Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 107 and just wish to ask a few questions regarding the amendment. Along with my noble friend Lady Coffey, I note that when the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, brought forth his “bring back the judge” amendments, the MCA exited the Bill under that requirement. In relation to the MCA, it was useful to hear the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer because, when you have someone so familiar like that, it would be useful for us to know when they last did an MCA assessment. She put that very eloquently.

In relation to the comments made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—this is something that again arose in a previous group—on the different statutory regimes of the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act, these are not, even now, separate. I served on your Lordships’ House’s Select Committee on the Mental Health Bill, and one of the first things that we had to look at was the situation in Northern Ireland, where the choice was made to fuse these parts of the law. That was not part of the independent review by Sir Simon Wessely, but it would have been one of the options at that time, because there is an overlap between the jurisdictions.

I know that the Minister said, on the previous group, that if she is silent, that is okay, but I ask the noble and learned Lord to invite the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to the meeting that is planned for next week with Alex Ruck Keene KC, because at the moment it is not clear that we have patients under one regime and patients under another regime. When you are detained under the Mental Health Act, one of the bases of that, when you potentially want to take your own life, is that you are under the prevention of suicide regime, with psychiatrists and clinicians there. But under this Bill, obviously, you are not, so the clinicians are asking for that clarity. I hope that we will be able to come back to your Lordships’ House after the meeting next week with that clarity. I also hope that the sponsor of the Bill could outline this.

I am surprised that we are still talking about this, because the Royal College of Psychiatrists has been raising this issue since November 2024. If we had had the amendments that could deal with its concerns, they could have truncated the debate. We had this discussion in relation to the advertising amendments. With the concerns from professional bodies, why do we not have amendments at this stage of the Bill, even though the noble and learned Lord said that amendments would be forthcoming? A year or more has gone by since these concerns were raised. I hope that he will be able to clarify why that is, at this stage. It is imperative that we see these amendments in Committee.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister rises to speak, I have a question for her about workability arising from one of the amendments included in this debate. In his Amendment 581A, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst posed a specific question on capacity at the moment when a person is given the substances with which they will take their own life. He is surely right that at that critical moment appropriate safeguards are needed where, for any reason at all, there is doubt about the person’s capacity—for example, where there is a history of fluctuating capacity. The doctor should clearly know how to respond to that situation. Can the Minister say whether she believes that the situation that my noble friend has described would require specific guidance to be issued by the Government over and above guidance already issued under the Mental Capacity Act?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on mental capacity and eligibility. As usual, I will keep my comments limited to those amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. Indeed, if I do not refer to an amendment, clearly that is not the case, as was just suggested.

I wish to make a point to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who asked about consideration about compliance with ECHR. It is probably helpful for me to re-establish the consideration about that. It is the role of the Government—this is what I am doing—to highlight where there is a risk of issues in respect of the ECHR. However, it is for the House to decide whether policy choices might create a risk and whether that amount of risk is acceptable or not. The other thing, if it is helpful to the noble Baroness, is that, if it is found that primary legislation is incompatible, there could of course be a declaration of that incompatibility. It would not invalidate legislation. That is probably the main point that I want to emphasise, but this is ultimately a matter for decision by the House.

Amendments 117 and 892, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would remove Clause 3 and insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations that establish an alternative framework for assessing and determining capacity, based on a psychological assessment, rather than reliance on the Mental Capacity Act. How to make that assessment on capacity—noble Lords have referred to this—is a policy choice and is therefore a matter for Parliament. However, as drafted, Amendment 117 uses a number of undefined terms such as “validated, standardised instruments” and “evidence-based methodology”, which, without further clarification or definition, are likely to create workability concerns. Amendment 892 would mean that the majority of provisions under the Bill could not come into force until the regulations under Clause 3 were made. This would make the backstop provision in Clause 58(4) ineffective.

I turn to Amendment 108, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It would introduce a departure from the MCA framework by linking a lack of capacity in one area, to consent to care and treatment arrangements that amount to a confinement, to lack of capacity around another decision, the decision to end one’s life. This could create confusion and require additional guidance and training for practitioners.

It appears that Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thomspon, would introduce a separate specialist capacity assessment process for adults with a learning disability. This departs from the MCA framework, which requires proportionate, decision-specific assessments, rather than separate processes for particular groups. Operationally, this could create significant training and resource demands, as specialist assessors would need to be identified. The Committee may wish to note that the amendment restricts any publicly funded provider from undertaking the mental capacity assessment, which would mean that individuals with learning disabilities would have to self-fund the assessment from a private sector provider. There are also technical drafting issues, including a lack of definition for “learning disability” and other terms such as “relevant professional regulator”, which could lead to uncertainty in how the legislation is applied.

Amendments 117, 892, 108 and 119 would all involve introducing differential treatment, by treating different groups of people differently. As such, they could give rise to legal challenge on the basis of ECHR obligations, specifically Article 14, which prohibits discrimination when read with Article 8. Any differential treatment, as I said more broadly earlier, would need to be objectively and reasonably justified in order to comply with ECHR obligations.

I turn to Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The effect of this amendment is that certain groups of people would not be able to make a valid first declaration, as the noble Lord said. This could exclude people with learning disabilities, mental disorders, as per Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and autism from accessing assisted dying. An individual who may experience substantial difficulty in understanding processes or communicating their views, wishes or feelings would also be excluded under this amendment from accessing assisted dying. The definition of “mental disorder” in the Mental Health Act is extremely broad and will include those with conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety and sleep disorders. The Committee may wish to note that these groups would be excluded, even if their condition had no impact on their ability to fully understand the relevant information.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. It is a pleasure to open the first of our discussions on the Bill, and I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for her clear explanation of its provisions and its policy background.

I also thank her for the informative letter that she circulated earlier this week, and for the helpful private discussions she has facilitated. Like the noble Baroness, I look forward to the two maiden speeches we are to hear later from the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Duvall, whom I welcome very warmly to the House.

This Bill may be small in length, but it is far from insignificant, not least because it is being introduced to Parliament on an emergency timetable. More pertinently perhaps, its significance can be measured in its potential effect on the lives and careers of many thousands of doctors. That fact alone makes this a measure deserving of the closest scrutiny, and I am therefore appreciative of the fact that the Government and the usual channels have enabled a greater interval between each stage of the Bill’s passage through the House than was the case last week in the other place.

I should say to the noble Baroness at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition have no quarrel with the principle underpinning the Bill. However, as she would expect, we have identified and been made aware of very considerable concerns over a number of its key provisions, and I know she will understand that we need to explore these thoroughly during the course of our proceedings.

Doctors trained in this country and funded by the taxpayer should have a fair, clear and consistent pathway to progression within our NHS. Britain trains some of the finest doctors in the world, yet too many are being lost because they cannot access the training places they require. That represents a waste of talent, it undermines morale and it ultimately has consequences for patient care. It also represents a loss of taxpayer investment made through the public support of medical education and training when doctors are forced to take their skills abroad because they cannot progress within the system at home. It is, therefore, a problem that we on these Benches agree must be addressed.

However, the manner in which these challenges are addressed matters greatly. There has to be a test of reasonableness and fairness if the Government’s response can be judged acceptable not only in the eyes of UK-based doctors but to doctors who have studied overseas. The solution to the problem must also offer sustainable, long-term change and not just a short-term sticking plaster. I say that because, as we all know, the danger inherent in emergency legislation of any kind is that it can result in unintended and unwanted effects.

To my eyes, one of the first ways in which the Bill falls short, along with the Government’s narrative, is its failure to address the wider question of how its provisions dovetail with any changes in the availability of training places. To solve the problem of recruitment bottlenecks, the Government are using the Bill to refashion the order in which eligible applicants are considered. However, the other way of approaching the issue is to expand the number of training places. Elsewhere, the Government have promised to deliver 4,000 new specialist training places, including 1,000 places that are needed in reasonably short order.

Where do these plans now sit and how are they likely to affect the career prospects of the doctors of the future and those already in the system, particularly those doctors trained overseas? How quickly can capacity be expanded? These were questions that the previous Government tried to address head-on in the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, published in 2023, which was well received across the medical community.

I mentioned just now the risks and dangers inherent in introducing emergency legislation on a curtailed timetable and, in that vein, another area of concern is the seeming contradiction in the Government’s characterisation of this legislation as an emergency measure. As we understand it, the Government are proposing that the Bill should come into force not on Royal Assent but at a time of the Secretary of State’s choosing. Why is that? If the Bill before us were genuinely urgent, addressing, as it purports to, the 2026 recruitment round, it is difficult to understand why it would not be commenced immediately following its approval by Parliament and the sovereign.

The disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric and reality is troubling, not least because it serves to highlight a number of provisions in the Bill that pose real worries. One such worry concerns the Bill’s impact on doctors who are trained overseas through established UK higher education institutions. These are doctors who are undertaking identical GMC-approved MBBS courses, sitting the same assessments and receiving the same GMC-approved degrees as their counterparts trained in the United Kingdom.

Under the Bill, these doctors will find themselves suddenly classified in the non-priority category of applicants, both for foundation programmes and for specialty training. We are aware that at least one of these programmes operates under a long-standing international arrangement, with wider diplomatic and institutional implications. The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, will be addressing the issue in greater detail. At this stage, however, I wish to highlight one programme run by Queen Mary University of London in Malta, which is sustained by a long-standing UK-Malta agreement, first established in 2009 and reviewed as recently as 2024. That agreement sits within a broader context of deep and enduring ties between the two countries’ health systems and approaches to medical education.

Undermining it risks significant and long-lasting repercussions for the UK-Malta relationship. I understand that the Government of Malta have written to the Secretary of State to raise these concerns—so far, I understand, without a response. The Minister very helpfully referred to the Maltese concern in her recent round robin letter, as she did today. But I believe it is an issue we shall want to pursue in Committee in greater depth. The concern is multifaceted because, in the scheme of things, what the Bill does to Maltese doctors looks completely unnecessary. The numbers involved are tiny. The Maltese example demonstrates that the Bill as drafted risks causing disproportionate harm to well-established international partnerships, seemingly not as a matter of policy intent but as a consequence of legislation being rushed through Parliament.

There is a further issue that has been brought repeatedly to our attention by doctors and medical academics in this country and abroad: the position of applicants who are already part way through the current foundation programme recruitment round. The noble Baroness mentioned this in her speech. We have heard compelling evidence of a real risk of creating what has been described as a “stranded cohort”: that is, the cohort of doctors who entered a live national recruitment process in good faith, under published rules and fixed deadlines, only to face the risk of materially different outcomes because prioritisation is applied mid-cycle in a radically different way from before.

We need to be clear on the point that applicants at this stage have already committed significant time and cost to the process and are making concrete plans around registration, visas, relocation and employment. For foundation programme applicants in particular, there is often no straightforward alternative NHS route if an outcome is delayed or left indeterminate, given the constraints around provisional registration.

From a system perspective, uncertainty of this kind also risks avoidable disruption to workforce planning, late withdrawals and rota instability. None of these comments are intended to challenge the core principles of the Bill, but they surely call into question the justification for the process and whether it is fair and reasonable for Parliament to permit what amounts to retrospective disruption to an already defined recruitment cohort. Are the Government willing to make use of the commencement and transitional powers in the Bill to ensure that the changes introduced operate only prospectively, so as to give clarity and fairness for those already in the pipeline?

Beyond the issues I have already referred to, there are a number of further concerns about the way the Bill is framed and how it will operate in practice. As drafted, the prioritisation process that the Bill envisages rests chiefly on one decisive qualifying factor—where a doctor was trained. While that may work as an idea in general terms, we are concerned that it risks excluding from the priority group individuals who are British citizens but who have undertaken part of their training overseas, which can arise for entirely normal and legitimate reasons. Again, I listened to what the noble Baroness had to say on this subject, but one clear example is doctors who have completed elements of their medical training while serving with the UK’s Armed Forces abroad. Those individuals have trained within UK systems, often in demanding circumstances and in the service of this country. It would be perverse if their contribution were overlooked simply because aspects of their training took place outside the British Isles. Any credible definition of a UK medical graduate ought to be capable of recognising that reality.

We must also consider the wider implications of this legislation for medical schools. Changes to prioritisation will inevitably influence the number of international students choosing to study medicine in the UK, with potential adverse financial consequences for institutions that are already under significant pressure. Parliament should not be asked to legislate in the dark on such effects, which is why we believe that there is a strong case for the Government reporting regularly on the impact of these provisions on student numbers and on the financial sustainability of medical schools—centres of excellence that sustain a world-class teaching environment that is a genuine credit to this country.

