoke to this point. I should add that, while we are talking about culture and about the protection of children and young people, this is also about the message that one sends—and not creating confusion. Many noble Lords are rightly pushing me on many issues to say, “Please do not cause confusion”. I absolutely agree with that; for me, legislation should be clear and should not create confusion.
Creating loopholes could permit the tobacco industry to continue to addict future generations to harmful and addictive products. There is evidence that young people are using these products: the most recent data shows that, in 2022, 2.4% of 16 to 19 year-olds in England used cigars and 4.4% used cigarillos, or little cigars. That was in the past 30 days.
A number of key points coalesce around these issues. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, queried the claims that I made at Second Reading about cigar use among young people; I referred to the University College London study. On the statistic that I used, which concerned cigar usage increasing, we are confident that there is an observed upward trend in non-cigarette product use among younger adults. That is supported by the UCL study alongside other findings, such as from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project, which provides comparative data on tobacco use.
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn asked about HMRC’s publication of statistics on cigars. The HMRC sales data shows that sales of other tobacco products have risen in recent years, with the latest official statistics indicating an increase in tobacco duty receipts for non-cigarette products between 2023 and 2025—even as overall cigarette sales have declined.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
It is a very interesting statistic that 2.4% of 14 to 16 year-olds have tried cigars in the last 30 days. That does not sound quite right; maybe it did not come out right. I would be grateful if we could have clarification on that piece of data.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We can bandy all sorts of statistics around, but my noble friend is right that it is important to be absolutely accurate. I say to him that my reference was to sales of other tobacco products, which is a broader reference than to just cigars; I am happy to clarify that. I will also be pleased to write to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to be crystal-clear and to add anything else that I can in respect of the statistics.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, talked about the tobacco industry being incredibly—this is not a direct quote—innovative. He said that the industry is likely to adjust its business model as it has done before—for example, when the menthol flavour ban was introduced. That legislation did not cover cigars so, in response, as the noble Lord said, the industry produced cigarettes in a tobacco wrap, which are available in branded menthol packs of 10. Now, in the United States, a whole new category of small cigars has emerged to exploit the tax advantages over cigarettes, so I listen to the point that the noble Lord makes about the creativity and determination of the industry. I just ask noble Lords to hold that point in their head when we are talking about loopholes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I just say to the Minister that the tobacco industry, as normally understood and which is suspected of such nefarious innovation, is not involved in the business of hand-rolled cigars at all? The industry consists, on one end, of artisans working with their hands in Caribbean countries, and, on the other end, of small specialist shops and other distributors in the UK supplying these products to a very narrow customer base. They never go through the hands of BAT or any of the other big tobacco companies, so I think that the Minister needs to be a little more aware that the main topic of our discussion today is not one in which the tobacco industry, understood in its normal sense, has any interest.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I should clarify that I was picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I was saying that, when cigars were not included, this is what happened, as an example. I also refer noble Lords back to the point that I made some minutes ago about looking at the core of the Bill and loopholes; that was one such example.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn: I will come on to the matter of impact assessments, and I should have mentioned that earlier.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has also tabled Amendments 102, 104, 105 and 201, all of which seek to require an impact assessment be published before any provisions in the Bill relating to cigars, pipe tobacco and nasal tobacco come into force. The impact assessment would look specifically at the impact on small businesses and specialist retailers, which a number of noble Lords mentioned. An impact assessment for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill was published on 5 November 2024, and it included assessment of small and micro-businesses. The Regulatory Policy Committee published an opinion on the impact assessment and provided a rating of “fit for purpose”; this included a green rating for amendments relating to small and micro-businesses.
Going back to the point about the tobacco industry, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked whether the Government would engage with the industry to avoid such loopholes. In line with Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Government will not accept, support or endorse partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements. There will not be any voluntary arrangement with the tobacco industry, nor with any entity or person working to further its interests. To summarise, then, the answer is no, but I am grateful that the noble Lord raised this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and other noble Lords raised the fact that the impact assessment notes that the Government are aware of a limited number of small and micro tobacco product manufacturers, based in the UK, which mainly produce tobacconist products and which may be affected by the policy, including through lost profits. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, observed in her comments, any impact on retailers will be gradual over time as the number of people captured by the smoke-free generation policy increases.
I accept exactly what the impact assessment says. I know that noble Lords do not welcome that, but we have been honest and transparent.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. One point that was made was that the immediacy of the impact on retailers of cigars would come not from the generational nature of the ban but from the risk that there may be regulations requiring the packaging of handmade cigars to be altered, which would be impossible to achieve. That would have the effect of terminating their business immediately.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad to say to the noble Lord that I will come to the issue of packaging shortly.
The impact assessment showed that, as was raised in the debate, the policy has an estimated net benefit to society of over £30 billion over some 30 years, if we use 2024 prices. In addition, it is estimated that the policy will avoid over 30,000 deaths in England by 2075. I confirm that further impact assessments will be prepared in advance of secondary legislation.
Amendments 140A and 140B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, seek to require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent report into the harms of hand-rolled cigars before any further packaging restrictions can be brought forward. I venture to say to noble Lords that, in my view, the health harms of cigars are well known and well established through independent research. Independent research on the effects of cigar smoking has found that, compared with non-smokers, cigar smokers have a greater risk of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease. Even without inhalation, taking tobacco smoke into the mouth exposes the mouth, pharynx and oesophagus to toxic compounds.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Just to clarify, the aim of the Bill, as far as I understand it, is not to go through every single thing that any adult does in society and assess its harm. There may be some harm in smoking cigars, and there may well be some harm in, say, staying in this House until two in the morning voting. There might well be some harm in all sorts of things we do, but the aim of the Bill and what we are concerned about is, according to the Government, to stop young people smoking cigarettes. I am therefore confused about why any harm associated with these particular products would have any merit whatever in relation to the issues raised by noble Lords.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Bill is very focused on the smoke-free generation, but we also know that existing legislation and practice in this country are about not only encouraging people not to take up smoking but helping them to quit. That is the focus of the Bill, not every potential health harm.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and other noble Lords referenced what is included, particularly for cigars. I had to remind myself—so I am happy to remind noble Lords—that most of the current legislation on tobacco control, such as the existing age of sale, health warnings and advertising restrictions, is already in place. So the regulation of cigars is not new.
Noble Lords asked about packaging restrictions for cigars. Again, this is not a new concept. Indeed, many countries already go further than the UK and require all tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging. That includes Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, that any new restrictions will be subject to a consultation process and an accompanying impact assessment.
I move on to heated tobacco and will respond to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. There is evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco, and the aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens. There will be a risk to the health of anyone using this product.
Clause 45 gives Ministers the ability to extend the restrictions under Part 1 to cover devices that allow the tobacco products to be consumed. That allows us to adapt to any new products that enter the market and prevent loopholes. I assure noble Lords that there is a duty to consult before making any regulations under this power. As I have mentioned many times before, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Any additional requirements would be overly bureaucratic. Given the known harms of tobacco and the need to protect from any loopholes, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this group of amendments. I am especially grateful to those who managed to pick up the issues that I had to drop in order to keep to time—such as hospitality and the letter from Caribbean ambassadors to the Prime Minister.
I will respond quickly on one or two issues. The first is definitions, which are really important. That is why this group of amendments seeks to define precisely what a handmade cigar is, for instance; we recognise that loopholes could be exploited. If, when we have reflected further on what has been said today, this comes back on Report, we will look again at just how tightly the definitions can be drawn, as we accept that there is scope for mischief otherwise.
