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.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of our Benches, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 12. I also support Amendment 148, of course, although my name is not on it yet; I have a bit of a track record on changing “may” to “must”, so I am very much in favour of that amendment.

As my noble friend said, the tobacco industry sits on a rich source of data that would help public health planners and practitioners to plan and deliver public health smoking cessation services in a granular way. That could help to reduce inequalities, so my noble friend’s Amendments 12 and 148 are no-brainers for the Government in the fight against health inequality, which I know they are in favour of winning. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, if you have the data, you have a powerful weapon; the industry uses it and the Government should have it.

The data would also shine a light on the massive profits of the tobacco companies, which saw the writing on the wall about the decline of tobacco smoking and shifted part of their business model to hooking young people and existing smokers into being addicted to their nicotine vaping products instead. They then surrounded them with brightly coloured packaging, attractive-sounding flavours and masses of expensive advertising. One has to wonder why they spend so much money on advertising and the attractive displays in my local village shops. Ah, yes—it must be because that enables them to hook people to their profitable products for life.

These profits are addressed in Amendment 192 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and in my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 194, which I also support. Both amendments propose a levy on the profits of tobacco companies. Tobacco and the nicotine it contains are uniquely harmful products, which is why they should be treated in this way. They are highly addictive for some people from their very first use, by the way; that is sometimes ignored. Tobacco kills more than 76,000 people in England every year—that is almost as many as were killed by Covid in just one year, in 2020—and the four manufacturers that are responsible for most of the UK’s tobacco sales make excessive profits that require regulation. It has been said that they make an estimated profit of £900 million a year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%; as my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, most manufacturers of other goods are quite satisfied with an average of 10%. Yet those companies currently pay very little corporation tax in the UK. The tobacco tax of £6.8 billion that they pay does not even scratch the surface of the harm they do; as has been pointed out, that tax is paid by the consumer and not by the producer.

In other areas of society, polluters are required to avoid and minimise pollution and to pay to clean it up. Tobacco companies make no effort to do either. In other monopoly situations, such as energy supply, the Government intervene, yet tobacco companies get away scot free, despite the fact that their products cost the NHS £1.82 billion annually and the ill health caused by them causes major suffering to individuals and families; they also have a major effect on productivity and the economy, costing society in England £43.7 billion a year.

Given this Government’s objectives on growth, I would have thought that a “polluter pays” tobacco levy would be very popular with them, as it is with the general public, 76% of whom support the policy. It could raise up to £700 million per year to fund vital smoking cessation and wider public health activities, as my noble friend Lord Russell suggests in his amendment. It could prevent industry manipulating prices to undermine the health aims of tobacco taxes. A levy would make tobacco less profitable in the UK and reduce industry incentives to lobby against government actions to achieve a smoke-free country. I know that they are very clever lobbyists. Although I trust that this Government will resist such lobbying, this would ensure that the cost burden of taxes is not shifted to consumers because a levy alongside a cap on manufacturer pricing would prevent manufacturers passing the costs on to consumers.

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, alongside obesity caused by poor diet. Investing in the resources raised by the levy to help smokers quit, as in Amendment 194, will support the Government’s ambitions to halve the difference in healthy life expectancy and shift healthcare from treatment to prevention, an ambition outlined strongly in the Government’s 10-year health plan.

These amendments are very much in line with what the Government want. I hope that they will have the courage to accept them. The key principle is that the revenue to tackle the harms of tobacco should come from the industry, not the poor, addicted and often sick consumer, and the cost of the damage caused by tobacco should certainly not come from the taxpayer.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses common themes: the regulation of the tobacco industry, its profits and its reporting obligations. Collectively, these raise important questions about transparency, fairness, proportionality and the limits of state intervention.

Beginning with Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, these concern the provision and publication of information by tobacco manufacturers and importers. We recognise the intent behind these amendments: to improve the quality and availability of data so that public health policy can be better informed. Data, transparency and evidence-based policy-making are essential to an effective tobacco control strategy. However, would these amendments enable us to achieve that? Requiring every manufacturer and importer to publish detailed quarterly sales data broken down by product type, brand and region would give us more information, but how useful would it be? The Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already have access to significant data from HMRC such as market surveys and other reporting systems. The question usefully begged by this amendment is whether there are any gaps in that data that could usefully be filled.

This brings me to Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seeks to change Clause 95 so that the Secretary of State “must” rather than “may” make regulations requiring producers and importers to provide information about their products. I would like an answer to my earlier question before I jump one way or the other on that amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which she has tabled it. Having more data would certainly be useful, but we need to know exactly what data before we compel companies across the board to do one thing or another. It is generally better to provide Ministers with flexibility, allowing them to act where there is a clear and proportionate need, without imposing automatic or universal obligations on every business regardless of its size or nature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I appreciate the noble Earl’s point about duties versus levies. Might he be open to considering a percentage of duties being hypothecated for smoking cessation? Might that be a way of squaring the circle?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

It certainly could be—it sounds a very interesting way forward. I did not take it that the noble Earl was suggesting introducing a levy as a substitute for tobacco duty but as an addition to it, so, in the nature of things, if this were accepted, that is the mix we would get.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.

Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.

I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.

I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.

Moving on to Amendment 12—

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 18 is a different matter. I trust it is a probing amendment, and I look forward to hearing how the Government plan to deal with the issue that it raises. There are currently a number of mental health trusts using vending machines to provide vapes as part of their smoking cessation services. Without an exemption to the vending machine ban for this purpose, the Government need to bring forward clear guidance that can deal fairly with this situation, since mental health trust premises will not be licensed premises under the regime currently being proposed. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that amendment as well.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson. The amendment raises the broad question of how, as a society, we wish to define adulthood. From that point of view, I think the amendment is a useful one. Clause 10, like much of our statute book, assumes that 18 marks the threshold of adulthood—the age at which one may also contract, serve on a jury or purchase regulated products. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Moylan argued, proposals to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds invite us to reconsider that assumption. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment.

I turn to Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We have in Clause 12 a proposed measure that would outlaw any vending machine that dispenses vapes or nicotine products to a paying customer. The question that my noble friend and the noble Baroness have posed is whether the Government are prepared to consider any exceptions to this hard and fast prohibition. Is there not a strong case for saying that, in a smoking cessation clinic where there are adult clinical staff guiding patients through a structured programme, or in a mental health unit where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated? In those clinical environments, vapes and nicotine products are not promoted for casual use. They have a utility, and their utility lies as a means of harm reduction under clinical supervision. Let us just remind ourselves that patients admitted to mental health settings, or being treated in one, are much more likely to be smokers than other members of the general population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, drew attention to that. For obvious reasons, there is a deep reluctance within mental health units to permit smoking on the premises. Access to vapes, on the other hand, is a far less contentious issue, I suggest.

I would be grateful if the Minister could say why the Bill makes no provision for exceptions, even narrow ones, to the ban on vending machines. I am not contesting the proposal to ban such machines in the majority of settings, but vapes are not the same as tobacco. I have been approached by one vending machine operator that supplies machines to adult-only venues such as clubs. It asked the same question in its briefing sheet. Why is it that, in a place where anyone entering has been vetted as being an adult, they are being denied access to a vending machine? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment on that.

Amendment 21 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises a rather different question. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. The goal that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are aiming at is of course a worthy one. However, I have three problems with what they are proposing. First, if one makes vaping too expensive, law-abiding citizens who wish to quit smoking will be deterred from doing so. That is surely a risk. Secondly, smokers who may be less concerned about the lawfulness of the products that they buy will be steered towards unregulated products and/or the black market. I suggest that, under this proposal, that is simply bound to happen. Thirdly, any minimum pricing arrangement will act as a dampener on competition, and hence a dampener on innovation. A good example of such innovation is the age-gating technology that my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke about in our previous Committee session—technology built into a product or its packaging that prevents underage use. Approaches of that kind should be explored before we ever consider blunt instruments such as statutory price controls.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, which would prohibit the provision of free tobacco or vaping products through the course of business. Again, I completely understand and respect the motivation behind that proposal, but we should ask some questions about it. In the case of tobacco products, I am absolutely on the same wavelength as the noble Baronesses; at the same time, it would be helpful to know how much of a problem this now is.

First, is it not already illegal? If not, and if free samples of cigarettes, say, are being supplied by the manufacturers or importers to wholesalers or retailers, that sounds like an expensive exercise, bearing in mind the need for them to account to HMRC for the relevant tobacco duty, which I do not think they can avoid. What can the Minister tell us about that?

