Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 195 and 196 on reviews and compliance; I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name in support of them.

We support this Bill and its core intention of creating a smoke-free generation. More than that, we support the fact that this Bill is making progressive changes with the aim of having lasting impacts. However, it is often these very forward-thinking ideas that require further reviews and guidance because they are, by their very nature, new and different. It is surprising to me that the Bill as drafted does not contain any form of formal review mechanism. We think that a review mechanism is fundamentally necessary and useful, the intention being to support the aims of the Bill and not to detract from them in any way. It is in this spirit that I speak to my amendments.

Amendment 195 would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the Tobacco and Vapes Act within six months of 1 July 2030, when those born on or after 1 January 2009 will have reached the age of 21. This review would evaluate how effective the Act has been, including whether the legislation has reduced the use of tobacco and nicotine in the first affected generation and whether it has achieved its intended objectives and public health outcomes. It would also examine any unintended effects, such as challenges with enforcement, widening health inequalities or any growth of illicit or unregulated markets. This early-stage review process would ensure that Parliament can assess the policy’s impact on young adults and make timely adjustments if any are required.

My Amendment 196 would mandate a further, more comprehensive review of the Act’s implementation when the same cohort reaches the age of 25, four years later, to be published within six months of 1 July 2034. This second review is designed to assess the longer-term success of the legislation, including changes in smoking and vaping prevalence; impact on public health outcomes; and the role of cessation programmes. It would also explore any emerging social or economic consequences, offering a deeper understanding of the Act’s sustained effectiveness. This later review would provide Parliament with a robust evidence base to determine whether further legislation or policy adjustment is needed.

Together, these two amendments seek to ensure that future Governments do what this Bill sets out to do: to protect the next generation from the harms of tobacco and nicotine, and to do so through measures grounded in evidence, transparency and sound policy-making. My amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill’s core purpose as it is advanced over time. They would help to ensure that the Bill’s stated outcomes are reviewed and assessed, and that any further amendments are considered. They would ensure that evidence is examined at each critical stage of implementation. They would ensure that, where adjustments may be needed—whether in enforcement, cessation support or tackling unintended consequences—Parliament would be properly informed and, therefore, able to act.

The age of 21 is the first major milestone when we can meaningfully assess the outcomes. It is of foremost importance that the impact of the legislation be considered in relation to rates of vaping in the UK. It is vital that unintended consequences be examined if they emerge, particularly in relation to rates of vaping. This later phrase is vital. Every public policy and piece of health legislation brings with it the possibility of unintended consequences and side-effects, whether they concern enforcement, equity or the rise of illegal markets.

I believe it is important that these matters be reviewed. It is also essential that the review be based on adequate data which is used to re-examine the policy and check that it is effective. If policies emerge, it is important that this legislation be reviewed. These amendments are about ensuring delivery and that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, does what it sets out to do. I want to see a feedback loop between policy ambition, lived experience and data. These questions of enforcement and of rising age restrictions are important, as is the issue of black markets, so the Government need to review this legislation to see that it does what is intended. My hope is very much that the Minister will at least agree to take the principles of regular, evidence-based reviews back to the department, because this is a genuine offer to try to make sure that the Bill is effective over time.

Turning briefly to the other amendments in this group, Amendment 189 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is also about implementing a review of the Act. The review proposed in their amendment would come after five years and include laying a copy of that review before Parliament. In a different vein from my review, it would also include a review of the impact on small and micro-businesses. I am tempted to support their amendment, too. The central focus of the Bill is a smoke-free generation. That should not be at the expense of small businesses, but the most important element here is that we get a smoke-free generation, so I am minded to lend my personal support to Amendment 189.

Amendment 216, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, again seeks to put forward a review. Where I part company on his amendment is its expiring nature. While we support reviews of the legislation, the review needs to happen and the consequences come afterwards. To put the expiry in the Bill sets up the possibility that a future Government of a different persuasion could use it as an opportunity to remove important elements of what will then be an Act, which we would not want to see happen.

I will leave it to the Minister to respond to the other amendments in this group on the Windsor Framework.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and of course Amendment 200, which stands in her name and my own. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate, because she is now expected to deliver not just political answers but legal judgments. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, is not usually so reticent in making his opinions known, but he seems incredibly bashful when it comes to the Windsor Framework. He has of course been known to have an involvement in Northern Ireland affairs in the past, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.