The Bill was prompted by a problem that we all recognise—too many talented British doctors are finding their progression blocked, and the NHS and, ultimately, patients are paying the price. We support the principle that UK training, public investment and commitment to the NHS should be properly recognised, but principle alone is never enough. If this legislation is to succeed, and succeed fairly, it must be both precise and proportionate. Of course, it must address the core of the problem in a sufficiently far-reaching way. However, it must also recognise the realities of life for aspiring doctors who have submitted applications to enter UK training programmes, relied in good faith on explicit written assurances from the relevant authorities and committed what are often large sums of their own money on the back of those assurances, and who now find the rug pulled from under them.

Legislation designed to remedy the current problem must also take full account of those elements of UK and foreign-based training systems that are in practical terms identical. It must be robust enough to protect UK training pathways stemming from long-standing international partnerships that are already established firmly in our medical education system. Our relations with allies and Commonwealth members such as Malta really matter.

We approach the next stages of the Bill in a constructive spirit. Our aim is not to frustrate its passage but to improve its drafting to ensure that it does what it is intended to do without unintended consequences. We want it to command confidence across the House as well as outside it so that the future of medical training, and indeed the future of the NHS, is genuinely safeguarded and strengthened.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

I would like to provide a brief clarification on the back of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about the points raised by Ms Leadbeater’s comments about feeling uncomfortable. It came from a report on ITVX on 6 March 2025. An assessment was taking place with Dr Jess Kaan. I believe family members were there, and then she asked the patient’s family to leave the room so that she could privately ask the patient whether it was a settled wish. The patient said yes, it was. I quote directly from the ITV website:

“For Kim Leadbeater, the virtual consultations did not make for comfortable viewing—she says it has made her think about adding an amendment to make clear that consultations with doctors cannot be done via video call and that they should be done in person”.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in the interests of time I do not propose to summarise the many points and questions that have been raised in this debate. However, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 320A in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. The amendment seeks to set the presumption that the first assessment by the co-ordinating doctor

“must be undertaken in person, except in circumstances where this is not reasonably practicable”.

It is plain from everything that we have heard in the debate that the first assessment is a pivotal moment in the process set out in the Bill. It is the point at which a co-ordinating doctor must satisfy themselves not only of the diagnosis and prognosis but of the patient’s capacity and will and, crucially, the absence of coercion or pressure, as set out in Clause 10. These are human judgments that depend not simply on what a patient says but on the way that they say it, on physical cues and on the broader context in which the conversation takes place.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular, as I did to other noble Lords, and an in-person assessment undoubtedly allows a clinician to observe matters that may not be apparent on a screen—for example, who else is present in the room, whether the individual appears comfortable speaking freely or whether there are signs, however subtle, of hesitation or external influence. At the same time, I suggest that we need to be patient-focused as well as doctor-focused, which is why my noble friend’s amendment seeks to recognise practical realities. There will surely, from time to time, be circumstances, perhaps in late-stage illness when a person may be in acute distress, where an in-person assessment is genuinely not possible. The reasons for that could be several, but in those cases we need to ask ourselves whether a live video and audio link would be preferable to a delay, or even a complete exclusion from the process.

I emphasise that the amendment is a probing one. If we decide that provision should be made for certain cases then that would surely be a classic area for guidance or codes of practice, but the key test in every instance would be what is reasonable in the circumstances. My noble friend wants to be clear that this amendment is about setting the right default for arguably the most consequential clinical judgment in the entire scheme of the Bill, while preserving professional discretion in response to the needs of the patient where circumstances require flexibility.

I have deliberately spoken in general terms when talking about what might not be reasonably practicable. The question is really the one posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: how rigid do we wish the Bill to be in prescribing how the system should work? I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could set out his vision of how this mechanism will work in practice and how he will ensure that the safeguards that we all want to see can still be maintained if an in-person assessment is not possible.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As ever, I will limit my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

First, I draw the attention of the Committee to operational workability concerns about Amendments 60 and 65. Under Amendment 60, professionals delivering the service would be responsible for checking whether the person was in England or Wales on multiple occasions before carrying out their duties, even if it had been confirmed that the person was ordinarily resident in England or Wales. That would place a significant burden on professionals delivering an assisted dying service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, this is a really interesting group of amendments, and it has probably raised more questions for me than it has answered. When we talk about injury, I immediately think about people who have had a spinal cord injury and who have become a quadriplegic or a paraplegic.

By the very nature of my former career, I know a lot of wheelchair users who have been through various compensation cases. Luckily, these days the survival rate for someone with paraplegia or tetraplegia is very high. We also have to take that into account. I had not thought before about the impact on anyone who has been in the military. I know quite a few people who are injured through the military. Generally, the public are very supportive of the military and what they have gone through, and we would not want any unintended consequences for them.

When I was looking at conditions such as asbestosis, and others that have been debated on this group, it became very clear that in many cases these conditions present quite late and treatment is then very difficult, and many patients die before the compensation claim has gone through. We have talked before about coercion, and I know that Ms Leadbeater has said in various debates and comments that she is concerned about people being coerced not to end their life.

This is a situation where I could see this happening. If you go online and google asbestosis compensation or spinal cord injury compensation, a plethora of websites come up straightaway with calculators, so that you can have an indication of how much you could possibly gain. I had a look; it goes from a couple of thousand pounds for a back injury—which obviously would not account for this—up to £493,000 for someone with quadriplegia. The figures given as a range for asbestosis were £50,000 to £1 million. That is a life-changing amount of money for many families in this country, and it will colour the decisions they make.

It is slightly strange, because we talk about someone being a burden, but people will make a different decision because they are thinking of their children and grandchildren and protecting them for the rest of their lives. So a lot of clarity is needed to make sure that coercion does not go either way. I would be very interested in understanding what the noble and learned Lord intends to do to offer greater clarification for this group of amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, my noble friend Lord Harper’s Amendments 70 and 78 seek to expand the definition of terminal illness beyond illness or disease to include terminal injuries. If this amendment were accepted, it would enable those who have suffered terminal injuries through military service or industrial accidents, for example, to access assistance under the Bill.

It seems to me that these amendments are helpful in at least two ways. First, they raise the question of how we should define a terminal illness or disease. If a person has been injured and has a prognosis of six months, should that person be described as terminally ill for the purposes of the Bill? I suggest that this is not just a question for the noble and learned Lord; it is also one of relevance to Ministers. As we have said on previous occasions, it will be state-run services that deliver assistance, and Ministers will need to be clear on what constitutes terminal illness.

Put another way, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, rightly said, an injury is legally distinct from an illness, why should people with six months to live for reasons other than an illness or disease be excluded from the scope of the Bill? My noble friend Lord Blencathra argued that adding injury to illness would be a slippery slope. I need to reflect on that. I was not wholly convinced by what he said, because there is a moral case around an injured terminally ill person that we need to resolve. By the same token, if the question remains open, are we happy that it will be left to the courts to expand the definition of illness, if that is what the court decides? One could envisage that happening.

The second way in which the amendments are helpful is the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s Amendment 829, which seeks to address a specific problem caused by the interaction between this Bill and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Having listened to both my noble friends, I share their concern. As Amendment 829 rightly implies, it may not be possible to resolve this through a simple amendment to this Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether the Government accept my noble friend’s argument that if the rights afforded to bereaved relatives under the 1976 Act are to be preserved within the terms of this Bill—as surely is equitable—it will depend on the Government to identify ways in which that can be achieved in a legally and politically acceptable way.

Perhaps Ministers and officials could look at this between Committee and Report, and advise the noble and learned Lord, the Bill’s sponsor, so that we can resolve the problem before the Bill gets any further.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Could I be vulgarly practical about this, because of a point the noble Baroness mentioned, which is the parallelism with the deposit return scheme that got into terrible trouble? I declare an interest as chairman of Valpak. We had to work through that, so it is burnt into me how extremely damaging it was because it was not decided beforehand. I know that we are talking about much greater issues here but, as I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept, this is a really serious issue; it brought about enormous cost and a vast misunderstanding, and it ended up destroying what the Scottish Government wanted to do. It is a very dangerous precedent. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will want to make absolutely sure that we do not have a repetition of something that cost vast sums of money, in both the private and public sectors, and that has undermined an important measure ever since.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers two distinct but connected questions. The first question, posed by Amendment 17, is, in my judgment, a very helpful one, because the answer will clarify the role—or lack of role—played by a person’s GP in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death. It seems to me, from reading the Bill’s provisions, that the involvement of a person’s GP in that process, although very likely, is not legally necessary provided that the patient fulfils all the conditions set out in Clause 1(1). Clarification from the noble and learned Lord would be very helpful.

The second question, posed by my noble friend Lady Fraser’s Amendment 62, is also one that I hope can be answered very simply by the noble and learned Lord. Am I correct that it is implicit in Clause 5 that the preliminary discussion between the patient and the registered medical practitioner need not involve a doctor physically situated in England and Wales and need not be face to face? Equally, am I correct that it is unnecessary to state in Clause 1(3)(b) that the steps set out in Clauses 8 and 19 must be taken

“by persons in England or Wales”,

because Clauses 8 and 19 already explicitly provide for this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I have said, I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

On Amendments 17 and 309A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, Amendment 17 is a probing amendment that seeks to establish whether people who are registered with a GP in Scotland but live in England would be excluded from eligibility for an assisted death under the Bill. Noble Lords may wish to note that Amendment 17 would have limited effect as it amends only Clause 1, which is largely descriptive. Without further amendments to Clauses 10 and 17, which contain duties to assess eligibility criteria, Amendment 17 would not impact those criteria and would introduce conflicting provisions.

Amendment 309A would amend the corresponding eligibility criteria in Clause 10 to include a person registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England, Wales or Scotland. It would not amend Clause 17, which contains the assessment by the panel. Therefore, Amendments 17 and 309A would require further consequential amendments to ensure that the Bill is coherent. This would include amendments to ensure that data recording obligations and the associated criminal offences apply to Scottish GPs. These consequential amendments would likely require consultation with the Scottish Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, referred to, in line with the guidance for Private Members’ Bills.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for tabling Amendment 62. The purpose of this amendment is to establish why the Bill requires only the actions set out in Clauses 10 and 11 to be undertaken by people in England or Wales, and not the preliminary discussion under Clause 5. Our understanding is that the reference to the preliminary discussion in Clause 5 is not mentioned in Clause 1(3) because Clause 5(3) already requires that a person wanting to have a preliminary discussion must be in England and Wales. Amendment 62 would require steps under Clauses 8 and 19 to be taken by persons in England or Wales. As drafted, the Bill requires that most of the steps in Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 19 will already have to take place in England and Wales.

In addition, Amendment 62 would have the effect that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 19, the Secretary of State must be in England and Wales at the moment they sign the regulations. This could lead to the regulations being improperly made and challenged should the Secretary of State not physically be in England or Wales at the time of signing the regulations. This raises a practical issue of workability, as I am sure the noble Baroness understands.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, relating to Scotland and guidance that the Government have provided to the sponsor, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, and I have reiterated, we are providing technical and workability support to the sponsor on devolution issues, including those that have been raised. This is an evolving situation that will continue throughout the passage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I will speak to these amendments because I want to make a new point. A very vulnerable population that we must continue to remember is the prison population. Although we will deal with the prison population more fully in the group coming up, we must remember that this Bill currently does not exclude prisoners from being eligible. That means we must consider how each issue is likely to play out in a prison setting.

As we have heard extensively, these amendments deal with two main issues: first, access to primary care; and, secondly, how well that primary care physician knows the details of your medical history. The first is very closely related to inequalities and making sure that those who have worse access to care are not more likely to choose assisted dying. The prison population are therefore a key group that must be considered, since their health and access to healthcare are worse than that of the general population. That is evidenced by the recently published report by the Chief Medical Officer.

That report also highlights access to healthcare for those in prison. There is no automatic or compulsory enrolment of prisoners into primary care on the prison estate. Over 20% of the prison population do not complete registration on arrival. For those who do, the service is often slow or inaccessible. According to the Nacro report on physical health in prison, two in five prisoners waited for a month or longer for a GP appointment and one in 13 never got one. According to the Chief Medical Officer’s report, one in three prisoners does not have their full electronic health record available to prison healthcare staff. These are not just statistics. When I visit and talk with prisoners about their well-being and purpose, access to healthcare is always spoken about.

Briefly, I do not believe that the issue of how well a primary care physician knows your medical history has been sufficiently considered from a prison context. If a GP may be the person to conduct a preliminary discussion to consider a person’s application for an assisted death, how will they do that safely with incomplete information about their patient’s health record? We must question eligibility along these lines. Before we talk about the next group of amendments, I hope that there will be important safeguards for prisoners on the issues raised in this group.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has already been very helpful in the undertakings and clarificatory comments that he made earlier in the debate, so I shall be very brief. In following up those comments, I will return to the question that I raised on the previous group. The Bill seems consciously to steer clear of insisting that a person’s GP must always be involved in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death, other than the GP having a duty to note in the patient record that the preliminary discussion has taken place. The entire process, in other words, could be conducted by the patient in conjunction with hospital-based medical consultants.