Secondly, on free samples of vapes, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I venture to say that different considerations apply to vapes compared to tobacco. My noble friend Lord Moylan was absolutely right: vapes are not in the same league of harm as tobacco products. They are also a smoking cessation tool. I would be the first to agree that free vapes should not be handed out to children. That is a given—

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

The advert I have here says that the samples they are giving out are actually derived from tobacco. Even though it says, “No smoke, no vape and no tobacco”, the advert states that the samples are derived from tobacco. My reference is therefore to tobacco products—that is the link there—but I also emphasise the point about nicotine.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

If it is a tobacco product, I take the point, but I thought that the noble Baroness was also arguing about handing out free vapes. Making it illegal for a shopkeeper to supply an adult with a regulated vaping product as a free sample feels very much like an unreasonable restraint of trade. If someone enters a shop to buy cigarettes—let us say he is a smoker—and the shopkeeper offers him a free vape, what exactly is wrong with that, as long as the regulations are adhered to? Do we really want to criminalise that kind of free supply? I am afraid that I am not convinced.

The Bill already imposes a series of significant new obligations and compliance costs on legitimate businesses. The restrictions contained in Clauses 13 to 15 alone are substantial and will likely require many retailers to make complex and costly adjustments. To introduce further constraints and prohibitions, as well as a substantial potential liability, however well-intentioned, has to be thought about very carefully before we go down that path.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, if the nicotine contained in the vapes is not extracted from tobacco, where is it coming from?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord, with his compendious knowledge, can enlighten us on that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

It comes from tobacco.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the clarification that the noble Earl has made. If that is the case, though, I have to say that that would send a complex pricing message to people, and we are not seeking to add complexity to where we are going. I am not sure I agree with the analysis but I am happy to look at the point that he is making.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the noble Earl that we are already acting to pick up the point that he rightly raised and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was keen to emphasise, which is to ensure that vapes are not sold for pocket-money prices. Indeed, the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty from 1 October 2026. That will set out a single flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres on all vaping liquids, and it will be accompanied by a simultaneous one-off increase in the rate for tobacco duties.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points about the environmental damage done by vapes. I will be pleased to hear and respond to the debate in the next group about single-use vaping.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about vapes being prescribed as a quit aid. We have a world-first scheme here, Swap to Stop, to help adults to ditch cigarettes as part of a 12-week programme of support, as I highlighted earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would prohibit businesses from providing free samples of tobacco and vaping products. The noble Baroness said herself that Clause 15 already bans the free distribution of any product or coupon that has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers, and that includes free samples. It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could have been legally handed out for free, and I am glad to say that the Bill closes that loophole. Clause 15 also states that products cannot be sold at a substantial discount, which will ensure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point where the price is no longer such a relevant factor for a prospective purchaser. So the noble Baroness is quite right to seek to close that loophole, and I am grateful to her for raising the issue, but I can confirm that the Bill already achieves her intention.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

To pick up on that, I ask the Minister to clarify the issue that was left slightly in the air earlier about the derivation of nicotine. While nicotine can be synthetically produced, it is derived from tobacco, but the point made by definition in the Bill is that a vaping product is a distinct product from a tobacco product. So the advertisement seen by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which I agree is highly regrettable, may be accurate in saying that the product is derived from tobacco but is not a tobacco product. Is that correct?

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

Can I comment on that? It has been very instructive to learn all about this subject. I could see a discussion occurring between the noble Earl and his noble friend but most nicotine is, in fact, derived from tobacco. This fits with what the advert I have here says, which is that the product advertised is derived from tobacco but does not contain tobacco leaf. Whether it is misleading for it to say, “No tobacco”, is another matter, but, clearly, dancing on the head of a pin is not very helpful here.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I respectfully disagree. It is helpful to dance on the head of a pin if we can distinguish “tobacco” from “tobacco product” and, again, distinguish a tobacco product from a vaping product. The Bill does that.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I disagree that we can necessarily distinguish between nicotine and a tobacco product, given that most nicotine products are derived from tobacco and are, therefore, tobacco products. However, the key thing here is that nicotine is being targeted at children, who often then graduate to smoking cigarettes. So you have not only an addiction but a potential route into the problem that we have worked on together for many years: reducing smoking, especially among the young, for all the reasons we know about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, shines a spotlight on a fascinating question: when is a reusable vape not a reusable vape? The ban on single-use vapes came into force on 1 June this year, as we have heard. Single-use or disposable vapes are clearly defined in the guidance: they are vapes which are not designed or not intended to be reused. For all the reasons given by the noble Earl, especially the environmental reasons, that ban is soundly based. A reusable vape is one that possesses two key features: it must have a battery which can be recharged and the e-liquid container—that is, the cartridge or the pod—can be either refilled or replaced with a separately sold item, which is where the amendment comes in.

The regulation explicitly states that a device is not refillable or reusable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. In other words, the law at present tries to capture in the definition of a disposable vape all devices that look and function like a disposable vape. So far, I hope, so clear, but as we have heard from the noble Earl, this leads on the ground to some grey areas of interpretation. A vaping device may be packaged in such a way as to claim that it is intended to work with replaceable pods—and hence that it should be classed as refillable and reusable. In practice, however, that claim can sometimes be a fiction. If, in reality, the replacement pods are not readily available for purchase separately, the device is at risk of falling foul of the legal description of a reusable vape. Enforcement authorities will also check whether the battery is genuinely rechargeable and whether a replaceable heating coil is genuinely replaceable.

More and more reports suggest that in some shops, replacement pods are either not available at all or are in very short supply. Furthermore, so-called reusable devices are priced similarly to the former disposable vapes. The net effect is that the user is tacitly encouraged to throw away the entire device, including the battery and the pod, once they have finished using it. Functionally, the supposed reusable vape has become a disposable vape.

The question therefore is: is there a need to change the definition of what counts as a disposable vape? The noble Earl suggests in his amendment that part of the answer is to ban pre-filled single-use vaping pods. The problem with that suggestion is that some vaping devices properly classified as reusable devices genuinely depend on the supply of replacement single-use pods and are thereby genuinely reusable. Banning all single-use pods would mean removing those types of reusable vaping devices from the market, a step which, on the face of things, appears rather severe.

What, therefore, is to be done? If it is true that many devices currently on the market technically tick the box of being refillable or reusable but in practice behave like disposables, how are we to address that loophole? Is the answer to reframe the regulations, or does the answer lie in intelligent enforcement by local authorities and trading standards? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

That point links neatly to the second amendment in this group, Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which I think makes a sensible and pragmatic case, pace the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to whom I listened very carefully. In introducing further regulations in this area, we would be well advised to take stock of the prohibitions that have already been introduced and examine their impact in practice. The single-use vape ban that came into force on 1 June provides us with an opportunity to do that. We will no doubt debate at later stages the regulation-making powers designed to control flavours, and so on. I align myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in wanting to tread cautiously, reflecting on how the single-use ban came in as quickly as it did and whether some unintended consequences have ensued from it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the debate on this group of amendments. I will start with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to ban all “pre-filled single-use vaping pods”.

We understand the concerns being raised about the environmental harms of single-use products. The ban that was introduced by Defra came into force on 1 June, which was not so long ago. Under that ban, vapes must be rechargeable and refillable, while any coil must be replaceable. A vape is not considered refillable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. Pre-filled pods that can be replaced are therefore not captured, to the points raised by a number of noble Lords, as the ban focuses on tackling the greatest environmental harms. Those are posed by batteries and the surrounding elements contained in the vapes. I acknowledge that vaping creates waste; that is true when users fill up a tank or pod themselves using refill bottles, as the noble Earl described, as well as when pre-filled pods are used.

However, to minimise the environmental impact, since April 2024 it has been compulsory for all businesses selling vapes and vape products, including pods, to provide their customers with a recycling bin and to arrange for these products to be collected by a verified recycling service. I hope that makes a helpful contribution in answering the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Since this obligation came into force, some 10,500 vape takeback bins have been introduced into stores. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and will consider the environmental impact of any new vaping regulations brought in using the powers in this Bill.

I hear the concerns about the appeal of single-use pods to children. The Bill contains powers to regulate vape devices. Importantly, we have recently launched a call for evidence that seeks information on the role that different sizes, shapes and features of devices play in the appeal of vaping to young audiences. As part of that, we would welcome evidence on any types of vaping device that particularly appeal to children. I assure the Committee that we will use the evidence to inform future proposals on potential restrictions to devices.

Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to place additional requirements on the Secretary of State before regulations can be made on contents and flavour. I note that part of these requirements involves evaluating the impacts of the ban on single-use vapes, which came into force on 1 June. Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and a post-implementation review will be undertaken in line with statutory obligations.