The legislation before us in the latest in a whole series of measures, both primary and secondary, which are affected by the Windsor Framework or protocol. “Windsor Framework” is of course just a new name for what is substantially the Northern Ireland protocol. A few minor amendments were made but it is substantially that protocol, as agreed by the previous Government with the European Union. Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined, the conduit or means by which European law takes precedence over any UK legislation, primary or secondary, in over 300 areas covering vast swathes of the economy of Northern Ireland. Let that sink in: when we talk about Brexit and sovereignty, part of the United Kingdom is subject to European law in over 300 areas.

Just this past month, we have been debating various issues, including the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland, some of which may be discontinued because they do not conform to EU standards, causing major problems for animal health. The Government are showing no urgency in addressing this. The Select Committee on which I have the privilege to serve looked at this matter yesterday; I hope that we will get some action. We also looked at the issue of dental amalgam, and now we have this tobacco Bill. In all these issues affecting Northern Ireland, UK legislation is disapplied or cannot apply because of the Windsor Framework/Northern Ireland protocol.

Northern Ireland is bound in this area by the tobacco products directive—directive 2014/40/EU—because it is listed in annexe 2 of the protocol. That is where we get the figure of 300 areas of law. Of course, although we can debate all these issues, and Northern Ireland representatives, and others, in the House of Commons and in this place can give their views, at the end of the day the decisions are made by the European Commission. The European Union will decide what happens in part of the United Kingdom, regardless of the views of anyone elected in the UK Parliament or the Stormont Northern Ireland Assembly, of whatever party, or anyone in this House.

That should perturb us all. It is not just a unionist concern; it is a concern for any self-respecting elected politician of whatever party that they are not able to make laws for the people they represent. Ultimately, unless this matter is addressed overall, it will have grave ramifications after the 2027 Assembly elections.

Article 24 of directive 2014/40/EU states:

“Member States may not … prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products”.


It seems to me that, on any reasonable reading of the Bill—as backed up by the former Northern Ireland Attorney-General, Mr Larkin, who has been referred to—it does indeed fall foul of the tobacco products directive.

The Government say that they intend it to apply across the four nations of the UK, that they are confident that this is the case and that we should all be assured by that. But they have given previous such assurances, as has been referred to. They told us in very clear terms that the Rwanda Bill, for instance, would apply throughout the United Kingdom and that there would be no loophole in Northern Ireland, but the Northern Ireland courts inevitably struck that down. They judged not only that it was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights but that it was disapplied in Northern Ireland. It was not just a declaration of incompatibility but a disapplication of the law in Northern Ireland, because it fell foul of Article 2 of the protocol. The protocol reigns supreme. It is the same in other immigration cases and in the legacy legislation.

There should be no doubt about the importance and width that the Northern Ireland courts are giving to this legislation. It is very clear: the European Union (Withdrawal) Act makes it absolutely explicit. I ask the Minister to outline exactly what the basis is for the Government’s confidence and assurances—and not just to reassert that they are confident or assured that it complies. What is the basis for these assertions and what will they do if, ultimately, the courts strike the legislation down as far as Northern Ireland is concerned?

Will the Minister and the Government give a commitment today that, if, at the end of the day, the courts agree with the judgments or opinions that have been given by learned former Attorney-Generals, they will come back to this House and legislate to override the disapplication? Why do they not adopt the amendments suggested here in this place to reassure everybody that there can be no question or doubt about the legislation’s application across the four countries of the United Kingdom?

Why not remove any prospect of litigation or any disapplication in Northern Ireland? This would give some reassurance that the Government are serious about the matter. A few weeks ago in the House of Commons, Secretary of State Hilary Benn said in response to a question that it was Labour’s aspiration to impose the Bill in full in Northern Ireland. What is the position—aspiration, intention, expectation? What about a guarantee through adopting these amendments?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I am firmly in favour of legislation to reduce the harmful effects of smoking. More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland die every year from illnesses associated with smoking. More than 1,000 die each year from lung cancer, accounting for 23% of all cancer-related deaths. I cite these figures in relation to the suffering they represent in Northern Ireland to demonstrate that we need measures in this legislation that will apply right across our United Kingdom. I am concerned that they may not do so, for reasons I will elaborate on in a few moments. We also need proposals that are workable, evidence-based and capable of addressing the harm caused by smoking.

The main practical problem, as we know, is enforcement. The main burden of enforcement will fall on retailers, particularly small shopkeepers. Many retailers—we have listened to their evidence and heard their representations—work long hours providing a service to their communities. They and their staff, some of whom will be young people, are going to have to differentiate between people in middle age. There is a real fear among many of them about the effects on their security and safety and that it risks criminalising shopkeepers rather than those seeking to purchase tobacco illegally. I am sure that these issues can be addressed in Committee.