Do I understand correctly that the noble and learned Lord is willing to look closely at ways of making sure, by whatever means, that the crucial judgments made by clinicians about a patient’s capacity, about coercion and about that person’s settled wish to end their life are firmly and soundly based? The route to achieving that may well be the GP practice and the multidisciplinary team within it, but, as we have heard, that source of information may not be practical or useful in every case. Will the noble and learned Lord therefore ensure that he will consider more generally in the round possible safeguards that will forestall the possibility of superficial or cursory assessments being made—especially, perhaps, assessments by hospital consultants, who may have enjoyed only a brief acquaintance with the patient?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on proposed safeguards relating to general practice. I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. On that basis, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the operational workability concerns in relation to Amendments 19, 20, 21, 29, 30B, 265A and 443A.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Udny-Lister, who is unfortunately not in his place, are to be thanked for enabling us to focus on the issues around the use of heated tobacco. We have touched on this subject at earlier stages but, when previously discussing heated tobacco, the Minister promised to write to noble Lords about the evidence that her department possesses of the harms caused by heated tobacco. I am sure that is high on her agenda, but the question is crucial in the context of these amendments since, whatever the answer is, it will have a direct bearing on the use of the Secretary of State’s powers to designate locations as heated tobacco-free.

There are various published studies, as she will know. A study published by UCL found that people who switched from cigarettes to heated tobacco had lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who kept smoking, but higher levels of these toxins than those who stopped using tobacco altogether, which I guess is not a surprising finding. Other studies state that it is too soon to know how using heat—not burn—products will affect someone’s health in the long term, since research looking at these tobacco products is still, I understand, in its early stages and, in the main, funded by the tobacco industry. We therefore need clear evidence, born of independent research, on both the relative harm of heated tobacco compared to burning tobacco, as well as the absolute levels of harm that result from its use.

I am a non-smoker. I understand the concern that heated tobacco should not be a loophole for large tobacco firms to get around the law, but I am also concerned that in the absence of long-term evidence, portraying heated tobacco as being in the same category as cigarettes carries the risk of failing to reduce harm for that small percentage of smokers who wish to quit but have not taken to vapes for one reason or another.

Pending fresh research findings, I think, alongside my noble friends, that there remains a legitimate question about how the Government intend to treat spaces, both indoors and outdoors, where heated tobacco is used, and about whether they believe there is a clear proven case for including heated tobacco in the generational ban. In particular, does the Minister consider uncovered outdoor areas to be different in this context from enclosed spaces, in terms of both health risk and social behaviour? As she knows, the hospitality industry has concerns about extending the indoor smoking ban to outdoor hospitality areas such as pub gardens, and I welcome the assurance she gave on that a few minutes ago. The indication from the Government thus far is that hospitality areas will not be caught by any outdoor ban, but if that is true of smoke tobacco, can the Minister confirm that there is no similar intention as regards the outdoor use of heated tobacco?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to limiting the Government’s ability to create heated tobacco-free places in England. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, opposes Clause 139 standing part of the Bill. Clause 139 provides the power to designate certain places and vehicles in England as heated tobacco-free. Places can be designated heated tobacco-free only if they are smoke-free. As I have mentioned, we plan to consult on making heated tobacco-free all indoor places that are currently smoke-free. We also plan to consult on making certain outdoor spaces heated tobacco-free. As with smoke-free places, the consultation will cover children’s playgrounds, the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, and areas outside healthcare settings where medically vulnerable people may be present.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked an important question about evidence, and I will write with more detail as soon as possible. However, I reiterate what I said in debates on previous groups and elsewhere: there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all tobacco products are harmful, including heated tobacco products. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, for their supportive comments. Laboratory studies show evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco and that the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices, like other forms of tobacco, contains carcinogenic compounds. Recent evidence has also indicated that exposure to second-hand emissions from heated tobacco products is associated with significant respiratory and cardiovascular abnormalities in bystanders.

The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, also tabled Amendment 185. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me to repeat—I am glad to do so—that, as I have made clear, we are not planning to consult on making outdoor hospitality settings in England heated tobacco-free.

Amendment 184A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to exempt areas where it would be reasonable to expect that only over-18s are present from any future restrictions on heated tobacco places. This amendment is similar to the one already discussed in relation to vape-free places, which would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, could not be made heated tobacco-free.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

188: After Clause 157, insert the following new Clause—
“Strategy to reduce retail crime linked to tobacco and vaping products(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a strategy to reduce offences against retailers of relevant products as a result of changes made by this Act.(2) The strategy must address—(a) violence and abuse against retail workers at work resulting from—(i) the refusal of sale of relevant products, and(ii) requests for identification by retail workers to a person attempting to buy relevant products;(b) theft of relevant products from retailers of relevant products, and(c) any other offence against retailers of relevant products relating to relevant products.(3) The strategy must be published before the end of the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed and updated between 1 January 2027 and 1 January 2028.(4) In preparing the strategy the Secretary of State must consult—(a) retailers of relevant products,(b) representatives of retailers of relevant products,(c) elected local policing bodies, and(d) any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult. (5) For the purposes of this section “retailers of relevant products” means a person who carries on a business involving the sale of relevant products by retail.(6) In this section—“elected local policing bodies” has the same meaning as section 101 of the Police Act 1996;“relevant products” means—(a) tobacco products,(b) tobacco related devices,(c) herbal smoking products,(d) cigarette papers,(e) vaping products, or(f) nicotine products;“retail workers at work” means a person who—(a) is working on or about retail premises, and(b) is working there for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of those premises, or is the owner or occupier of those premises.(7) In subsection (6) “retail premises” means—(a) premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail, or(b) premises used mainly for the purposes of the wholesale of anything, if the premises are also used for the purposes of the sale of anything by retail,and here “premises” include a stall or vehicle.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to reduce retail crime against retailers of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kamall and I have previously raised the concerns of retailers in relation to several aspects of this Bill. Amendment 188 is intended as a probing amendment to ask the Government whether they have any plans to work with retailers and other partners to develop and publish a strategy to reduce retail crime against retailers of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products.

Noble Lords will be aware that these retailers are often the most affected by retail crime. Their businesses are often small, independent stores that lack the means to hire security, as larger retailers are able to do. The size of these businesses also means that retail crime has more of an impact, due to smaller profit margins. On top of that, by the very nature of selling age-restricted products, the likelihood of confrontation is heightened by the increased interaction with customers. This problem is being exacerbated by the rampant rise in shoplifting over the past year. Shoplifting offences across England, excluding London, have risen by 15%, and, in London, the number is almost unbelievable: 54%. That figure is now at a 20-year high, costing retailers £2.2 billion in lost profits.

Retailers, both large and small, are being pummelled by an increased disregard for the rule of law and, very often, a lack of response from the authorities. The department’s impact assessment acknowledges this when it says that the Bill

“could lead to an increase in aggression and abuse towards retail workers”.

That is why, in Amendment 191, I suggest that the Government have a responsibility both to oversee the transition that they are mandating in the Bill and to provide suitable guidance. Whatever noble Lords’ views on the provisions of the Bill, this amendment re-emphasises the need for clear consultation and for the Government to work with retailers to address their concerns.

For that reason, I support the principle behind my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising’s Amendment 200A. The policy set out in the Bill to prohibit those aged under 18 from buying nicotine products can be enforced only by age-verification checks. Where technology is involved in such checks, this will cost retailers money. Smaller retailers will find this burden commensurately heavier. This probing amendment from my noble friend— I hope he will allow me to call it that—allows us to ask the Minister how the Government intend to lighten the burden on those retailers.

I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 200A touches on a different theme from the other amendments that I have tabled. As my noble friend Lord Howe commented, it is a probing amendment to test the Government’s attitude to small shops and the burdens that they face. I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend about shoplifting because it no longer seems to be a crime—you just go in and help yourself to what you want.

This amendment is focused on the burden placed on businesses by their need for age-verification technology. The businesses that will have to comply with this Bill are not just major supermarkets or established tobacco specialists; they are also corner shops and convenience stores up and down the country. These are small businesses on which local communities rely. They are run by local businessmen who provide employment in our villages and towns. They are a place where essential services, such as postal services and phone or bill payment services, can be accessed.

Any additional burden on our corner shops must be considered in that context. Can the Minister please set out what assessment the Government have made of the impact of this Bill on small businesses, especially convenience stores? Can she assure us that, if the impact on these businesses is shown to be overly burdensome following the passage of this Bill, Ministers will look closely at how to support convenience stores further by reducing the regulatory burden that they face? I should declare an interest in that I own a convenience store, although I do not run it.

It is essential that we do not proceed blindly without a proper understanding of the impact that this Bill will have on small businesses, so I hope that the Minister will be able to address my concerns fully in her closing remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this discussion. I say at the outset that, although I do not support accepting the amendments, I have a lot of sympathy with a number of the points made, which I will come on to. However, while I completely understand the pressure on small retailers—I will come on to that—I struggle to accept that the Bill is the fount of all evil, which I feel is the direction we are going in. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who spoke about the need to see the Bill in its overall context. I associate myself with those comments.

I absolutely agree with the intention behind Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting businesses to implement the measures in the Bill, which much of this discussion has been about. As I have said previously, we will continue —it is a continuing thing that is not in the past—to work closely with retail bodies such as the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores on the implementation of the measures, which will include the development of guidance.

I heard the concern of noble Lords about what guidance will be given. Again, I understand those points but, to say it in other words, we will support retailers through this transition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, what is being asked of retailers is not unusual for them; they are very familiar with age verification. I will come back to that later. The measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will come into force across a range of dates and therefore it is important that the associated guidance is available at the appropriate time. In other words, there will be time to make this transition and there will be support for that. We are firmly committed to publishing the guidance in a timely manner.

Turning to Amendment 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I say to nearly all noble Lords who have spoken that, although I understand the intention of the amendment, it is unnecessary. As noble Lords have acknowledged, the Government are already taking action to tackle the absolutely unacceptable rise in retail crime. The Government will not stand for violence and abuse of any kind against shop workers. Everybody has a right to feel safe at their place of work and we have long championed specific protections for retail workers.

To protect the hardworking and dedicated staff who work in stores, the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to. The Bill also removes legislation which makes shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or below a summary-only offence. That sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Howard.

Alongside legislative action, we are also providing over £7 million over the next three years to support multiple policing bodies to help to tackle retail crime. As I have mentioned, we will continue to work closely with retailers and will utilise the lead-in time to best support them in preparing for and implementing the measures in the Bill. This will include government communications and information campaigns to inform both the public and retail workers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked what assessment the Government have made of the impact on small businesses. Page 82 of the impact assessment specifically addresses this. As noble Lords are aware, an impact assessment should be expected and is required for any Bill. That means that the Regulatory Policy Committee also took a view; it published an opinion on the impact assessment and provided a fit-for-purpose rating. This included a green rating for the assessments of small and micro businesses’ assessments. I hope that will be useful.

I turn to Amendment 200A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. This would require the Government to create a financial assistance scheme specifically to subsidise the cost of purchasing age-verification technology to enforce on the sale of nicotine products. I heard the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, who spoke against that amendment.

There are no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce the age of sale of nicotine products. It will be for businesses to decide how they ensure that they sell only to people 18 years or over, including whether to use age-verification technology to support them in this. As I mentioned earlier, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, checking that a customer is over a certain age is a well-established and well-trodden path for retailers. They should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell products to anyone underage. Most retailers already follow recommended practice, and I am grateful to them; they regularly ask for identification from customers to verify their age.

To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that can be used, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age and satisfy the age of sale defence. This will include the types of digital identities that can be used, and work will continue with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which is leading on this work. I emphasise that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting retailers through the changes brought in by this legislation, including through the publication of clear guidance in which they will be fully involved.

I hope that I have provided helpful reassurances and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, including the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I could repeat that my amendment was intended as a probe to raise a set of general concerns surrounding the retail sector. I was reassured by the Minister’s reply, including her references to the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill. But we need to bear in mind, as we debate the Bill, that retailers are not the source of the problem that the Bill seeks to address—yet they will be the ones to lose out.