Turning to the impact of future restrictions on contents and flavour, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for smokers seeking to quit. We will therefore consider the scope of restrictions very carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking rates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for her contribution on this group.

As I said, to support all this, the call for evidence was launched on 8 October. It includes questions about the role of flavours, their contents and the associated risks. I assure noble Lords that before any restrictions are introduced on contents and flavours, we will conduct an impact assessment. We will also undertake a consultation on our policy proposals, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. I hope that this response allows noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we were talking about the issue of one person almost the same age as another person having less freedom of choice. The point is that once you are addicted to nicotine, your freedom of choice is extremely limited, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Northover. She gave the example of her nephew, who found it extremely difficult to give up. My late mother-in-law was in the same position. She tried to give up smoking until she died—and she died of smoking, sadly.

It is very important that we have a robust system of enforcement. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling us about it, and what future measures the Government might take to reduce the number of illicit cigarettes—although I am told that it has declined by about 90% since 2000. One or two noble Lords mentioned the case in Australia. The fact is that it was a lack of robust enforcement that caused the problem in Australia. Despite that, the amount of people smoking has indeed gone down—but I agree with noble Lords who say that we need strong enforcement. When it comes to a smoker who, let us say, is my age, or who will be my age in many years’ time, who needs to provide some kind of ID, as long as it is not absolutely mandated, I am sure that some form of ID will be devised by clever people for those aged 82, and it will not be very difficult for them; they will just be able to do it, and that will sort that problem out altogether.

As noble Lords might have gathered, I support the Government’s generational approach to reaching the point of a smoke-free Britain. It is a public health crisis, as is obesity, on which the Government also need to take action. Lots of amendments are coming up about various aspects that have been mentioned today, such as age-gating, which we will discuss in greater detail. This has been a very extensive and passionate debate. I must say that I find myself a little surprised that so many of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party are so against what the Government are trying to do achieve his ambition. However, I shall leave it at that.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray for bringing forward the amendments in his name, because he has allowed us to begin this Committee by engaging with one of the central and, dare I say, most controversial pillars of this Bill: the generational smoking ban. It is fitting that we start with this big policy issue, because the clause goes to the very heart of what the Government are seeking to do in creating what they describe as a smoke-free generation.

Before I turn to the points made in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which we are discussing the Bill—and a number of noble Lords have underlined that context. Smoking remains the single biggest entirely preventable cause of illness, disability and death in our country. It kills some 80,000 people each year. It costs our NHS and social care systems more than £3 billion annually. Someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking almost every minute. It shortens lives, it devastates families, and it deepens inequality. Yet, as we debate this issue, we can recognise that, happily, the direction of travel is positive. Smoking rates have been falling: in 1990, nearly one in three adults smoked, but, today, that figure stands at just above one in 10. The number of children who smoke is falling as well.

Those are not arguments for complacency or for not legislating, but nor are they arguments for legislating carelessly. My noble friend Lord Murray asked some pertinent questions for the Minister to answer, in particular on the Windsor Framework and the dangers of a burgeoning illicit market, but, more generally, he was surely right to challenge the Government to explain exactly how the generational ban will operate. I say that he is right, because the proposal will represent a profound shift in how the law treats adults. It will, for the first time, make a permanent legal distinction between two adults, based solely on their dates of birth. One person aged 35, say, will be permitted to buy a legal product, while another person aged 34 will put a tobacconist in criminal jeopardy for selling him precisely the same product.

I emphasise that I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister. Nevertheless, serious practical questions arise from that distinction, quite apart from the questions around discrimination throughout this Bill, to which we need—I say this to the Minister—to face up. Some of those questions have already been foreshadowed by my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Moylan but, as a starter, let me pick up the question of enforcement, which came up in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. How exactly do the Government intend these measures to be policed? How much responsibility will fall on shopkeepers, how much on trading standards and how much on the police?

Then there is the impact on retailers. How will small and independent retailers be supported to implement the new age checks and avoid inadvertent breaches of the law? Are we just going to leave them to cope as best as they can? Importantly, there is also the question of public understanding. How will the Government communicate to the public, especially younger adults, that some people of more or less the same age may face entirely different legal restrictions?

Can the Minister confirm one point of detail, which we discussed in our meetings on the Bill ahead of Committee? Will a person born on or after 1 January 2009 be permitted to sell tobacco products to someone born before that date? In other words, will someone who is themselves legally prohibited from purchasing tobacco still be able to serve or sell such products to others who remain entitled to buy them? That may seem a minor question, but it is one of the many practical questions that shopkeepers and retailers are already asking. The answer will affect staffing and hiring practices. What age will an employee of a tobacconist have to be to handle tobacco sales? Those are not arguments against the generational ban, but I hope that the Minister can address these concerns in her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate in different ways to age verification and the role of retailers and how these new rules will be implemented, monitored, enforced and supported in practice. I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and—through the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for their thoughtful and varied contributions. Noble Lords have raised from different angles the same essential question: how can we make sure that the Bill works, not just in principle but in practice, and that those on the front line of enforcement are properly supported in the roles that they perform?

I start with Amendments 3 and 17 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, which would ensure that any regulations specifying methods of age verification were made under the affirmative resolution procedure and would implement a greater age threshold during the interim period. I fully support my noble friend. These regulations should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. The powers that we are talking about are far from minor; they will determine how retailers verify a customer’s age, what technologies can be used and what systems are deemed compliant. The verification methods will be central to the success and fairness of the new regime, and it is therefore right that they should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny before coming into force, not least because the technology in this space is evolving rapidly and the decisions that the Government make on this front will have real implications for retailers and enforcement bodies as well as consumers. I suggest that it is becoming even more important, given the Government’s announcement around a national digital ID.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I turn next to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments, which would introduce requirements and provide enabling powers for age-verification technology to be built into vaping devices themselves. This proposal opens up all sorts of interesting avenues of thought. The idea of age-gating devices, using technology to prevent use by those who are underage, is innovative by any standards. As we heard from my noble friend, there is already at least one technology that would facilitate this; like him, I am led by the manufacturers to understand that it has been successfully trialled in the United States.

There could be distinct advantages to such a system: it would close a loophole that rogue sellers currently exploit; it would be more effective as a way of reducing the incidence of underage vaping; it could avoid unpleasant confrontations in retail stores, about which we know retailers are very worried; and, as my noble friend said, it would not affect the way in which adults use vapes as a way of quitting smoking. From the Government’s point of view, an amendment along the lines of my noble friend’s would act as a form of future-proofing the Bill, because it would enable them to regulate the technology in devices or packaging— a power that this Bill does not currently give them. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered systems of this kind and whether officials are aware of developments in this field?

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, which calls for a review of age-verification methods. The Committee will be grateful to him for raising this idea; it links into my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment, but it also speaks to the crucial principle that we must remain properly informed about how these measures will work in practice. This Bill introduces a major new regulatory framework, so it has to be monitored and tested against real-world evidence. Age verification will, as I have said, be central to the Bill’s success, so we need credible and accurate systems to facilitate it. The noble Viscount is therefore right to emphasise the need to engage directly with those on the front line: the retailers who will have to implement these rules every day. Their experience will be one of the best indicators of whether the system is working as intended.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seek to place a statutory requirement on businesses to operate age-verification policies in England and Wales. These are well-intentioned amendments, and we share entirely the objective of preventing underage sales. However, as I read it, the Bill as drafted already makes it an offence to sell tobacco or vaping products to anyone below the legal age and provides for a due diligence defence for retailers who have taken all reasonable precautions. In practice, that means having and enforcing an age-verification policy, which is the very outcome that these amendments seek to achieve. The familiar Challenge 25 model is already a well-established part of a range of retailer compliance. So, although we understand and respect the motivation behind these amendments, we do not believe that it is necessary to restate these duties in the Bill.

I welcome the amendment from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which would prohibit the online sale of tobacco products. This raises serious and timely questions around enforcement, fairness and the protection of legitimate retailers. My noble friend put his case very well. Online sales prevent a potential route for illicit or underage trade; as purchasing habits continue to shift online, that risk will surely only increase. We therefore see every benefit in exploring whether a prohibition or stricter control of online sales is appropriate.