I thank the Minister for the consideration she gave in the various points that she made. I continue to be concerned about the extent to which the UCL study has some use. Even the authors of that report have acknowledged the weaknesses in the methodology that they used. This lies behind the amendments about additional impact assessments. I think I heard the Minister say that, prior to secondary legislation being brought forward, there would be additional or further impact assessments. I welcome that in principle, but one of the amendments tabled said that there should be further impact assessments before the provisions of the Bill—not the secondary legislation but the provisions of the Bill—are applied to the three nominated categories. There is still considerable uncertainty about the exact risks and impacts of these three products.
It is easy to say that all tobacco products are potentially harmful. It is equally easy to say that for all alcohol, sugar et cetera. Those types of products are potentially harmful, but the one word that I used repeatedly in speaking to these amendments, which did not come up at all in the Minister’s response, was “proportionality”. We propose a proportionate approach to the availability of certain OTPs in future.
I am grateful for all the contributions and to the Minister for her response. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in Amendment 114A, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough rightly highlighted the need for any regulations in this part of the Bill to be underpinned by evidence drawn from the real-world experience of retailers, manufacturers and consumers. It is a point very well made, and I hope that, even if the Minister has an issue about consulting tobacco manufacturers, which I expect she will say she does, she will see the good sense of consulting others in the supply chain to make sure that the regulations stand the best chance of being fit for purpose and avoid unintended adverse consequences.
My noble friend Lord Jackson focused much of his speech on heated tobacco, as did my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom just now. One of the other main concerns about regulation, which we have already touched on in an earlier debate, is the cost of the licence fee for a small business alongside the administrative burden for existing businesses to transition across to the new system. It is important that local authorities allow enough time for applications to be considered and processed and for the operational challenges faced by retailers implementing the system to be addressed. Both retailers and consumers need to be made aware of the new regulatory regime well before it goes live.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, amplified that proposal in her Amendment 114C by focusing specifically on the socioeconomic impact of the generational ban on retailers. She is absolutely right to be concerned about that, but I would like to talk about a different strand of the argument from that which she focused on.
In the consultation exercise conducted two years ago by the last Government, the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents more than 50,000 retail outlets across the UK, did not object to the generational ban as a policy. However, when the current Government published this Bill, shop owners expressed immediate concern about the powers contained in it around the licensing system. The biggest worry for them is the power given to a local authority to take a decision to refuse the granting of a licence to sell tobacco and vapes based on the density of other businesses operating in a specific area, or because of that business’s proximity to a school.
We debated this issue briefly last week, but the worry persists on what the effect of these provisions will be. First and foremost, how will this affect existing businesses? Might a well-established retailer selling tobacco and vapes suddenly find that it can no longer do so? Might a new business wishing to set up in a particular area be denied that ability? The ACS has rightly asked what the evidential framework will be for deciding that the density of outlets is too high. How will the threshold be set, and how can fairness be achieved between businesses in an urban area compared to those located in rural areas? Will small shops be treated in the same way as large shops? We simply do not have answers to those questions—and they are questions that are particularly pertinent to small, family-run businesses operating on sometimes tight margins. When will guidance be published to provide the answers? If the Minister cannot reply in detail today, I shall be very grateful if she would do so in writing between now and Report.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston has raised an important issue around the need for transitional provisions covering specialist tobacconists located in Northern Ireland. We will be debating specialist tobacconists more broadly in a later group of amendments, and I do not propose to anticipate that debate now. However, in the light of what my noble friend has said, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether she agrees that there is a strong case for what are commonly called grandfather rights for these particular specialist outlets.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to noble Lords for this group of amendments and the contributions to the debate. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and thank her for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who has tabled the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who has tabled Amendment 114C, I hope will be pleased to hear that I absolutely agree with the premise of their amendments. I have been consistent on this. It is crucial that the Government carefully consider the impact of any legislation and carry out appropriate consultation. That is why in 2023, a UK-wide consultation, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, was published on creating a smoke-free generation. It is also why this Government, as I mentioned in the earlier group, completed and published an impact assessment for the Bill, which was deemed fit for purpose by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and this included the impact that this policy will have on retailers. Indeed, that is important.
However, I can also confirm that we will consult, in compliance with our statutory obligations under this Bill, before making regulations under Part 1 implementing significant policy changes. For example, Clauses 13 and 14, relating to the in-store displays of relevant products, already contain a duty to consult, and impact assessments will be conducted for future regulations, as required. I also want to reassure noble Lords, as I have done previously, that we regularly engage with retailers and enforcement agencies, and remain committed to supporting retailers in the implementation of new requirements. We will, as requested, provide appropriate guidance to aid this transition.
The noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Sharpe, raised questions about heated tobacco being in scope. To that I say that laboratory studies show evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco. As I mentioned in the previous group, like other forms of tobacco, the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices contains carcinogenic compounds. There is very limited evidence that this is effective for smoking cessation. I am glad to hear of the interest in smoking cessation but, clearly, we have other products that are evidenced as working rather more definitely.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised points about the illicit market. Let me say to that point that history shows that when we have introduced targeted tobacco control measures, they have had a positive impact on tackling the problems of illicit tobacco. For example, when the age of sale was raised from 16 to 18 in 2007, the number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25% from 10 billion in 2005-6 to 7.5 billion in 2007-8. Most of the evidence that suggests that heated tobacco products are somehow less harmful than smoke tobacco is not independent and often comes from the manufacturers themselves.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
We have already had a group on illicit trade so I do not want to rehearse all of that. I simply wanted to say that what is happening in local communities is very different to the statistical evidence that keeps being put here. That is why I referred to the BBC investigation. In certain towns—working-class areas, basically—there is a huge problem with these products being sold openly without any authorities even intervening, which is what the BBC exposed. I am suggesting that one of the things that shopkeepers are worried about is that the generational ban is going to lead to even more of that. I know that they agree with the generational ban, but maybe the Government and the Minister might look at some of the new lived-experience evidence that is coming through at the moment in particular areas, rather than this just being a paper exercise.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing paper about the exercise that we are undertaking, but I accept her point and I have on previous groups. This is not one size fits all; the issue manifests itself in different ways. I wanted to present an overall national position, but I of course understand. That is why we are looking at regulations and why we have a call for evidence, consultations and an impact assessment, so that we do not uniformly treat all areas the same. It is important that we remind ourselves, as I have done repeatedly, that tobacco is a deadly addiction. Stopping children from starting to smoke is the easiest way to reduce smoking rates, and that is at the core of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Will the Minister give way? I am trying to be helpful. As the Minister has made some quite fair and emphatic comments about the toxicity of heated tobacco and its lack of efficacy in smoking cessation, would she be so kind as to put that in writing to me in order for members of the Committee to consider that as we go forward in the Bill?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to.
On Amendments 135A and 136A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, health is a devolved matter, as noble Lords are aware, so the implementation of retail licensing in Northern Ireland is ultimately a matter for the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. However, it is a shared view that it is important that details of our respective retail licensing schemes are informed by adequate consultation with all relevant stakeholders. That is why, in collaboration with the devolved Governments, we have launched a call for evidence that asks detailed questions about a number of matters that noble Lords have rightly raised. It is open until 3 December and asks detailed questions about the implementation of retail licensing, among other topics. I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that it asks how a retail licensing scheme can be implemented effectively. We encourage feedback on how existing businesses should be treated specifically, and I hope that responses will come forward.
I remind noble Lords that following the call for evidence there will be a consultation, so there is plenty of opportunity to consider all the important points that have been raised today. For example, we will ask whether there should be any exemptions from needing a licence and whether factors such as restrictions on the location and density of retailers should be features of the scheme. We believe it is important that such decisions are informed by expert views, and it would not be right to prejudge the evidence that we receive by putting in place different rules for one particular type of business, as the amendment suggests.