The Bill is projected to cost retailers more than £1 billion in profits over the next 30 years, plus what I am sure will be a considerable amount more from the reduced footfall that many will see over time. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was right: there is considerable worry in the sector, which is exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding the timetable for the Bill’s implementation. It would be helpful, perhaps when we reach the next stage of the Bill, for the Minister to give us an idea of how the Government intend to proceed as regards the processes of consultation—consideration of submissions, as well as the actual implementation—and what the outline timetable will look like. The transition needs to be as inclusive and smooth as possible, and practical guidance and support will be essential, especially for small retailing businesses. I have no doubt that the Government have this in mind, but we may need to return to it on Report, just to underline the point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 188 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendment 197 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the robust debates that we have had during Committee; I thank the Minister and all noble Lords for that. I want to say just one thing in response to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said. There is something wrong with vaping in the very limited circumstances when it hooks a 12 year-old on to something very addictive, which may last for the rest of their life—the noble Baroness did concede that point.

I turn to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, recognises that evidence and public opinion are likely to move forward as the measures in this Bill are implemented over a period of time. While the harms of smoking tobacco are well researched and evidenced, the impact or benefits of vapes and other nicotine products as smoking cessation tools are not yet so well evidenced. Besides, we can expect innovation in this area as the tobacco companies try to protect their profits. We must keep up with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just mentioned, Public Health England used to publish regular reviews on the impacts of vaping, but this has not continued; in any case, the reviews need to be a bit wider than vaping because we do not know what products are coming down the track.

The noble Lord is asking for an independent expert panel. I would certainly expect the Government continually to provide evidence themselves as they put the wide powers in this Bill into operation. However, just as the independent Climate Change Committee is well trusted in respect of the advice it gives to the Government, based on a wide range of scientific evidence—the Government benefit from that—so an expert advisory committee on the future implementation of the new regime for nicotine and vaping products, quite independent of the tobacco and vapes industry, would add to the Government’s confidence and to public confidence.

I do not want to predict what the findings of such an expert panel would be, but its deliberations could be very helpful when the operation of the Bill is reviewed at any point in future, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Russell in his Amendment 195. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested a five-year review. However, it will be very important that its deliberations and advice to the Government are totally transparent. If that were not the case, it would not command the respect of the public, the research community or anybody else. I am sure that that is the noble Lord’s intention. This idea is well worth consideration by the Minister. I am sure that there will be more discussions about it, perhaps offline, and I look forward to her reply.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will be grateful to my noble friend, with his considerable experience in health policy, for the clear and cogent way in which he introduced his amendment. I am very supportive of the principles behind the amendment, as it seeks to ensure that decisions taken after the passage of the Bill are informed by robust, independent evidence and that Parliament is equipped with the relevant and authoritative information it needs to provide proper oversight of the regime for vaping and nicotine products, information that is constantly updated as the body of evidence evolves.

Critically, this principle applies equally to the Government. Proposed new subsection (5) in the amendment would require Ministers, when making regulations under the Act, to have regard to the proposed panel’s reports and recommendations. That is a sensible idea. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham was right to remind us that there has for some time been a gap in the public health mechanisms regarding the production of such reports. If we were to recreate a mechanism of the kind suggested, the regulatory frame- work would evolve in response to the realities of science and the market rather than outdated information.

It is also important to recognise, as the amendment implicitly does, that although our primary concern here is health, regulation in this space cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider economy. When sales of currently legal products are restricted or prohibited, this inevitably impacts businesses, consumers and, sometimes, wider society, and those economic effects can themselves have unintended consequences for public health and people’s lives. There is also plenty of evidence of unintended consequences and the effectiveness of previous episodes of prohibition. The risk of a rise in consumption of illicit products is an obvious example, as is misinformation propounded on social media. The Government should make and review decisions with as clear a view as possible about those sorts of trade-offs.

For those reasons, I hope the Government will take on board the very sensible suggestion contained in this amendment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this debate, which concludes the work of the Committee. As I have said before, I certainly share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who tabled this amendment, to ensure that regulations are based on the best available evidence. I appreciate the consideration he has given to the amendment and the reason he put it forward.

I say in response that we continue to monitor emerging evidence, which we have much discussed, on vapes and nicotine products, including commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. For example, we commissioned a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies—referred to in the debate—which was published recently, and a five-year-long living evidence review that will collate the latest and most robust research into the health impact of vaping. This living evidence review is accompanied by a scientific advisory panel, which includes independent experts, appointed independently from the Government on merit, who the Government can call on for advice on the latest evidence. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, earlier this year we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health effects of vaping on young people’s health.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that misperception of the harms of vaping is of concern; I take that point. Vaping absolutely can play a role in helping adult smokers to quit, as we have discussed, but children should not be vaping and nor should non-smokers. We are committed to carefully considering the scope of restrictions, to avoid unintended consequences and the misperception of harms, which is an area for further work.

We also fund a vaping expert panel, which provides valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations. Under many of the powers in the Bill there is a requirement to consult before making regulations and, on 8 October, we published a call for evidence on issues where more evidence is needed before we can consult on specific proposals. We will monitor the impacts of measures brought in by the Bill and subsequent regulations. We will also be able to update regulations in future to ensure that policy is responsive to evolving evidence, should this be necessary.

It is our view that we have access to appropriate expert advice, which I know is the noble Lord’s intention, and we will consider the best available evidence in making regulations. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, the debate on this matter this morning has been enlightening from all sides, with many with many distinctive speeches that will stay with me, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who brought a very personal account, though he is no longer in his place.

We are talking about concepts and words—whether it is encouragement, coercion or pressure. They are in a similar collective of words, and I worry that we are dancing with words a lot in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, brought the word “autonomy” to us this morning, which is very important. I know it has been described earlier in Committee and on the Floor here today. I would be significantly more encouraged and relieved if I could be absolutely sure that autonomy and freedom of action, freedom of movement, freedom of thought and of decision were clear, unambiguous and untainted. I cannot be assured by the Bill, as it stands, as it is weak on the coercion nature.

As I left the Chamber earlier—my wife had arrived— I thought back to the cases of Ruth Ellis and Derek Bentley, which were very significant as they stopped the death penalty in this country. It was a long time ago when the morality and thoughts of this country were in a very different place to today. One might talk about the deterrent effects of the death penalty—which is a whole different debate—but we were willing to put that aside because of the potential of getting things wrong, and we did not want miscarriages of justice. That was so powerful. However, here we are discussing this Bill with lots of suggestions on how we could strengthen the coercion measures and make sure that people are not being pushed towards an early death that they did not want. We are almost flippant about that because the unsaid words are, “They’re old and ill anyway, so they don’t really matter”.

In support of Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, my noble friend Lord Deben—with whom I do not always agree on everything—made a very powerful point. If you were to look at the bell curve of the wealth and status of us in this Committee, we are probably to the left of the public politically, but certainly to the right in terms of wealth and influence as a whole. There is a world of difference between how, if we were to face this, we would be treated—the voice we would have for ourselves and the way in which our families would know they have agency and power to speak—compared with others in society. It could be that the wealthy family would be in a different place, because they could afford the help at home and the support in a care home as necessary.

However, for those in the middle who perhaps have children who work away, which is increasingly likely in this country, the children are feeling guilty. There are lots of cases that have been talked about the real situation of how people feel. In cases of that type there may be no problem of wealth, but problems of support by children and others. The “I don’t want to be a burden” debate would be coming to the fore.

One of our Northern Ireland colleagues mentioned the issue of saying, “Do you know how much this costs the NHS?”. I will be exploring that in greater detail. I think Amendment 3 touched on having an independent person; I have laid amendments for another day examining whether the NHS should be part of this process at all.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that I could be encouraged but I am not sure how we can overcome the facets and dimensions of autonomy and coercion, because people and families are complex. One’s situation in life is complex. Just as we were willing to change a major piece of criminal legislation on the back of two errors, we seem to be not so interested in looking after the vulnerable in this Bill. I wish I could advance an amendment that would satisfy me—a lot of these amendments would make me a little more satisfied—but, no matter what we do, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in saying that we need to look at this whole area of coercion and pressure all over again. It is absolutely apparent across this Committee that this is the sticking point for many of us, so please try to satisfy us.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in their various ways, the amendments in this group seek to protect those who are terminally ill from being coerced or pressured into a decision to seek an assisted death. One of the most worrying concerns that have been raised by opponents of this Bill is the risk of especially vulnerable people being encouraged or coerced into ending their own life. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, was right about that. For that reason, I do not think the Committee should feel embarrassed about having spent the time on this debate that we have.

As has been pointed out, the Bill already seeks to cover the coercion issue in its existing drafting. However, given that it creates a totally new role for medical practitioners in a situation where a terminally ill person wishes to end their life, in my opinion noble Lords are surely right that a laser focus should be applied to delivering protections designed to prevent any such coercion or pressure.

As a number of speakers have pointed out, coercion can come from anywhere—family members, friends, neighbours, other trusted people in our lives or an institution—and it does not have to be overt. It can and often does take the subtlest of forms. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Deben vividly described situations of that nature. Of course, the vast majority of family and friends of someone suffering from a progressive terminal illness will act in good faith to support their loved one through what is in many if not most cases an incredibly difficult time. However, when framing legislation around a decision as momentous as whether to opt for an assisted death and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, human nature being what it is, it is doubly incumbent on us to look for ways of safeguarding those who might be most susceptible to external pressure.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would state more clearly in the Bill that the decision to end one’s life must be made independently. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will look favourably on this amendment, as it seems to me in tune with the Bill’s aims and purpose.

The question, though, as posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is whether it is necessary. As far as I can see, in no part of the Bill is there any indication that where a person finds it difficult to make a decision about an assisted death, or where the possibility of an assisted death has not even entered their head, it would be appropriate for their thoughts to be influenced or guided by another individual. Indeed, the Bill contains specific prohibitions on advertisement and promotion, as well as the offences set out in Clause 34 in respect of inducing a person to seek an assisted death by dishonesty, coercion or pressure.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we cannot support these amendments, I am afraid.

I want to make a couple of comments on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The scenarios that he outlined would be against common sense and I really hope that, when the regulations come before us, they adhere to common sense and take account of the sorts of scenario that he suggested. I certainly think that, with the Bill as it stands, if the noble Lord had decided to give up smoking after the Bill—rather than before, as I understand he already has done—by being of age, in that I think he probably is over 18, he would be able, once the Bill becomes law, to go into a shop and buy vapes to help him give up smoking. So, I do not share his fears; let us put it that way.

I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the egregious nature of some of the advertising. In my own experience, in the high street of my local village, the whole window of one of the local shops is covered with advertisements for vapes, which are very clearly aimed at children: there is no question about it. Of course, the regulations must be carefully drafted to make sure of the objective we all share: making sure that adults who are of age and who wish to stop smoking can do so with the help of vapes.

I turn to the specific amendments in this group. In Amendments 160 to 166 and 173, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition on publishing and advertising. We do not believe that these products should be marketed to the general public; there are already provisions allowing them to be promoted as a cessation tool, which is what they are supposed to be in the first place, with a reasonable range of flavours correctly advertised.

Amendment 172 would require both a call for evidence and consultation before the introduction of marketing restrictions on vaping and heated tobacco products. These would delay the Bill—there is no question about it—and would, therefore, delay what the Bill is trying to do, which is combat the uptake of these products by young people. In any case, consulting with the manufacturers in this way may very well contravene Article 5.3 of the FCTC, which we debated last week.

Amendment 173A is not necessary, as we have already been assured both that consultation will take place and that the available evidence will be considered.

Finally, Amendment 174 from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is not necessary because Clause 132(2) already states:

“Before making regulations … the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult”.


That should cover the noble Lord’s concern.

I have a question for the Minister about the consultation. This morning, I met a mother whose teenage daughter took up vaping at school and now cannot get off the habit. The mother did everything a good mother should do, because the child was quite upset about it; she was so hooked on nicotine that she could not give it up. She went to the GP. She went to the stop smoking services. She went to the pharmacist. She went to a drop-in. She then tried to buy 0% vapes but could not find them in any shop. Eventually, she persuaded a local shop to stock a small number of 0% nicotine vapes, so that the child could continue the behavioural habit without the nicotine—and without standing out from her peers, all of whom vaped behind the bike sheds, as far as I understand it.

It is important. It harks back to an amendment that we discussed last week about the NICE guidelines for stop vaping services. The Government need to make it clear that 0% vapes are and should be available as part of the cessation tools for people who do not just want to give up smoking tobacco but want to get off nicotine as well. That public health service—I do not call it an industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does—should be available to young people.

