Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, just to clarify on the previous group and to quote myself, I advised caution about the idea of combining the two kinds of licences, specifically because of the strong possibility of fundamental change to the remit of the alcohol licences.

On this group of amendments beginning with Amendment 32 in the names the noble Lord, Lord Kamal and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it is important that the Government do not delay unduly in laying out the details of the new licensing scheme. That is only fair to retailers who need to respond to it. However, it is also important to get it right, and it is a highly technical issue. There will be a lot of noise about the workability of elements of this Bill without adding to that by getting the licensing scheme wrong, and I am sure the Government are aware of that. However, I am also aware that the Government have already issued a further call for evidence on the technicalities of the scheme, which I hope will help them to iron out any problems. I hope that they do not hang about over this, as they did with putting the Bill into your Lordships’ Committee—which we awaited with bated breath; it took a long time—but I do not support rushing such a technical process. Therefore, I do not support putting these amendments with their specific timescales on the face of the Bill. I look forward to the consultation.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group.

I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is not in his place to speak to his amendments, but I will just touch on them briefly, if I may. Basically, his amendments seek to require licensing regulations to be made within three months of the relevant provisions in the Bill coming into force. The amendments would also extend the existing retailer register in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that, of course, the Government share the noble Lord’s desire to move as quickly as possible to implement the licensing scheme. That is why we have recently launched the call for evidence on the range of issues that we have laid out, including questions on the design of the retail licensing scheme. The feedback received will be absolutely critical, and we want to get on and launch this as soon as possible. However, it is also important that the Government have sufficient time to ensure that the regulations are properly thought through. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, when he hears the discussion, will be reassured and understand that three months is not sufficient time to run a consultation, analyse the feedback received and prepare well-considered regulations. That is as much as I shall say on his amendments.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I hope to give him the reassurance that he seeks, as we discussed in last week’s Committee, that I understand these particular concerns. His amendments would similarly require Ministers to publish draft regulations implementing a retail licensing scheme for England and Wales within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent.  The Government are committed to ensuring that those impacted by regulations and those with expertise have the opportunity to contribute their views. We want to minimise additional costs and burdens as far as possible, while ensuring that the scheme is a success and achieves our aims of supporting legitimate businesses as well as tackling those that disregard the law.  Again, the recently published call for evidence seeks input on a range of topics, including the implementation of the retail licensing scheme. As I have said, this will inform the consultation, which we will launch as soon as possible.

To respond directly to the noble Lord’s comments, our call for evidence also asks about the implementation of the scheme and how long will be required to implement the policy. We will, of course, work through the appropriate channels to ensure that businesses have the necessary guidance to implement the changes. I cannot emphasise enough that this is for all businesses, regardless of their size or the organisations that represent them. We want to make sure that we get that message out loud and clear, so that they have confidence that their views will be regarded with the same importance as all those who contribute to the policy.

I note the noble Baroness’s comments about making sure that we get this right, so we cannot be beholden to specific timeframes on the face of the Bill. We all acknowledge that this is a complex policy and, while we want to move swiftly, it is important that there is enough time to ensure that the policy is properly thought through before developing regulations. I repeat that requiring the Government to publish draft regulations before adequate consultation may risk creating a flawed policy. For the reasons that I have outlined, bringing together previous comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have a great sympathy for this group of amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. There should be a limit on the strength of nicotine products which are legally for sale. Some of those products are clearly, from what we have heard from other noble Lords, very dangerous to both physical and mental health. The evidence is emerging on that.

Limiting the strength of something is not a new idea. Strength limits and price controls have been put on various alcoholic drinks, such as white cider, which has been particularly responsible for problem drinking. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I am concerned about nicotine pouches and young people, because their packaging and flavours make them look like sweets, making them appear very attractive to children. I accept that only a small percentage of tobacco product users buy this form of tobacco product, but a high proportion of those users are young people.

There is not much evidence yet of the effectiveness of such pouches as a smoking quitting tool; they are nowhere near as effective as nicotine patches or vapes. Apparently, only about 3% of quitting efforts are based on them. In fact, you do not need a high concentration for these things to work; nicotine patches work for many users, and they are not particularly strong. However, there are clear dangers with these very strong products. Perhaps this is an area where we need further evidence, so can the Minister say whether it will be covered in the Government’s recent call for further evidence on measures in the Bill? Before we go forward to the next stage, perhaps we could get the results of that consultation.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these points and for bringing forward the amendments to Committee today. Listening to Finn’s story from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it is important that we always bear in mind that we are talking about real young people and children and the actual harms that can come to them.

Amendments 13, 14, 15, 139 and 140 seek to introduce a ban on manufacture, sale and possession with intent to supply high-strength oral nicotine products, specifically those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion. I say from the outset that we are sympathetic to noble Lords trying to define the correct and safe nicotine level of a nicotine pouch—we need to address that. As we have heard, unlike with nicotine vapes, there is currently no set nicotine limit for nicotine pouches, and nicotine strengths can be as high as 150 milligrams, with the harm that goes with that. There is also significant variation in these strengths internationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as I understand it, following the Royal Assent of this Bill, there will be more consultations on many of the regulations the Government plan to bring forward. The call for evidence, which was published on 8 October, is already seeking evidence on some of the more technical aspects of the Bill.