The absence of a retail licensing scheme, as I have spoken to on previous groups, represents a major gap in the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. All tobacco products are harmful, and it is right that we ensure that those selling the products are following the rules and acting responsibly. A retail licensing scheme will help to deter those who fail to do so, and I know all noble Lords are concerned to do that. With that, I hope noble Lords will be good enough not to press their amendments.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate on my amendment. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—it goes without saying that of course I support her Amendment 114C—and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. This debate and the previous group have shown that it is quite difficult to properly launch a generational ban in a monolithic way without disaggregating the different products, which are discrete products.
I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, did not actually read the amendment, because it specifically says it is not just for the benefit of retailers and manufacturers. Subsection (1)(d) specifically mentions
“any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to consult”,
which would include health bodies and charities. Subsection (2) says:
“Consultation under this section must include a call for evidence”,
which, presumably, the latter would also avail themselves of. These are wide ranging and permissive powers of consultation, and I hope she might reconsider when we come back on Report.
We have had a good debate on this issue, given that we did not have a specific heated tobacco product amendment per se. With the proviso that the Minister has given me an undertaking to provide the data on the efficacy of heated tobacco products, and a very straightforward undertaking to do more consultation on these key areas, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Artificial Intelligence: Safeguarding
Baroness Merron Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent reports by Open AI that many people have exhibited signs of suicidal ideation or other mental health emergencies while messaging a generative artificial intelligence chatbot, whether they have plans to safeguard such individuals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, safeguarding people experiencing suicidal ideation or a mental health crisis is a priority. We recognise the growing use of generative AI chatbots and the potential risks that they can pose, particularly when people seek support during moments of acute distress. Whether content is created by AI or humans, the Online Safety Act places robust duties on all in-scope services, including those deploying chatbots, to prevent users encountering illegal suicide and self-harm content.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, ChatGPT is giving British teens dangerous advice on suicide, eating disorders and substance abuse. A report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that, within two minutes, the AI platform would advise a 13 year-old how to safely cut themselves; within 40 minutes, it would list the required pills for an overdose; and, after 72 minutes, it would generate suicide notes. Can my noble friend confirm that Ofcom will treat ChatGPT and other chatbots as search engines under the Online Safety Act, and assure the House that the regulator has both the powers and the will to enforce the protection of children code when it comes to generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend describes a disturbing situation. The independent regulator, Ofcom, has made it quite clear that if an AI service searches the live internet and returns results, it will be regulated under the Online Safety Act as a search service. Ofcom can take robust enforcement action, including issuing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Team Domenica. The people who most need safeguarding from these AI chatbots are those with learning disabilities. In Brighton and Hove, we work closely with the police, who train our candidates how to be safe online. Will the Minister consider special training for police and social workers to protect this highly vulnerable and suggestible cohort?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the need for training, as the noble Baroness rightly outlines, but I would emphasise that AI chatbots are in scope of the Act, as I mentioned just now to my noble friend. What matters is the fact that they actually search the live internet. The point the noble Baroness raises is very important, and it is also about literacy in terms of using the internet, equipping individuals to try to stay safe, and safeguarding those who are more vulnerable, as she describes; training is certainly part of that.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have consulted ChatGPT on this. It calls me “dear Ruth”, and it says that when people write to it about suicide, it responds with empathy and compassion. It does not encourage suicide, and it sends a guide to human support. I do not want to make light of this or condemn it outright. On the contrary, there may be something to be said, certainly at a light level, for unhappy people consulting ChatGPT. I do not want to discourage or limit freedom of speech any further than it is already limited. There may be some help for people in ChatGPT.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a helpful challenge about how to regard AI services. Generative AI can indeed offer opportunities to enhance mental health support, and the National Health Service is looking at how we can, particularly through the NHS app, assist and support people. But such technologies must not replace trained professionals, including in crisis situations. It is about getting the right support, at the right place, at the right time—that is a delicate balance, but we should use AI for its great benefits.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from the previous question and drawing on international best practice, will the Government look at what they can do to mandate that all general-purpose AI providers implement a prominent, context-sensitive hard stop and clear immediate signposting to UK mental health services when a user’s input suggests a high-risk mental health keyword or suicidal intent?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very useful suggestion, and I will certainly raise that with my ministerial colleague at DSIT. I note that companies—admittedly, they are doing this when under pressure—are looking at introducing, for example, age assurance functionalities to ensure that users get the right experience for their age. But we should not be leaving that to chance, and we should not be leaving that to the fact that this is arising following legal challenge. I certainly look forward to looking into the point the noble Lord makes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, is there an analogy with drugs here—a potent technology which has great and positive uses in healthcare, but that can also be abused? Therefore, it must be properly regulated. Some uses must not be allowed without prior approval; some should be banned.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this can be used for good or for ill. Of course, there are other comparisons to draw. My noble friend has not said this, but I want to make sure we keep away from the idea that AI services are escaping regulation. Many AI chatbots are certainly in scope of the Act. I also take the view that AI can actually assist us greatly in supporting those at risk and in improving health. We seek to harness that as we move from analogue to digital, as per our 10-year plan.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, for bringing up this issue and for making noble Lords aware of it. With evidence that people with mental health issues are increasingly turning to AI chatbots rather than to health providers, and rather than simply relying on the stick of the Online Safety Act, can the Minister explain what conversations her department, perhaps in conjunction with DSIT, is having with AI companies and with UKAI, the trade body, so they can come together to find a solution for safeguarding? As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, have said, perhaps they could suggest how to deal with individuals in distress who go to these chatbots, to make sure they are signposted to appropriate services, rather than offered content that encourages them to take their own life.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree that this is the way we need to go, and discussions happen regularly with companies, as the noble Lord says. It is probably also worth saying that we have already seen some early signs of improvement in terms of protection for users from online harms, and over 6,000 services are implementing what we would regard as highly effective age assurance, which brings protection to millions of children. Of course, DSIT is monitoring and evaluating the Online Safety Act. Where evidence shows that further intervention is needed to protect children, we will not hesitate to act.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, digital mental health technologies with clinical purposes are classified by MHRA as medical devices. Therefore, what action can the Government take, working with MHRA and Ofcom, to ensure that these chatbots actually promote suicide prevention policies and do not act as suicide promotion sites?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The first thing is to ensure the application of the Online Safety Act, and we look to Ofcom in that regard. We will increase access to evidence-based digital interventions, to help patients access treatment in a variety of ways but also potentially to reduce unnecessary GP appointments and A&E attendances, as well as assisting people who are waiting for treatment to wait well.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, is there not a wider lesson here that many young people are turning to ChatGPT instead of calling their GP for health advice? Have the Government reviewed how they communicate different health information, particularly to the younger generation? Are they talking to the younger generation through the channels that they are using?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Sadly, I cannot say I am young myself, so I cannot testify to this, but the answer to that is yes, the department does that. I refer to the point that the noble Baroness has emphasised: over a third of five to seven year-olds are using social media in 2025, and that proportion rises as young children get older. We ignore this at our peril. I assure the noble Baroness that the Online Safety Act is providing support, as are the digital interventions that we are providing through the NHS, in particular, the improved NHS app.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-III(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2025)
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. This group of amendments deals with the details of the forthcoming retail licensing scheme.
Let me say in opening, in response to all of these amendments, that our intention in this regard is very much what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just spoke about: to support legitimate businesses that stick to the rules while deterring and being able to deal with rogue retailers. We want the scheme to minimise the burden on retailers and local authorities as far as is possible—again, a point that was rightly made by a number of noble Lords.