In the real world, they are vaping. We do not know how harmful it is to them, but I strongly suspect that it is. It is certainly highly addictive. It takes all their pocket money and who knows what else. Very often, they get their vapes from illicit sources, which brings them in contact with people they should not be in contact with. So I would like to know from the Minister whether the consultation will take that sort of thing into account.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I was right in believing that it was implicit in the noble Baroness’s remarks that she felt that 0% vapes should be an exception to the advertising rule.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Just to clarify, yes.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is helpful. These amendments once again bring us back to the issue of proportionality. The first thing to say, and I hope that no Member of the Committee will disagree with me, is that we have to be very careful when legislating on vapes and nicotine products, lest we inadvertently discourage their use by those who need them for smoking cessation purposes.

That leads to me to make a point similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Moylan. Sending the message that there are harsh criminal penalties associated with advertising these products or having anything to do with the advertising process plays right into the false narrative, which a lot of people now believe, that vapes and nicotine products—but especially vapes—are as harmful to human health as tobacco smoking. Used irresponsibly, vapes can cause addiction to nicotine and, in that sense, are bad for you. However, when responsibly used as a means of quitting smoking, they are not bad for you. We should tread carefully when purporting to put them on a par with tobacco products and herbal smoking products, as the Bill does in Clauses 113 to 118.

There are 6 million tobacco smokers in this country whom the Government rightly want to help to quit. But those who go through that process know that it is not as easy as simply putting down the cigarette and walking away. Having a safer, accessible and—dare I say—pleasant alternative to turn to is often what makes it bearable for those suffering from cold turkey.

Vaping and nicotine products are those safer alternatives to smoking. They do not possess the same chemicals and tar found in tobacco, and the poisonous chemicals in tobacco smoke are absent. Despite this consensus, 53% of the public believe that vapes are just as bad, while 40% believe that nicotine causes most smoking-related cancer. What do the Government say to those people when they place equal bans on the advertising of tobacco, nicotine and vapes alike? I do not think that they convince them that one of those options is better.

Amendment 173A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and Amendment 174 in my own name, would require the Secretary of State, before imposing a ban on the advertising of vapes and nicotine products or a ban on vape and nicotine companies acting as sponsors, to assess the impact of those bans on likely rates of smoking cessation and the impact on producers, retailers and, indeed, consumers. The free market has played a large part in the threefold reduction in smoking over the past 20 years through the natural growth of tobacco alternatives. The result is that we now have a vaping industry worth over £3 billion, a large part of it with standards and codes of practice, and a rapidly growing nicotine products industry.

I believe that we should welcome that, because it has facilitated the decline in smoking rates and, at the same time, contributed to the economy. I am the first to concede that there are bad-faith actors out there. No one on these Benches would argue against a ban on products or advertising targeted at children, but that is a very different thing from a ban on all advertisements of vaping and nicotine products in any circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as I was saying, on Amendment 161A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the removal of,

“or has reason to suspect”,

in Clause 114(1)(b), we believe this phrase is commonly used and therefore there is no need to remove it.

On Amendment 161B on possible disparities between penalties in different devolved nations, we look forward to the Minister’s response. Although consistency is usually desirable, there may be unintended consequences, which the Minister knows about, because different situations prevail in different parts of the country.

We support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in his Amendment 167 because it is important that vapes can be promoted as a cessation tool. However, as I understand it, the Bill prohibits the advertising of vapes by businesses only, which means that public health organisations, GPs and hospitals treating patients suffering from smoking-related diseases could promote them as a quitting aid. As I understand it, the prohibition does not cover products licensed as medicines, so they can continue to be promoted.

Having said all that, I hope that the Minister can assure us that clear guidance compatible with the Bill’s intentions will be provided by the Advertising Standards Authority so as not to hinder public health settings while preventing commercial advertising, which has had such an egregious effect on the level of awareness of these products among children, who do not need them to quit smoking.

With Amendment 168, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would allow vapes to be promoted in what we might call adults-only places. Leaving aside the fact that, as we know, many younger people slip into these places, promotion there would give the impression that these products are for recreational use, which is not their purpose. Anyone going to a nightclub who is trying to quit smoking but fears they may be tempted to have a cigarette when they have had a few drinks and their resistance is lowered would certainly equip themselves with their vapes before going out.

We do not think Amendment 168A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is necessary as the Bill already allows public health authorities to promote heated tobacco and other things as quitting aids.

Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raises an interesting issue that we think could be explored. There may be a case for some limited arrangements for display or promotion by specialist retailers, but this should be done very carefully to avoid ensnaring young people inappropriately. I think the Bill allows specialist vape shops to operate, and they could display material provided by public health authorities.

Amendment 170 is not necessary as there is no prohibition in the Bill of specialist retailers putting information on their website.

Regarding Amendment 170A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I think about my local corner shop, which has illuminated signs inside and a shop window plastered with enticing advertisements for sweet-flavoured vapes. I hope the Minister will resist this very broad exemption.

Finally, we think that Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on brand sharing is far too broad and would, in the end, apply to all brand sharing. I know from my work on food advertising how widely brand logos, colours and images can be recognised by the public. Who does not know that burgers and chips are being sold when they see the golden arches of McDonald’s, or that chocolate bars are being advertised when they see the colour purple and the words Dairy Milk? You need to be very careful when regulating brands, so I hope the Minister will resist that one, too.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments we have seen a logical continuation of our debate on the previous group, since in their various ways these amendments pose the question of what are the appropriate constraints to place around products that are of considerably less concern in a health context than tobacco products. We are back in the realm of deciding what is proportionate and how to secure better clarity and consistency in the operation of the Bill’s advertising and design provisions.

Although he has not been here to speak to it, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s Amendment 161A struck me as a point worth raising. It would protect designers and creative professionals from being criminally liable based on mere suspicion or indirect association because it would work to raise the threshold of proof of intent. One could imagine that in some cases it could be difficult to prove that someone designing an advertisement had reason to suspect that it would be published. In any event, is it right that someone who has been asked by their employer to design a vape advertisement should be criminalised because they know or believe it may be used in some context? I am afraid that the word “draconian” comes to mind.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 161B a very similar thought came to mind. Are the Government really saying that the offence of designing an advertisement for a vape merits a prison sentence? There are mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment. How should the sentencing provisions in this part of the Bill be read alongside the provisions of the Government’s Sentencing Bill? What is the overall message? The Sentencing Bill will require almost all sentences of less than 12 months to be suspended. On the one hand, the Government are creating imprisonable offences, and on the other, they are saying that people should not actually go to prison, even if they are sentenced to it. At the very least, the Minister needs to explain to the Committee why the sentence on summary conviction is to be different in Scotland than in Northern Ireland, which might have been a point my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would have made.

Turning to my Amendment 167 and the very well worded amendment, if I may say so, from the Liberal Democrats, the underlying purpose of each is the same, which is to urge the Government to regulate, rather than ban, vape advertisements so that in narrow clinical contexts, such as smoking cessation clinics, they can be deployed for public health purposes. Amendment 168A in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising has a very similar purpose.

In Amendment 169 I am asking the Government to consider a further exemption for advertisements located discretely in specialist vaping shops. Why not allow that? As my noble friend Lord Moylan has asked in his Amendment 170, why prohibit such specialist shops providing information online subject to suitable age-gating checks? That in turn raises a further question from my noble friend in his Amendment 168. In adult-only environments, why should displaying an advertisement for a vaping product be against the law given that, as we need to keep reminding ourselves, vapes are and will remain legally available for purchase by anyone aged 18 or over? Why are the Government treating vape advertising in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising? What is the justification? Amendment 170A from my noble friend Lord Howard asks that question in a different form. Why should we not allow factual product information to be provided at point of sale in an age-restricted area in suitably licensed premises?

Finally, Amendment 172A from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister would prevent overreach. It would ensure that brand restrictions target only genuine attempts to promote nicotine or tobacco, not completely unrelated products such as clothing or other merchandise. I think my noble friend has identified an issue that requires clarification from the Government, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am most grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward this group of amendments, which reference Part 6 provisions, and for the contributions that have been made.

I will start with Amendments 161A and 161B, which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. The current drafting of Clause 114 makes it an offence, when acting in the course of business, to design an advert that would promote a relevant product and be published in the UK. If an organisation knows or has reason to suspect their advert has a promotional purpose or effect and will be published in the UK, it has committed an offence by designing the advert.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the inclusion of “has reason to suspect” is deliberate, not least because it mirrors the approach taken in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. This wording is designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those who are involved in the design of ads cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance where it is clear from the evidence that they had reason to suspect what they were designing an advert for. I hope the noble Earl will understand that we will, therefore, not seek to weaken existing legislation or allow any uncertainty that could be exploited.

I turn to Amendment 161B. I sympathise with the intention to align penalties across the UK but, of course, it is important that we respect Scotland has a separate criminal justice system. There are maximum penalties for this type of offence; they are fixed in line with the criminal justice system in each jurisdiction. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

I turn to Amendment 172A, which was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. It seeks to restrict the scope of the offence of brand sharing. Brand sharing, also known as brand stretching, is a form of indirect advertising and should be seen as such, not least because it promotes the use of a service or product by putting its branding on other products or services or vice versa. The clause is drafted in a manner that already limits the offence that could be created under this power to cases where the purpose or effect is to promote a relevant product. Brand sharing, as defined in the Bill, would be unlikely to capture the types of case about which the noble Lord is concerned in his amendment; it is our view, therefore, that this amendment, as it stands, would introduce unnecessary complexity.

I turn to Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The Bill as drafted takes decisive action to ban the advertising and sponsorship of all vapes and nicotine products, delivering on our clear manifesto commitment to stop vapes being advertised to children—something on which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke. The ban is essential to creating what we seek: a strong, consistent regulatory environment; and to provide clarity for businesses and enforcement bodies. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that guidance will be produced on advertising.

This Bill already includes defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I have said in our debates on earlier groups, we are not considering any other exemptions for adult-only spaces, not least because of the risk of loopholes; these were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. However, I take this opportunity to correct a statement that was made in the other place: this prohibition will apply to all advertisements for relevant products, not just those for specific products. In practice, this means that anyone acting in the course of business could commit an offence if they promote a relevant product, whether that is a generic product, a category of products or a specific branded product.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the notice to debate whether Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill has been tabled as a probe. From my reading of Clause 136, it alters a long-standing regulatory regime set out in the Health Act 2006. Under that Act, Ministers have a regulation-making power to exempt performers and performances from the smoking ban, where doing so is justified by the artistic integrity of the performance. That provision, in effect, creates a presumption of legality that empowers producers, directors and performers to make a reasoned judgment about whether smoking is intrinsic to the artistic content of the work.

Clause 136 turns that structure on its head. Instead of a power to permit smoking for artistic reasons, it substitutes a power only to create a defence to the criminal offence in Section 7(2) of the 2006 Act. That offence is clear. It says:

“A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence”.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the noble Earl will feel able not to press his opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin, I am afraid, by briefly taking issue with the intent behind Amendment 180. I was grateful for the Minister’s comments on that. In the Bill, we have an incremental measure designed to bring successive generations into adulthood without cigarettes, while not imposing restrictions on those who have been smoking their entire lives. That nuance is a large reason why a blanket ban on smoking would have been considered unfair.

The unfairness of a blanket ban is also one reason we still have cigar lounges. Cigars, which, over time, evolved into a cultural practice for many people, have, up to now, been understood to hold a special position in legislation. That was reflected in the establishment of cigar lounges and their continued exemption from other general bans on indoor smoking.

There is a further reason for that. There comes a point where considerations of personal freedom and choice and the interests of small businesses, as the Minister said, take precedence over considerations of harm to health. I know that harm to health is important, but there are other considerations in this context as well, which is the reason why I keep emphasising the need for proportionality in the Bill.

Equally, I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 186. Its scope goes beyond the extended scope of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was entirely right to mention the state of the hospitality sector at the present time: it is under acute pressure.

Of course, I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but, again as we have debated in the past, there is a need to distinguish evidence of harm from evidence of nuisance. Some people, if they are sitting outside and the person at the next table is smoking, might regard that as a bit of a nuisance. But the watchword surely must be that policy should be founded on evidence. We need to have solid evidence of real harm arising from passive smoking in the open air. That is simply to state the position of these Benches.

Finally, on Clause 136, I was very grateful for the Minister’s response and look forward to her letter on this. I am still in some difficulty, which I hope she will take account of in her letter. The current regime—which I remember, having taken the Bill through when in Opposition—was carefully framed in the 2006 Act and has operated effectively for nearly two decades. It has allowed a tightly controlled exemption where artistic integrity justifies it. I think it has done so without any evidence of harm, abuse or increased smoking prevalence.

I look forward to what the Minister has to say. Of course, I will reflect on what she has said today. In the meantime, I shall not press my opposition to the clause standing part.