If I were to voice a caveat, which I am sure my noble friend would not object to, it would be that we must always ensure that law-abiding retailers—those who comply with the law and operate responsibly—are not disadvantaged. Any new regulation has to be clear, enforceable and fair. The central question here is: has the Minister given any thought to this issue? If so, what capacity do the Government have to enforce a measure such as the one suggested by my noble friend? What mechanisms exist to distinguish legitimate traders from those operating illicitly? Can we control online sales in the way we would like to do? I am sure that the Minister will be the first to recognise that, if unregulated online trade becomes a loophole—indeed, it already is—it will seriously undermine the objectives of the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important topics of age verification and online sales. I am grateful to all noble Lords for not just their contributions but the intent behind these amendments—an intent that I have heard as being presented to assist the Bill. I am grateful for noble Lords’ considerations; I have certainly heard the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to a number of these amendments.

I turn to Amendments 24 and 25 tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is not able to be in his place. We wish him well. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for presenting these amendments, which would introduce a requirement for a person carrying on a business selling tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products, in England or Wales, to operate an age-verification policy. I certainly welcome the intention to prevent underage sales and to express a view—as I have heard not just from the noble Baroness but from other noble Lords—about supporting retailers to do the job that we are asking of them. I associate myself with that, but we believe that the Bill’s current provisions are sufficient in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to my noble friend Lady Northover’s amendment on communications strategy. One of the ways in which the Government need to invest is in an effective communications strategy. Over the years, tobacco manufacturers have spent millions on advertising their products—much of it misleading, such as the earlier claims on the so-called health benefits of filters; although that has stopped now, some people still believe it. So it is time to turn the tables and invest in making people aware of the dangers, for both health and personal wealth, of smoking. For young people, perhaps the most effective communication will be if some celebrities and influencers whom they admire and with whom they identify could be persuaded to make it uncool to smoke; that is what I would like to see contained in a communications strategy.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group engage with some of the central questions in the Bill: how can we reach a smoke-free future? Also, how is that process to be monitored, communicated and, in some cases, accelerated?

I begin with the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Grey-Thompson, which would require the Government to publish regular reports setting out a road map to a smoke-free United Kingdom, together with a communications plan, to support the implementation of a smoke-free generation policy. We on these Benches welcome the principle that underpins these amendments; they are thoughtful, constructive and rooted in the simple but vital idea that Parliament’s responsibility does not end when a Bill becomes law. Once legislation is enacted, our duty of oversight begins. A five-yearly report outlining the Government’s road map—including interim targets and data disaggregated by region, age and demographic group—would help provide a picture of how well the Act was working and enable Parliament to see whether progress was genuinely being made, particularly among communities where smoking rates remain stubbornly high.

Equally, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which would require a communications plan, is extremely sensible. The success of the Government’s policy will depend as much on public understanding as on the legal framework itself. People must know what is changing, why it is changing and what the benefits are. I made this point earlier but, if the policy is to succeed to the maximum extent, it must carry consent—and that consent depends on clarity and effective communication from the Government. If we are to measure the success of the policy honestly, we also need to assess not just how far smoking rates have fallen but whether the problem has simply been pushed underground, and we need to do so at regular intervals.

I shall cover briefly the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, which would establish a universal prohibition on the sale of tobacco products from 2040. My noble friend made a closely argued case. I recognise his sincere commitment to public health and his aim is admirable; notwithstanding that, I am afraid that I cannot support his amendment. The Government’s generational approach, for all its complexity, is precisely that: generational. It is designed to allow the harmful habit of smoking to decline naturally as fewer people take it up. The goal of a smoke-free future is the same but it is achieved through prevention and behavioural change, not a single act of prohibition.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the characteristically clear way in which she has opened this debate. As she indicated, the Bill in large measure replicates a Bill introduced in the other place towards the end of the last Parliament. Speaking as someone who helped take through some important anti-smoking legislation during my time in the Department of Health, I begin by saying that the overall aims the Minister has set out for this measure are ones I fully subscribe to.

Some little time has of course passed since I occupied the Minister’s departmental seat and, in the intervening years, we have seen the rise of vaping as an alternative form of nicotine consumption, sometimes as a perfectly valid means of quitting smoking, but increasingly as a habit adopted by non-smokers leading directly to nicotine addiction. I am therefore the first to say that I share the Minister’s acute concern about this trend, which is in part caused by the numbers of young people taking up vaping who have not previously smoked.

The Bill therefore has some laudable aims and some welcome aspects. In the spirit of similarly motivated legislation going back over the past 25 years, it is surely our duty as legislators to look for ways to discourage smoking, to protect those who do not smoke from second-hand smoke and to prevent children accessing tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products as if they were toys or fashion accessories. It is right too, while we are about it, to look at the wider dimensions of the issue, such as the sale of non-nicotine vapes, as well as other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. The Bill before us takes us into all these areas.

At the same time, there are two crucial tests that legislation of this kind needs to pass. They are tests that Parliament has rightly applied to all previous anti-smoking measures: the tests of proportionality and practicality. Much of what we shall need to debate in Committee and beyond will revolve around those two tests, where there is often a delicate balance to be struck—for example, the balance between personal freedoms and health gain, between health gain and business burdens, and between business burdens and free enterprise. Par excellence, in this particular area, we are dealing with another balance that threads its way through all the others: the balance of probabilities around human behaviour.

This Bill bears the same name as the one introduced by the previous Government and shares many of the same features. It is nevertheless substantially different. It will not therefore surprise the Minister to know that there are aspects to it which we shall wish to explore, to question and, in some cases, to directly challenge.

I mention first the most egregious. The Bill before us contains no fewer than 66 delegated powers, which is double the number present in the previous iteration. This should concern us. Whether one supports the main principles of the Bill or not, it cannot be right to condone a legislative model that leaves large swathes of policy areas with scant detail to be amplified later by ministerial decision.

It is not simply the volume of issues to which the regulation-making powers relate; it is also the nature of those issues. When the Bill was reintroduced, it transpired that the Government had inserted a new Part 7, permitting the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers to designate, by regulations, anywhere that is open to the public as smoke-free, including outdoor areas, and to designate any smoke-free place as vape and heated tobacco-free, once again by regulations.

I recall the debates that we had in the House in 2006 on the Health Bill, which banned smoking in all indoor settings and on public transport. I supported that ban from the Front Bench on the grounds that there had recently been conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke indoors posed a serious health risk to those who chose not to smoke. That policy has indeed stood the test of time.

What is less clear-cut is whether there is significant health value in removing the proportionality of the Health Act 2006, which requires the Secretary of State to apply the test of the risk to a person of inhaling “significant quantities of smoke” when deciding where to designate as smoke-free. There was a very good reason for that: it struck a balance between the public health concerns associated with second-hand smoke exposure and the rights of people who wish to smoke. It was deemed to be the correct and most proportionate test. The Government have decided to do away with that. I must simply ask: why?

The Bill’s delegated powers extend to other areas. Part 5 grants the Secretary of State significant power to regulate the features, retail packaging and content of not just tobacco products, which the Secretary of State can already regulate, but all vaping and nicotine products. I do not disagree that there are a number of novel products that should see greater regulation. Nicotine pouches, for example, can currently be sold at extraordinarily high strengths of nicotine, with some being sold online containing 30, 50 or even 100 milligrams of nicotine per pouch. This certainly should be regulated. The problem is that we do not know how these extensive powers will be exercised. What do the Government have in mind? Why can we not see some specific proposals in the Bill? The Minister would have been the first to jump on this kind of open-ended drafting when in opposition.

I have a particular concern around packaging, which is one instance where issues of proportionality rear their heads. Clause 89 grants the Secretary of State expanded powers to regulate retail packaging. The packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco has been heavily regulated for some time, and with good reason. Up to now, though, there have been exemptions for the packaging of cigars and pipe tobacco products. They were exempted from the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 and the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. There were also some exemptions for these products in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. Over the years there have been several consultations, all of which have supported the continuation of the exemption. I am not aware of any cogent argument to persuade me that it should now be abandoned. This is certainly something that we shall wish to question at later stages.

The Bill also includes the power to restrict the flavour of nicotine products, and the Government have signalled that they are considering banning certain flavours of vaping liquids. On the face of it, this may seem a reasonable proposal, bearing in mind the troubling rise in youth vaping. The problem here, though, is one of perverse consequences. There is increasingly strong evidence that access to a variety of flavours is a key factor contributing to smokers making the switch to vaping and then not going back to cigarettes. During the Public Bill Committee in the other place, Louise Ross, who launched the world’s first stop smoking service, wrote in her submission:

“Flavours are really important to adult users of the products, whether new users or those who are staying smokefree with a vape”.


She added that those who use vaping products report it is flavours that

“stopped them from going back to cigarettes, which they found tasted terrible after a few weeks of vaping”.