Let me first turn to Amendment 30, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I hope I can reassure her that the Government are carefully considering the design and implementation of the licensing scheme. In respect of her opening comments, we look forward to continuing to work with the Association of Convenience Stores and other important and relevant groups. Considering the design and implementation of the scheme will include the interaction with alcohol licensing.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we are working closely with the Department for Business and Trade as well as the Home Office. However, as she recognised, ultimately, our objectives and motivations are different; they may be complementary, but they are different. For example, on alcohol licensing, the focus is on supporting resilience and growth of on-trade venues that provide safe and regulated spaces for people to socialise. With tobacco and vape licensing, as I said, it is about ensuring that we support those who abide by the rules and act as a deterrent to those who do not. Of course, we have a public health objective.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about pressures on enforcement, which is a very reasonable question. Local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee they collect from retailers to cover the cost of running and enforcing the licensing scheme. That will assist local authorities and will ensure that the scheme is implemented and sustainable. I believe the noble Baroness also asked if there would be enough time for training and development. Again, that will be part of our discussions that will follow from the call for evidence and the consultation after that, which I will come to very soon.
I want to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made about looking to other nations. We are aware of several international examples where this has been very successful, including some cities in the United States, Finland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain and Australia. We have much to call on and will absolutely be considering what works best in the development of our own scheme.
Noble Lords will recall from earlier discussions that we have recently launched a call for evidence, which closes on 3 December. That is on a whole range of issues, including questions about the process for granting licences and implementation more generally. That will inform a subsequent consultation on the detail of the scheme. The points being raised today are all important and they will be considered through both those actions.
I turn now to Amendments 35 and 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amendment 35 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State requiring licensing authorities to consider the location and/or density of tobacco and vape retailers when they make decisions on the granting of licences. The call for evidence asks for feedback on how licensing authorities should make decisions and whether and how much factors such as the ones the noble Lord rightly raised, location and density, should have a role. However—I am sure many noble Lords would agree with this—there are certain places where it would obviously be inappropriate for a tobacco or vape shop to be located. For example, I have not heard a call for vape shops to open next door to children’s nurseries, so there are some obvious points. As our aim is to stop children and young people smoking and vaping, it is absolutely right that we consider factors that might have a role, such as the location and density of retailers. I am very much looking forward to the feedback on this through our call for evidence.
Amendment 42 would require the Government to consider the benefits of combining tobacco and alcohol licensing into a joint scheme. I certainly understand the noble Lord’s very good intention to learn from existing licensing schemes and to avoid unnecessary burdens on retailers—something I have already associated myself with. We recognise that alcohol licensing is established and familiar to a lot of businesses, and that we can learn from alcohol licensing when designing the new scheme. That is why the call for evidence includes detailed questions on the design, and why we have to consult. It is the right thing to do, but it will also meet the intentions of the amendments before us. This process will allow us to consider where we can make use of existing systems and practices, as noble Lords have called on us to do. We share the view that the minimisation of additional costs and burdens, as far as possible, is the right thing to do, while ensuring that the new licensing scheme achieves our aims on tobacco and vapes.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he said that the current lack of a licensing system for tobacco is a major gap in enforcement. Therefore, I am glad that the introduction of this new retail licensing scheme is strongly supported by retailers and the public alike. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a debate on this small group of amendments. I am also grateful for the support from my noble friend Lord Bourne. I took great comfort from the fact that this has been achieved in other countries, so we can perhaps follow their good practice. I also thank my noble friend Lord Howe.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, misunderstood what I am trying to achieve here. I am trying to set out similar grandfather rights to those awarded in the implementation of the original alcohol licensing Act, as applied in 2005. These rights would allow those businesses already selling the products to continue selling them, but under a process I have set out. I hope that is something she might support going forward.
This is intended as a probing amendment, and my noble friend Lord Howe made the point that we are looking for fairness, proportionality and practicality. I hope that will be a red line running through this process. I hope we can return to this at a later stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for all of the contributions on this much debated set of amendments. I understand the concerns that have been raised.
I begin with Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Let me turn first to the health arguments that have been put forward. We know that cigarette filters have historically been marketed incorrectly as making smoking safer, and that smokers perceive cigarettes with a filter as being more enjoyable and of lower risk. These points were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Patel, Lord Bourne and Lord Crisp. However, as with all regulations—I know that noble Lords will understand this—it is important that any measures are based on evidence, are fully considered and do not create unintended consequences. Obviously, that will be a theme throughout the Bill, particularly as we discuss these groups of amendments.
We acknowledge that there is some limited evidence on the health harms of filters, but we are not currently aware of any clear evidence—that is what is not in place—to show that a ban on filters would lead to a reduction in smoking rates; of course, that is the focus of this Bill. When it comes to encouraging existing smokers to quit—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly highlighted this area—we are prioritising investing in local stop smoking services, delivering smoking cessation campaigns, delivering access to nicotine replacement therapy and introducing positive, quit-themed pack inserts. I was glad to hear support for such measures from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On that point, I want to refer to effectiveness, particularly as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made the point that such inserts might simply be discarded. The modelling suggests that, in terms of increased effectiveness because of themed pack inserts, there would be 150,000 additional attempts at quitting. Over two years, this would result in 30,000 successful quitting scenarios, which would reduce the incidence of smoking—exactly what we are focusing on.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the concern that filters allow for flavoured crushballs to be added. I hope that it is helpful for me to say to your Lordships’ Committee that this Bill gives the Government the power to regulate flavoured tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, as well as any product that is intended to be used to impart flavour; this could include flavoured accessories, such as filters.
I turn now to the environmental concerns raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley. It is the case that cigarette butts are the most littered item in the UK. They are a blight on our streets and our communities. They take a long time to degrade, and they leach toxic compounds into the environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the role of local authorities and the pressure on them because of this littering; again, I certainly take her point. Local authorities have a range of powers to tackle littering, including fixed-penalty notices for some £500. I also see the challenge that the littering of cigarette butts presents to local authorities.
However, ultimately, the most effective thing we can do to tackle tobacco litter as well as protect people’s health is, clearly, to reduce the prevalence of smoking. It is worth referring to the powers available to Defra, which would enable the Government to limit the damage to the environment caused by filters. Although we do not plan to take action in the short term, I assure noble Lords that we will certainly continue to monitor the evidence and keep this under review.
On Amendment 34, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence at present that banning plastic filters will lead to better environmental outcomes, although I absolutely understand the wish for this. Evidence suggests that filters labelled as biodegradable or plastic-free, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, can still take a very long time to degrade in the natural environment and leach harmful chemicals. Studies have also shown that people who believe that cigarette butts are biodegradable are more likely to litter them. We are therefore concerned that a ban on plastic filters could have unintended consequences and undermine attempts to reduce littering, if people incorrectly believe that plastic-free filters somehow do not damage the environment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Before the Minister moves on, can I ask a question that I asked earlier? If she recognises that 75% of smokers think that filters reduce the risk—indeed, they may increase it—does she not think the Government should be doing something to counter that belief, perhaps more actively than they are doing at the moment?
Earl Russell (LD)
Before the Minister rises, I welcome the response to this amendment, but the point is that most people still litter their fag butts in any case and believe that they are already biodegradable, so I press the Government to take further action in this area.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the issue is about depth of evidence and how action, if it is to be taken, gets the right result. I went over the unintended consequences several times for my own benefit and I can see the potential for this not producing what we want. I take his point, but it is about how, when and what the evidence and the effects are. That is why it is not possible to accept the amendment.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said about the 75%. I am not in a position to comment on that, but I refer back to what I said—it is about getting the right evidence. The challenge in this group of amendments is that the evidence is not complete and taking us to the right place, but we will certainly keep this under review. I say that in respect of some of the other amendments too. Noble Lords will be aware that there are various powers in the Bill that allow changes to be made as things develop.
Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, would add cigarette filters to the scope of Parts 5 and 6. Those parts apply to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. Those products have been included in the scope of the Bill as they cause harm in and of themselves. “Tobacco related devices” are also included in the scope of Part 5, so that we have the ability to regulate them in a similar way to vape devices. We are not convinced that the position with filters is the same.
While we agree that filters should not be advertised in a way that promotes smoking, which is partly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the Bill’s ban on advertising and sponsorship already covers any advertisement with the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product, restating existing provisions. The Advertising Standards Authority has rules on filters which state that marketing communications for filters should not encourage people to start smoking or to increase their consumption.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I asked how long the Government think they will need for evidence from Australia and Canada before they will be in a position to judge whether those health warnings have been effective. Can the Minister answer that either now or in writing? Secondly, do the Government have any evidence on what wording is most effective for health warnings? Once again, the answer could be in writing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will gladly add to the brief points that I am going to make to the noble Lord. I was just about to turn to international comparisons. Sometimes, I feel the answer is “How long is a piece of string?” However, quite seriously, we constantly keep international comparisons under review because we are keen to learn and see. The challenge, which I will come on to, is to draw exact comparisons, for a range of reasons, including on what we are already doing.
On the point about international comparisons, it is important that we recognise that the UK already has some of the most stringent regulations in the world on tobacco packaging, which already emphasise health harms. This includes the requirement for plain packaging and graphic picture warnings on the outside of cigarette packets. As I have already referred to and noble Lords have discussed, we have announced that we will be introducing pack inserts to cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I understand the motivation for these amendments, but we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time. We will continue to monitor the evidence.
We are implementing many of the recommendations of the Khan review. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. For example, we are majoring on the smoke-free generation policy, which is a major shift. Not only are we implementing many of these recommendations but we continue to keep them under review.
My noble friend Lady Ramsey asked about targets. Again, they will be kept under review. Unsurprisingly, our real target is delivering the Bill and designing the regulations so that they work. Some of this is also about where we can make the greatest impact in the quickest way, which is why we are focusing on the inserts rather than looking for additional things to do at this stage.
I hope that this is of some interest and reassurance to noble Lords and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this rich, full and powerful debate. The political breadth around this Committee showing concern and calling for more government action is notable. I thank the Minister for her contribution and her full answers.
I specifically want to address the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about so-called biodegradable filters. I understand why the noble Earl thought the figures for these and plastic filters sounded similar; that is because the figures are similar. I can quote to the noble Earl an article on this area from Waste Management in 2018 titled, “Comparison of cellulose vs. plastic cigarette filter decomposition under distinct disposal environments”. That basically comes up with plastic filters taking 7.5 to 14 years to disappear and biodegradable ones taking 2.3 to 13 years, so the figures are similar. The Government are drawing on similar figures.
The Minister said both types are harmful to the environment and the natural world. There I will point to a study published in Environmental Pollution in 2020 titled, “Smoked cigarette butt leachate impacts survival and behaviour of freshwater invertebrates”. I have now referenced all the evidence in that space that the noble Earl might like to go away and look at.
This has been a hugely rich debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for giving us the irony story of the day about tobacco companies being concerned about toxic ink on their products. I think we probably should have a cartoonist in the Room at this point. We have had a great deal of consensus across the Committee about the need for action; the one stand-out different position was taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, I do not share her concern about the welfare of cigarette manufacturers or the purity of their product design. Like the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Bourne, I think public health should be a matter of government policy, and I am delighted to have signed the noble Lord’s amendment in the planning Bill later so we will be back together on that one.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, who very bravely brought before us two family tragedies to illustrate that, in the end, we are talking here about human lives, people’s parents, people’s children and the suffering that comes from the merchants of death. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, brought his medical expertise, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, cited an important academic study that I hope the Minister will take a good look at in terms of action.
The response from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Young, was that the Government could regulate. I am afraid that what we would like to hear and what these amendments are seeking is for the Government to take action. I suggest that “could” is not good enough in these circumstances. It is worth saying that we are not talking about an either/or here. I am sure everyone very much welcomes the smoking cessation efforts that the Minister referred to, but people will continue to smoke, and we want to reduce the health and environmental harms that result.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Young, made an important point about cigarettes being close to your eyes and the small print. I point out that most of the people we are targeting here are young people who will not, as I do, have to get the bifocals at exactly the right line to be able to read seven-point print. I think that covers all that has been said here.
One thing I will add is that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to my amendment and others as probing amendments. I am afraid that is not my intention. I am obviously going to withdraw the amendment now, but I have full intentions of bringing it back. I hope the Minister might be open to discussions beforehand. In your Lordships’ House we have medical experts and people with real expertise, and we might be able to tease out some of the issues raised today in terms of the health damage being done by filters. What would it be like if we got rid of filters?
My final point, in responding to the Minister, is about the limited evidence of the harm of filters. We have strong evidence, established over decades, that there is no health benefit from filters. In the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, we are seeking to follow the leadership of Australia and Canada in putting markings on individual cigarettes, but perhaps we could be the leaders in banning filters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, before turning to the amendment in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Howe. They propose the establishment of a new licensing scheme for the distribution of tobacco, vape and nicotine products in addition to the retail licensing scheme already provided for under the Bill.
While I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I am sure it will come as no surprise that we have some concerns. My noble friend Lord Howe and I have already shared concerns about the impact of the regulatory framework of this Bill and the burden it will place on legitimate businesses, especially small retailers and distributors, which are already subject to extensive compliance requirements under existing law, and which will be beset with further regulation under the proposals outlined in the Bill.
However, we understand the underlying concerns behind these amendments about the illicit market, so we believe that they are helpful in probing the Government to understand where they believe there are enforcement gaps and whether they have evidence of gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level of the supply chain. I am, therefore, grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Our understanding is that there are concerns over enforcement in relation to illegal imports at the customs level and illicit point-of-sale activity. These amendments give noble Lords an opportunity to ask the Minister where the Government believe the enforcement gaps are, and whether they currently exist.
In addition, if the Government have identified these gaps in enforcement at the wholesale level, do they believe that they could be best tackled by having a new, separate distributor licensing scheme, or do they share concerns over creating a second, parallel system operating alongside the retail one? My noble friend Earl Howe and I are concerned that such duplication risks adding unnecessary administrative complexity for local authorities, trading standards and legitimate operators alike. We also have concerns over how these two systems would interact, and whether businesses operating both wholesale and retail functions would be required to hold multiple licences and pay multiple fees. We are interested in the views of the Minister about our concerns.
Amendment 190, in my name and that of my noble friend Earl Howe, would require the Government to prepare and publish a national illicit tobacco and vape enforcement strategy within one year of the passing of this Act. This is a probing amendment—we have suggested one year; it could be slightly longer or shorter. We believe that this is a practical proposal which chimes with the intentions and ambitions of the Government on this Bill. Indeed, it is a concern that has been raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. All noble Lords are concerned about illicit sales of tobacco and vapes, wherever we sit in this Room.
While we entirely share my noble friend Lord Bethell’s concern about the rise in illicit trade, we believe that the Government need a far more comprehensive view of how products enter, move through and are sold within the United Kingdom. They must develop an overall strategy to cover the stages of the supply chain from the point of import to transportation within the UK and, ultimately, to the sale of these products on our streets and online. In short, we need a coherent and strategic plan of enforcement that gives an overview, rather than one which tries to attack certain bits. Once we have the overview, we can look at where the gaps in enforcement exist and seek to plugs those gaps.