Clause 136 agreed.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendments 195 and 196. As he said, they intend to support the core principles of the Bill and ensure effective delivery. It is one thing to legislate; it is quite another to deliver and even to implement. I am currently involved in following measures that were put into legislation through the Health and Care Act 2022, which have still not been implemented. We must make sure that things like that are properly implemented.

Whatever the Government’s intentions are now, when the facts change a sensible person changes appropriately, albeit along the same core principles. A number of potential barriers along the way have been suggested by noble Lords as we have debated the Bill, including today, such as an expansion of the illicit market; the possible clever responses of the tobacco industry to get round the intention of the Bill to protect young people and achieve a smoke-free generation; and technical issues such as age-gating, age verification and so on.

Although the Bill gives the Government wide powers to act, my noble friend’s points about having two reviews, to which his amendments would mandate the Government to adhere, would give naysayers confidence that any unintended consequences would be dealt with either by the Government using the powers in the Bill or by introducing further legislation if necessary after the reviews.

I particularly support my noble friend’s inclusion of nicotine use in his request for reviews. Although the use of vapes as a quitting tool has already been shown to be effective, we all know that they have been taken up by large numbers of young people who have never smoked tobacco. However, the industry is still very young and there is still little evidence about the effect of both the flavour additives and the long-term use of nicotine on the young brain and lungs. Over the coming years, that evidence will emerge one way or another. We already know how addictive nicotine is and that it can make people feel stressed, restless, irritable and unable to concentrate. That is problematic for children in school, which is the very reason why sales of nicotine vapes are banned for under-18s, although illicit sales to younger people are really problematic for teachers.

We also know that nicotine leads to short-term increases in heart rate and systolic blood pressure; as I understand it, that is why tobacco pouches are endemic among professional footballers before a match. Unfortunately, this habit is being copied by many of their young fans. Some use several of them, resulting in dizziness, nausea and, in a few extreme cases, fainting. We do not know about the long-term effects of the use of nicotine by very young people, as the research focuses on users of legal age; this is the sort of thing that may emerge over the next few years. As to the future, we will see how well vapes and other nicotine replacement therapies work as quitting tools. We need to be sure that the legislation will respond to this and other evidence.

These two age points are significant since they have been suggested as an alternative by some opponents of the generational escalator in the Bill. Why not, they suggest, simply raise the legal age of sale to 21 or 25? A promise of reviews at these age points will help encourage those people to support the Bill as it stands, so I hope that the Minister will accept these two amendments; I prefer them to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, except that I certainly support his reference to small businesses. I am sure that noble Lords will know about these matters from previous debates, but perhaps we could put our heads together before Report.

On the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, regarding the EU’s Technical Regulation Information System and the standstill period that now impacts on the Bill, it is important to note that several EU countries, such as Greece, Romania and Italy, object pretty routinely to all tobacco control legislation in the EU. There is no new information today that is cause for concern regarding this Bill.

On the legal opinion to which the noble Baroness referred, it appears to have been shared with only the Daily Mail—it certainly has not been published—so I am unable to take a view on it; besides, doing so is probably beyond my skill set and pay grade anyway. I just hope that the Minister has good legal advice.

There is a point to be made here, however, about how the UK seems to have found itself in the worst of both worlds, with EU states being able to object to legislation that we wish to bring in to protect the health of our nation but with us having none of the benefits of being a member. That is a point for another debate, though. I hope that the Minister can confirm that any such objections will not be binding on the UK; and that this sovereign Parliament will be able to push ahead with this important legislation.

I turn to Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. He appears to be expecting a different Administration in the next Parliament; I will leave it to the Minister to reply to the noble Lord’s comments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which centre on three linked themes: the need for careful, joined-up policy-making; the need for proper review; and the need for clear accountability on how this Bill will work in practice once it becomes law.

In her Amendment 114B, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, directs the Committee’s attention once again to the issue of the Bill’s compatibility with the provisions of the Windsor Framework. I am glad that she has done so because I agree with my noble friend Lord Johnson; with no disrespect to the Minister, I felt that her reassurance on that question in our earlier debate was more of an assertion than a reasoned explanation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are quite right that there is still considerable uncertainty and anxiety around the Windsor Framework issue. The noble Baroness quoted the opinion of the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC; I will not repeat it, although I have those words in front of me. Like the noble Baroness, I am very concerned by his unequivocal statements on this question. Surely it is imperative that the Government can clarify exactly how the Bill will work in practice. It is not good enough to say merely that it will work; we need to know how it will work and how the concerns raised by legal experts such as Mr Larkin will be addressed.

An authoritative, independent legal opinion would give us much greater confidence on this point. Indeed, the question of legal compatibility has a direct bearing on the other amendments in this group, which pertain to Northern Ireland; we will listen very carefully to what the Minister says in response to those.

--- Later in debate ---

However, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, also include provisions regarding consultation on these powers, including with manufacturers. A broad consultation will follow Royal Assent of this Bill and the current call for evidence is also a mechanism by which views can be raised. Therefore, I do not believe that additional requirements that choose to mention manufacturers, retailers and consumers but omit academics, public health teams and local authorities are desirable. Moreover, moving from regulations, which would say that certain things must happen, to guidance would water down their effect. We surely all know the potential effect of that. The Government must act swiftly on reducing youth appeal of these products. Removing images and colours can be done quite quickly. I also support regulations rather than simply guidance on such matters. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 146. It seems to me both sensible and essential to set the groundwork, as he put it, for further work on defining vape flavours—keeping in mind at all times the Government’s intention, which we support: to allow vapes as an effective, proven tool in quitting smoking tobacco while at the same time addressing the egregious activities of the tobacco industry vis-à-vis young people. It has used colours, flavours, images, packaging and marketing to encourage young people who have never smoked to take up vaping. We know that, once hooked on the nicotine in these products, it will be very difficult for these young people to wean themselves off them when they want to. We also know that evidence of real and lasting harm will continue to emerge over the next few years, and that is why the work to define flavours is so important and why I support this probing amendment.

I am one of those nerdy people who, when they go shopping at the supermarket, takes a little magnifying glass with them. I strongly suspect that the “banana ice” vape of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the “mango ice” vape of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have never been within five miles of a banana or a mango, and that anything called “raspberry fizz” will never have been within five miles of a raspberry. These things are put together. They do not contain any raspberry, mango or banana; instead, they contain a whole mix of chemicals. It might be more honest to label them with, “This vape tastes a bit like banana, but it contains the following 15 chemicals”, but you cannot do that, can you? Hence the Government’s problem.

As with the other amendments in this group, Amendment 142 would open the way for the Government to include big-puff vapes and other technical measures in regulation—perhaps things such as age-gating at some future point—but it would not mandate them to do so. So, I would certainly not oppose it, although the Minister might tell us that the Government can do all this without the amendment.

Amendment 144 could inadvertently restrict the Government’s opportunity to limit the number of flavours. I would not want to do that, so I do not support this amendment, but I would like to see the Government allow a reasonable range of flavours to help people who use vapes or who are quitting smoking, for the very reason indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: smokers like the fruity flavours, which certainly help them. That would be a very good thing. I really do think that allowing only a tobacco flavour would be a bad idea, because tobacco is the very thing that smokers want to get away from.

I very much look forward to the Government’s response, particularly to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I need to start with some apologies to my noble friends Lord Mott and Lord Udny-Lister because I have to express a measure of caution on Amendment 142, which would increase the power of Ministers to make regulations on the sorts of products that can be banned by extending the scope of Clause 90 to include design and interoperability.

Although I recognise the intent behind the proposal, the problem here is nailing down exactly where the truth lies. One hears from a number of people that so-called high puff count vapes are inherently harmful and are, therefore, to be regulated or prohibited. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister certainly indicated that that was his view, but it is nevertheless striking that the briefing I received from ASH regards this amendment as unnecessary. If the Committee will forgive me, I will just read out a section of it:

“Concerns regarding larger big puff products may be unfounded. There is no current evidence to suggest that these might increase harms or pose additional risks from products containing less liquid. It is possible that larger-volume products could have benefits in terms of satisfying consumer demand for longer-lasting products, reducing environmental impact and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking”.


I find that a little baffling, and it would be very helpful if we could hear from the Minister the official view of these high puff count devices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of Amendment 147 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I think his intention is quite correct for the following reason. Many of those who wish to stop smoking want to be released from the addiction to nicotine altogether, as they did in the old-fashioned way, as he has just said. They do not just want a less harmful nicotine hit. It is an expensive and harmful addiction, particularly for the developing young brain, yet we are told that many young people are becoming addicted to nicotine through vapes and tobacco pouches, and there is no help for them to quit in many places. As the noble Lord said, NICE guidelines list four services that should be available, including behavioural interventions and in-person group sessions, to help people quit, as well as nicotine-containing replacements for tobacco, which are available in most local stop smoking services. I have received a briefing from Allen Carr’s Easyway, although I have never come across the company before.

There is some evidence that some people who manage to stop smoking tobacco by using a nicotine replacement go back to smoking tobacco in the end. Quitting nicotine altogether has been shown to be more sustainable; people go back to smoking less often when they have managed to kick the nicotine habit as well. I assume that that is why NICE has recommended that services to get off nicotine addiction must be offered as well as vapes and patches. I note that, in its guidelines, NICE does not say “should” or “could”; it says “must”.

The ultimate role of NICE is to ensure that people across the UK have access to the most effective and cost-effective treatments and services; that is why it says that all four methods of quitting should be available. It may be much easier, quicker and even cheaper just to hand out patches and vapes—it is certainly much more difficult to arrange behavioural therapies and group therapies—but, for some people who want to quit smoking, it is more effective for them to have behavioural therapy, group therapy and the help of Allen Carr’s Easyway. That company must be good, authentic and of a high quality if it is recommended by NICE.

I certainly support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his amendment.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, this group contains a number of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to what he identifies as burdens that are potentially being placed on the industry when assessing the harms of products. There is much here that can and should be explored through consultation on this legislation. For example, it is important that clear standards are set for appropriate facilities to undertake testing, but it does not feel appropriate or proportionate to have a set list of providers who can undertake this. That feels like locking manufacturers into a bit of a closed market, although I hear what the noble Lord says his intention is behind this.

I also caution against amendments that seek to compare nicotine products as benign, when compared with tobacco. We have had quite a debate about that this afternoon. Obviously, it can be helpful in assessing whether a particular nicotine product should be used for smoking cessation purposes, but defining it as simply less harmful than tobacco does not mean it would be a good public health standard, as we have heard. Not all users of these products will be smokers, as we have also heard, and we already know that the route to smoking for young people is now often via vapes. We have had quite a discussion of that, and the fact that nicotine is addictive. We have heard how difficult it is to give up nicotine, however much we may wish that not to be the case. It is therefore important to assess the impact on health of nicotine in its own right. The noble Lord may feel that that comparative approach is included in his amendment, but I would be concerned about adding his amendment to the Bill.

Amendment 148C would remove the following provision:

“The regulations must prohibit a producer from nominating an individual without the individual’s consent”.


We feel that should remain part of the Bill.

Amendment 149A refers in effect to delegated powers. I understand the concern about those powers but also why the Government seek wide and flexible powers in the Bill, given what they are dealing with and the fast footwork in this industry. Would it not have been good had the vaping and tobacco industry made sure that nicotine substitutes were targeted only at smokers trying to shed their smoking habits? Who would have thought, as we looked at this a few years back and supported the use of such products for such purposes, that we would be where we are now? But we are—so I hope that the Committee will forgive me for my jaundice on this matter. This ship has sailed; the manufacturers have shown themselves not to be trusted to market them only as smoking cessation tools, and the Bill rightly seeks to protect our children and grandchildren. Waiting for primary legislation to come around again on this, while the industry targets in a new and inventive way so that children get hooked and cannot free themselves from its embrace, is not what a responsible Government should do.

Had the industry proved trustworthy in the past, I would maybe have a different view, as someone who thought nicotine substitution was a useful down ramp for addicted smokers—so I remain unconvinced. Who would have predicted that we would be where we are? This industry is nothing if not inventive, and we should therefore oppose these amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raises a number of sensible points about proportionality, transparency and evidence within the regulatory framework that the Bill will establish. Amendments 148A and 148C speak to the question of clarity and accountability, both in research and in representation. They would ensure that everyone—manufacturers, the Government and members of the public—can have sight of who exactly is responsible for carrying out studies on products and who is representing a manufacturer’s interests.