Evidence of that kind should give us pause, before we go hurtling into a ban on what some see as no more than a tempting gimmick to trap unsuspecting teenagers. Once again, we can dig deeper into these questions in Committee.

This leads me to advertising. As noble Lords will know, tobacco advertising has been banned in this country for many years and, although difficult to prove, there seems little doubt that the ban has played its part in bringing about the marked fall in smoking prevalence that we have seen over the past 10 to 15 years. So, if you want to reduce rates of youth vaping—as most right-minded people wish to do—it is only natural to look closely at the idea of extending the advertising ban to vaping products. However, the difficulty with that idea is, once again, the risk of unintended consequences. There is a danger that Part 6, which would ban advertising on all vape and nicotine products in all scenarios, may turn out to work against the valid efforts of the NHS to encourage smokers to give up cigarettes. It is telling that the Government’s own impact assessment for this Bill admits that the ban on vape advertising could lead to more people smoking for longer. It says:

“Whilst smoking prevalence in the UK has been falling for many years, the risk of this policy is that the potential health gains from reduced vaping consumption, could be offset by a slowing of smoking cessation at a societal level”.


So what is the right response? The Government’s manifesto contains a commitment to ban the advertising of vaping products to children, and most of us, I am sure, are deeply uncomfortable with the thought that there are vaping products on the market that have been designed to appeal specifically to young people. Therefore, this is a situation that requires a nuanced and proportionate response. Surely to goodness, adults who use vapes as a smoking-cessation tool should still be able to access information that allows them to make informed decisions on the products they purchase. There could and should be some room for controlled advertising of nicotine products to be permitted in relevant settings within the NHS, in pharmacies, at the point of sale and, potentially, in other retail settings such as specialist vaping shops, in the same way that specialist tobacconists are exempted from tobacco advertising bans. We shall return to this issue in Committee.

This is a further example of how certain aspects of the Bill could hamper the commendable progress we have made in this country on reducing smoking prevalence. It would surely be madness if we allowed this Bill, which is expressly designed to bear down on the incidence of smoking, to unintentionally have the opposite effect. We absolutely must guard against that.

Finally, I turn to the proposal set out in the Bill to introduce a licensing regime for the sale of tobacco and nicotine products. While many have welcomed this as a practical method of dealing with enforcement, many column inches have been devoted to the practicability of an age-verification scheme that will be not just about the need to distinguish a 17 year-old from an 18 year-old; as time passes, it will require retailers to check the ages of people in much older age brackets, so as to distinguish a 37 year-old from a 38 year-old. I do not propose to dwell on this issue now —we can do so, as necessary, at later stages—because there is a much more immediate problem to occupy us.

Once again, the licensing regime is to be established by regulations. This means that we do not yet know any details of what the regime might look like or how it might be implemented. If you are a retailer, this really matters. There is a certain amount of detail in Schedule 1, but the phraseology is, I am afraid, rather vague. The regulations to establish a licensing scheme “may” make

“provision limiting the number of licensed premises”

in a particular area; they

“may make provision about the duration … of licences”;

and they

“may … enable a licensing authority to attach conditions”—

any conditions—“to a licence”. I suppose those are clues, but what will this licensing scheme actually look like? We simply do not know.

The Bill permits the licensing authority to “charge a fee” for an application for a tobacco and nicotine licence. How much might it charge? We do not know. What will be the upper limit that can be charged? Again, we do not know. Will retailers be required to apply for a tobacco licence separately from a nicotine licence or an alcohol licence and be charged for all three? We do not know.

In its written evidence submission to the Public Bill Committee, the Association of Convenience Stores said:

“If the licensing fees replicated the same rates as the alcohol licensing scheme for the convenience sector, we estimate it would result in an additional cost of £11.4 million per year initial sign up and £10.4 million for annual renewal fees for convenience retailers”.


These sums of money represent additional costs at a time when, as I think we all recognise, small retailers simply cannot afford them. The association went on to say that the proposed ID requirements were a major concern and that retailers were already stretched thin trying to manage age verification effectively with current regulations. It said that adding another layer of complexity with the potential for increased fines and penalties would simply make it harder for convenience stores to do their job and increase the likelihood of honest mistakes happening. These are real concerns that retailers have. They are not concerns fed to us from the tobacco industry or the vaping industry; they are concerns relayed to Parliament by the very people that this Bill will impact the most.

In preparing for this Bill, I reread part of our proceedings on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, way back in 2001, when I asked the Minister to accept that there was no difference between us on the end we had in view, which was to reduce the prevalence of smoking, particularly among young people. I repeat that assurance today, and I would add an assurance on youth vaping.

It is indeed our duty to protect the health and well-being of everyone in our United Kingdom. However, we must never forget that it is possible for Governments to champion those worthy aims by imposing regulation and burdens that are disproportionate to the good that they will do, or that, in our desire to change the law for the better, we pay too little regard to the law of unintended consequences.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Earl Howe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very quickly to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and have put my name to it.

I will add a couple of extra things to the noble Lord’s very well-argued case. Modest as it may be, I think it is an effective measure—and this is why I think it is and why the House should support the noble Lord’s amendment if he decides to push it to a vote. It is not that the Secretary of State has announced that the percentage will decrease next year; the percentage decrease happened during this financial year, going down from 9% to 8.78%. So we are now on a trend for the percentage of National Health Service spend on mental health.

Furthermore, one has to question the priority of the Government when they look at the national planning guidance and some of the targets that have been dropped from it. There are no plans to target the 2 million long waiters waiting for mental health care. It would be slightly disingenuous of the Minister, in response, to talk just about the mental health investment scheme, because all it refers to is ICB spend. The uniqueness and cleverness of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is that it talks about all health service spend, including non-ICB spend, specialised commissioning and other elements that need to be there.

Mental health takes up 20% of illness treated by the NHS, which will probably be spending 8.7%. Because of the trend that is happening, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is absolutely vital to ensure not just that the percentage is maintained but that the community facilities within this will be funded and implemented.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak at length, but I express my support for the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in her Amendment 50. Her concerns around the resourcing of the mental health workforce are well founded and there is no better source of evidence for those concerns than the CQC, which I thank for briefing me, very fully, on this subject at the beginning of last month.

When we look at the issue of workforce sufficiency, a paradox confronts us. Between 2019 and 2024, the mental health workforce grew by nearly 40,000 full-time equivalent staff—an increase of 35%. Yet, when we sit down to read the CQC’s recently published Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2023/24, we find that staff shortages are a pervasive feature throughout the service. There is a cocktail of reasons for this apparent contradiction: very steeply rising patient demand; patients being admitted to hospital with a greater acuity of mental illness; a struggle in many places to recruit staff with the right skills; and poor retention of skilled staff, with, as a consequence, a high reliance on agency workers. That all impacts the quality of care given to patients, because, with hospital staff suffering burnout and temporary staff coming and going, there is often no opportunity to develop the kinds of therapeutic relationships that make patients feel psychologically safe and secure.

Of course, not all areas of the country are the same. Geographical disparities affect the availability of different skill sets, resulting in different kinds of problems manifesting themselves: for example, in one of the three high secure hospitals, the CQC encountered cases where patients were being kept in their rooms during the day. Elsewhere, on a number of in-patient wards, patients with autism or a learning disability reported that staff lacked the necessary training to look after them properly. In other settings, the lack of training is more basic: agency staff very often do not know how to operate the hospital’s IT system. This mixed picture underlines the fact that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is expressed in exactly the right way, since it mandates that biennial staff sufficiency reviews should be done not centrally but by commissioners locally.

That formula is appropriate for another reason. Depending on where you are in the country, there can be different sorts of barriers to accessing care, whether the barriers are for people from ethnic minority groups, for children and young people or simply for people living in areas of high deprivation. The more people find it difficult to access the care that they need, the more seriously they can be at risk. That particularly applies to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made that point. We have not heard much from the Government about workforce planning generally, but this is an area where this exercise just cannot wait.

This leads me to Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. It will not be much comfort to him if I say that I am right behind the sentiment of the amendment. He knows that, sadly, I cannot ask my colleagues on these Benches to vote for it, simply because I do not think it is appropriate for primary legislation to tie the hands of Government in matters of health spending. Those macro decisions surely have to be for Ministers.

Nevertheless, the flagship principle at the centre of the amendment is parity of esteem—a principle that is enshrined in statute and to which I am totally signed up, alongside, I am sure, all of your Lordships. However, parity of esteem is a broad concept and should, in my view, be measured in a range of ways, not simply by reference to monetary input, important as that is—and it is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of that persecuted minority of activist human rights lawyers. Crucially, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lady Keeley, who have done so much wonderful work on this. I also commend the brains trust of mental health professionals and lawyers who sat behind them.