The trade in illicit tobacco and vape products is a serious and growing concern. We have heard throughout Committee that the introduction of a generational ban and other prohibitions in this Bill may, if not properly managed, risk pushing more activity underground into the illegal market. No noble Lord wants this to happen. No one benefits from a thriving illegal market but criminals and those that seek to circumvent the law. It undermines legitimate businesses, deprives the Exchequer of revenue and exposes consumers—often young people—to unregulated and potentially dangerous products.
That is why we believe it is essential for the Government to set out clearly how they intend to meet this challenge, and to explain who will lead, how the agencies will co-ordinate, what resources will be allocated and how success will be measured. We have attempted to be careful and sensitive in drafting this amendment; it does not demand an immediate response but sets out a reasonable and deliberate timetable. It gives one year, or perhaps a bit more, for the Government to prepare, consult on and publish a coherent strategy. That would give Ministers the time to review the evidence, engage with enforcement agencies and draw together the different strands of policy that are already being developed across departments.
If this Bill is to succeed in its wider aims, it must also be accompanied by a credible and co-ordinated plan to tackle the illicit market that so often undermines those very goals. This probing amendment simply seeks to understand how the Government intend to develop a strategy to tackle the illicit market, and whether they intend to take an overall and strategic view.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions in this debate and for these amendments, which rightly highlight the need to take a systematic approach to the illicit market. Having said that, we do not believe them to be necessary; I will gladly set out the reasons why in my remarks.
First, I am grateful for Amendments 39 to 41, 53, 54, 58 to 62, 123 to 125, 133 to 138, 206 to 208 and 212 from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am sympathetic to the aims contained in these amendments; the Government certainly share the aim of strengthening enforcement throughout the supply chain and ensuring that only legal products are on the UK market. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill provides powers for the Government to implement a licensing scheme for tobacco and vape retailers. The focus on retailers is to ensure that illicit products do not reach members of the public where they pose a risk to public health. The retail licensing scheme will enable conditions to be imposed on retailers as part of the terms for obtaining a licence. We expect all retailers to comply with the law and not sell illicit products; doing so will risk their licence being revoked.
In addition to the licensing scheme, the Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to develop a new registration scheme for the products covered by the Bill. This will require all tobacco, vape and nicotine products to be registered before they can enter the market, meaning that wholesalers will be unable to supply illicit products to retailers as only compliant products should be available. The powers provided by the Bill also allow for the testing of products to ensure that they are what they claim to be. This will make it easier for enforcement officers to identify illicit products and to clamp down on both those who do not register products and those who seek to mislead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about spice vapes. I have a couple of points to make here. Vapes containing controlled drugs, including spice, are obviously illegal; naturally, this is a matter for the police and Border Force. I am sure that it will be understood that the regulation of controlled drugs is not a matter for this Bill. However, the measures in it will create a simpler and clearer regulatory environment, which will assist enforcement agencies in identifying and taking action against non-compliant vapes. Border Force is taking action to detect and seize supplies of vapes laced with drugs at the border and is following law enforcement to dismantle the criminal gangs that attempt to smuggle illicit commodities into the UK. It is of course worth noting that the import, production or supply of a class B drug such as spice carries a maximum sentence of up to 14 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.
As well as the new measures in the Bill, there are already policies in place to manage products through the supply chain. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked questions and made important points about the role of HMRC. For tobacco, HMRC already operates the tobacco “track and trace” system, which tracks the movement of all tobacco products, whether manufactured in or imported into the UK, through the supply chain all the way up to retail.
Also, the vaping products duty will come into force on 1 October next year, taxing vaping liquids at 22p per millilitre. To support the implementation of the duty, HMRC is introducing a range of measures, such as a duty stamps scheme to support the identification of non-duty-paid products, as well as investment in more than 300 additional enforcement officers. Vaping duty stamps will be in a hybrid digital and physical format, which will allow product tracing and authentication. Together, these schemes will better support a compliant market and weed out illicit products, as we all seek to do.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 190, which seeks to publish a strategy to deal with illicit tobacco and vapes. I understand the concerns that have been raised regarding illicit sales, but this amendment is unnecessary given that the Government already publish a strategy on illicit tobacco sales.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Baroness Merron ExcerptsThursday 30th October 2025
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-II(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (30 Oct 2025)
Earl Howe (Con)
It certainly could be—it sounds a very interesting way forward. I did not take it that the noble Earl was suggesting introducing a levy as a substitute for tobacco duty but as an addition to it, so, in the nature of things, if this were accepted, that is the mix we would get.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.
Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.
I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.
I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.
Moving on to Amendment 12—
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Houdini would be jealous of the way the Minister ingeniously escaped the trap I set for her earlier, as she tried to reconcile her previous position with what she is now saying. But does she accept that the amendment does not at all ask the Government to introduce a levy? It says:
“The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability”.
That would enable the Government, and indeed others, to look at some of the issues that the Minister has raised. The 2014 exercise she referred to consulted on a totally different levy, which would have been passed on to the consumer. The difference between the “polluter pays” principle as we propose it and the one that she proposes is that in the case we prefer, it would be the tobacco manufacturers that would pay, whereas relying on the duty, as the Minister seems to, means that the consumer pays.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree that Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, would require the Government to consult on introducing a tobacco industry levy, but, as a former Minister himself, he will be aware of the use of consultation. It remains the case that we believe that the most effective model of dealing with tobacco products is through increases in tobacco duty, so it would not be logical to accept an amendment that requires a consultation on something the Government do not wish to pursue. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Government to make regulations to introduce a tobacco industry levy.
Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to publish quarterly data relating to the sale of tobacco products across England and Wales. Similarly, Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require regulations made under Clause 95 to require the provision of certain information, including sales data from producers or importers of relevant products. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke in support of these amendments.
This is perhaps an opportunity to refer back to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I heard her concerns about what I said on day one. This is not a question of labelling an industry in any way, but we take very seriously our obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I and the Government are very sympathetic to attempts to increase and improve the transparency of the tobacco industry.
I certainly agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We know that deprived areas are more likely to have lower life expectancy and higher smoking rates. That is why we particularly need to press forward with this legislation. It is also why we routinely and proactively publish correspondence received from and sent to the tobacco industry, and have produced guidance for the Government on engagement with the tobacco industry, which protects health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry and encourages transparency in all interactions.
Lord Scriven (LD)
That is an important point. When will the consultation end? Will we have its results before we are asked to give this Bill its Third Reading?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will gladly come back to the points that the noble Lord has just made, if he will allow me. In the meantime, there is no doubt as to the intention and ambition of each of the amendments before us, but it is the Government’s view that they either are unnecessary, due to existing powers, or would risk introducing complexity and unintended consequences; they would not do the job that I know we all want them to do. Once again, I assure noble Lords that we remain committed to reducing smoking, to improving public health and to ensuring transparency around the tobacco industry’s activities.
In so doing—this is perhaps the overall point of this group—I can say that the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is 3 December 2025 on which we can set that date for the call for evidence to close. What I am trying to say to noble Lords is that that is very soon. In answer to the noble Lord’s concerns about how long these things might take—
Lord Scriven (LD)
My question to the Minister was slightly different. It was not about when the consultation will close. It was about whether we would have the results and the Government’s view before Third Reading. That is the critical question—not, “When will the consultation close?”