As has been mentioned, the significant level of illicit trade in cigarettes and tobacco is already a particular problem in Northern Ireland because of the involvement of criminal gangs and paramilitaries on both sides. What assurances can the Government give that they will continue to drive down the illegal trade in tobacco at the same time as this legislation?

As I said, I want to highlight a potentially significant failing in the Bill as drafted. As your Lordships will know, the EU continues to have full authority in Northern Ireland over 300 areas of the economy and other matters, and the relevant laws concerning many aspects of our day-to-day life. One specific provision that applies in Northern Ireland is the EU’s second tobacco products directive. Its purpose is to set out the various requirements that must be met for tobacco and vape products to be sold in the EU. It requires that there should be free movement within the EU of tobacco products that satisfy its requirements.

The Government have described this as a four-nation Bill, but it appears to me and many commentators that the Bill is incompatible with the tobacco directive as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, since the Bill purports to introduce a restriction on the placing of tobacco products on the market in Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic, subject to exactly the same directive, did not pursue a generational smoking ban explicitly because of the directive, instead introducing legislation to raise the minimum age for the sale of tobacco products to 21. Denmark also considered introducing a generational smoking ban in 2022, and its Health Minister announced that the tobacco directive prevented the Danish Government introducing the ban. So I fear that, unless there is a provision in the legislation that excludes the application of the tobacco directive in respect of Northern Ireland, it may well be the case that the generational smoking ban that we want to see applied across the United Kingdom cannot apply in part of the United Kingdom.

The Government have stated—and no doubt the Minister will say in response today—that they have considered all their domestic and international obligations. One such obligation is the implementation of the protocol/Windsor Framework, but that very framework requires Northern Ireland to abide by the tobacco directive. The protocol/Windsor Framework, by virtue of Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, rules supreme over UK legislation. It takes precedence. That has been decided in court case after court case in Northern Ireland, whether it be on legacy matters, such as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, or in respect of immigration matters, such as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. In those cases the Government gave the same sort of assurances that they gave in the other place on this issue, yet the courts ruled otherwise, as we predicted they would.

I hope that in response to this debate the Minister can clarify the matter, give a guarantee that the Bill will apply across all parts of the United Kingdom and indicate that the Government are prepared, if necessary, to ensure a four-nation, UK-wide approach to override the application of the tobacco directive. This is an important practical measure that affects the health of everyone across the United Kingdom, with not only constitutional implications but practical health implications.

Bread and Flour Regulations 1998

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s observation is, obviously, right. Folic acid contributes, for example, to tissue growth during pregnancy, as well as to the normal function of the immune system and to reducing tiredness and fatigue. As for the point I made earlier, one of the strong reasons for this policy is that 50% of pregnancies are not planned. Therefore, it is about ensuring that folic acid is available in a diet before pregnancy, whether or not that pregnancy is planned. That is vital.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, next.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I warmly welcome what the Minister has said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his work on this, as well as those who worked with me when I had the honour to co-chair the all-party group on this in the other place. On working in partnership with the devolved Governments, can the Minister commit to continue that work of implementation and enforcement through to 2026, so that families will be spared the pain of having babies born with neural tube defects, which is a particular issue in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, who himself has brought much to this campaign. I am glad that, in Northern Ireland, the legislation was laid a few days later, on 20 November. I assure him that we will continue to work with the devolved Governments on this matter; it is crucial that we do. I finish by thanking again all noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rooker, who has led from the front on this to ensure that we could announce it today.

Bread and Flour Regulations 1998

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his support in this area; I know that he also worked hard to make progress in it. I can give the assurance he asked for, and I would say to people that if they are concerned, they should seek expert advice about their own personal circumstances. All of the expert advice and relevant committees are content that this is the right way forward.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her personal commitment to this issue. Can she give a categorical assurance that the regulations will be amended across the entirety of the United Kingdom at the same time? She will know that in Northern Ireland we have a different regulatory regime for some of these matters due to the Windsor Framework. Can she also assure the House that there will be a common approach across the United Kingdom in both timing and content?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord takes a great personal interest in these matters and has also campaigned very strongly. The area he refers to is being pursued because we want collective agreement on this across the whole of the UK, so that we can confirm that it is government policy with absolutely no qualifications, and that everyone is moving on the same timescale. I can confirm that we have notified the EU Commission and the WTO in order to fulfil international obligations and have thus far received no responses; that is why we are able to proceed with the next legislative steps.