On 24 February, we had a lengthy discussion on this in Committee, and it was one of the best debates in which I have had the privilege of participating in your Lordships’ House, and not just because everybody agreed. But they did. I do not remember a single person speaking against my noble friend’s amendment in Committee. We disagree well in your Lordships’ House, but it says something that not a single person disagreed. In particular, I commend the eloquent speeches on that day by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Opposition Front Bench.

I have been very excited to hear that my noble friend the Minister has been in such constructive meetings with my noble friend Lady Keeley. Whatever debates there are about contracting out vital public services, nobody on any side of this House wants people to be treated less decently and with fewer human rights because of a service being provided directly by the state or a decent contractor. With that, I look forward expectantly, with hope in my heart, to the response of my noble friend, who is very experienced, decent and wily.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and her clear and concise explanation of this amendment both today and in Committee, I can do no other than express my full support, yet again, for all she has said. This is indeed an important issue that case law has exposed as needing resolution, and the amendment seems to achieve that aim extremely well. I may have read the runes incorrectly, but I dare to entertain the hope that, if the amendment is not to be accepted as it stands, which of course would be very gratifying, the Government will take the matter forward in the way the noble Baroness has asked.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Earl Howe Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

Those two things are important and, I hope, would bring much-needed clarity and consistency to the difficult job that approved mental health professionals do. If they do not have that degree of consistency, they could potentially leave themselves vulnerable to legal challenge. These amendments, taken together, would ensure that the Children Act was no longer, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, ignored and that, through the scrutiny of this Bill, we had ensured that these two very important Acts were aligned.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this is Report and I do not propose to do more than underscore all that is been said by noble Lords who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lady Berridge. Approved mental health professionals carry with them a huge responsibility for the well-being of those whose interests they are called upon to protect. When a child or young person suffers a mental health crisis, it is the job of the AMHP to make the right assessments, take the right decisions and follow the right procedures under the law to ensure that the young person is looked after appropriately and swiftly. To do that, he or she needs a clear set of ground rules to follow.

We need to imagine a situation, such as the one posited by my noble friend, in which a child’s mental and emotional condition is such that they lack decision-making competence. An AMHP is then called in. In that situation, when it comes to appointing a nominated person for the child, the scope for confusion and indeed delay is enormous. Who should be appointed? Is it the mother or the father, or is there someone else who should take precedence?

The Minister has acknowledged through the government amendments before us that, when there is a care order for the child, the AMHP should have no choice but to appoint the local authority as the nominated person for the child. That is a welcome step forward but, as my noble friend has rightly said, what if there is a special guardianship order or child arrangement order issued by the court under the terms of the Children Act? In those circumstances, too, the AMHP should be relieved of the obligation of making a decision that, if it is the wrong one, could leave them open to legal challenge. I very much hope the Minister will be receptive to the powerful arguments that my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have advanced on these significant issues.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this important area, and I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for Amendment 2.

On that point, I can say that a copy of the report made following a care and treatment review must be sent to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that they are implemented appropriately. We agree that parents play an important role. However, it may not be appropriate for the report to be sent to parents in every case: for example, where safeguarding concerns have been raised. Inappropriate sharing of information could result in the patient withdrawing their consent to the review. So we will provide statutory guidance on the role of the parent to assist the responsible commissioner in considering who to involve in care and treatment reviews.

On Amendment 25, also tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the Bill already allows anyone involved in the patient’s care or welfare, which includes parents, to apply to the county court to terminate the appointment of a nominated person. I can assure the noble and learned Baroness that we will make this clear in the code of practice and the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, as she has raised an important point.

To address Amendment 27, we are concerned that making it a requirement for parents always to be consulted when a nominated person is chosen could put undue pressure on a child to choose a parent. However, we agree that the witness should consider the views of parents and others who may have insight into the suitability of a nomination. I can tell the House that we will therefore set out in the statutory code of practice how the views of the family and others should be fed into the witnessing process.

I have also heard the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the nominated person regarding children who lack competence. In response to this, as she acknowledged, I have tabled Amendments 29 to 33 to make it clear who an approved mental health professional must appoint in certain circumstances. For an over-18 lacking capacity, an approved mental health professional must appoint a competent lasting power of attorney or Court of Protection deputy, if they have one. For all under-18s lacking capacity or competence, where there is a care order, they must appoint a local authority which has parental responsibility for them or, if relevant, a competent Court of Protection deputy. Where there is no care order, the approved mental health professional can appoint a person who does not have parental responsibility for 16 and 17 year-olds. This allows for suitable alternative arrangements, for example, informal kinship arrangements for young people who live independently. I hope that this reassurance and commitment on my behalf provides the further clarity for which the noble Baroness has been advocating.

Finally, in response to Amendment 34, we agree that in the vast majority of cases we would expect a parent, or whoever has parental responsibility, to be appointed. This would include consideration of special guardians and child arrangement orders. As I have set out before, we do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person. A child arrangement order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. For example, the parent might struggle with their own health issues but could still be an effective nominated person.

The situation is different in the case of a care order because the local authority is being given lead parental responsibility. We have engaged with the Children’s Commissioner on this point. As I believe the noble Baroness may be aware, I recently met the Children’s Commissioner on a range of issues, including discussions about the Mental Health Act.

If there are no relevant people, approved mental health professionals must follow the patient’s past and present wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint. We do not believe that the eldest person should be given preference, as this represents an outdated assignment of responsibility. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that I have been advised that my officials met the chair—but I understand that the term is lead—of the AMHP Leads Network last November.

I can make a further commitment, which I hope will be helpful to your Lordships’ House. I am committing to establishing an expert taskforce to support the development of the statutory code of practice to provide clear guidance for professionals involved in the nominated person appointment process for children and young people. Views will be very much welcomed on who should be part of this; I have already invited the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to make suggestions about that. With these reasons, I hope that noble Lords can support our amendments and will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

12: Clause 8, page 14, line 19, at end insert—
“(iii) seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma;”

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I will speak also to four other amendments in my name included in this group: Amendments 13, 15, 37 and 41.

To set the scene, there is a theme running through all the amendments in this group—not only mine—which is patient empowerment. All of us, I am sure, welcome the fact that patient empowerment is already writ large in the substance of this Bill, and as the changes that it makes are taken forward, as they will be, I am certain that they will be hugely beneficial to patients. However, as we heard in Committee, there remain features of mental health law and practice that give cause for real concern. My contention, which I am sure is shared, is that we should try to do all we can to make sure that the procedures, clinical practice and, if possible, cultures are made as good as they can possibly be in the way that this legislation is drafted.

My Amendments 12 and 13 are identical to amendments that I tabled in Committee. The point of them is to signal something important about the culture of mental health care. Many of us may take for granted that the aim and purpose of treatment in a mental health unit is to promote psychological well-being and recovery and to minimise distress, but we know that there are many patients undergoing treatment for whom distress and psychological trauma are ever-present features of in-patient care, particularly children and young people. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, reminded us of that earlier. My Amendment 58, which we will debate in a later group, is designed to tackle this problem in a practical way.

The same applies to my Amendment 41, which brings us back to an issue that I am glad to say received strong support from noble Lords in Committee: the need to beef up the provisions in this Bill around advanced choice documents. ACDs are a great idea and I am delighted that the Government have recognised their potential for enhancing patient well-being, because that is what they will certainly do. We know from research that they have the potential to reduce compulsory detention rates appreciably, as well as reducing time spent in hospital. However, as the Bill is now expressed, patients will not be guaranteed an opportunity to create an advanced choice document, if that is their wish. All that we have in Clause 42 is a provision to allow commissioners to make information on ACDs available to people for whom they are responsible. I do not think that that is good enough.

I turn to my Amendment 15 and, in doing so, focus on an issue that has been brought to my attention by the Law Society relating to nasogastric tube feeding of patients in mental hospitals. The central concern here is that the Mental Health Act 1983 contains no specific safeguards for situations where nasogastric tube feeding of a patient is being proposed. That is because it is considered to fall under Section 63 of the Act, which does not require a second opinion appointed doctor. I suggest that this is unsatisfactory.

In January of this year alone, according to the most recent data, there were 1,975 uses of restraint to facilitate nasogastric feeding in England. Furthermore, a recent comprehensive audit of in-patient mental health units in England reported that the duration of nasogastric tube feeding under physical restraint ranged from a single feed to 312 weeks, with a mean duration of 29.1 weeks. In other words, this is an invasive procedure and the degree of invasiveness can be measured not just by the amount of force used but by the length of time for which the treatment lasts.