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord will be glad to know that I am reminded of what I should know already: matters in relation to the dates for Third Reading are matters for business managers. It will also depend on how much progress we make.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I ask for a brief clarification. Is the Minister claiming that Amendment 12 is not necessary because she will accept Amendment 148?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
No, that is not the case. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this group is about the polluter paying and responsibility across a wide range of areas. On Amendment 12, on the practice of disclosing sales data, it is already in place in the United States—full data to the Government and partial to public sources. It is also the practice in Canada, so there is precedent for that. It is not seen as an unreasonable burden, but it is a useful public health tool. It is important to know, for public health reasons, which I and others have outlined, where sales are high.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to growth. She might want to consider the economic and growth consequences of the ill-health costs to individuals, families and the NHS and the death that results for so many consumers of tobacco products, then factor that in when she is looking at growth in the United Kingdom. Tobacco kills, which she rightly referred to. I do not need to refer her to the cancer registries—that is self-evident. It is therefore appropriate that we address this. As a former student of Marx, as she identifies herself, she will be very familiar with the notion of exploitation, particularly of the poor and already disadvantaged, to which I have referred, and the difference at the moment in outcomes between groups in terms of equality.
This is an important area. We are seeking to strengthen the Government’s arm, as is always the case when you move from “may” to “must”. We look forward to further discussions with the Minister on how best we do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments exploring the part of the Bill that relates to the sale of vaping products. I will make a general point to start with, which may be helpful as it has come up a number of times in the debate. It is true to say that vapes are less harmful than smoking because they do not contain tobacco and have fewer harmful chemicals. However, because there is a nicotine content and there are unknown long-term harms, there is a risk of harm and addiction that comes with vaping. That is particularly acute for adolescents whose brains are still developing.
There is a careful balance to be struck in taking action against youth vaping, by which I mean children and young people, while ensuring that vapes absolutely remain accessible to adults who are seeking to quit. Noble Lords will have heard me refer before to the Chief Medical Officer, who is clear that if you smoke, vaping will be a better option; but if you do not smoke, do not vape. It could not be clearer.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s response. However, she said that my amendment would make vaping significantly more expensive than smoking but I want to fundamentally challenge that. That is not the case. The £25 would be a one-time deal; after that, you would save every time you refilled your vape. You would just spend £25 once in your lifetime. That is not making vaping more expensive than smoking in any way at all.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the clarification that the noble Earl has made. If that is the case, though, I have to say that that would send a complex pricing message to people, and we are not seeking to add complexity to where we are going. I am not sure I agree with the analysis but I am happy to look at the point that he is making.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the noble Earl that we are already acting to pick up the point that he rightly raised and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was keen to emphasise, which is to ensure that vapes are not sold for pocket-money prices. Indeed, the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty from 1 October 2026. That will set out a single flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres on all vaping liquids, and it will be accompanied by a simultaneous one-off increase in the rate for tobacco duties.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points about the environmental damage done by vapes. I will be pleased to hear and respond to the debate in the next group about single-use vaping.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about vapes being prescribed as a quit aid. We have a world-first scheme here, Swap to Stop, to help adults to ditch cigarettes as part of a 12-week programme of support, as I highlighted earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would prohibit businesses from providing free samples of tobacco and vaping products. The noble Baroness said herself that Clause 15 already bans the free distribution of any product or coupon that has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers, and that includes free samples. It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could have been legally handed out for free, and I am glad to say that the Bill closes that loophole. Clause 15 also states that products cannot be sold at a substantial discount, which will ensure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point where the price is no longer such a relevant factor for a prospective purchaser. So the noble Baroness is quite right to seek to close that loophole, and I am grateful to her for raising the issue, but I can confirm that the Bill already achieves her intention.
Earl Howe (Con)
To pick up on that, I ask the Minister to clarify the issue that was left slightly in the air earlier about the derivation of nicotine. While nicotine can be synthetically produced, it is derived from tobacco, but the point made by definition in the Bill is that a vaping product is a distinct product from a tobacco product. So the advertisement seen by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which I agree is highly regrettable, may be accurate in saying that the product is derived from tobacco but is not a tobacco product. Is that correct?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I fear to tread here—I will be brief. The Bill distinguishes between tobacco products, nicotine products and vaping products. They are separate products. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: vapes are not risk-free, although they are less harmful than smoking. They do not involve burning tobacco, which releases tar and carbon monoxide. However, I must say, having heard the range of debate, I feel that it would be very helpful for me to write to noble Lords with further clarity on these points.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I look forward to doing so.
I turn to Amendment 16, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It seeks to probe the reasoning behind the age of sale for vapes and nicotine products set out in Clause 10, as well as why this differs from the proposed new voting age. The Bill restates the existing age of sale of 18 for nicotine vaping products; it also extends this restriction on the age of sale to nicotine products and non-nicotine vaping products, to which no age restrictions currently apply.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the age of sale for these products and the voting age serve completely different purposes. The age of sale for vaping and nicotine products aims to prevent children and young people becoming addicted to harmful products at a very young age. The risks of harm and addiction from vaping and nicotine products are, as I mentioned earlier, particularly acute for adolescents, whose brains are still developing, so an age of sale of 18 is proportionate to the risks posed.
The age of sale of 18 is indeed distinct from extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. In the latter case, which we have yet to debate in the House and the other place, extending the right to vote allows them to have a say in shaping their future and engaging in our democracy. We are looking at completely different criteria. The Government have set out their plans to bring forward their legislation on electoral reform, and I am sure noble Lords look forward to debating those proposals in due course. For all these reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I probe a little on the noble Baroness’s response to my Amendment 18? On the one hand, she seemed to take a hard and unrelenting line on vending machines, particularly in enclosed mental health premises. On the other, the noble Baroness said towards the end that she was still working on it, and I wondered to what extent one could look for hope. I am sure the noble Baroness said that she was still working on these issues. I appreciate that she has consulted the National Health Service, but I think she probably means NHS England, a vast organisation at some distance removed from patient contact. In fact, it has no patient contact at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that representations have been made by a certain number of mental health trusts on just this issue. Their views need to be considered, because they are very much closer to real life. May we hope that the Minister will come back at a later stage with something that modifies the severity and comprehensiveness of the ban that is, as she says, in a Bill that we are here to change?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to check exactly what I said but, to be clear, we are not continuing discussions about vapes in hospital and mental health settings, in respect of vending machines. As I said, that is in the Bill. I hope I was making the point that discussions are continuing in respect of vape-free places, and that will be a matter for regulations. I assure the noble Lord that NHS England was in full consultation with the relevant parts of the services. It does provide services and it is the right organisation. As the noble Lord knows, we are bringing NHSE into the department in any case in the future. I am sure he will welcome that, as I certainly do.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I thank the variety of noble Lords who spoke. There has been some clarity: it might not be clarity that I am happy with, but we heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say that his aspiration is a nicotine-free generation, not just a tobacco-free one. There has been some confusion about the conflation of tobacco and nicotine. The Bill, at least, makes a distinction between those things. It is possible that the Minister—and every other Lord who wanted to get rid of that distinction—wants to challenge the nature of the very core of the Bill, but I assure them that the Bill makes that distinction. If that is not true, it would be interesting to hear what has happened there.
Also, medical scientific discussion on this makes the distinction very clearly and endlessly, particularly, by the way, by oncologists. Those who work with people who have developed cancers from smoking are very enthusiastically promoting nicotine products. As I understood it—as I was assured at Second Reading by the Government and noticed in other communications —we should not be fearful that vaping was a target of prohibition from the Bill. But the more the conversation goes on, and the more it is treated the same, then that is the direction of travel. I would still argue that when one says that the evidence is not in on whether something is helpful, it is not a scientific way of approaching it. The evidence is not in on a wide range of things that are happening in the world. It is evidence that we base evidence-based policies on, not the lack of it.