I point out to those who tabled these amendments that the UK Government are a signatory to Article 5.3 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which aims to protect health policy-making from tobacco industry influence. That is why I think that there should be no further mandation for consultation with those who have a vested interest in producing or selling tobacco products, as long as we keep an eye on small retailers. As far as the bulk of their sales of products containing tobacco—I choose the way I express it very carefully—are concerned, there will be a small impact because only a one-year cohort at a time, which is a relatively small amount, will be prevented from being sold these products. As I said on our previous day in Committee, that will give small retailers plenty of time to adjust their sales models. We will deal with things such as age verification, as well as other issues that may cause small retailers concern, in our debates on other groups; we must do that rigorously.

I point out that there is nothing to stop tobacco companies responding to past and current government consultations on proposed regulations, but, of course, all respondents are required under the WHO convention to be transparent about their direct or indirect industry links. This is appropriate given their commercial conflicts of interest, which are sometimes in direct conflict with the Government’s public health objective to eliminate smoking over a generation.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amendments 26, 27, 31, 56, 111, 150 to 153 and 213 seek to ensure that the views of consumers, businesses and retailers are captured as part of the consultations on the licensing scheme and the display regulations, as well as before Part 5 of the Bill comes into force.

Let me start by saying I strongly agree with the intention behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. When it comes to consulting on the regulations, of course we must ensure that those who will be impacted are able to contribute their views. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her constructive comments on the need to do that and on the way we will go forward.

Minimally Invasive Cancer Therapies

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises such an important point. Of course, the Government are committed to significant investment in research, but we cannot overestimate the work that so many individuals, companies and charities do in this space. I know that her personal experience is of giving them the support that they need.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, all new therapies require specialists to deliver them but, according to the Royal College of Radiologists, there is a shortage of both diagnostic and interventional radiology consultants. I accept that the specialist training takes six years, but the benefits of increasing that workforce are crucial to the Government’s objective of shortening waiting lists, as the Minister just suggested. What progress is being made to increase the number of those specialists? If there are logjams anywhere, what is being done to remove them?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an incredibly important point. It is not just in this area that we have shortages in specialisms. The Government are committed to creating a much better environment for resident doctors moving through the process into specialisms and to giving them support. There is a whole raft of work, which I cannot go into now, on how we can make sure that those programmes are smoother, speeded up and more equitably spread around the country—to pick up on the important point regarding this type of specialism.

Advertising Restrictions on Less Healthy Food

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many advertisements for less healthy food will be shown on television as a result of their recent delay in implementing planned advertising restrictions; and whether they will publish an impact statement about the effect on children’s health of their plan to exempt brand advertising.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, on 22 May, the Government announced that we will bring in restrictions on junk food advertising in January 2026. We have secured a unique agreement from advertisers and broadcasters to comply voluntarily from 1 October 2025. A new impact assessment is not needed, as brand advertising was always exempted from the policy. We are committed to implementing the restrictions, which we expect to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from UK children’s diets per year.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister, but she clearly does not have the answer to my Question. Does she accept that voluntary measures have been shown not to work? What is more, they provide no evidence to inform future policy development, because they are not monitored. Can she reassure the House that the Government will support independent research into the effect of brand advertising for companies that make unhealthy food on children’s health and their consumption of unhealthy food, compared to the specific advertising of unhealthy products themselves?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

First, I commend the work done by the noble Baroness, the committee and everyone in this House who is passionate about this agenda. We are not weakening our stance on this. It is absolutely imperative that everyone understands that we are determined to tackle this issue. We felt strongly that there was a need for legal clarity on the existing policy, so that we could bring in the restrictions in January, which we are committed to doing. I repeat that brand advertising was always out of scope for the policy. That was confirmed during parliamentary scrutiny of the Health and Care Act 2022. This is an important area. We have laid out our determination to move forward on it and we intend to do so.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Robotic surgery is one of the areas generating enormous excitement, and I was very interested to hear of my noble friend’s experiences. I assure her that conversations are taking place, and I know that they will be part of the plan when we come to talk about delivery.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords—

Baby Foods: Nutrition and Marketing

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I share my noble friend’s views and concerns, and I recognise that the current situation is not good enough. Current regulations set nutritional standards, and we continue to push industry to go further to reduce the sugar content in baby foods. We welcome the recent updates to advice for parents and carers on the Start for Life website—picking up on the particular point that commercial baby foods can be used as part of a baby’s diet but should not be used as the primary source of nutrition for infants—and completely recognise my noble friend’s acknowledgement of how important the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life are for the rest of their lives.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, voluntary action and expectation really have not worked and will not in future. Is the Minister aware of a report published in January evaluating the compliance of UK commercial baby foods with WHO nutritional guidelines? Only 45% adhered to the nutritional standards, less than 60% complied with maximum sugar content requirements and none met the requirements for appropriate nutrient health and marketing claims. The paper concluded that regulatory measures are essential. What do the Government plan to do about it?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I hear the frustration in the noble Baroness’s comments every time she raises this issue, and I would love to have a conversation with her about it. While recognising the frustration, I emphasise that we are challenging industry to improve the nutritional content and labelling of baby foods, including, where it can, taking voluntary action to align products with dietary guidelines and best practice. It is not all doom and gloom, and there is evidence in certain areas of improvement as a result of this. There is a great deal more to do, and going forward we will continue to review the situation and work with the best interests of our children, young people and their families in mind.