Professor Phil Fennell outlined the significant gaps in patient protection in the use of nasogastric tube feeding in his 2019 article, The Regulation of Tube Feeding: a Critical Analysis, and this highlighted the need for regulations.to govern the use of nasogastric tube feeding to achieve a more patient-centred approach to what is quite a drastic medical intervention. The same issue was previously raised in 2007 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which pointed out that forcible feeding is potentially a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the convention, and it, too, questioned why it was not subject to regulation in the same way as ECT is under Section 58 of the Act. The response at that time was that the provisions were compliant with the ECHR.

However, this was before the decision in X v Finland, and in this case, the European Court of Human Rights found that Finland violated X’s rights under Articles 5, 8 and 13 of the convention. X was involuntarily admitted to a mental institution and forcibly medicated with nasogastric tube feeding, which the court deemed unjustified and a breach of her rights to liberty and privacy. Additionally, X lacked an effective remedy to challenge the forcible medication. However, the court did not find a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 6.

The Law Society has put it to me that this highlights the wider need for safeguards, as patient X did not have sufficient avenues for challenging forcible nasogastric tube feeding. It strongly contends—and I agree—that the Bill represents a real opportunity for making a change to the law in a way that creates a direct safeguard for patients consistent with the safeguards applicable to electro-convulsive therapy, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.

Finally, I direct the House’s attention to Amendment 37. This returns us to a Committee debate we had on 22 January. The patient voice in mental health care is, I would argue, inherently weaker than it is in other fields of healthcare, and the patient experience that much more determinative of outcomes. That really matters because, as we know from evidence provided by the CQC and many patient-representative groups, the care of patients in mental health settings is frequently underresourced. It therefore carries with it a heightened degree of risk that acceptable standards of care are not always maintained.

In this amendment, which replicates the amendment I tabled in Committee, I am putting forward the idea that, if every patient discharged from a mental healthcare setting were to be given the opportunity to rate, comment on and provide constructive feedback on the treatment they had received while in hospital, the value to the system and the potential value to the patient could be very significant.

I know that the Minister does not take issue with this. Indeed, I am sure she is sympathetic to what I have said. What I must question, though, is the premise of her response to me in Committee. In that response, she sought to argue that the visits and interviews with patients carried out by the CQC fulfil a function that, in terms of transparency and empowerment of patients, is identical to the kind of debriefing that I am arguing for.

Having heard what I have heard from well-informed patient groups, I must beg to disagree. The reality of the CQC’s encounters and interviews with patients is an evidence-gathering process that is all too often skewed. Here are some of the comments from patients that have been relayed to me. “I know when we had a CQC visit, the nursing staff would steer CQC in the direction of patients who would reflect positively about the ward.” Someone else said: “A lot of the time, if you speak to the CQC, they will have staff present at the same time, so you can’t be honest”.

Patients have also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the CQC’s monitoring process in general. I will share a couple of typical comments. “There’s been examples of where it took three to four years of the same consistent reports”—of a mental health unit—“for the CQC to eventually do something about it”. And again, “If this process”—of the CQC—“was working, young people would be having a much better experience”.

It has been put to me that one of the differences between the process adopted by the CQC and the debriefing process that my amendment proposes is that the CQC does not take an individualised approach to its monitoring. I am sure that the CQC is sincere in wanting to speak to people about their poor experience of hospital care, but, in practice, people say they have often felt dismissed when speaking about what they have experienced.

There is a wider point here as well. In the words of another patient: “De-briefing isn’t just complaining. It’s discussing and reflecting on events during admission and the patient’s experience in order to learn from it. A complaint is given and then dealt with behind the scenes, whereas a de-brief is a reflective discussion between multiple people where the young person is an active participant in discussing their own experience”. Another said: “It gives people the room to process things”.

In practice, the independent mental health advocate would take responsibility for the debriefing process. The Minister expressed concern about that and about the risk of overburdening those individuals. I appreciate that concern, but suggest that a conversation with a patient, or former patient, taking the form of a debriefing is squarely in line with the existing role of an independent mental health advocate. It would not be asking him or her to do appreciably more than they do already. As one patient put it:

“The IMHAs doing the de-briefing is already technically what they do, there just isn’t a formal name to the process … They don’t need any specific training to be able to manage the process as they already know what to do. They are there to advocate”


for them.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn finally to Amendment 63. This would significantly change the tribunal’s role, which focuses currently on reviewing detention, not treatment decisions. The previous Administration consulted on a similar recommendation from the independent review, and noble Lords may recall that serious concerns were raised. The tribunal is not designed to deal with complex treatment disputes, which need specialist input and established therapeutic relationships between the patient and clinician. However, the emphasis on therapeutic benefit in the revised detention criteria will see that the tribunal pays particular attention to the patient’s care and treatment and whether it is proving effective, as part of discharge decisions. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in support of the amendments in this group. I also thank the Minister for her full reply. In the interests of time, I will not cover all the issues at length; however, I am grateful to the Minister for her welcome assurances on my Amendment 41. It is excellent news that the Government will be taking forward my plea to strengthen the provisions around advance choice documents when the Bill reaches the other place.

On nasogastric feeding, I was glad to hear that discussions would be taken forward with the professions in the mental health sector. I hope that the Law Society’s concerns will be taken into account in those discussions.

Finally, I must express some disappointment at the Minister’s reply about the idea of a debriefing process for patients after leaving hospital. We cannot be sure that the work of Dr Dash will deliver progress in this area, and I still feel that the case I tried to put is strong. I will reflect on what the Minister said, but I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 37 is reached. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for detailing very clearly the Government’s amendments. I also thank the Minister, who I see in her place, for, again, a very collaborative approach and for, on this occasion, implementing exactly not just what was in my previous amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Tyler, but what came from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

On the use of ECT, the powers in the government amendments before the House mean that the balance is absolutely correct on not having the second doctor’s signature and consent, as well as on the need to save life and the use of ECT. I thank the Government sincerely for not just listening but acting on the concerns that were around.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for these government amendments, which, as the noble Baroness made clear, cover two principal policy issues. Accordingly, I have two sets of queries.

On the changes for the rules for authorising electroconvulsive therapy, I am sure it is not the Government’s intention in any way to water down the safeguards surrounding the administering of ECT. However, in relation to Amendments 16 and 17, taken together, can the Minister reassure me? The Bill, as modified by the proposed amendments, will posit that there could be circumstances in which a patient who has the capacity to consent to ECT but who has not consented to it could nevertheless find their refusal to treatment overridden by the decision of a single treating clinician. Even in a situation where the judgment of the clinician was that ECT was necessary to save the patient’s life, it seems to me a significant change from the current rule whereby the decision of a second opinion appointed doctor is required in all cases where it is proposed to administer ECT to a non-consenting patient who has the capacity to consent.

Amendment 17 makes it clear that the regulatory authority—the CQC, in other words—may give permission for ECT to be administered only on the say-so of a single doctor where a SOAD is not available and “exceptional circumstances” apply. I will not ask the Minister to define what “exceptional circumstances” might consist of, but it is to be assumed that a primary example of such circumstances might be when time was of the essence and no SOAD could be located soon enough to avoid exacerbating the risk of harm or death.

So my questions are, firstly, has this proposed change been prompted by a general awareness across the mental health sector that the availability of SOADs can frequently prove a problem in circumstances where urgent decisions are needed? In other words, to put it bluntly, are we being asked to change the law because of habitual shortcomings in NHS communication arrangements? I would be concerned if that were the case.

Secondly, what guidance, if any, will the CQC formulate for itself to ensure that, when its decision is sought to temporarily waive the requirement for a SOAD, it will not do so just on the basis of a SOAD being unavailable? Will it also commit itself to a standard procedure whereby it will seek at least some background detail from the treating clinician of the case before him or her, such as the reasons why they consider that administering ECT to that particular patient carries particular urgency? In other words, can we be reassured that the treating clinician’s opinion will be subject to at least a modicum of testing and cross-questioning before the CQC issues the go-ahead for ECT to be administered? I hope so, because anything short of that could turn into a tick-box exercise.

The other government amendment on which I would appreciate further clarity is Amendment 26, which

“changes the process for appointing a nominated person”.

One of the changes proposed is that the various statements and signatures required for appointing the nominated person no longer have to be contained in the same instrument. The other is that the nominated person’s signature no longer has to be witnessed. I was grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but it implies that the written instrument that appoints the nominated person and is signed by the patient in the presence of a witness can be executed without the nominated person themselves being in the room, or indeed anywhere near. At the moment, the Bill says:

“The instrument appointing the nominated person must … contain a statement, signed by the nominated person in the presence of”


the same person who witnesses the signature of the patient.