In the discussion on young people, we ended up discussing whether we are protecting children in a variety of the amendments, through to 20 and 30-somethings in a nightclub who should not be let near a vending machine with vapes in it. My point was not that they would be recreationally vaping because they would be having a good time and therefore it was very dangerous. Although, I have to say that having a good time in a nightclub is not yet, I think, illegal. Having a drink and a cigarette outside a nightclub is, as yet, not illegal—although it might well be by the end of the Bill. The point about vaping was that young people having a good time will often have a social cigarette, and the vaping vending machine might encourage them to do something less harmful. That was my point, rather than me trying to get them all vaping or forcing them to vape.
The conflation of children and young adults needs to be sorted out. In that sense, although I am sure I did not do remotely as good a job of moving Amendment 16 as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have, we need to be clear that voting in elections is not a technical matter; it is philosophically about saying that someone is an autonomous adult. Therefore, we have a conflict in who we consider children and adults when it comes to health.
I finish by saying I am genuinely, totally disappointed by the attitude to mental health provision and vending machines. Many mental health charities are concerned about this. The age-gating issue is not an issue in mental health hospitals. This idea that there will be hordes of children wandering around accessing vapes from a vending machine—it just seems cruel and inhumane. I do not understand why that exception would not be made. It is true that mental health charities and family groups have suggested that having the odd vending machine in a hospital where people are restricted from leaving would be helpful. It would be kind and compassionate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, shines a spotlight on a fascinating question: when is a reusable vape not a reusable vape? The ban on single-use vapes came into force on 1 June this year, as we have heard. Single-use or disposable vapes are clearly defined in the guidance: they are vapes which are not designed or not intended to be reused. For all the reasons given by the noble Earl, especially the environmental reasons, that ban is soundly based. A reusable vape is one that possesses two key features: it must have a battery which can be recharged and the e-liquid container—that is, the cartridge or the pod—can be either refilled or replaced with a separately sold item, which is where the amendment comes in.
The regulation explicitly states that a device is not refillable or reusable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. In other words, the law at present tries to capture in the definition of a disposable vape all devices that look and function like a disposable vape. So far, I hope, so clear, but as we have heard from the noble Earl, this leads on the ground to some grey areas of interpretation. A vaping device may be packaged in such a way as to claim that it is intended to work with replaceable pods—and hence that it should be classed as refillable and reusable. In practice, however, that claim can sometimes be a fiction. If, in reality, the replacement pods are not readily available for purchase separately, the device is at risk of falling foul of the legal description of a reusable vape. Enforcement authorities will also check whether the battery is genuinely rechargeable and whether a replaceable heating coil is genuinely replaceable.
More and more reports suggest that in some shops, replacement pods are either not available at all or are in very short supply. Furthermore, so-called reusable devices are priced similarly to the former disposable vapes. The net effect is that the user is tacitly encouraged to throw away the entire device, including the battery and the pod, once they have finished using it. Functionally, the supposed reusable vape has become a disposable vape.
The question therefore is: is there a need to change the definition of what counts as a disposable vape? The noble Earl suggests in his amendment that part of the answer is to ban pre-filled single-use vaping pods. The problem with that suggestion is that some vaping devices properly classified as reusable devices genuinely depend on the supply of replacement single-use pods and are thereby genuinely reusable. Banning all single-use pods would mean removing those types of reusable vaping devices from the market, a step which, on the face of things, appears rather severe.
What, therefore, is to be done? If it is true that many devices currently on the market technically tick the box of being refillable or reusable but in practice behave like disposables, how are we to address that loophole? Is the answer to reframe the regulations, or does the answer lie in intelligent enforcement by local authorities and trading standards? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.
That point links neatly to the second amendment in this group, Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which I think makes a sensible and pragmatic case, pace the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to whom I listened very carefully. In introducing further regulations in this area, we would be well advised to take stock of the prohibitions that have already been introduced and examine their impact in practice. The single-use vape ban that came into force on 1 June provides us with an opportunity to do that. We will no doubt debate at later stages the regulation-making powers designed to control flavours, and so on. I align myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in wanting to tread cautiously, reflecting on how the single-use ban came in as quickly as it did and whether some unintended consequences have ensued from it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the debate on this group of amendments. I will start with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to ban all “pre-filled single-use vaping pods”.
We understand the concerns being raised about the environmental harms of single-use products. The ban that was introduced by Defra came into force on 1 June, which was not so long ago. Under that ban, vapes must be rechargeable and refillable, while any coil must be replaceable. A vape is not considered refillable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. Pre-filled pods that can be replaced are therefore not captured, to the points raised by a number of noble Lords, as the ban focuses on tackling the greatest environmental harms. Those are posed by batteries and the surrounding elements contained in the vapes. I acknowledge that vaping creates waste; that is true when users fill up a tank or pod themselves using refill bottles, as the noble Earl described, as well as when pre-filled pods are used.
However, to minimise the environmental impact, since April 2024 it has been compulsory for all businesses selling vapes and vape products, including pods, to provide their customers with a recycling bin and to arrange for these products to be collected by a verified recycling service. I hope that makes a helpful contribution in answering the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Since this obligation came into force, some 10,500 vape takeback bins have been introduced into stores. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and will consider the environmental impact of any new vaping regulations brought in using the powers in this Bill.
I hear the concerns about the appeal of single-use pods to children. The Bill contains powers to regulate vape devices. Importantly, we have recently launched a call for evidence that seeks information on the role that different sizes, shapes and features of devices play in the appeal of vaping to young audiences. As part of that, we would welcome evidence on any types of vaping device that particularly appeal to children. I assure the Committee that we will use the evidence to inform future proposals on potential restrictions to devices.
Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to place additional requirements on the Secretary of State before regulations can be made on contents and flavour. I note that part of these requirements involves evaluating the impacts of the ban on single-use vapes, which came into force on 1 June. Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and a post-implementation review will be undertaken in line with statutory obligations.
Turning to the impact of future restrictions on contents and flavour, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for smokers seeking to quit. We will therefore consider the scope of restrictions very carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking rates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for her contribution on this group.
As I said, to support all this, the call for evidence was launched on 8 October. It includes questions about the role of flavours, their contents and the associated risks. I assure noble Lords that before any restrictions are introduced on contents and flavours, we will conduct an impact assessment. We will also undertake a consultation on our policy proposals, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. I hope that this response allows noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment and the other amendment in this group. It has been an interesting group. I also thank the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. He speaks absolute truth: the reality for most people is that, if you have a legal vape with a pod in it and you are minded to not use it as a one-time product but to replace the pod, most shops do not sell them. You cannot get them, they are not available, and the reality is that big tobacco is skirting these regulations and selling only the vapes, not the pods—and, even if you buy the pod, they cost almost the same as buying a new vape.
I recognise the need to review the regulations, which are very recent, and I welcome the fact that Defra is monitoring that, but the real trouble here is that the regulations did not go far enough and there is no clear blue water. They are neither fish nor fowl. It is too easy to skirt these regulations. You just stick a charging point on, stick a pod in it, and you have met the requirements of the regulations, but the reality is that you are still selling a product that is extremely cheap, is used once and thrown away. These matters need further thought.
I asked the Minister whether she could update us on the work of the circular task force. Perhaps that is something we could do before Report. I am happy for that to be done in writing, but more needs to be done. I recognise the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for more evidence; the Minister has given some reassurance on that. However, I do not support holding up the Bill while we wait for that evidence. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025
Baroness Merron Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.