I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about a closed list. It seems to me that the besetting problem in this entire area is that the general public do not know what information they can rely on. There is an awful lot of myth and misinformation out there, as well as suspicion. By requiring that studies are undertaken by approved providers and that the nominated responsible person has a genuine connection to the UK, these amendments would bring about welcome transparency and help to provide confidence—to consumers and the industry alike—that those undertaking research and providing information are properly qualified and within reach of UK oversight. That principle seems very sensible. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, consultation and the extent to which certain groups are involved has been a key theme of these debates so far. Amendment 154, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises some interesting points regarding existing codes of practice, guidance and standards. He is quite right that there is a real range when it comes to manufacturers and retailers of vaping products. However, as a general principle, I think he will recall from his time in government that self-regulation has had a lot of problems, as the Minister reminded the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

One relevant example here is the voluntary code that was introduced for tobacco advertising in 1971. I am not aware of a model in the vaping industry that has been effective in regulating products in a way that reduces their appeal to young people, as we have been debating. As the Minister pointed out, it has had that opportunity and it has not taken it. Although I recognise that Amendment 198 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is speaking specifically about vaping policy and products, the fact remains that it is the manufacturer or company that is captured by the WHO treaty. The suggestion in Amendment 198 is, in effect, that the Secretary of State should disregard Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is part of a global treaty to protect health policy from the pernicious influence of the tobacco industry. I made reference earlier to what I saw when I was a Department for International Development Minister—tobacco companies giving children in developing countries cigarettes and pressurising Governments, who hardly had the resources to push back, to allow them free rein.

Article 5.3 was a necessary reaction to decades of deceit by an industry that knew about, but covered up, the deadly effects of its products on those who are hooked on them. It was, in my view, an astonishing achievement to secure this measure through the WHO; I doubted that it could ever be achieved. In my view, we must do nothing to undermine that global agreement, and I hope we will not, but as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, Article 5.3 will not prevent the Government working with parts of the vaping industry that are not owned by the tobacco industry; nor does it exclude all contact. The guidelines are clear: parties should interact with the tobacco industry only when it is strictly necessary in order to enable them to regulate effectively. Tobacco companies have claimed that Article 5.3 should not relate to their non-tobacco products, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, indicated, but the requirements in the treaty are both clear and necessary. The tobacco companies’ profit motives are misaligned with public health goals.

Even with these guidelines and the UK’s strong position on Article 5.3, the tobacco industry continues to try to engage with Ministers. I was extremely concerned to see that, last week, the Trade Minister, Chris Bryant, was at an event sponsored by Philip Morris, Imperial Brands and British American Tobacco: the Asian Trader Awards. Paul Cheema, the retailer who fronts the “Protect Your Store” campaign, which is full of industry-backed misinformation, was awarded the Responsible Retailer of the Year award, sponsored by Imperial Brands, in recognition of his work to campaign against this very Bill. That campaign bears a strong resemblance to the “Save Our Shops” campaign, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will remember, as, no doubt, will the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. That campaign, launched in 2008, was funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association through the Tobacco Retailers’ Alliance.

I hope the Minister will remind her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade of their responsibilities in this area. The tobacco industry is extremely active in attempting to influence this Bill and other regulations, and it has deep pockets. I am very wary of the approach of these amendments, for the reasons I have given; I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, each amendment in this group constitutes a suggestion to the Government that there is a place for regulation with a lighter touch in what is currently a rather heavy-handed Bill. As our Committee debates move forward, I get the sense that a large number of restrictions, rules and regulations are now being devised centrally and will, in due course, be placed on some very large industries, some of them very responsible, without those industries being brought properly into the loop. I hope that I am wrong on that latter point.

My noble friend Lord Lansley has helpfully drawn attention to the codes of practice and the standards that already exist in the vape and nicotine industries, which are overseen by representative industry bodies. The existence of these standards and codes is a reflection of a desire on the part of those businesses to act responsibly towards consumers—and to be seen to do so because, of course, these industries understand their businesses best and are in the best position to frame rules that are designed to drive out poor practice but nevertheless maintain healthy competition in the marketplace.

My noble friend may correct me if I am wrong but, as I interpret his amendment, he is not saying that there is no room for government regulation on top of what these industries are already doing; as we debated earlier, there may well be further restrictions that, for public health reasons, prove to be appropriate. What he is saying, however, is that the Government need regulate only where there is a patent need to do so; and that there may be less need to regulate if there is a responsible industry body in place. There is a parallel with the Portman Group.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend moves on to that helpful analogy, I would like to say—not least in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said—that I do not regard what I am putting forward as asking for industry self-regulation. In fact, I am asking for co-regulation in that relationship with government. Making the regulation effective is what I am all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 81 and 83, but as this is Committee I also note the virtues of Amendment 89 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will soon find out which one the Minister prefers, if either of them.

My amendments would ensure that the money from the fixed penalty notices goes to the local authority to pay for public health initiatives determined by the authority. As the Committee knows, local authorities are very hard up. Indeed, some are going into administration. I know from my work on food and health that the public health grant is stretched to breaking point for obesity services, let alone all the other services that we are talking about, such as smoking quitting services. All that makes the burden assessment, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, very important, so I too would be interested to hear where it is.

Although I hope that the level of compliance with the new laws will be high, so that there is no need for too many fixed penalty notices, I believe there is virtue in the idea that such fines should support smoking cessation services. I am afraid that at the moment there is limited access to these services. As I have said before, young people who wish to stop vaping also complain of a lack of services to help them to do so. One would hope that what I should perhaps call the traffic warden syndrome, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would not happen—but, of course, if people are breaking the law, they will need to pay the penalty. One would not want small businesses to be overburdened by constant vigilance on that score.

However, if the Minister were minded to accept one of my noble friend Lord Russell’s amendments in another group, on a levy on the profits of tobacco companies to support the NHS and smoking cessation services, that might be even better because it would raise a lot more money, which could be spent on cessation and prevention. That is the subject of a different discussion.

Why is the additional government funding for trading standards not enough? Is it enough or not? Perhaps the proceeds of fixed penalties should go to enforcement, rather than helping people to quit smoking and vaping. Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure and enforcement.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a great debate. Those noble Lords who know me know that, like the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I am a great supporter of this Bill, and I would not want to do anything to weaken it. Noble Lords who know me also know that I am a great supporter of evidence-based policy. I therefore looked very carefully and thoughtfully at this group of amendments, and asked myself a number of questions.

First, would this group of amendments interfere with the principal core objective of the Bill, which is to deter young people from smoking highly addictive tobacco products and achieve a smoke-free generation? This is a desirable objective both for the physical, mental and financial health of the individual and for the cost to the NHS and overall economy, which affects all of us as taxpayers. I concluded that, in one case, these amendments would affect the core objective of the Bill, and that is the case of snuff. I am very sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has included snuff along with handmade tobacco. My noble friend Lord Russell has already outlined the evidence that snuff is a problem for young people, and it can be very dangerous.

I also concluded that, on the basis of the evidence currently available to me, these amendments are unlikely to affect that objective, because of the very high cost of cigars compared with other tobacco products. But we need to be careful, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, just outlined, about the unintended consequences of any exemption because the tobacco industry is very clever and driven by high profits. There is some evidence that, albeit not harmless, cigars have less effect on health than other tobacco products, as they are not inhaled, have no additives and therefore are probably less addictive and certainly smoked less frequently than cigarettes.

I am a fan of evidence-based policy, but I am also a fan of fairness, so I asked myself: is the legislation fair in this respect? I thought initially about small retailers that sell cigarettes, vapes and many other products. Under the terms of the Bill, they will have to adjust their business plans gradually, over many years, to account for the loss of one potential year’s cohort of young smokers to whom they will no longer be legally able to sell cigarettes. That adjustment and time period are not unreasonable and that is what the Bill does.

However, there is one group of small retailers that claim they would lose their business entirely with no gradual adjustment if the Bill is not amended. They are the sellers of exclusive handmade cigars. I have never smoked a cigar in my life, but I am concerned about all small retailers and about fairness. This is because we are told that the nature of the global market, of which the UK is only 2%, is such that they would not be able to comply with packaging regulations.

I then asked myself if it is fair to existing smokers. The Bill is considerate to existing smokers of cigarettes, currently over 18, who are addicted to cigarettes and who will be able to continue smoking them until they die if they really need to. Of course, we need to help more of them to quit, as so many want to do. But is it fair to smokers of cigars? If the sector briefing is correct, they will not be able to buy compliant cigars in this country once the Bill is passed. I asked myself if that is fair to them.

I then asked myself whether exempting cigars from the legislation would create a loophole and encourage young people to switch from cigarettes, vapes and all the other much cheaper forms of nicotine-delivering mechanisms to cigars, which cost over £20 per unit. I think this is very unlikely. There is also the potential of people moving to cigarillos, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, so any exemption would have to be carefully drafted. Actually, Amendment 104 is quite carefully drafted, apart from my criticism about the inclusion of snuff. Something very similar would need to be drafted to avoid the industry using it to lure young people into smoking.

Lastly, I asked myself what the evidence is to include handmade cigars in the scope of the Bill. As I understand it, the evidence is based on a single study that lumped together a large group of non-cigarette tobacco products, all of which are very different from each other. This has been mentioned in the debate. Lumping them together like that, without the desirable granularity of getting evidence about each individual type of product, resulted in evidence of increased usage. We know that there is a rise in use of tobacco pouches and heated tobacco among young people, but what about cigars? Is there any evidence that young people are increasingly smoking them? I have not seen any up to this point, so perhaps the Minister can point us to the evidence that young people start smoking by using cigars and that the incidence of them doing so is rising or that they report an intention of turning to cigars if they cannot legally get hold of cigarettes.

In the light of all that, I think the Government need to show that they have taken evidence from specialist cigar retailers and their customers about all the issues that I have just mentioned. The Minister has frequently told us that her team has talked a lot to small retailers and their industry representatives, and I know she has done so when it comes to small corner shops that sell a variety of different nicotine-delivery mechanisms. So could she give us chapter and verse on when and how frequently her team have spoken to this particular and rather different group of small retailers? If she and her team do so, they may be open to the suggestion that further consultation and evidence on this issue is required, possibly followed by a careful and watertight exemption from parts of the Bill—if the evidence is there.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to a set of principles that my noble friend Lord Kamall and I have emphasised throughout our scrutiny of the Bill: namely, that the policies set out in legislation should reflect its core purpose, but that unintended consequences that do disproportionate damage should be avoided. We can avoid those consequences by adopting policies that take account of the facts not just in one policy dimension but in all other relevant dimensions—in other words, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay put it, policies that are truly evidence based.

My many noble friends, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey, Lady Fox and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, have made the case—in my view, a convincing one—that, when it comes to those tobacco products that occupy what is, by any measure, a niche position in the marketplace, most especially handmade Havana cigars, a much wider set of considerations should be factored into policy-making than those that apply to the vast generality of tobacco products, such as cigarettes, which are both mass produced and mass consumed.

Handmade cigars are a world away from what we typically refer to as the tobacco industry. As someone who was a Health Minister for a full five-year Parliament, I know how difficult a proposition that is for Health Ministers to accept. The Department of Health and Social Care rightly sees it as its function to preach the ills of tobacco in all its forms and to take every possible step to constrain the demand for tobacco products for the good of patients and the public. I completely understand that.

As a Minister, I was proud to take through Parliament the measures proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley that mandated plain packaging for cigarettes, and as an opposition spokesman I supported the policy of the last Labour Government to ban smoking in the workplace. I need no persuading about the damage to health caused by both active and passive smoking. However, I have also been consistent in acknowledging that there are one or two narrow areas of tobacco regulation—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber, in which case we would normally adjourn for 10 minutes. If it seems that there are back-to-back Divisions, I think it would be more suitable to come back when it appears that they are over.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are debating Amendment 102 to Clause 45, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was in full flow.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I need no persuading about the damage to health caused by both active and passive smoking. However, throughout my years in dealing with health matters, I have also been consistent in acknowledging that there are one or two narrow areas of tobacco regulation in which the health gain to be derived from such regulation is outweighed by considerations of personal choice, commercial freedoms and—not to sound too high-flown—the national interest.

Handmade cigars are one such instance; I would venture to say that they are the most important one. There is, therefore, a necessary challenge that must be made to the Government—a challenge issued by my noble friend Lord Lindsay in his excellent speech. The challenge is to demonstrate evidence that the strictures that apply to cigarettes apply equally to every single type of tobacco product when consumed. These include heated tobacco, which is a relatively novel product but could have a role in smoking cessation—we do not know that yet, but it might—snuff, pipe tobacco and, in particular, hand-rolled cigars.