I previously assumed that the reason for that provision was the responsibility that the Bill places on the witness—quite a serious responsibility—to ensure, as far as possible, that the nominated person, whoever they are, is a fit and proper person to act in that capacity. It would appear now, with this amendment, that there is no need for the witness even to clap eyes on the individual who is nominated. How can that be right? Without at least meeting the nominated person, how can any self-respecting witness certify, hand on heart, that, in the words of the Bill, they have

“no reason to think that the nominated person lacks capacity or competence to act as a nominated person,”

or that they have

“no reason to think that the nominated person is unsuitable to act as a nominated person”.

Are they simply meant to take the patient’s word for it?

This alteration in the wording raises all sorts of question marks in my mind, given the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee about misplaced loyalty towards a particular individual, a naivety on the part of a child or young person, or even some degree of psychological manipulation of a young person—for example, someone who makes it their business to set a child against their own parents.

In Committee, the Minister herself emphasised the need for the law to prevent exploitation and manipulation. While I did not at the time think that her response was completely reassuring, I saw it at least as an acknowledgement that the role of the witness could not be fulfilled properly without some sort of contact with the nominated person. Was I right or wrong on that? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how my misgivings in this area, about the way in which the nominated person procedure comes to be implemented in practice, might be allayed.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his comments and express my thanks also for the many contributions made by noble Lords around the House.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked some searching questions. I think the main thrust of his comments was to look for reassurance that due diligence will be gone into in all of the areas that he raises. I am not sure that I can answer every line in detail, but I want to reassure him in particular about the nominated person question, which I know has caused him enormous concern.

In addition to what I have said, I emphasise that there is no intention at all to water down the safeguard, and that Amendment 26 will make sure that patients get access to a nominated person quicker, along with all the rights and powers that entails, meaning that safeguards provided by the role will not be delayed. That is the crucial point that we have to factor in as to why these amendments are deemed necessary. As he quite rightly says, this is particularly important for patients and those who may be subject to out-of-area placements.

The change that we are bringing in is that the nominated person’s signature does not need to be witnessed in person. None of the safeguarding checks is changed in any way by this. In answer to the noble Lord’s concern, we would expect that, in the majority of cases, the witness will still meet the nominated person face to face. In exceptional circumstances, where this is not possible, we believe that it is better to be able to appoint a nominated person, subject to all the appropriate safeguarding checks, than to have to wait until a person can have their signature witnessed.

A second opinion doctor is not currently required for urgent and compulsory electroconvulsive therapy; this is new under the Bill. I need to emphasise this point. What the amendment does is sets out the exceptional circumstances where a second opinion appointed doctor—sorry, it is a bit of a mouthful—is not required. I hope that gives some clarification.

We have to make sure that these are all taken in the round. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and noble Lords across the Chamber, that many of these are regarded to be due to exceptional circumstances, where time is of the essence.

As to whether some of these provisions are based on failure, it is from learned experience and bringing together everyone who has a view to make sure that everything we bring forward is in the best interests of the patient. That is the crucial thing. This is where the detailed work will be done under the code of practice, bringing together all the different parties in a measured way. It will take a few months to do this. That is critical, so that we can all be reassured that the processes are brought into play.

I can understand the concern about making sure that communication is there in situations of stress, but I believe that these amendments are designed to address this issue, with, as I have said, the patient’s interest absolutely in the forefront. There will be opportunities as the code of practice is put together for us to make sure that our endeavours are followed, bringing the best opinion together with the best interest of the patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and, in particular, what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said. He has considerable experience of the county court, which I do not have, excepting when I used to appear before it.

What concerns me is that, if a case is sent to the county court, to a judge who is not a family judge, there will be considerable difficulties for that judge. I support the idea that it should be either the mental health tribunal or—as I would prefer, and as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has suggested—the Court of Protection. The judges of the Court of Protection are judges of the High Court, Family Division, of which I was president. That would be the right court. If it is said by the Government that they are not prepared to move on this issue, and I suspect they might not be, could they at least put in the court code of practice that, if it is sent to the county court, it will be dealt with by a family judge in the county court? The county court sits also as a family court. That would at least ameliorate the situation.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Berridge, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whose last suggestion I hope will be listened to by the Minister.

I must commend my noble friend for her tenacity with this issue. As she has outlined, there is a significant concern that the use of the county courts to decide on matters pertaining to the termination of nominated persons is not the most appropriate process. I do hope that the Minister will give my noble friend words to her comfort.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her Amendments 24, 28 and 35. They would mean that the mental health tribunal, rather than the county court, handled the termination of appointment of the nominated person. The county court already has a role in displacing the nearest relative. It has the expertise, procedural tools and legal framework to handle sensitive disputes involving external parties, such as conflicts of interest or allegations of abuse. The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in England and the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales are focused on reviewing detention under the Mental Health Act. This would add an additional burden on the tribunal, risking undermining its core function and delaying detention reviews.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the issue of legal aid. County court mental health cases are largely limited to applications for the displacement of a nearest relative. Legal aid is currently available to a person seeking the displacement of the nearest relative, except where the person bringing that application is doing so in a professional capacity and to the nearest relative themselves. That would also apply for the nominated person, which will replace the nearest relative.

Legal representation is available where the applicant meets the means test, unless they are under 18, and the relevant merits criteria. If there are any further points of clarification, I will be pleased to make them to any noble Lords who have raised points today, including the noble Baroness.

As we do not feel that the mental health tribunal is the right place for what I was referring to before I went on to legal aid, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

37: After Clause 33, insert the following new Clause—
“Ascertaining and learning from patients’ experiences of hospital treatmentAfter section 23 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (discharge of patients) insert—“23A Ascertaining and learning from patients’ experiences of hospital treatment(1) A patient who has been detained under this Part of this Act must, within 30 days of their discharge, be offered a consultation with an independent mental health advocate to review their experiences of hospital treatment.(2) A report from any consultation undertaken pursuant to subsection (1) shall be produced by the independent mental health advocate in partnership with the patient.(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be provided to the managers of the hospital within 14 days of its completion.(4) The managers of the hospital shall publish each year a report setting out what they have learned from patients’ experiences at the hospital, and the actions they have taken.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mandate the de-briefing of mental health patients after they have left hospital.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply to the proposal that I made to give mental health patients an automatic opportunity to avail of a debriefing process after leaving hospital, in the interests of patient empowerment and greater transparency for the system generally. I am afraid that I nevertheless wish to test the opinion of the House.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Earl Howe Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will also say briefly that I too added my name to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In Committee, I pondered this issue long and hard. At one stage, I thought that perhaps more consultation was required, but having listened to the arguments and heard from people in the sector, which was very helpful, along with the briefings we have received, I am now firmly of the view that this is a real gap in the current Bill.

We have this opportunity and, as has been said two or three times so far today, we do not get such an opportunity very often. It might be once every 10 or 15 years that we get the opportunity to look at mental health legislation such as this. I have therefore come strongly to the view that we need to make the most of this opportunity so that there is a proper test for decision-making for under-16s—a sort of competence test—within the Bill.

In coming to that view, I have taken two or three things into consideration. One is that it would apply only when the Bill requires that a child’s competence is to be considered. Then, very importantly I thought, the amendment is concerned only with the question of a child’s ability to decide, not what happens once that has been determined. Finally, this excellent amendment explicitly limits this test to decision-making under the Bill and the previous Mental Health Act 1983. In short, it applies only to children who fall within the scope of this legislation, so it is tightly drawn. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out so powerfully the need for this and the case for it, in a way that I could not possibly do. I just wanted to explain how my thinking had evolved since our discussions in Committee.

Briefly, while I am on my feet, I was always very supportive of the amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for strengthening safeguards for children admitted to adult wards and out-of-area placements. This is a really important issue and I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on the subject. I was also interested to hear the Minister talk about the amendment that she has put forward in relation to this, so I hope that progress is being made in this important area. I will be interested to hear what the noble Earl’s reaction is to that.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing my full support for Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. A very compelling case was put by forward by him and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

I also thank the Minister very warmly for her Amendment 46 and her helpful explanation of what it is likely to entail regarding the process that will flow from it. It is reassuring to know that our Committee debates on age-appropriate treatment for children and young people have been seriously considered by the Minister. I put on record my appreciation of the advanced notice she gave me of her intention to meet noble Lords’ concerns in this constructive way. I hope, nevertheless, that she will not mind me posing a number of questions prompted by the government amendment and my Amendment 58, which has been grouped with it.