Noble Lords have articulated why this challenge must be made. I want to distil those arguments by focusing, as others have done, on handmade cigars. For official statistical purposes, sales of handmade cigars are lumped in with the sale of a whole range of other tobacco products—a fact that precludes any detailed analysis of the market relating to handmade cigars on their own. In the UK, that market is tiny by comparison to the market in cigarettes, but it is a market of very high value. Depending on its age and provenance, one box of Havana cigars can sell for many thousands of pounds. Retail outlets for such cigars are very few in number, but their combined activity is enough to make the UK one of the leading centres in the world for high-quality cigars imported from Caribbean countries. The historical links between British importers and retailers and small producers in those countries go back many years, making it a trade that is the polar opposite of that associated with cigarettes. I should add that highly specialised retailers of handmade cigars in this country are one of the many reasons why very rich people from around the world see London as a destination of choice.

However, relevant as they are, these arguments around the market tell only half the story when it comes to considering this legislation. We need to be clear about the facts relating to health. Hand-rolled cigars, costing hundreds of pounds apiece, are decidedly not a cause of young people taking up smoking, nor is doing so a route to addiction for those who choose to smoke such cigars. Very few people would think of smoking them with anywhere near the same frequency as smoking cigarettes; that just does not happen.

In general, cigars of this kind are bought as luxury items for occasional enjoyment, the main attraction being their unique tobacco flavour. I am not for a minute suggesting that handmade cigars are without any health risk whatever—that would be absurd—but there is a distinct difference between the dangers posed by cigarettes, which have all sorts of carcinogenic chemicals added to them during the course of their manufacture, and the dangers of a hand-rolled cigar, which consists of pure tobacco and whose smoke is not inhaled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my noble friend’s Amendment 114A. First, I apologise profusely for not being here in time to speak to my amendments in the last group. I feel doubly guilty about that because I am going to pick up on something the Minister said in answer to the fact I was not here.

With regard to heated tobacco products, I believe the Minister said that they are harmful. However, there is no conclusive evidence of this; as my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, they are a cessation product and therefore ought to be materially less harmful. The fact is that the WHO also acknowledges—or rather assumes—that they will be harmful, but it does not have any conclusive evidence to that point. Can the Minister elaborate a little on where that evidence comes from?

As regards Amendment 114C, I think we should continue to conduct impact assessments. I reject the Liberal argument, which seems, as far as I can ascertain, to be that you should not have a consultation with people you do not like because you might not like their answers. That does not strike me as much of a consultation.

I have little else to say, but I apologise again, particularly for picking up on the Minister, who did not have to answer my amendments—that is a bit of a cheap shot, and I apologise.

[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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from whom we will hear later, address the details of a licensing scheme, which could, I believe, be better worked out during consultation and are better put in regulations than on the face of the Bill.

I think there are problems with the suggestion that there should be a joint alcohol and tobacco products licence—as superficially attractive as that may sound. This is for two reasons. The first is practical; there are plenty of retailers who sell both ranges of products, but there are plenty who do not, including some small shops and specialist vaping retailers. Let us not overcomplicate this by having several kinds of licence: joint and single.

The second reason is even more serious, because the objectives of the two schemes are not the same. The objective of the tobacco and vapes licencing scheme should be public health. Indeed, that is the main justification for the generational ban and other restrictive aspects of this Bill. On the other hand, public health was not the objective of the design of the original alcohol licence, and things are set to get worse—which I will come to. Therefore, there are issues about putting the two together.

On Amendment 35, there is a case for restricting the density of tobacco and vapes licensed premises in a local area on public health grounds. Local authorities already have the powers to limit the density of fast-food outlets in certain areas, such as near schools, on the basis that the food they sell is often high in fat, salt and sugars, and is energy dense. Why should local authorities not have the same powers for the density of shops selling tobacco and its various products? Therefore, I oppose Amendment 35. Density is better decided by the local licensing authority, which knows and understands its own area. It is not something that should be on the face of the Bill but something that should be considered in consultation.

I turn now to Amendments 30 and 42. The Government have recently launched a rapid consultation on alcohol licensing, led by an industry task force that would see “growth” incorporated as an objective of the revised scheme, rather than public health. Its recommendations have been warmly welcomed by the Government, but I would advise caution, especially in the light of calls for joint tobacco and alcohol licences today. It is true that hospitality outlets can be important for people’s well-being and community cohesion and often provide economic benefits to local communities. However, many of them rely nowadays more on the sale of meals than on just alcohol and provide an opportunity for family outings. The implication by the industry in the recommendations of the task force is that people cannot enjoy themselves unless they are consuming alcohol. That is, of course, a nonsense suggestion. By the way, each of the three working groups was led by a senior member of the industry and there was no representation on the task force from the Department of Health and Social Care or public health bodies, despite public health acting as the responsible authority for local licensing committees.

The task force report defines the core purpose of licensing as economic enablement and sets out a series of mechanisms to promote that approach. The foreword in the Government’s response, written by the Minister for Services, Small Business and Exports, not only describes licensed hospitality as “foundational” to the UK economy but as selling “happiness, creating lasting memories”, and providing

“the glue that binds us together as a society”.

This is language that, if used in alcohol marketing, would probably breach the industry’s own code of conduct.

The task force’s recommendations would undermine the powers of elected local authorities in several ways: first, by the creation of a quasi-statutory national licensing policy framework to direct local decision-making; secondly, by the automatic addition of off-sales permissions to all on-sales licences; thirdly, by the enhanced powers for unelected licensing officers to override decisions of elected officers on licensing committees; fourthly, through the

“Requirement to link licensing to economic development and culture policies”;


fifthly, by a blanket “amnesty” on licensing conditions deemed to be

“outdated in the modern world”—

deemed by whom, I ask—and, finally, by the imposition of a higher evidential bar for objections to licence applications, with adherence determined solely by licensing officers.

That is why there should be no attempt to link alcohol licences under such a regime with tobacco retail licences. There are other ways of helping the hospitality industry rather than undermining the very foundation of the alcohol sales licensing regime by attacking local democracy in this way.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 35 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will also express my strong support for Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All the amendments in this group are guided by an important principle. The success of a new licensing regime will depend not only on the strength of the associated enforcement powers but on the fairness, proportionality and practicality with which those powers are exercised.

Amendment 30 is a sensible and fair proposal. It acknowledges that the vast majority of retailers selling tobacco and vape products do so responsibly and already operate under stringent regulatory regimes. Many of those businesses hold alcohol premises licences and are personal licence holders, and as such as are meticulous in complying with the rules and standards legally in force to prevent under-age sales and the supply of illicit goods.

Clause 16 will impose new licensing obligations, checks and costs. Taken together, for many small independent businesses they will represent a significant administrative and financial burden. My noble friend’s amendment simply asks that the Government recognise the existing history of compliance by allowing a streamlined process for those that have already demonstrated that they meet high licensing standards elsewhere. This would embed efficiency and fairness into the enforcement system and reward good practice. It would save time and cost for retailers and allow enforcement resources to be focused where they are most needed, on those who persistently flout the rules.

Amendment 35 turns to another crucial point of principle: fairness and proportionality in how licensing powers are applied. As drafted, Schedule 1 would allow licensing authorities to impose proximity or density restrictions, in effect preventing a licence being granted simply because a premises happens to fall within a designated zone or is near other retailers that sell similar products. That is an extremely broad and, frankly, concerning power. It risks punishing businesses not because they are non-compliant through choice or negligence but simply because of where they are located.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 35 should stand part of the Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I feel it is appropriate that we should have at least a short debate on Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 130, partly because they raise concerns that are very similar to those I had intended to flag when responding to the group of government amendments that were, in the event, not moved. Our debate on that group of amendments must remain a pleasure in store.

However, these clauses together confer on Ministers the power to take over the enforcement and prosecutions of local authorities or other enforcement authorities, either for individual cases or entire categories of cases. The inclusion of these powers in the Bill needs explaining, first, because they appear to go much further than is necessary or appropriate and, secondly, because they raise a number of important questions about the relationship between central and local enforcement and about accountability.

At present, the Bill rightly places day-to-day enforcement in the hands of local weights and measures authorities, which have the expertise, local knowledge and operational independence needed to make these judgments. Under these clauses, however, the Secretary of State or the devolved Ministers could simply direct that those functions are to be discharged instead by Ministers centrally. There is no statutory test to be met before that happens, no requirement for the local authority to have failed or refused to act, and no mechanism for consultation, appeal or review.

By any standard, that is a very wide power to exercise over democratically elected local authorities. In effect, it allows central government to displace local enforcement at will. Inherent in the exercise of this power is a risk that enforcement decisions become politicised. Local authorities act impartially and are guided by the evidential tests and the public interest. One can imagine a situation in which a future Government—I am not saying this one—choose to intervene and adopt an approach of their own when taking over investigations or prosecutions. How will we safeguard the impartiality of decision-making? How will the basis of any decisions be scrutinised or, indeed, challenged?

There is the added issue of proportionality. If these are intended as reserve powers for exceptional circumstances, the Bill should say so. At the moment, there are no thresholds, no published criteria and no requirement even to lay a Statement before Parliament when such powers are used.

We have tabled these stand part notices to probe the Government on several points, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. First, why does the Secretary of State need these powers at all, given the enforcement architecture already in existence and set out elsewhere in the Bill? Secondly, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage using them? Is this a genuine power of last resort or something that might be used more routinely? Thirdly, what safeguards will there be for local authorities whose functions are overridden? Will they be consulted, or have the right of challenge? Fourthly, how will accountability work once a Minister takes over enforcement? Will there be a published direction, a report to Parliament or any means of scrutiny? Finally, how do these powers sit with the devolved authorities?

We all want effective enforcement of the law, and there may be rare cases where national co-ordination is required. However, I think we need some further and better particulars from the Minister.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not support the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to delete Clause 35 and its associated clauses. I do not believe that the backstop, which enables the Secretary of State to take over enforcement from trading standards, is a power grab; it is necessary in case a local authority goes into administration and cannot fund trading standards. Similar measures to protect social services in the case of a local authority going into administration can be found in the Care Act 2014, amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 recognise that there may be situations where it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to act rather than local weights and measures authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to these comments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain further the clauses relating to enforcement powers, which I think is what he is seeking from these amendments, and to look at the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that Clauses 35, 36, 129 and 30 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 provides a power for the Secretary of State in England or Welsh Ministers in Wales to carry out the investigation and enforcement of a particular case or a particular type of case instead of local authority trading standards. Similarly, Clause 36 provides a power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings relating to an offence under Part 1 or under any regulations made under Clauses 13 or 14 regarding the display of products or prices. Clauses 129 and 130 serve a similar purpose in relation to Part 6, which makes provisions on advertising and sponsorship. Clause 129 provides a power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to make a direction about the enforcement of the Part 6 provisions. Clause 130 provides a power for the appropriate national authority to take over the conduct of any legal proceedings within their respective jurisdictions relating to an offence under this part of the Bill.

These clauses replace and are based on existing legislation. Trading standards operate in all local authorities, and it is standard practice that they would undertake required local enforcement action and pursue legal proceedings. However—this is referring to the comments made by the noble Earl—these powers provide a useful safeguard for the unlikely situation in which a local authority is unable or unwilling to take enforcement in a particular case. These powers reflect the landscape in which tobacco control measures operate. Individual local authority trading standards departments might not have the resources or willingness to take enforcement action and legal proceedings in cases where this action involves or has significant implications for large multinational companies. In instances such as these, these powers may be used to ensure consistent, strong and effective enforcement.

The noble Earl raised the devolved Administrations. Health is a devolved matter and the Bill builds on the existing legal frameworks of all four of the nations. This means that there are some differences in the provisions between each nation. I think we have outlined how the accountability of these powers will be managed through the different existing arrangements.

The noble Earl also raised the specific matter of scrutiny. I hope I have covered the points throughout the comments that I have made.

I hope noble Lords are reassured that these are necessary clauses based on existing legislation. Together they ensure effective enforcement and therefore should stand part of this Bill.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of a clause stand part debate at this stage of the Bill is to ask some questions. There is no implication that the clause should be deleted. I simply wanted to ask those questions and to ensure that some answers are placed on the record, and I am very grateful to the Minister for doing just that.

I welcome her explanatory comments; it is right, in the light of what she said, that Ministers should have the tools they need to ensure effective enforcement where the public interest demands it. However, I remain concerned that the powers set out in these clauses are unqualified, and I would like to think about that further. I recognise that it is possible to conceive of circumstances where ministerial intervention might be justified—for example, where a case raises genuine national issues or where there has been a manifest failure to act for whatever reason. However, that is precisely why I felt some form of conditionality ought to be built into the legislation.

I appreciate that there is precedent for provisions of this kind, and I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. Between now and Report, I will consider whether the Bill could be improved with the addition of some clear thresholds, safeguards or procedural tests. For now, I am content to move to the next group of amendments.

Clause 35 agreed.